[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 113 (Thursday, July 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6929-H6966]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 187 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1977.

                              {time}  1203


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
1977) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Burton of Indiana in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will each be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, first of all I want to thank 
those of my colleagues that supported the rule because I think we have 
a good bill here given the fact that we are under the constraints of 
the Budget Act which reduces our amount of money over 10 percent, and 
also I want to say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the 
members of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle that we had a 
very bipartisan subcommittee. We worked well together. We tried to be 
as totally nonpartisan as we had to make these difficult choices, and 
we did as much as possible to address the challenges of the Interior 
and related agencies' responsibility with the funds that were 
available, and I think on balance we did a good job of achieving that. 
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the whole team worked well; 
the staff and the associate staff worked as a team. We worked very 
closely with the authorizers. I say to my colleagues, ``There isn't 
anything in this bill that's not approved by at least the chairman and 
the members of the authorizing committee so that what we have here is a 
team effort.''
  Mr. Chairman, obviously we are going to have differences, and that 
will be reflected in the amendments, some substantial policy issue 
differences. I will say at the outset, ``We'll do everything we can to 
expedite this so Members can get home but not in any way stifle debate 
in the process.''
  I am going to be very brief in my opening comments here. I think it 
boiled down to three areas, as I would see it, given the constraints of 
the budget reductions.
  First of all, we had the must-dos. The must-dos were keeping the 
parks open, keeping the Smithsonian open, keeping the visitor 
facilities at Fish and Wildlife and Bureau of Land Management open to 
the American people. Two hundred sixty million Americans enjoy the 
public lands, and they enjoy them in many ways. They enjoy them in 
terms of looking into the Grand Canyon and seeing a magnificent thing 
created by our Creator. They likewise enjoy going out and fishing in a 
stream or hunting in a national forest. They enjoy going to a Fish and 
Wildlife facility to see how we propagate the species of fish and how 
we nurture the fishing industry. They enjoy going to the Bureau of Land 
Management facilities, the millions of acres.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we made every effort to do those things that the 
public enjoys, and we held the operating funds at roughly a flat level 
given our constraints, meaning that we would in no way restrict public 
access to these great facilities that people care a lot about, and 
about a third of the United States is public land owned by all of the 
people of this Nation, and we make every effort to insure that their 
experience with that will be very enjoyable, and that led to the second 
category of things, and that is the need-to-dos.
  As I see it, the need-to-dos were to insure that sanitary facilities 
at our national parks, and forests and other facilities were good. The 
need-to-dos included fixing a road if it is in bad shape. It included 
finishing buildings that were under way. I say to my colleagues, ``You 
can't stop a construction job in midstream, and those things had to be 
taken care of, and we have done so.''
  The third group was the nice-to-dos, things that are nice if we had 
the money. There are a lot of activities that we could no longer afford 
to do. Many of the grant programs had to be terminated, some of
 the research programs in energy. We had to downscale land acquisition 
78 percent. We put in, of course, some money for emergencies, but 
essentially we will not be doing additional land acquisition because I 
tell my colleagues, ``When you buy lands, you have to take care of it, 
and that gives you enormous downstream costs.'' We did some 
construction where it was necessary to finish buildings, but we do 
limit new construction. We limit new programs so that we had some tough 
cuts that we had to make in the things that are nice to do.

  Mr. Chairman, we just had a lot of discussion on the NEA, and of 
course the NEH is similar to that. We have had change. We eliminated 
the National Biological Survey, and rather than that we have a natural 
resource science arm in the U.S. Geological Survey. But we are not 
getting into that now because that will come up to the debate.
  I think we have addressed energy security. We want to be sure that 
the United States will be secure in the future, that we will have 
energy independence, that we will not have to depend totally on foreign 
sources, and so we have addressed that in our bill to the best of our 
ability.
  The Bureau of Indian Affairs is our responsibility, and in the bill 
we said at the outset we are going to take care of education, the basic 
education, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the basic health. That 
is the responsibility 

[[Page H 6930]]
of the Federal Government, and as much as possible we have level funded 
that along, as I mentioned earlier, with what we were able to do in 
keeping parks and so on open.
  There are lot of other things I could say about this legislation. I 
simply want to say again I think it represents common sense, I think it 
represents a responsible use of the funds available. I endorse the fact 
that we are downsizing the budget, that we are going to get on a glide 
path to a balanced budget in 7 years. We do not fund programs that have 
large outyear costs simply because we would not be able to address 
those in the future.
  I just want to close, because I think it reflects the overall 
philosophy in this budget, with a statement by Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve, Mr. Alan Greenspan, to the Committee on the Budget, and he 
said, and I quote:

       I think the concern, which I find very distressing, that 
     most Americans believe that their children will live at a 
     standard of living less than they currently enjoy, that that 
     probably would be eliminated and that they would look forward 
     to their children doing better than they.

  That is a significant statement because it says very clearly from one 
of the economic leaders of this Nation that, if we can balance the 
budget, we will leave a legacy for our children of a better standard of 
living than we have, and that to me is what this is all about. That is 
what we are trying to do here, and not only do we want to try and leave 
a legacy of a better standard of living by using our resources more 
wisely, but we are also leaving a legacy, in my judgment, in the way we 
have handled the responsibilities of public lands that will be even 
better for their enjoyment, and that is the challenge we face as we 
deal with the amendments here today. We will try to keep that in mind.
  Thomas Jefferson said, ``The care of human life and happiness, and 
not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good 
government.'' In this bill I think we are responsibly exercising that 
important role.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point I ask that a table detailing the various 
accounts in the bill be inserted in the Record.

[[Page H 6931]]
TH13JY95.000



[[Page H 6932]]
TH13JY95.001



[[Page H 6933]]
TH13JY95.002



[[Page H 6934]]
TH13JY95.003



[[Page H 6935]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, and he is my good friend, and I have differed on an 
Interior appropriations bill I think for the first time in how long 
have you been on the committee, Ralph? Twenty years? Twenty years we 
have been in agreement on the bills, and the reason for that, I think 
more than any other, is the fact that the bill did not suffer from 
malnutrition. The heavy hand of the full chairman of the committee was 
felt immediately by the Interior Subcommittee. Our 692(b) allocation 
was cut by more than a billion dollars on the first go-around. On the 
second go-around on the 602(b), we were cutting another $17 million 
dollars. So, there is a lot of PR work for the chairman and for me to 
do with the chairman of the full committee if we want to be treated as 
we should be treated.
  This is America's bill. This is the bill that fosters our natural 
resources. This is the bill that is working on providing energy 
savings. This is the bill that provides for cultural enrichment 
throughout the United States.

                              {time}  1215

  Yet, as a result of the 602(b) allocation, we just do not have the 
funds with which to carry on the kind of activities that we ought to.
  Our natural resources are going to suffer. My good friend, the 
chairman, indicated that we are keeping the parks open. That is not 
enough, The Grand Canyon, as the gentleman said, will still be there 
and people will still be able to see the Grand Canyon, but they ought 
to be able to see the Grand Canyon in comfortable facilities. They 
ought to be able to see the Grand Canyon driving on roads that do not 
have ruts and ditches. They ought to be sure that their safety is 
protected as they go through the national parks.
  I do not know that the funds we have provided here will allow that. 
Construction for the parks, construction for Fish and Wildlife, 
construction funds for the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest 
Service, have all been cut back.
  I do not know that I can use the phrase ``worst of all,'' but the 
Indian people are going to take a very big hit in this bill. The 
protection of our environment will be severely diminished as a result 
of what we do in this bill.
  Of course, we have been arguing about the National Endowments for the 
Arts and the Humanities and the Institute for Museum Services for 2 
days now. The Endowments have been cut by at least 40 percent. That is 
a huge cut. Our cultural resources are going to suffer.
  The program to help the needy people with their problems of 
weatherization, during the cold of winter, and the heat of summer is 
being cut. We have a program in our bill that enables the needy to 
obtain a small amount of funding to improve their physical properties 
so that the rigors of the winters in cities like Chicago or in States 
like Minnesota or New England will not be felt as keenly as they are 
going to be felt now, because there will not be funds with which they 
could help themselves.
  I talked about welfare for the needy, and in this bill, welfare for 
the needy will be cut. But Western welfare, welfare for the Western 
States; for example, the program to provide payments in lieu of taxes, 
PILT, is increased. In a total bill that is cut more than 13 percent 
below the 1995 appropriation, payments in lieu of taxes, a program 
heavily weighted to the West, is up 10 percent. Welfare for the needy 
may be on the wane, but welfare for Western miners has taken new life.
  In our bill last year, we approved a moratorium on providing the sale 
of national lands to miners for $2.95 an acre, lands that have 
subsequently been sold on many occasions for huge sums of money to big 
mining companies. This giveaway of public lands will now start again. 
The patent moratorium is not in this bill. Nothing is done to stop the 
mining law of 1872's permissive nature. Western States and localities 
will also be able to build roads through existing parks, refuges, 
forests, and public lands unabated.
  There is much pain in this fiscal year 1996 bill, and it takes 
various forms. Agencies are being eliminated, programs are being 
terminated, programs are being phased out. Hard working people are 
going to lose their jobs, Mr. Chairman. At least 3,000 people in the 
Department of the Interior will be laid off.
  This bill does have some good features. I congratulate the chairman 
for that. I do hope that the other body, when it considers this bill, 
will take the steps that are necessary to maintain the vital functions 
that are carried out in this bill.
  But other programs have not been cut.
  Welfare for the needy may be cut but western welfare in the form of 
payments in lieu of taxes is up. In a bill that is cut more than 13 
percent below the 1995 appropriation, payments in lieu of taxes, a 
program heavily weighted to the west is up 10 percent.
  Welfare for the needy may be on the wane, but welfare for western 
miners has new life. The giveaway of public lands will start again 
because this bill, unlike the fiscal year 1995 appropriation law, does 
nothing to stop the mining law of 1872's permissive nature.
  Under the bill western States and localities can build roads through 
existing parks, refuges, forest, and public lands unabated.
  There is too much pain in this fiscal year 1996 Interior 
appropriations bill. The pain began with the 602b allocation for this 
bill. This bill is subject to a larger percentage reduction than any 
other appropriation bill. At $11.9 billion in new budget authority, 
this bill is $1.6 billion below 1995 and $1.9 billion below the 
President's request. What form does the pain take?
  Agencies are being eliminated; programs are being terminated 
immediately; programs are being phased out; and hard working people are 
going to lose their jobs, with at least 3,000 people in the Department 
of the Interior subject to a reduction in force.


                            indian programs

  Let me speak first to the programs that serve and honor the Indian 
people. I am grateful that the Indian Health Service and Bureau of 
Indian Affairs education programs are maintained at the 1995 level. But 
I know even at the fiscal year 1995 levels, these programs will not 
come close to meeting the needs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs education 
programs are $31 million below the President's request at a time when 
student enrollment is escalating rapidly; the Indian Health Service is 
$96 million below the President's request. With medical inflation and a 
growing Indian population, this means that health care will be reduced 
in a very real way.
  Among the most prominent terminations in this bill is the Indian 
Education Program administered by the Department of Education. It would 
be easier to accept this $81 million cut if at least some of this money 
had been transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs education 
programs. But that was not done. This is a program that has enhanced 
the education of nonreservation Indians across the country.
  But this is not the end of the insult to the Indian people.
  This mark limits the ability of the Indian people to defend 
themselves in water rights cases. Even at the $15 million 1995 level, 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs is unable to meet requests from 30 tribes 
who need technical and legal assistance in defending their water 
rights. With a $5 million reduction, the 1995 level will be reduced by 
one-third and even more tribes will remain unsupported. I view this an 
abrogation of our trust responsibility to Indian nations.
  This marks takes away the ability of the Indian people to help 
themselves through loan guarantees.
  If this mark is approved, the U.S. Government will be breaking yet 
another promise to the American Indian people. This mark will delay, if 
not totally stop, the much needed Smithsonian facility at Suitland that 
would store and conserve the Heye collection of Indian artifacts which 
will be the central feature of the Smithsonian's American Indian 
Museum.
  Self-governance for Indian tribes, with these budget reductions, will 
be delayed and the momentum generated in recent years for self-
governance lost. I believe self-governance is working and should be 
encouraged instead of stifled through budget cuts.
  Heaped upon all of this is the complete elimination of community 
economic development grants, community development technical 
assistance, and the Indian arts and crafts board. And this bill sets in 
motion termination of Federal support for the Institute of American 
Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development.
  In total, what is before us today for Indian people is $450 million 
below what the President requested, an 11-percent reduction for one of 
the neediest groups in America.

[[Page H 6936]]



                            Energy programs

  Moving on to the Department of Energy, I think we all can take great 
pride in the successes resulting from our investments in energy 
efficiency technologies. New lighting technology, new windows and 
efforts to produce more efficient automobiles are all paying off. Now, 
many of these efforts will be reduced, and eventually eliminated.
  One of the most disappointing things in this bill is that it slashes 
the low income weatherization program in half, a $107 million 
reduction. This is done at the same time the committee ignores the 
President's request to delay $155 million in clean coal technology 
subsidies for industry. Do we really want to continue corporate welfare 
at the expense of elderly poor people? If this cut is not reversed, 
efforts to reduce overall energy usage and reduce energy costs for 
elderly people will be extremely limited.
                           cultural programs

  Of course, the proposed decreases in the appropriations for cultural 
programs is an urgent concern. The cuts in the National Endowment for 
the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities which exceed 40 
percent and the cut for the Institute of Museum Services, which exceeds 
25 percent, are out of proportion to the total reduction in this bill 
and for the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of 
Museum Services the reduction is out of proportion to the 
recommendations of the Economic and Educational Opportunities 
Committee.
  I wonder if people understand fully the impact these cuts will have 
on our culture. Performances will be canceled, museums will close their 
doors earlier, and art education opportunities in our schools will be 
cut back sharply. Every segment of American society will suffer from 
these draconian cuts.


                            science programs

  Not only is this bill unfriendly to cultural programs, it buries 
biological science. It buries it in the U.S. Geological Survey after 
cutting biological research by almost one-third and shackles 
researchers to Federal land. But the creatures of this great land of 
ours are not restricted to Federal lands. Lets think about what we are 
doing. The Secretary of the Interior has a trust responsibility for 
migratory birds as well as international treaties protecting these 
birds. These migratory birds do not know the boundaries of Federal 
land. Provisions in this bill though keep the Secretary from doing any 
science, any research on anything but Federal lands. If there are 
threats to our waterfowl on non-Federal lands, the Secretary could not 
study it even if private landowners ask to have their properties 
studied. Why at a time when duck numbers are finally increasing as a 
result of combined Federal, State, and private efforts, would we want 
to place obstacles to the progress now underway? Is that what we want? 
I think not. But this bill would do that.
  Volunteers are even banned by this bill, if they offer their talents 
to help resource science and research. Let me give one example of what 
this will mean to one program, the breeding bird survey. The North 
American Breeding Bird Survey, started in 1966, is the only continental 
survey program specifically designed to obtain population trend data on 
all species of birds. At least 4,000 volunteers contribute to this 
survey. Without their data, it would be extremely difficult to detect 
declines or increases in our country's bird populations. No one has 
ever questioned the authenticity of this information and it come to us 
at no cost. I do not know what public policy purpose is served by 
banning the use of volunteers.


                 short on dollars, long on legislation

  This is bill, as I have documented, short on dollars; yet, it is long 
on legislative provisions.
  The bill requires committee approval for new wildlife refuges.
  The bill amends fee language for refuges.
  The bill mandates peer review for resources research in the 
Geological Survey.
  The bill permits giving away Bureau of Mines facilities.
  The bill amends the American Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 
1994.
  The bill repeals the Outer Banks Protection Act of 1990.
  The bill authorizes and executes the sell of strategic petroleum 
reserve oil.
  The bill terminates the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation 
and transfers its responsibilities to other agencies.
  The bill establishes a new fee program for the Bureau of Land 
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Forest 
Service; and
  The bill includes Columbia River basin ecoregion assessment 
restrictions and directions.
  Beyond that, the Endangered Species Act is circumvented by not 
providing money for listing species so they can receive the full 
protection of the Act.
  Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is being circumvented by taking 
away the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to respond to a permit 
application for a golf course which would disturb valuable wetlands in 
Lake Jackson, TX.
  The California Desert Protection Act is circumvented by taking away 
all but $1 for the National Park Service to operate the Mojave National 
Preserve and returning the management to the Bureau of Land Management. 
With this bill, the first of the national parks will be closed. How 
many more will follow?


                               moratoria

  And we find that moratoria are OK in some instances but not okay in 
others. Moratoria are not OK to stop the give away of patents under the 
1872 mining law. But a moratoria is acceptable to stop promulgation of 
an RS 2477 rulemaking, a rulemaking that would prevent the potential 
despoliation of national parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas.
  This bill does include a continuation of the moratoria on Outer 
Continental Shelf leasing including Bristol Bay in Alaska, California, 
Oregon, and Washington on the west coast as well as certain Florida 
areas and east coast areas.


                    land and water conservation fund

  While I am relieved there is some money for land acquisition, unlike 
the scorched earth policy of the House budget resolution, the lack of 
money can only lead to future problems. For many willing sellers, the 
Government is the only possible buyer. Ongoing acquisitions which have 
been phased over several years can not be completed. We will have 
broken commitments with those individuals and concerns that entered 
into agreements. Of the $51.5 million in the bill related to the land 
and water conservation fund, only $23 million is for actual acquisition 
of land. The balance is to administer the program.
  The Secretary of the Interior asked for money to help local areas 
with habitat conservation plans by giving land acquisition grants to 
State and local governments, a request that was denied. Turning a blind 
eye to this problem serves only to undermine efforts to improve the 
Endangered Species Act.
  The North American wetlands conservation fund is cut in half with the 
understanding that it will be terminated next year, another blow to 
successful efforts to strengthen the number of migratory waterfowl.


                               conclusion

  Given the disproportionately large reduction this subcommittee 
received from the full Appropriations Committee, large cuts are 
inevitable and regrettable.
  One of the great strengths and appeals of this bill is the wide 
variety of programs it covers. The all-America bill as I used to call 
it. The remarkable natural resources of this country, our magnificent 
cultural resources, the programs that help people, the energy research 
programs--unfortunately, all will be diminished by the provisions in 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], a very good member of our committee and a 
Member who has done great service on handling the Forest Service issues 
and who brings to it a lot of knowledge.
  (Mr. TAYLOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, before I came to Congress, I was chairman of the State 
Parks and Recreation Council in overseeing our State parks and 
facilities, and we never had enough money to do the things we wanted to 
do or do all the maintenance we wanted to do. And I found it the same 
on a national basis, but I think the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman 
Regula, and the committee, working with Members and the authorizers, 
have done as much as they possibly can to see that the needs of our 
Parks and Forest Services are met.
  The actual maintenance, park maintenance, even though the total 
committee was ordered to reduce the cost in order to meet budget 
reductions, and we reduced this $1.5 billion below the fiscal year 1995 
bill, maintenance for the critical areas were held even. I think that 
is amazing, given the cuts that had to be made.
  It also addresses the concerns and the desires of many of the 
Members' specific things that they had to do, and I again want to thank 
both Chairman Regula and ranking member Yates for the work that has 
been done in this bill.
  We have increased, and I feel very strongly about this, our timber 
sale program some $7.5 million above current levels. This will increase 
our timber sale program by 418 million board feet of green sales and 
300 million feet of salvage timber. This is a modest increase, but it 
is moving in the right direction.

[[Page H 6937]]

  We are now in this country in a dangerous situation regarding forest 
health. We have not been removing salvage as we should have been. We 
have not been addressing the concerns of management, silviculture 
concerns of management by professional foresters and science that has 
been lost in much of our forest management, and it has cost us tens of 
thousands of jobs. It has cost us millions of dollars in taxes, and it 
means that we, today, are importing over one-third of our timber.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge support of this bill, and will be 
voting for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. Not only does 
H.R. 1977 reflect the serious will of this body to reduce spending--it 
is $1.5 billion below the fiscal year 1995 bill--it also addresses the 
concerns, desires, and suggestions of many members and the authorizing 
committees. Chairman Regula and the staff have done a terrific job in 
putting this bill together, and I encourage all my colleagues to 
support the bill. One aspect that is particularly pleasing to me is the 
commitment by this committee to turn the management or our national 
forests around.
  This bill moves the timber sale program forward, in a new direction 
from the past. The increase in the timber management and sales program 
and road construction funds will allow the Forest Service to increase 
the timber sale volume to its maximum capacity in fiscal year 1996 of 
4.3 billion board feet.
  We have increased the timber sale program only $7.5 million above 
current levels, but this will increase the sale program by at least 418 
million board feet of green sales and 300 million board feet of salvage 
volume. This modest increase will not only maintain jobs, it will 
create job growth and return many times the amount in timber sale 
revenues and income taxes.
  Although the road construction account has been cut, we have 
increased the timber road construction account to correspond with the 
increase in the timber sale program. This account has been maligned for 
a long time, and I would like to set the record straight.
  First, roads in the national forests serve many purposes. They 
provide the primary access to the 191 million acres that make up the 
National Forest System. These roads provide access for recreation, for 
wildlife and fisheries projects, for fire protection, for monitoring 
water quality, and for many other aspects of ecosystem management and 
timber harvesting. Funding for road construction ensures watershed 
protection through better road design, improves safety for road system 
users, and provide access for fighting wildfires and responding to 
other emergencies.
  The bulk of road construction funds are for reconstruction, that is, 
restoration and maintenance of existing roads. In fact, the number of 
miles of new roads has dramatically declined over the past several 
years. Also, the Forest Service has obliterated more roads than were 
constructed and the same pattern is being proposed for the next fiscal 
year. In fiscal 1994, the total road system actually decreased by 1,780 
miles and only 519 miles of new roads were constructed.
  Today, millions of acres of our forest lands are in need of 
attention. We are well aware of the forest health problems that pervade 
our Federal forests--approximately 6 billion board feet of timber dies 
each year. The road budget is one step toward assuring access for 
salvage sales and forest restoration projects.
  This bill is only a first step. The Forest Service is so depleted of 
adequately trained personnel that it is still incapable of establishing 
a timber pipeline, which is desperately needed in many parts of the 
country. However, by providing funds for timber sale preparation above 
the level requested by the administration, we expect the Forest Service 
to make a significant contribution toward the national need for lumber 
and wood products. I don't know if this body is aware that we are 
currently importing a third of our wood needs--much of it from 
environmentally sensitive areas of the world with less sensitive 
harvest methods than those used here.
  For too long, we have ignored professional foresters and silviculture 
science when managing our national timber assets. Instead, we have 
relied on the pseudo-science of the environmental community to dominate 
the discussion. The pendulum swung too far--encouraging the locking up 
of these valuable assets instead of their wise use. We have a 
responsibility to
 protect, conserve and maintain the ecosystems of our Federal forests. 
To do that we must provide our land management agencies with the 
resources and tools necessary to get the job done. H.R. 1977 does that.

  We are all aware of the widespread forest health problems in our 
national forests across the country. Chairman Regula and Chairman 
Livingston have been real troopers for including the salvage timber 
provision in the fiscal year 1995 supplemental-rescissions bill and 
continuing to fight for its passage. I know we are all looking forward 
to getting a final resolution on the rescission bill.
  The committee understands that the Forest Service can use the timber 
sale program as a cost-efficient tool to thin and restructure forest 
stands. Timber harvests improve the forest health by clearing out the 
dead and dying trees and solving the overcrowded conditions found on 
many of our national forests. Harvests will also improve the habitat 
for many creatures that live In the forests and lead to less 
destructive forest fires.
  Although we continue to receive criticisms regarding below-cost 
timber sales, these determinations have not been based on an evaluation 
of all the factors that contribute to the profitability or cost of the 
timber program. Those opposed to timber sales encourage greater costs 
by supporting more costly harvest methods but have not come forward 
with proposals to minimize costs incurred by the Forest Service. This, 
combined with specific direction to manage the timber program for a 
broader variety of program objectives, continues to drive costs upward.
  I remain concerned that staff reductions within the agency to meet 
the administration's governmentwide FTE reduction targets have been to 
date disproportionately directed toward staff professionals with 
expertise in timber management and timber sales planning and 
preparation. In attempting to meet any future goals relative to 
agencywide staff reductions, I expect the agency will seek 
opportunities in other areas to reduce personnel, before considering 
reducing staff in timber management programs, particularly with regard 
to personnel stationed in the field.
  It is my hope that the Forest Service will not only take the 
necessary steps at all management levels to provide the maximum amount 
of timber sales possible in the next year, but also continue to seek 
ways to more efficiently provide for a timber sales program in a manner 
that reduces bureaucratic requirements.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Regula and his staff for working to 
accommodate the concerns and wishes of many Members, myself included, 
and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to state at the outset that I think all of 
us serving on this committee have a deep and abiding love for the 
responsibilities that come with the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
  I also want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], 
our subcommittee chairman. There is no more decent or thoughtful Member 
of this body. He has been given an incredibly difficult task to manage 
the responsibilities that we have within the budget constraints. And 
while I know he would have liked to have done more and better, he has 
done well with what was made available to us.
  It is also an extraordinary privilege to serve under the leadership 
of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], our ranking member on this 
subcommittee.
  There are a number of good things in this bill. But there are also 
too many instances where I think it falls very seriously short of what 
should be done for the proper protection and proper management of our 
public lands and resources, for the education of native Americans 
children, and for continuing sound policies about the development and 
use of energy.
  It provides no money for endangered species prelisting work, for 
instance; that is, for efforts to avoid the necessity of adding species 
to the list protected under the Endangered Species Act. This is a 
prescription for increasing, not diminishing, the conflicts about 
implementing that law, and is extremely unwise and shortsighted. So are 
funding restrictions for basic biological research, restrictions on the 
use of volunteers and access voluntarily to private property.
  The bill does not include the moratorium that should be there for 
patenting mining claims until we have a revision of the mining law of 
1872. In area after area, this bill puts commercial interests ahead of 
science, education, proper management and protection of our natural 
resources, our historical and cultural resources, our human resources.
  There will be amendments offered to correct some of these defects. I 
will support those. But I am afraid that unless the bill is radically 
revised, and the chances of that are not great, it will be difficult to 
say that it deserves to be enacted.
  This bill, more than any other that comes before this body, is about 
the profound trust and stewardship responsibilities that this Congress 
has for our 

[[Page H 6938]]
national treasures, for our natural treasures. I am afraid our 
descendants will look back on these actions and ask how in the world we 
could so shortchange our trust and our stewardship responsibilities.
  Tragedy occurs, Mr. Chairman, when we know better but we do not do 
better, and I fear today we are writing a tragedy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen] who is a very valuable member of our subcommittee, 
who brings a wealth of knowledge as a rancher to some of the tough 
problems that confront us, as well as a leader in the Western matters 
and with the cattle association, and other things.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a little time to give my sense of 
appreciation for the kind of work that goes on in a committee with as 
diverse a responsibility as is inculcated into the authorization in the 
realm of what is known as the Committee on Resources.
  I want to say that Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Yates are some 
of the finest people I ever worked with and had the opportunity to work 
with and to deal with in this Congress of the United States, along with 
the other members of the committee itself. This is my second go-around 
on that committee, an enormous responsibility.
  I want to say, too, to the staffs that back us up, that there are no 
better people on this Earth who are more learned or a more professional 
group in the world than the staffs that support the committee work that 
we do day in and day out. Without them, it would not be possible to put 
this together, particularly at a time like this when we are cutting 
back, reducing the size of Government, but yet maintaining that sense 
of responsibility that is paramount to this entire function.
  That word ``function'' means an awful lot. Because if you do not 
understand what the function of some of these programs are, then you 
are hard put to come up with some solutions to some of the things we 
are trying to do. These folks have done an outstanding job. I wanted to 
compliment them all and say it is great serving with you.
  I hope that those of you who are out there furiously writing new 
amendments to this bill would stop and listen just once and say do I 
really understand what the function of this particular element of this 
bill is, how does it work. If you do not, then skinny yourself over 
here and talk to some of these people that I just referred to on the 
staffs, and it will save us an awful lot of talking time, because right 
now we need to reduce the time and expenditure on some of these bills.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to commend 
the full Committee on Appropriations and, of course, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr.Yates], for their action to restore a moratorium on 
offshore drilling along the U.S. coastline in this bill. The committee 
action puts Congress back on the right track in the protection of our 
coastal resources.
  For more than a decade, Congress has recognized the need to impose 
sensible safeguards against the exploitation of our offshore areas.

                              {time}  1230

  While some in Congress and, of course, the oil companies want to 
reopen these areas to drilling, the overwhelming consensus among those 
of us who live and work in the coastal areas is that it is simply not 
worth the risk to open these areas up to drilling. Offshore drilling 
off New Jersey in my State and other mid-Atlantic States is not 
environmentally sound and also threatens the economies of coastal areas 
that depend on a healthy coastal environment.
  In the areas off the Jersey shore and other Mid-Atlantic States, 
studies have indicated that the expected yield of oil and gas is rather 
low. Still there are strong expressions of interest in exploratory 
drilling which would have disastrous effects on our environment and 
coastal economy. We must keep the door firmly shut to any drilling or 
preleasing activities.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to mention that there are 
other parts of the bill that I do find objectionable, particularly the 
committee's decision to derail the Endangered Species Act by defunding 
the program. This is the wrong way to address individual problems with 
the Endangered Species Act.
  I also object to the bill's drastic reductions in funding for land 
acquisition under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In New Jersey, 
the most urbanized State in the Nation, we have refuges that are under 
severe threat of development and the $14 million that is provided is 
not enough to cover even New Jersey's preservation needs, let alone the 
needs of the Nation as a whole.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to speak 
out against any further cuts in funding for the National Endowment for 
the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. These 
influential agencies encourage lifelong learning, promote participation 
within civic organizations and preserve our country's cultural and 
intellectual heritage. New Jersey takes advantage of these funds very 
effectively and I think it would be a mistake for us to make any 
further cuts in those programs.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend the chairman of the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and my friend, Mr. Regula, for his 
hard work and courageous action in putting this bill together. It has 
not been an easy task. But throughout the hearing process, as well as 
the subcommittee and full committee markup, Chairman Regula and his 
staff have performed tirelessly, professionally, and with the utmost 
sensitivity.
  Trying to put together a workable budget for the Departments of 
Interior and Energy, the Forest Service, and the numerous independent 
agencies under the Interior Subcommittee's jurisdiction is difficult. 
Add to this an effort to address the personal concerns of the members 
of this body and you have a very arduous, nearly impossible mission. 
But, Chairman Regula and his staff have crafted a good bill that I 
think is fair, fiscally conservative, and represents an excellent 
starting point for our 7-year journey to a balanced budget.
  Is this bill everything everyone wanted? Of course not. But then we 
can't--nor should we--ever go back to the fiscally irresponsible 
practices of the past. We must keep in mind that the fiscal integrity 
of this nation is our responsibility, and we must act accordingly.
  As the chairman has stated, the bill appropriates $11.96 billion in 
new budget authority for fiscal year 1996, $1.56 billion less than 
fiscal year 1995, and almost $2 billion less than the President 
requested. We have attempted to place an emphasis on preserving natural 
and cultural resources, the maintenance of scientific and research 
functions, and on our commitment to the health and educational needs of 
native Americans. H.R. 1977 also ensures that adequate resources are 
allocated for our Nation's public lands and our crown jewels--our 
National Park System. In fact, in an era of decreasing budgets, the 
bill actually contains an increase in the operational account of the 
National Park Service. This will prove invaluable to those who manage 
America's parks. And contrary to some published reports, the 
subcommittee never considered or even contemplated closing any of our 
Nation's parks.
  Overall, the National Park Service fared fairly well. The bill 
appropriates $1.26 billion in overall funding. The bulk of these funds, 
$1.08 billion, will go to the management of park areas, visitor 
services, park police, resources and facility maintenance. This figure 
represents a $10 million increase over fiscal year 1995.
  An important and much needed initiative that is included in the bill 
is the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. This innovative program 
will give the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service the opportunity 
to establish a 1-year pilot program that allows these land managing 
agencies to charge, and utilize on-site, recreational use and access 
fees. The language in the bill directs each agency to establish 10 to 
30 demonstration sites where broad fee authorities are established. 

[[Page H 6939]]
The best aspect of the program is that the bulk of fees that are 
collected--stay at the site which collects them. Of the fees, 80 
percent that are collected are to be used in that area. The remaining 
20 percent of the fees go into an agency account to be used agency-wide 
for priority backlogged recreational safety and health projects.
  On the budgetary side, the bill is quite lean. Most agencies are at 
or below their 1995 funding level. Land acquisition accounts are 
reduced 87 percent below the 1995 level. Funds are to be used only for 
emergencies, hardship situations and high priority acquisitions subject 
to committee reprogramming guidelines. Major construction accounts are 
reduced 41 percent below their 1995 level with emphasis on high 
priority health and safety construction. Funding for the controversial 
National Endowment of the Arts is reduced 39 percent, and the National 
Endowment for the Humanities is reduced 42 percent. The bill calls for 
a 3-year phase-out of Federal funding for these agencies, but new 
agreements made last night may reduce that to 2 years.
  H.R. 1977 also proposes the elimination of a number of agencies and 
programs. Agencies targeted for termination include the National 
Biological Service, the Bureau of Mines, the Pennsylvania Avenue 
Development Corporation, the Department of Energy's Office of Emergency 
Preparedness, and the Department of Education's Office of Indian 
Education. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is also slated 
to be terminated.
  On the positive side, H.R. 1977 provides $111.4 million for the 
Bureau of Land Management's Payments in Lieu of Taxes [PILT] Program. 
As you know, the PILT Program compensates units of government for 
losses to their real property tax base due to Federal lands within 
their boundaries. In my State of Arizona, this level of funding is 
welcomed by several county administrators.
  In general, this bill provides a sound and fiscally conservative 
blueprint for the continued management of our public lands. As stewards 
of these lands it is incumbent upon us to ensure that they are 
preserved for future generations to enjoy. I commend Chairman Regula 
and his staff, and I hope that through the amendment process we can 
produce a bill that we will all be proud of.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the measure that is 
before us. Frankly, it warrants opposition because of the priorities, 
because the hand that was dealt to the appropriators under the 
allocation system is inadequate to meet the responsibilities that we 
are sworn to discharge. The money is not there. Obviously, you can 
shift money around and do a little for operation and maintenance in the 
parks, but then you are denied to buy the in-holdings of lands and the 
land/water conservation or in other areas. The money is not there, and 
this bill ought to be rejected because it does not permit us to 
exercise our responsibilities in a way that is effective.
  We are going to see we have a $7 billion backlog in parks or a $9 
billion backlog in terms of responsibilities. That is going to grow 
under this measure. Under anyone's evaluation, we do not put a dent in 
the backlog. In fact, we add to it.
  The other reason that this bill has to be rejected, and there are 
many such examples in the bill, where it is inadequate, the elimination 
of essential programs like the weatherization program, the energy 
programs, these are working programs. They work. They are not just for 
a time of crisis. They are the way we avoid crisis.
  The other reason is that this measure is not just an appropriations 
bill, this is a whole policy bill. In Congress, we separate policy and 
authorization from the actual appropriation. The allocation of dollars 
actually funding programs is essential. That is an essential decision 
which is supposed to be kept separate. We have always had a little 
overlap. But in this bill we simply circumvent the policy process 
completely in many significant areas. We are rewriting the Endangered 
Species Act. We are rewriting law after law in this legislation, 
rewriting those laws, in fact, in a way in which we are not able to 
have essential debate.
  My colleagues wonder why we are spending more time on the 
appropriations bill on the floor. I can tell you, because when you 
consolidate the appropriation process, one that is highly controversial 
because of the nature of the cuts that are coming down this year and 
the strong disagreement in terms of those priorities, and with an 
entire wholesale rewrite of many laws that affect the management of our 
forests, management of our park system, fee issues, issue after issue, 
the Endangered Species Act, the issue with regard to mining law and 
whether or not we are going to have a moratorium, when you combine all 
of this into a single legislative bill, you have bought into a 
significant responsibility.
  I have spent some 19 years in this body working on parks and public 
lands issues, as an example. I think I know a little bit about it. I do 
not know everything. As my colleague, Congressman Udall, used to say, 
there are two types of Members of Congress: ``those that don't know and 
those that don't know they don't know.''
  Obviously, we are always guided by the fact that we are trying to 
learn in this process, as I am sure my colleagues would agree. But the 
fact that you consolidate into this measure dozens of policy changes 
that you do and the other aspects are obviously going to result in a 
significant policy path changes.
  This should not be done. Maybe the chairmen of the various 
authorizing committees approved of this, but that does not make a 
majority. That does not provide us with the in-depth debate and 
hearings and other aspects that are supposed to take place in terms of 
public participation to at least a limited degree.
  So this bill fails in terms of process. It fails in terms of 
priorities, and it should be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, as we consider H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 
appropriations bill, I think it is appropriate to review the mission 
and purpose of the Department of Interior as outlined in the U.S. 
Government Manual (1993/94):

       As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the 
     Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our 
     nationally owned public lands and resources. This includes 
     fostering sound use of our land and water resources; 
     protecting our fish, wildlife and biological diversity; 
     preserving the environmental and cultural values of our 
     national parks and historical places; and providing for the 
     enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation.

  Similar analysis and reflection would apply to the Department of 
Agriculture Forest Service, the sister agency which shares substantial 
responsibilities for conservation and preservation of our natural and 
cultural legacy also is addressed in this measure.
  I cannot support H.R. 1977 because it doesn't provide the Interior 
Department or the Forest Service with the resources they need to carry 
out their stated mission. This is an unfortunate move away from a core 
conservation and preservation ethic that is basic to the definition and 
culture of the American people.
  The policies and programs in place to carry out the mission of the 
Interior Department are not the work of Democrats or Republicans alone, 
rather they were uniquely derived from years of deliberation, of 
listening and responding to the core conservation and preservation 
values and ethics of the American people.
  Significant programs--the Land Water Conservation Fund [LWCF] and 
Historic Preservation Fund [HPF] are cut to the point of not being able 
to fill the backlog or immediate need. Of the one billion of funds 
generated, only 6-7 percent allocated for its intended purposes.
  In their zeal to shun Federal conservation efforts the majority isn't 
even making sensible choices in funding priorities. For example, zero 
funding listing and prelisting programs for endangered species and 
eliminating the National Biological Service demonstrate the height of 
hypocrisy on the part of the majority. Problems in managing our Federal 
resources will not go away just because we decide to quit addressing 
them, and not addressing them is certain to cost the American people 
more in the long run.
  I too want to decrease the Federal deficit. But the most sensible way 
to do that is through improving the effectiveness and efficiency of 
Interior Department programs or other funding of agencies with this 
measure. Many of the programs seriously underfunded or targeted for 
elimination in this bill are working. Improving programs that work goes 
a lot 

[[Page H 6940]]
farther in reducing the Federal deficit than cutting funding and hoping 
the problem goes away.
  H.R. 1977 zero-funds all prelisting activities until the ESA is 
reauthorized. The $4.5 million cut from the FWS budget for prelisting 
activities is vital to the continuation of a highly successful program 
designed to prevent the need to list under the Endangered Species Act. 
There are over 4,000 species now under consideration for possible 
listing. Many of these species could be conserved through simple and 
inexpensive programs at the Federal, State, and local land management 
levels.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service candidate conservation program serves 
as an impetus to establishing conservation and stabilization activities 
before the species reaches critical levels. It is hypocritical for this 
Congress to criticize the FWS for listing species without giving that 
agency the opportunity to conserve species before they reach critical 
levels. It is hypocritical for this Congress to cry for reduced 
spending and greater economic efficiency while gutting a program that 
decreases the need for future costly emergency recovery actions.
  H.R. 1977 zero-funds all listing activities for endangered and 
threatened species, thereby extending the current moratorium. The 
majority is evading the legislative process by using agency 
appropriations to legislate national policy. By denying FWS any ability 
to conserve species proactively, Congress is ensuring further decline 
and the need for drastic and expensive actions to save species. In 
addition, there are no exceptions in this budget cut for emergency 
listings or for listing plant species which are potential sources of 
medicine. Plants, animals and people cannot cling to life waiting for 
the legislative process to run its course.
  The submersion of the National Biological Service into the National 
Geological Survey is another glaring illustration of fear run amok. 
There is legitimate room for debate over the merits of what the NBS or 
any other government agency does or how much funding should be provided 
for that work. However, the allegations leveled at the NBS, largely 
unfounded, are being used to justify elimination of the NBS. It is 
hypocritical for this Congress to call for better science and then deny 
funding for efforts specifically set up to conduct unbiased science.
  H.R. 1977 also eliminates the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation, severely crippling the efforts of the Federal Government 
to achieve consensus on policy actions and short changing the key 
efforts which backstop local nonprofit and private preservation 
efforts.
  Historic preservation provides a twofold benefit--preserving historic 
properties while helping communities achieve the economic advantages 
that occur as a result of historic preservation. It seems Members who 
take deficit reduction seriously would see the significant benefit that 
flow from a program that efficiently achieves a national goal while 
generating revenue to participating communities.
  Beyond these specifics the moratoria to prevent the public land 
giveaways under the 1872 mining laws are not included. Elimination of 
the essential weatherization program, appliance development 
commercialization program and other energy efficiency programs. Most 
energy conservation programs have been severely cut. Unfortunately this 
measure bans AmeriCorps funding initiated under the National Service 
law in spite of the fact that it was self funded by the 1993 law.
  The majority claims that their bill strikes a balance between the 
dual goals of reducing the deficit and protecting and enhancing the 
Nation's rich natural and cultural resources. This bill does no such 
thing and in the process, poorly serves the needs of the American 
people. It's certainly not a good measure we can and should do better.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a newcomer in terms of service but an 
oldcomer in terms of knowledge to the subcommittee. The gentleman 
brings a great perspective on Western issues, particularly as they 
affect the State of Washington, and the areas surrounding, on forests 
and some of the river problems.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the kind 
remarks.
  I am happy to stand before this House today in support of H.R. 1977, 
the fiscal year 1996 Interior Appropriations Act. I am a new member of 
the Subcommittee on Interior. I am a new Member of Congress. I was very 
pleased to work closely with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula], and certainly the Members of the minority party to craft this 
legislation in the fairest way possible.
  I believe we still have further to go in reducing the size and scope 
of this Federal Government, but this bill represents a significant 
first step, I believe, in the right direction in cutting back on 
unnecessary waste and duplication within the Federal Government.
  This bill is about a billion and a half dollars below last year's 
level of funding. I recognize the difficulty that the chairman had and 
our subcommittee and committee had in meeting the needs of the Nation 
with this reduction. But I certainly want to compliment him and the 
rest of the leadership for allowing such an open process as we go 
through this very important bill.
  I personally had some problems supporting one aspect of the bill 
regarding the Bureau of Mines. I wanted to keep it open, and we decided 
not to in the committee. But I was encouraged to offer an amendment in 
both the subcommittee and the full committee by the chairman and 
others, and we had a full hearing. I thank the chairman for his 
forbearance in working with us on that amendment.
  I also want to thank the committee for working with me and other 
Members from the West on programs that are of particular importance to 
our region. This bill continues funding for the operation of our 
national parks, our forests, our pubic lands and refuges, and it 
maintains our forest health programs and provides a modest increase for 
the timber sales program. This increase comes after a drop in sales 
targets by about 60 percent over the last 5 fiscal years.
  This slight increase will begin to put our timber communities back to 
work without damaging the environment. The bill eliminates the National 
Biological Service, an agency that is unauthorized and is really 
unnecessary at this time. Critical NBS functions will be continued at 
the Geological Survey while private property rights will be fully 
preserved. This bill funds the arts and culture at a more fiscally 
responsible level, a level that all of us should support at this time 
of the fiscal responsibility that we must exercise.
  I urge all Members to support this bill. It is a good bill. It is a 
fair bill. Let us work hard to pass it.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me express my profound 
respect and appreciation for the work of the chairman of the 
subcommittee. He and I share many of the same values and interests with 
regard to the Nation's natural and historical resources. But 
unfortunately, this bill does not reflect those values in the way that 
I think both the gentleman and I would like it to.
  The gentleman has been given a very ugly package to carry here. What 
does this bill do? First of all, it cuts the Department of the Interior 
to $500 million below this current year's level, making it more 
difficult for the Department to protect the Nation's natural and 
historical resources. It eliminates the National Biological Service as 
a separate agency and slashes funding for that purpose by about 30 
percent. It pretends that we ought not to know more about the Nation's 
biological resources, pretends that ignorance about these resources is 
a virtue.
  The bill prohibits the research activities of the Department, the 
former National Biological Service, from using even volunteers to go 
out and accumulate information. It revels in this kind of ignorance and 
prevents people from exercising their civic duty in a voluntary sense.
  It cuts the National Park Service by $230 million below the 
administration's request, including $70 million from park operations, 
making it more difficult for the people of this country to enjoy these 
natural resources, particularly our national parks.
  But it expends money in other areas. It exceeds the House Committee 
on Science's authorized amounts for the Department of Energy's fossil 
energy research and development activities by more than $150 million. 
This is a giveaway to major energy corporations in the country. It 
provides more than $65 million for six pork barrel projects for which 
the Committee on Science recommended no funding. At the same time it 
increases funding in these areas, it slashes funding for the Department 
of Energy's weatherization 

[[Page H 6941]]
program by $100 million, which means there are more people who are 
going to be colder in the winters and we are going to be wasting more 
energy.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Chairman, Let me focus on one particular provision. The Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve was set aside in the advent of an incident, another 
incident which occurred back in the 1970's. This bill reduces the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve by 7 million barrels, and it sells those 7 
million barrels for now about $15 a barrel. This oil was purchased for 
$30 a barrel, so we are selling for $15 what we bought a few years ago 
for $30 a barrel. If this is any indication of the way the majority 
party in this House is a steward of the Nation's resources and the 
taxpayers' dollars, then I think it is a poor example of where we are 
and where we are heading. This is foolhardy to cut back on this 
reserve, and it is certainly wasteful of the taxpayers' money.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Gallegly], a member of the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as chairman of the Subcommittee on Native 
American and Insular Affairs to express my support for the pending 
efforts to amend H.R. 1977 to restore funding for either the Office of 
Indian Education or the education programs supported by that office.
  The Office of Indian Education provides financial assistance to 
elementary and secondary schools, tribal schools, and related Indian 
education programs.
  These programs are important elements in the overall effort to 
provide quality education for our native American children.
  While I support efforts to balance the budget, cut bureaucrats and 
shrink the Government, H.R. 1977 goes well beyond reason. This bill not 
only cuts funding, it totally eliminates the office which administers 
the funds.
  To completely abolish these programs is not prudent and asks too much 
of our Indian children in too short a period of time.
  I know several amendments will be offered to reverse the committee's 
recommendations and I hope the Members of the House will give those 
amendments every consideration.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the season of sacrifice. We know that. But, why 
is it that we continue to pick on those least able to defend 
themselves--the children?
  I refer, of course, to that section of this bill that would eliminate 
the Office of Indian Education.
  First established in 1972, through the Indian Education Act, for 
nearly a quarter of a century the Office of Indian Education has sought 
to serve the unique cultural and academic needs of the original 
inhabitants of our land.
  Without the Office of Indian Education, American Indian children and 
Alaska Native children would not be able to achieve the same academic 
standards as other children.
  Most American Indian and Alaska Native children are State recognized, 
but are not federally recognized.
  Elimination of the Office of Indian Education and the loss of funding 
for that purpose would mean the loss of this special Federal funding 
for public school districts that provide educational opportunities to 
the vast majority of these children.
  Federal financial assistance to tribal schools, for elementary and 
secondary schools, and for related Indian education programs will be 
gone if this bill stands. Our amendment freezes funding at this fiscal 
year's level.
  The administration had sought an increase in funding for the Office 
of Indian Education, however, in the spirit of deficit reduction, we 
believe a freeze in funding is appropriate.
  But, we do not accept a freeze in progress. The primary focus of the 
Office of Indian Education is to encourage Indian children to achieve 
self-sufficiency. That is an important goal--a goal that is consistent 
with many of the themes embodied in the Contract With America.
  As we sacrifice, let us not sacrifice the gains we have made. In 
addition to assistance to tribal schools and to elementary and 
secondary schools with significant Indian populations, the Office of 
Indian Education provides assistance for adult Indian education, for 
fellowships for those Indian students who have distinguished 
themselves, for special Indian education programs and for planning, 
pilot and demonstration projects.
  For a small investment, this Office manages to do a lot for a 
population that deserves the help of this Nation. I urge my colleagues 
to raise their voices for Indian children and give your vote for the 
future of America. Vote for the Obey-Richardson-Clayton amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Allard], a member of the Committee on Resources, who was 
a key Member in working with the authorizers and the appropriators in a 
team effort to address a number of challenging issues in this bill.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Interior 
appropriations legislation. I would like to begin by first of all 
complimenting the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], chairman of the 
House Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, 
for his hard work on the National Biologic Service issue. I would like 
to especially thank him for working closely with members of the Western 
Caucus, who have a very keen interest in this issue.
  The Interior appropriations legislation is an important move in the 
right direction. The independent Biological Research Agency is 
eliminated. There is no longer a National Biological Survey, a National 
Biological Service, or a Life Science Research Service. This is a 
significant victory for taxpayers. Fifty-four million dollars is saved. 
The overhead of a separate agency is eliminated. Objective science is 
promoted.
  The 1995 funding level for the NBS was $167 million. The Interior 
appropriations bill eliminates this agency and account entirely. The 
bill provides $113 million to the U.S. Geological Survey for resources 
research. The USGS already has an authorized research mission. Further, 
research will be confined to public land and will be conducted by 
trained professionals. Equally important, the legislation will provide 
for greater peer review throughout the research process. An option is 
to privatize or contract out more of the research being done by the 
Interior Department.
  One of the most important points to make is that the Interior 
appropriations bill language states that when authorizing legislation 
is finally passed and signed by the President, it will supersede the 
current proposal. We all agree research must be based on sound science. 
Therefore, it is up to the authorizing committee to determine how to 
guarantee that quality science is used and to include appropriate 
guidelines and restrictions concerning private property and the use of 
volunteers in an authorization bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a wise step toward balancing the 
budget.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in vehement opposition to this 
year's Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 1977).
  By slashing the amount of money the Nation spends on protecting 
various species and their environment, this bill will set back many of 
the gains the Nation already has made in ensuring that our children and 
grandchildren have a healthy environment in which to live.
  Make no mistake, this bill is the first step by the Republican 
majority to effectively gut and make useless the Endangered Species 
Act--an act that has successfully balanced economic development with 
necessary environmental concerns across the country for almost 25 
years.
  In fact, over the last 22 years, there have been fewer than 12 court 
cases concerning habitat modification while countless sustainable 
compromises have proven ESA's effectiveness.

[[Page H 6942]]

  I am not just talking about preserving ESA moneys so that future 
strip malls aren't built on wetlands or timber companies clearcut too 
close to salmon habitat. We need these species for the future because 
we know how much the vast spectrum of life has helped us in the past.
  Right now, ESA protects plant life which may cure diseases such as 
AIDS. Fifty percent of prescription medicines sold in the United States 
contain at least one compound originally derived from plants, microbes, 
fungi, and other obscure species. These medicines play a vital role in 
fighting cancers, heart disease, and other infectious diseases and have 
produced considerable economic benefits as well.
  Yet, despite the many gains made under the ESA, the Republicans are 
using the appropriations process as a devious back-door strategy to 
slightly eliminate the ESA by no longer funding its activities.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this bill on that basis 
alone.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen], a valued member of the Committee on Resources, 
chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands, and 
a Member who contributed substantially in helping to craft this bill as 
we worked in a cooperative way with the authorizing committee.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Interior of the Committee on Appropriations. I appreciate his kind 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I seek this colloquy to discuss the Interior 
appropriations subcommittee action to reduce by $5.5 million the 
administration's budget request for the implementation of the Ute 
Indian Settlement Act. As the gentleman from Ohio is aware, the Indian 
settlement was improved by Congress as part of Public Law 102-575, 
which contained the Central Utah Project Completion Act.
  Title V of that act settles certain water claims of the Ute Indian 
Tribe of Utah relative to prior agreements with the United States, the 
State of Utah and the central Utah Water Conservancy District. This 
settlement represents more than a simple authorization for future 
appropriations to the Ute tribe. It represents a binding obligation by 
the Federal Government to compensate the Ute tribe for past promises 
that were never kept.
  I am concerned that the members of the Ute tribe will view the 
subcommittee's action as breaking the Federal Government's commitment 
to abide by the settlement. Does the subcommittee's action to reduce 
funding for the settlement in any way suggest that the terms of the 
settlement will not be fully satisfied?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Hansen] by saying no. The action taken by the subcommittee to 
reduce funding for this settlement should not in any way be viewed as a 
retreat of the Federal Government to honor the terms of the agreement 
with the Ute Tribe of Indians. We are honor-bound to fully comply with 
all aspects of the Ute Indian Settlement Act.
  Mr. HANSEN. Could the chairman of the subcommittee then explain why 
this action was taken?
  Mr. REGULA. I would tell the gentleman from Utah, as he is very 
aware, this year the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee on 
Appropriations did not receive a section 602(b) budget allocation large 
enough to fully fund the administration's request for the Indian land 
and water claims settlements and miscellaneous payments account. The 
subcommittee was forced to reduce the amount appropriated for the Ute 
Indian Settlement Act by $5.5 million.
  The bill does appropriate, however, a sizable remaining amount of 
approximately $20 million for the Ute settlement. We plan to make up 
for the reduced level funding in this fiscal year settlement funding by 
adding in the future year's appropriations bills the appropriate 
amount.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, if the other body is able to find 
additional resources under section 602(b) allocation to restore the 
$5.5 million and appropriates the full amount requested by the 
administration's budget for the Ute Indian settlement, will the 
subcommittee chairman defer to the other body in conference on this 
specific appropriation item, so that the obligation to the Ute tribe 
could be satisfied in this year's appropriation bill?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I can only assure the gentleman from Utah 
that I and the other members of the conference committee representing 
the House will carefully consider this item as we confer with the 
Senate, with the other body, and seek to achieve, as much as possible, 
full funding of the Ute Indian settlement.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the willingness of the 
chairman of the subcommittee to continue to try to find money for this 
important matter, and also for his excellent work as chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs of the Committee on 
Resources, I rise to express great concerns about the cuts which the 
Interior appropriations bill makes in the funding of the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs.
  Mr. Chairman, when viewed in the context of the massive cuts which 
all Federal programs are taking, the BIA cuts may not seem serious. 
But, when viewed in the context of the special Federal legal and moral 
obligations to the Indian people, these cuts only further undermine the 
honor and integrity of this Nation in meeting those obligations.
  With that honor and integrity at stake, however, the Appropriations 
Committee, in its report, makes a serious error which calls into 
question the good faith of the United States toward all native 
Americans.
  In particular, language on page 53 of the committee's report directs 
the BIA to submit a report to the committee on the gross gaming 
revenues of Indian tribes and the amount of Federal funding such tribes 
are receiving. The threat is thinly veiled.
  About one third of the Indian tribes in the lower 48 States have 
developed tribal revenues from gaming operations. In this respect, they 
are not unlike nearly all of the States which have developed State 
lotteries as a means of generating governmental revenues.
  Two small tribes, ideally situated, have for all practical purposes 
achieved economic self-sufficiency and complete independence from 
Federal funding. Only a handful of other tribes are making significant 
gains from their gaming operations. The overwhelming majority are 
deriving revenues from their operations which permit them to only 
partially meet critical unmet needs which the Federal Government has 
refused to meet over the years. But in every case, whatever the level 
of their gaming income, these tribes are devoting the net revenues to 
governmental operations and programs, as required by the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act.
  Yet the committee's report levels a threat at these tribes. After 
years of encouraging tribes to seek self-sufficiency and after years of 
failing to meet this Nation's obligation to assist tribes toward that 
goal, the report threatens to cut off their Federal funds in proportion 
to governmental revenues generated by their own initiative. But we 
know, in Indian affairs, that no good deed goes unpunished. If this 
Congress is going to be consistent, Mr. Chairman, we need to require 
each State government to make a report to Congress on the gross income 
derived by that State from gaming and other commercial activities, and 
to take those State receipts into consideration when allocating Federal 
funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Secretary of the Interior, in 
responding to the study requirement of the committee report--should the 
Senate concur--will put the report into context. When reporting on the 
level of tribal gaming revenues and on the level of Federal funding, he 
must also advise the Congress of the level of unmet need of that tribe 
and its members. The study of the tribe's unmet need must be 
comprehensive, accurate, and that need must be 

[[Page H 6943]]
measured in terms of the effort necessary to put that tribe and its 
members into a position comparable to the average circumstances of all 
Americans.
  Until this Nation fulfills its obligation to the Indian people to 
ensure them a standard of living comparable to the rest of the Nation, 
it is unjust to threaten the Federal funding of programs for their 
benefit because they have begun to exert their own efforts toward self-
sufficiency.
                              {time}  1300

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just a few things that have been brought out here. 
First of all, concerning eliminating funding for endangered species. I 
think it should be pointed out that the bill is subject to 
authorization, and that for those that read today's Congress Daily, one 
of the headlines is ``Young-Pombo Species Bill Readied.''
  What I am saying is that the funds are there, they are in the refuge 
operations and maintenance account, but they will be available in 
conference, assuming we get an authorization bill on endangered 
species. Right now there is not any. For that reason, we have not put 
in money for listing and pre-listing.
  Mr. Speaker, weatherization was raised as a problem. Of course we had 
to cut. It was talked about how people are freezing. On weatherization, 
to my knowledge, there is not anyone freezing in Hawaii but they are 
getting weatherization money.
  I think it illustrates the fact that this program is just one of 
those that every State gets so many dollars without regard to the need. 
It seems to me that if you have programs, they should be predicated on 
the need of recipients.
  Then the issue was raised of selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve and a figure was brought up here of something like $30. I would 
point out that the last 7 million barrels that were put in the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve which this bill proposes to sell cost 
$17.50. That is what we are talking about.
  The problem is that if we do not take care of SPRO, the 590 million 
barrels that are there will not be accessible. But we will get into 
that further discussion at the time that we have an amendment on that 
topic.
  One last comment. A number of speakers have addressed the fact that 
this is below last year, that there are needs that are unmet. But I 
would just remind everybody that there was an election on November 8, 
1994, and I think the message was loud and clear from the voters, that 
they want to reduce spending.
  We are trying to do that. We are reducing spending. We are doing it 
in a responsible way. Part of our legacy to future generations will be 
on an economy that will be strong, that will provide them jobs, that 
will be free of inflation, and that will give the standard of living 
improvement that Chairman Alan Greenspan talked about.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, but I reserve the 
balance of my time, subject to what the minority would like to do.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, there are so many bad cuts in this bill that 
I do not have time to talk about all of them. I am going to talk abut 
the ones that matter the most to me. Those are the attacks on our 
endangered salmon.
  This bill, makes no mistake about it, is an attack on environmental 
protection and the Endangered Species Act. First, it slashes funding 
for pre-listing activities and habitat acquisition. Why is that a bad 
idea? Because we want to pre-list species before they reach the point 
where they need listing. We want to buy habitat so that we do not 
impact private landowners.
  Second, this bill terminates all funding for listing activities. We 
are simply putting our heads in the sand if we think that just because 
we do not list a species, it is not going extinct. That is ridiculous. 
We have got to list these species. The reality of species decline will 
simply require more money and more drastic measures down the line to 
stop the extinction of species.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill terminates 3 vital initiatives to 
protect fisheries habitat in the Northwest: PACFISH, INFISH and the 
Upper Columbia Basin Assessment. Why are those important? Because they 
are designed to ensure that the activities in the woods do not impact 
our vital fishery interests.
  On the West Coast, we are trying very, very hard, we have spent 
millions of dollars to restore our salmon industry. In 1988, these 
salmon contributed about $1 billion and 60,000 jobs to our region. 
Since then, the salmon have declined so badly that the fishing revenue 
has gone down 80 percent.
  For this reason, the fishery industry strongly supports the 
Endangered Species Act I want to quote what they say: ``There is . . . 
no industry more regulated under the ESA presently, nor more likely to 
be regulated in the future, than the commercial fishing industry. . . . 
we view these protections as vitally important in protecting and 
preserving our industry, our jobs and our way of life for the long 
term. . . . Without a strong ESA, there will be no salmon recovery in 
the northwest.''
  To those who might think that gutting funding for the Endangered 
Species Act will help the economy, I would ask you to go to the 
Northwest and talk with the unemployed fishermen and fisherwomen in my 
district. It seems to me if we want to reduce the deficit, and we must, 
let's cut some Pentagon pork, not gut salmon recovery.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill to protect the environment 
and to protect our salmon jobs and salmon industry.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
1977, the Interior Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1996. Although 
there are many reasons for this opposition, the greatest is the 
elimination of the National Biological Service [NBS]. And although the 
U.S. Geological Survey will now perform some of the NBS's functions, it 
comes with a 33 percent cut in funding.
  The National Biological Service [NBS] Director, Ronald Pulliam, has 
stated publicly that the cut in the budget of the NBS would result in, 
among other things, the closure of the Great Lakes Science Center 
[GLSC] in my district.
  The GLSC provides an invaluable service to the entire Great Lakes 
Region. Since 1927, the Great Lakes Research Center has been funded by 
the Federal Government to monitor the status and trends of the Great 
Lakes ecosystem. The Center's 70 employees provide cutting-edge 
research in the field of contaminants, wetlands, fish and wildlife 
habitat, global climate change, fish health, and ecosystem indicators. 
The Center has been one of the Nation's leaders in researching the 
problems caused by nonindigenous pest species, such as the zebra 
mussel.
  The Great Lakes contain 95 percent of the fresh surface water in the 
United States and supply drinking water, fish and other food to 
millions of Americans. It is of critical importance that we continue 
working to maintain and improve the environment in the Great Lakes 
Basin. It is not so long ago that we had headlines declaring that Lake 
Erie was dead. The research provided by the Great Lakes Science Center 
has helped to revive that Lake, and this is the thanks it gets?
  Mr. Chairman, upon seeing the budget document background materials 
that were provided as part of the Republican Contract with America, I 
noticed a line item that stated ``Abolish the National Biological 
Service,'' and today they are doing it. And with the GLSC we are losing 
one of the best research facilities in the Great Lakes Region. Losing 
the Center, which has performed research work on Great Lakes issues 
since 1917, will truly be a national tragedy.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in vehement opposition to this 
year's Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 1977).
  By slashing the amount of money the nation spends on protecting 
various species and their environment, this bill will set back many of 
the gains the nation already has made in ensuring that our children and 
grandchildren have a healthy environment in which to live.
  Make no mistake, this bill is the first step by the Republican 
majority to effectively gut and make useless the Endangered Species 
Act--an act that has successfully balanced economic development with 
necessary environmental concerns across the country for almost 25 
years.
  In fact, over the last 22 years, there have been fewer than 12 court 
cases concerning habitat modification while countless sustainable 
compromises have proven ESA's effectiveness.
  I am not just talking about preserving ESA moneys so that future 
strip malls aren't built on wetlands or timber companies clear cut too 
close to salmon habitat. We need these species for the future because 
we know how 

[[Page H 6944]]
much the vast spectrum of life has helped us in the past.
  Right now, ESA protects plant life which may cure diseases such as 
AIDS. Fifty percent of prescription medicines sold in the United States 
contain at least one compound originally derived from plants, microbes, 
fungi and other obscure species. These medicines play a vital role in 
fighting cancers, heart disease, and other infectious diseases and have 
produced considerable economic benefits as well.
  Yet, despite the many gains made under the ESA, the Republicans are 
using the appropriations process as a devious back door strategy to 
silently eliminate the ESA by no longer funding its activities.
  Just take a look at what they're doing. They are eliminating--zeroing 
out--the money used for prelisting and listing species. Money crucial 
for minimizing conflicts between economic development and specie 
extinction. Countless other funds for ensuring that specie habitat can 
be saved--including money for essential land acquisition--have been 
dramatically reduced as well.
  Mr. Speaker, since ESA has been enacted, the country has made 
terrific strides in protecting the environment. Strides that have 
provided both economic and environmental success. Let's not make a 180 
degree turn and destroy the progress we have made by allowing bills 
like this to become law. I urge my colleagues to oppose this effort by 
the Republican majority to undermine the ESA and threaten the Nation's 
environment. I urge you to vote ``no.''
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to language included 
in the report accompanying H.R. 1977, the Interior appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1996, which directs the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] 
not to distribute self-governance tribal shares of central office and 
pooled overhead funding to Indian tribes despite the fact that the 
distribution of these tribal shares is required by law, namely the 
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Even the 
committee's report admits that distribution is required by law. And as 
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated in the Tennessee Valley Authority and 
Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. cases, committee reports cannot change or 
amend the plain intent of statutes.
  But we must not also forget that Congress passed the Indian Self-
Determination Act and created the self-governance program in order to 
enable tribes to achieve self-sufficiency, eliminate unnecessary layers 
of bureaucracy, and reduce governmental red tape and inefficiency by 
turning over the operation of Federal Indian programs to the tribes 
themselves. This act was passed with strong bipartisan support and 
represents the foundation of our policy toward Indian tribes.
  The transfer of tribal shares from central office operations to the 
tribes is part of this effort and has successfully resulted in concrete 
reductions in the Federal bureaucracy that exist at the central and 
area office levels of the BIA. As confirmed by a recent inspector 
general's report, tribes receiving tribal shares further the act's 
goals by spending these funds on actual services rather than on 
administrative costs.
  The language contained in the Appropriation Committee's report would 
resurrect the very same bureaucratic obstacles that Congress and the 
tribes have fought to eliminate over the past decade. If the BIA does 
not have to distribute central office shares, then the BIA will not 
have to downsize or restructure itself. The BIA has always opposed the 
distribution of central office shares, and the language contained in 
the report will only give it further opportunities to defeat the very 
purposes of self-governance and the Indian Self-Determination Act. It 
is vitally important that the policy of self-determination--and the 
promises we made to the tribes in the Act--be honored.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 
1996 appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior and Related 
Agencies.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Regula, who has 
done a fine job under very difficult circumstances in developing this 
bill in his first year of chairing the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee. I would also like to express my appreciation to the 
subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. Yates, who has long been a champion 
of many of the critical needs for the Nation that are funded through 
this bill.
  The Interior appropriations bill had to absorb a reduction of $1.5 
billion in budget authority, $750 million in outlays, and an overall 
cut of 10 percent to base funding. So even though I am not happy with 
this level of reduced funding for the Interior bill, I believe that our 
chairman and our subcommittee did its best under difficult 
circumstances to hold together support for the bill's core priorities.
  This bill is important because it funds our national parks. The 
national park system is currently comprised of 368 areas, encompassing 
more than 80 million acres, in 49 States and the District of Columbia. 
This bill provides the operations money to protect our crown jewels in 
the park system, such as the Olympic National Park, Mt. Rainier, 
Yellowstone, and Grand Canyon, and the Everglades.
  The bill supports our national wildlife refuge systems, ensures the 
protection of species, and encourages ecosystems management. It ensures 
that the U.S. Geological Survey continues its operations, and is able 
to investigate and issue warnings of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, 
landslides, and other geologic hazards.
  The bill takes away the independent status of the National Biological 
Service, placing it under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Geological 
Survey, and reduces its base funding by $49 million. Under this bill, 
the NBS will not be a runaway agency as some opponents have claimed. 
But I believe that the mission of the National Biological Service is an 
important one, and we should not make critical decisions on habitat use 
and species protection in a vacuum. We should know as much as possible, 
and use that knowledge to make forward-thinking decisions which benefit 
all concerned.
  I just had a private company in my State, Murray-Pacific, produce the 
first multi-species habitat conservation plan [HCP] in the nation. 
Their experience, and the progress that others are making, demonstrates 
that species and humans can co-exist, and the NBS can be a positive 
catalyst to assist in these efforts.
  This bill addresses the needs of our native American citizens, and 
ensures that we continue to invest in their economic well-being, 
health, and cultural priorities through the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
[BIA] and the Indian Health Service [IHS]. I would have killed to have 
seen the
 Office of Indian Education funded as well, but I understand the 
subcommittee's constraints, and we did manage to hold the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs to only a 3-percent cut, and maintained base funding for 
the Indian Health Service.

  This bill funds the President's forest plan in the Pacific Northwest, 
and although greater efforts need to be made in the region to reach the 
timber harvest levels identified in the plan, I believe we are making 
progress, and the funding within this bill will keep us on a positive 
track.
  The bill provides for the full economic assistance to hardhit timber-
dependent communities in the Northwest, and also keeps us moving 
forward with watershed analysis and the ``Jobs in the Woods'' watershed 
restoration program, which is doing great things for the environment 
and helping dislocated timber workers in my district and the region.
  The bill also ensures that we continue to make progress on the 
national timber sale program. We have a severely depleted national 
pipeline, and there are funds provided in this bill to increase efforts 
on advanced timber sales preparation, and prepare an additional 400 
million board feet above the 4.9 billion board feet target called for 
in the President's fiscal year 1996 budget submission.
  Finally, the bill funds our cultural institutions: the Smithsonian 
Institution, the Holocaust Museum, the National Endowment for the 
Humanities, and yes, the National Endowment for the Arts. I strongly 
support the Arts and Humanities agencies. They are an investment in 
America's culture and future. Both the NEA and NEH received 40 percent 
cuts in this bill and should not be reduced further.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I will support House passage of H.R. 
1977, but I want to take this opportunity to briefly express my concern 
about several aspects of this very important legislation, which funds 
the Interior Department and various independent agencies for the coming 
fiscal year.
  Before elaborating on my concerns with the particular details of this 
bill, let me reaffirm that I vigorously support a balanced Federal 
budget, and I continue to support efforts to slow down the rate of 
growth in Federal spending as a means of achieving this objective, 
instead of raising taxes on the hard-working American people.
  I also know that Chairman Regula, like all other Appropriations 
Subcommittee chairman, is trying to make the best of a very difficult 
situation.
  H.R. 1977, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee, 
represents his best effort at balancing far more requests for Federal 
monies than his subcommittee has the ability to fund, now that the 
104th Congress has begun the difficult process of balancing the Federal 
budget over the next 7 years.
  Nevertheless, there are priorities which should be understood. 
Namely, that inordinate delays in taking action can frequently result 
in higher costs. In other words, postponement can sometimes be ``penny 
wise, but pound foolish.''
  Such a delay would, in the case of Sterling Forest, result in 
enormous additional costs. That is why our New Jersey delegation is 
aggressively pursuing the following course of action.
  In recent years, a bipartisan delegation of members from the states 
of New Jersey and 

[[Page H 6945]]
New York have worked diligently to pass legislation that would 
initially authorize, and subsequently appropriate, funds to purchase 
roughly 20,000 acres of undeveloped woodland straddling the New Jersey-
New York border commonly know as Sterling Forest.
  Protecting Sterling Forest from development is essential, because 
these lands provide vital watershed protection to millions of residents 
in the great New York City metropolitan area, including New Jersey and 
Connecticut.
  Developing Sterling Forest, as its current owner has proposed doing, 
would jeopardize the water quality for hundreds of thousands, if not 
millions, of people who live and work in the tristate area.
  Further delays in purchasing will ultimately cost our citizens much 
more, both in financial costs as well as public health costs.
  Consequently, those of us who have been working to protect Sterling 
Forest were very encouraged to see the Senate pass legislation that 
contained authorization for $17.5 million in funding to help purchase 
Sterling Forest, right before the Fourth of July recess.
  I, along with other concerned House Members, will be working with the 
leadership of the House Resources Committee to encourage the committee 
to promptly pass this critical authorization legislation through the 
House of Representatives so that it can go directly to the White House 
where President Clinton can sign it into law.
  If we are successful in these efforts, I hope that the Senate will 
include funding for Sterling Forest in its version of H.R. 1977, which 
will be debated by the other body in September or October.
  If the Senate version of the fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations 
bill contains Sterling Forest funding, I look forward to working with 
subcommittee Chairman Regula, and other House conferees, to ensure that 
the final version of H.R. 1977 contains these essential money.
  In addition to having the support of Members from both New Jersey and 
New York, the effort to preserve and protect Sterling Forest enjoys the 
support of both Governor Whitman and Governor Pataki.
  Clearly, this is a case of bipartisan, interstate support for doing 
the right thing; namely, purchasing Sterling Forest and preventing its 
development will help protect the water supply for millions of 
residents in the northern New Jersey and avoiding escalating costs to 
the taxpayers in the future.
  Enacting this legislation is a very high priority for Governor 
Whitman, the State of New Jersey, and our congressional delegation. I 
will continue to work with Chairman Regula to make this a reality.
  In the meantime, I will support House passage of H.R. 1977 with the 
hope that its final version will enjoy my full and enthusiastic 
support.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute 
rule by titles and each title shall be considered read.
  The amendments printed in section 2 of House Resolution 187 are 
adopted.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:
                               H.R. 1977

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, namely:
                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       Bureau of Land Management


                   management of lands and resources

       For expenses necessary for protection, use, improvement, 
     development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification, 
     acquisition of easements and other interests in lands, and 
     performance of other functions, including maintenance of 
     facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of lands 
     and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, including the general administration of the 
     Bureau $570,017,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which not more than $599,999 shall be available to the 
     Needles Resources Area for the management of the East Mojave 
     National Scenic Area, as defined by the Bureau of Land 
     Management prior to October 1, 1994, in the California Desert 
     District of the Bureau of Land Management, and of which 
     $4,000,000 shall be derived from the special receipt account 
     established by section 4 of the Land and Water Conservation 
     Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)): 
     Provided, That appropriations herein made shall not be 
     available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild 
     horses and burros in the care of the Bureau or its 
     contractors; and in addition, $27,650,000 for Mining Law 
     Administration program operations, to remain available until 
     expended, to be reduced by amounts collected by the Bureau of 
     Land Management and credited to this appropriation from 
     annual mining claim fees so as to result in a final 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $570,017,000: 
     Provided further, That in addition to funds otherwise 
     available, and to remain available until expended, not to 
     exceed $5,000,000 from annual mining claim fees shall be 
     credited to this account for the costs of administering the 
     mining claim fee program, and $2,000,000 from communication 
     site rental fees established by the Bureau.


                        wildland fire management

       For necessary expenses for fire use and management, fire 
     preparedness, emergency presuppression, suppression 
     operations, emergency rehabilitation, and renovation or 
     construction of fire facilities in the Department of the 
     Interior, $235,924,000, to remain available until expended, 
     of which not to exceed $5,025,000, shall be available for the 
     renovation or construction of fire facilities: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, persons hired 
     pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1469 may be furnished subsistence and 
     lodging without cost from funds available from this 
     appropriation: Provided further, That such funds are also 
     available for repayment of advances to other appropriation 
     accounts from which funds were previously transferred for 
     such purposes: Provided further, That unobligated balances of 
     amounts previously appropriated to the Fire Protection and 
     Emergency Department of the Interior Firefighting Fund may be 
     transferred or merged with this appropriation.
                    central hazardous materials fund

       For expenses necessary for use by the Department of the 
     Interior and any of its component offices and bureaus for the 
     remedial action, including associated activities, of 
     hazardous waste substances, pollutants, or contaminants 
     pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation and Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
     seq.), $10,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, sums 
     recovered from or paid by a party in advance of or as 
     reimbursement for remedial action or response activities 
     conducted by the Department pursuant to sections 107 or 
     113(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation and Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9607 or 
     9613(f)), shall be credited to this account and shall be 
     available without further appropriation and shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That such sums 
     recovered from or paid by any party are not limited to 
     monetary payments and may include stocks, bonds or other 
     personal or real property, which may be retained, liquidated, 
     or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior and 
     which shall be credited to this account.
                        construction and access

       For acquisition of lands and interests therein, and 
     construction of buildings, recreation facilities, roads, 
     trails, and appurtenant facilities, $2,515,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
                       payments in lieu of taxes

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20, 
     1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-07), $111,409,000, of which 
     not to exceed $400,000 shall be available for administrative 
     expenses.
                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of 
     sections 205, 206, and 318(d) of Public Law 94-579 including 
     administrative expenses and acquisition of lands or waters, 
     or interests therein, $8,500,000 to be derived from the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until 
     expended.
                   oregon and california grant lands

       For expenses necessary for management, protection, and 
     development of resources and for construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other 
     improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad 
     grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and 
     California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent 
     rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein 
     including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such 
     grant lands; $91,387,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That 25 per centum of the aggregate of all receipts 
     during the current fiscal year from the revested Oregon and 
     California Railroad grant lands is hereby made a charge 
     against the Oregon and California land-grant fund and shall 
     be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury in 
     accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of 
     subsection (b) of title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 
     Stat. 876).
                           range improvements

       For rehabilitation, protection, and acquisition of lands 
     and interests therein, and improvement of Federal rangelands 
     pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), notwithstanding any 
     other Act, sums equal to 50 

[[Page H 6946]]
     per centum of all moneys received during the prior fiscal year under 
     sections 3 and 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et 
     seq.) and the amount designated for range improvements from 
     grazing fees and mineral leasing receipts from Bankhead-Jones 
     lands transferred to the Department of the Interior pursuant 
     to law, but not less than $9,113,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That not to exceed $600,000 shall 
     be available for administrative expenses.


               service charges, deposits, and forfeitures

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

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

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management shall be 
     available for purchase, erection, and dismantlement of 
     temporary structures, and alteration and maintenance of 
     necessary buildings and appurtenant facilities to which the 
     United States has title; up to $100,000 for payments, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, for information or evidence 
     concerning violations of laws administered by the Bureau of 
     Land Management; miscellaneous and emergency expenses of 
     enforcement activities authorized or approved by the 
     Secretary and to be accounted for solely on his certificate, 
     not to exceed $10,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 
     U.S.C. 501, the Bureau may, under cooperative cost-sharing 
     and partnership arrangements authorized by law, procure 
     printing services from cooperators in connection with 
     jointly-produced publications for which the cooperators share 
     the cost of printing either in cash or in services, and the 
     Bureau determines the cooperator is capable of meeting 
     accepted quality standards.
                United States Fish and Wildlife Service


                          resource management

       For expenses necessary for scientific and economic studies, 
     conservation, management, investigations, protection, and 
     utilization of fishery and wildlife resources, except whales, 
     seals, and sea lions, and for the performance of other 
     authorized functions related to such resources; for the 
     general administration of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service; and for maintenance of the herd of long-horned 
     cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge; and not less 
     than $1,000,000 for high priority projects within the scope 
     of the approved budget which shall be carried out by the 
     Youth Conservation Corps as authorized by the Act of August 
     13, 1970, as amended by Public Law 93-408, $498,035,000, to 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 1997, of 
     which $11,557,000 shall be for operation and maintenance of 
     fishery mitigation facilities constructed by the Corps of 
     Engineers under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, 
     authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 
     Stat. 2921), to compensate for loss of fishery resources from 
     water development projects on the Lower Snake River: 
     Provided, That unobligated and unexpended balances in the 
     Resource Management account at the end of fiscal year 1995, 
     shall be merged with and made a part of the fiscal year 1996 
     Resource Management appropriation, and shall remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 1997.
                              construction

       For construction and acquisition of buildings and other 
     facilities required in the conservation, management, 
     investigation, protection, and utilization of fishery and 
     wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands and 
     interests therein; $26,355,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
                natural resource damage assessment fund

       To conduct natural resource damage assessment activities by 
     the Department of the Interior necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601, 
     et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 
     U.S.C. 1251, et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public 
     Law 101-380), and the Act of July 27, 1990 (Public Law 101-
     337); $6,019,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That sums provided by any party in fiscal year 1996 
     and thereafter are not limited to monetary payments and may 
     include stocks, bonds or other personal or real property, 
     which may be retained, liquidated or otherwise disposed of by 
     the Secretary and such sums or properties shall be utilized 
     for the restoration of injured resources, and to conduct new 
     damage assessment activities.
                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4-11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with statutory authority applicable to the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, $14,100,000, to be derived 
     from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain 
     available until expended.


            cooperative endangered species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), as 
     amended by Public Law 100-478, $8,085,000 for grants to 
     States, to be derived from the Cooperative Endangered Species 
     Conservation Fund, and to remain available until expended.


                     national wildlife refuge fund

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 17, 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $10,779,000.

                         rewards and operations

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4203, 4211-
     4213, 4221-4225, 4241-4245, and 1538), $600,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
               north american wetlands conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233, 
     $4,500,000, to remain available until expended.
        lahontan valley and pyramid lake fish and wildlife fund

       For carrying out section 206(f) of Public Law 101-618, such 
     sums as have previously been credited or may be credited 
     hereafter to the Lahontan Valley and Pyramid Lake Fish and 
     Wildlife Fund, to be available until expended without further 
     appropriation.

                 rhinoceros and tiger conservation fund

       For deposit to the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, 
     $200,000, to remain available until expended, to be available 
     to carry out the provisions of the Rhinoceros and Tiger 
     Conservation Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-391).

              wildlife conservation and appreciation fund

       For deposit to the Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation 
     Fund, $998,000, to remain available until expended, to be 
     available for carrying out the Partnerships for Wildlife Act 
     only to the extent such funds are matched as provided in 
     section 7105 of said Act.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations and funds available to the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for purchase of 
     not to exceed 113 passenger motor vehicles, of which 59 are 
     for police-type use and 88 are for replacement only; not to 
     exceed $400,000 for payment, at the discretion of the 
     Secretary, for information, rewards, or evidence concerning 
     violations of laws administered by the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, and miscellaneous and emergency expenses of 
     enforcement activities, authorized or approved by the 
     Secretary and to be accounted for solely on his certificate; 
     repair of damage to public roads within and adjacent to 
     reservation areas caused by operations of the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service; options for the purchase of land 
     at not to exceed $1 for each option; facilities incident to 
     such public recreational uses on conservation areas as are 
     consistent with their primary purpose; and the maintenance 
     and improvement of aquaria, buildings, and other facilities 
     under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service and to which the United States has title, and which 
     are utilized pursuant to law in connection with management 
     and investigation of fish and wildlife resources: Provided, 
     That the United States Fish and Wildlife Service may accept 
     donated aircraft as replacements for existing aircraft: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the 
     Service may, under cooperative cost sharing and partnership 
     arrangements authorized by law, procure printing services 
     from cooperators in connection with jointly-produced 
     publications for which the cooperators share at least one-
     half the cost of printing either in cash or services and the 
     Service determines the cooperator is capable of meeting 
     accepted quality standards: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

[[Page H 6947]]
     Secretary of the Interior may not spend any of the funds appropriated 
     in this Act for the purchase of lands or interests in lands 
     to be used in the establishment of any new unit of the 
     National Wildlife Refuge System unless the purchase is 
     approved in advance by the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations in compliance with the reprogramming 
     procedures contained in House Report 103-551: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to impede 
     or delay the issuance of a wetlands permit by the U.S. Army 
     Corps of Engineers to the City of Lake Jackson, Texas, for 
     the development of a public golf course west of Buffalo Camp 
     Bayou between the Brazos River and Highway 332: Provided 
     further, That section 201 of the Emergency Wetlands Resources 
     Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3911) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)(B), by striking ``distributed'' 
     and inserting ``used''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by redesignating clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of 
     subparagraph (A) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), 
     respectively;
       (B) by striking ``shall be distributed as follows:'' and 
     all that follows through ``such amount--'' and inserting 
     ``shall be used by the Secretary--''; and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (B).
                         National Park Service


                 operation of the national park system

       For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and 
     maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the 
     National Park Service (including special road maintenance 
     service to trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), and 
     for the general administration of the National Park Service, 
     including not to exceed $1,593,000 for the Volunteers-in-
     Parks program, and not less than $1,000,000 for high priority 
     projects within the scope of the approved budget which shall 
     be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as authorized 
     by the Act of August 13, 1970, as amended by Public Law 93-
     408, $1,088,249,000, without regard to the Act of August 24, 
     1912, as amended (16 U.S.C. 451), of which not to exceed 
     $72,000,000, to remain available until expended is to be 
     derived from the special fee account established pursuant to 
     title V, section 5201, of Public Law 100-203, and of which 
     not more than $1 shall be available for activies of the 
     National Park Service at the Mojave National Preserve.
                  national recreation and preservation

       For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs, 
     natural programs, cultural programs, environmental compliance 
     and review, international park affairs, statutory or 
     contractual aid for other activities, and grant 
     administration, not otherwise provided for, $35,725,000: 
     Provided, That $248,000 of the funds provided herein are for 
     the William O. Douglas Outdoor Education Center, subject to 
     authorization.


                       historic preservation fund

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of 
     the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 915), as 
     amended (16 U.S.C. 470), $37,934,000, to be derived from the 
     Historic Preservation Fund, established by section 108 of 
     that Act, as amended, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 1997.
                              construction

       For construction, improvements, repair or replacement of 
     physical facilities, $114,868,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $6,000,000 shall be 
     paid to the Army Corps of Engineers for modifications 
     authorized by section 104 of the Everglades National Park 
     Protection and Expansion Act of 1989.


                    land and water conservation fund

                              (rescission)

       The contract authority provided for fiscal year 1996 by 16 
     U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.


                 land acquisition and state assistance

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4-11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of lands or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with statutory authority applicable to the 
     National Park Service, $14,300,000, to be derived from the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $4,800,000 is provided for Federal 
     assistance to the State of Florida pursuant to Public Law 
     103-219, and of which $1,500,000 is to administer the State 
     assistance program.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the National Park Service shall be 
     available for the purchase of not to exceed 518 passenger 
     motor vehicles, of which 323 shall be for replacement only, 
     including not to exceed 411 for police-type use, 12 buses, 
     and 5 ambulances: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated to the National Park Service may be used to 
     process any grant or contract documents which do not include 
     the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated to the National Park Service may be 
     used to implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the 
     southern end of Ellis Island.
                    United States Geological Survey


                 surveys, investigations, and research

       For expenses necessary for the United States Geological 
     Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research 
     covering topography, geology, hydrology, and the mineral and 
     water resources of the United States, its Territories and 
     possessions, and other areas as authorized by law (43 U.S.C. 
     31, 1332 and 1340); classify lands as to their mineral and 
     water resources; give engineering supervision to power 
     permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     licensees; administer the minerals exploration program (30 
     U.S.C. 641); and publish and disseminate data relative to the 
     foregoing activities; $686,944,000, of which $62,130,000 
     shall be available for cooperation with States or 
     municipalities for water resources investigations, and of 
     which $112,888,000 for resource research and the operations 
     of Cooperative Research Units shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1997: Provided, That no part of this 
     appropriation shall be used to pay more than one-half the 
     cost of any topographic mapping or water resources 
     investigations carried on in cooperation with any State or 
     municipality: Provided further, That funds available herein 
     for resource research may be used for the purchase of not to 
     exceed 61 passenger motor vehicles, of which 55 are for 
     replacement only: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     available under this head for resource research shall be used 
     to conduct new surveys on private property: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds provided herein for resource research 
     may be used to administer a volunteer program: Provided 
     further, That no later than April 1, 1996, the Director of 
     the United States Geological Survey shall issue agency 
     guidelines for resource research that ensure that scientific 
     and technical peer review is utilized as fully as possible in 
     selection of projects for funding and ensure the validity and 
     reliability of research and data collection on Federal lands: 
     Provided further, That no funds available for resource 
     research may be used for any activity that was not authorized 
     prior to the establishment of the National Biological Survey: 
     Provided further, That once every five years the National 
     Academy of Sciences shall review and report on the resource 
     research activities of the Survey: Provided further, That if 
     specific authorizing legislation is enacted during or before 
     the start of fiscal year 1996, the resource research 
     component of the Survey should comply with the provisions of 
     that legislation: Provided further, That unobligated and 
     unexpended balances in the National Biological Survey, 
     Research, inventories and surveys account at the end of 
     fiscal year 1995, shall be merged with and made a part of the 
     United States Geological Survey, Surveys, investigations, and 
     research account and shall remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 1996.


                       administrative provisions

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


                royalty and offshore minerals management

       For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and 
     environmental studies, regulation of industry operations, and 
     collection of royalties, as authorized by law; for enforcing 
     laws and regulations applicable to oil, gas, and other 
     minerals leases, permits, licenses and operating contracts; 
     and for matching grants or cooperative agreements; including 
     the purchase of not to exceed eight passenger motor vehicles 
     for replacement only; $186,556,000, of which not less than 
     $70,105,000 shall be available for royalty management 
     activities; and an amount not to exceed $12,400,000 for the 
     Technical Information Management System of Outer Continental 
     Shelf (OCS) Lands Activity, to be credited to this 
     appropriation and to remain available until expended, from 
     additions to receipts resulting from increases to rates in 
     effect on August 5, 1993, from rate increases to fee 
     collections for OCS administrative activities performed by 
     the Minerals Management Service over and above the rates in 
     effect on September 30, 1993, and from additional fees for 
     OCS administrative activities established after September 30, 
     1993: Provided, That beginning in fiscal year 1996 and 
     thereafter, fees for royalty rate relief applications shall 
     be established (and revised as needed) in Notices to Lessees, 
     and shall be credited to this account in the program areas 
     performing the function, and remain available until expended 
     for the costs of administering the royalty rate relief 
     authorized by 43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3): Provided further, That 
     $1,500,000 for computer acquisitions shall remain available 
     until September 30, 1997: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated under this Act shall be available for the 
     payment of interest in 

[[Page H 6948]]
     accordance with 30 U.S.C. 1721 (b) and (d): Provided further, That not 
     to exceed $3,000 shall be available for reasonable expenses 
     related to promoting volunteer beach and marine cleanup 
     activities: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, $15,000 under this head shall be available 
     for refunds of overpayments in connection with certain Indian 
     leases in which the Director of the Minerals Management 
     Service concurred with the claimed refund due, to pay amounts 
     owed to Indian allottees or Tribes, or to correct prior 
     unrecoverable erroneous payments: Provided further, That 
     beginning in fiscal year 1996 and thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall take appropriate action to collect unpaid and underpaid 
     royalties and late payment interest owed by Federal and 
     Indian mineral lessees and other royalty payors on amounts 
     received in settlement or other resolution of disputes under, 
     and for partial or complete termination of, sales agreements 
     for minerals from Federal and Indian leases.
                           oil spill research

       For necessary expenses to carry out the purposes of title 
     I, section 1016, title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, 
     and title VIII, section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 
     1990, $6,440,000, which shall be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.

                            Bureau of Mines


                           mines and minerals

       For expenses necessary for the orderly closure of the 
     Bureau of Mines, $87,000,000.


                       administrative provisions

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


                       regulation and technology

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public 
     Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not to 
     exceed 15 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; 
     $92,751,000, and notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, an 
     additional amount shall be credited to this account, to 
     remain available until expended, from performance bond 
     forfeitures in fiscal year 1996: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     the Interior, pursuant to regulations, may utilize directly 
     or through grants to States, moneys collected in fiscal year 
     1996 pursuant to the assessment of civil penalties under 
     section 518 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
     of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1268), to reclaim lands adversely affected 
     by coal mining practices after August 3, 1977, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, appropriations 
     for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
     may provide for the travel and per diem expenses of State and 
     tribal personnel attending Office of Surface Mining 
     Reclamation and Enforcement sponsored training.
                    abandoned mine reclamation fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of title 
     IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 
     Public Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not 
     more than 22 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, 
     $176,327,000, to be derived from receipts of the Abandoned 
     Mine Reclamation Fund and to remain available until expended, 
     of which $5,000,000 shall be used for supplemental grants to 
     States for the reclamation of abandoned sites with acid mine 
     rock drainage from coal mines through the Appalachian Clean 
     Streams Initiative: Provided, That grants to minimum program 
     States will be $1,500,000 per State in fiscal year 1996: 
     Provided further, That of the funds herein provided up to 
     $18,000,000 may be used for the emergency program authorized 
     by section 410 of Public Law 95-87, as amended, of which no 
     more than 25 per centum shall be used for emergency 
     reclamation projects in any one State and funds for 
     Federally-administered emergency reclamation projects under 
     this proviso shall not exceed $11,000,000: Provided further, 
     That donations credited to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation 
     Fund, pursuant to section 401(b)(3) of Public Law 95-87, are 
     hereby appropriated and shall be available until expended to 
     support projects under the Appalachian Clean Streams 
     Initiative, directly, through agreements with other Federal 
     agencies, as otherwise authorized, or through grants to 
     States or local governments, or tax-exempt private entities: 
     Provided further, That prior year unobligated funds 
     appropriated for the emergency reclamation program shall not 
     be subject to the 25 per centum limitation per State and may 
     be used without fiscal year limitation for emergency 
     projects: Provided further, That pursuant to Public Law 97-
     365, the Department of the Interior is authorized to utilize 
     up to 20 per centum from the recovery of the delinquent debt 
     owed to the United States Government to pay for contracts to 
     collect these debts.
                        Bureau of Indian Affairs


                      operation of indian programs

       For operation of Indian programs by direct expenditure, 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and grants 
     including expenses necessary to provide education and welfare 
     services for Indians, either directly or in cooperation with 
     States and other organizations, including payment of care, 
     tuition, assistance, and other expenses of Indians in 
     boarding homes, or institutions, or schools; grants and other 
     assistance to needy Indians; maintenance of law and order; 
     management, development, improvement, and protection of 
     resources and appurtenant facilities under the jurisdiction 
     of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, including payment of 
     irrigation assessments and charges; acquisition of water 
     rights; advances for Indian industrial and business 
     enterprises; operation of Indian arts and crafts shops and 
     museums; development of Indian arts and crafts, as authorized 
     by law; for the general administration of the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs, including such expenses in field offices; 
     maintaining of Indian reservation roads as defined in section 
     101 of title 23, United States Code; and construction, 
     repair, and improvement of Indian housing, $1,508,777,000, of 
     which not to exceed $106,126,000 shall be for payments to 
     tribes and tribal organizations for contract support costs 
     associated with ongoing contracts or grants or compacts 
     entered into with the Bureau of Indian Affairs prior to 
     fiscal year 1996, as authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination Act of 1975, as amended, and $5,000,000 shall 
     be for the Indian Self-Determination Fund, which shall be 
     available for the transitional cost of initial or expanded 
     tribal contracts, grants, compacts, or cooperative agreements 
     with the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the provisions of the 
     Indian Self-Determination Act; and of which not to exceed 
     $330,711,000 for school operations costs of Bureau-funded 
     schools and other education programs shall become available 
     for obligation on July 1, 1996, and shall remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 1997; and of which not to 
     exceed $67,138,000 for higher education scholarships, adult 
     vocational training, and assistance to public schools under 
     the Johnson O'Malley Act shall remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 1997; and of which not to 
     exceed $74,814,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     trust funds management, housing improvement, road 
     maintenance, attorney fees, litigation support, self-
     governance grants, the Indian Self-Determination Fund, and 
     the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Program: Provided, That tribes and 
     tribal contractors may use their tribal priority allocations 
     for unmet indirect costs of ongoing contracts, grants or 
     compact agreements: Provided further, That funds made 
     available to tribes and tribal organizations through 
     contracts or grants obligated during fiscal year 1996, as 
     authorized by the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975 (88 
     Stat. 2203; 25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), or grants authorized by 
     the Indian Education Amendments of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2001 and 
     2008A) shall remain available until expended by the 
     contractor or grantee: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the statute of limitations shall 
     not commence to run on any claim, including any claim in 
     litigation pending on the date of this Act, concerning losses 
     to or mismanagement of trust funds, until the affected tribe 
     or individual Indian has been furnished with the accounting 
     of such funds from which the beneficiary can determine 
     whether there has been a loss: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     reconciliation report to be submitted pursuant to Public Law 
     103-412 shall be submitted by November 30, 1997: Provided 
     further, That to provide funding uniformity within a Self-
     Governance Compact, any funds provided in this Act with 
     availability for more than one year may be reprogrammed to 
     one year availability but shall remain available within the 
     Compact until expended: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, Indian tribal 
     governments may, by appropriate changes in eligibility 
     criteria or by other means, change eligibility for general 
     assistance or change the amount of general assistance 
     payments for individuals within the service area of such 
     tribe who are otherwise deemed eligible for general 
     assistance payments so long as such changes are applied in a 
     consistent manner to individuals similarly situated: Provided 
     further, That any savings realized by such changes shall be 
     available for use in meeting other priorities of the tribes: 
     Provided further, That any net increase in costs to the 
     Federal Government which result solely from tribally 
     increased payment levels for general assistance shall be met 
     exclusively from funds available to the tribe from within its 
     tribal priority allocation: Provided further, That any 
     forestry funds allocated to a tribe which remain unobligated 
     as of September 30, 1996, may be 

[[Page H 6949]]
     transferred during fiscal year 1997 to an Indian forest land assistance 
     account established for the benefit of such tribe within the 
     tribe's trust fund account: Provided further, That any such 
     unobligated balances not so transferred shall expire on 
     September 30, 1997: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, no funds available to the Bureau 
     of Indian Affairs, other than the amounts provided herein for 
     assistance to public schools under the Act of April 16, 1934 
     (48 Stat. 596), as amended (25 U.S.C. 452 et seq.), shall be 
     available to support the operation of any elementary or 
     secondary school in the State of Alaska in fiscal year 1996: 
     Provided further, That funds made available in this or any 
     other Act for expenditure through September 30, 1997 for 
     schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall be 
     available only to the schools which are in the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs school system as of September 1, 1995: 
     Provided further, That no funds available to the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs shall be used to support expanded grades for 
     any school beyond the grade structure in place at each school 
     in the Bureau of Indian Affairs school system as of October 
     1, 1995: Provided further, That notwithstanding the 
     provisions of 25 U.S.C. 2011(h)(1)(B) and (c), upon the 
     recommendation of a local school board for a Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs operated school, the Secretary shall establish rates 
     of basic compensation or annual salary rates for the 
     positions of teachers and counselors (including dormitory and 
     homeliving counselors) at the school at a level not less than 
     that for comparable positions in public school districts in 
     the same geographic area.
                              construction

       For construction, major repair, and improvement of 
     irrigation and power systems, buildings, utilities, and other 
     facilities, including architectural and engineering services 
     by contract; acquisition of lands and interests in lands; and 
     preparation of lands for farming, $98,033,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That such amounts as may 
     be available for the construction of the Navajo Indian 
     Irrigation Project and for other water resource development 
     activities related to the Southern Arizona Water Rights 
     Settlement Act may be transferred to the Bureau of 
     Reclamation: Provided further, That not to exceed 6 per 
     centum of contract authority available to the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs from the Federal Highway Trust Fund may be 
     used to cover the road program management costs of the Bureau 
     of Indian Affairs: Provided further, That any funds provided 
     for the Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 13 shall 
     be made available on a non-reimbursable basis: Provided 
     further, That for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, 
     in implementing new construction or facilities improvement 
     and repair project grants in excess of $100,000 that are 
     provided to tribally controlled grant schools under Public 
     Law 100-297, as amended, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     use the Administrative and Audit Requirements and Cost 
     Principles for Assistance Programs contained in 43 CFR part 
     12 as the regulatory requirements: Provided further, That 
     such grants shall not be subject to section 12.61 of 43 CFR; 
     the Secretary and the grantee shall negotiate and determine a 
     schedule of payments for the work to be performed: Provided 
     further, That in considering applications, the Secretary 
     shall consider whether the Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization would be deficient in assuring that the 
     construction projects conform to applicable building 
     standards and codes and Federal, tribal, or State health and 
     safety standards as required by 25 U.S.C. 2005(a), with 
     respect to organizational and financial management 
     capabilities: Provided further, That if the Secretary 
     declines an application, the Secretary shall follow the 
     requirements contained in 25 U.S.C. 2505(f): Provided 
     further, That any disputes between the Secretary and any 
     grantee concerning a grant shall be subject to the disputes 
     provision in 25 U.S.C. 2508(e).
 indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to 
                                indians

       For miscellaneous payments to Indian tribes and individuals 
     and for necessary administrative expenses, $67,145,000, to 
     remain available until expended; of which $65,100,000 shall 
     be available for implementation of enacted Indian land and 
     water claim settlements pursuant to Public Laws 87-483, 97-
     293, 101-618, 102-374, 102-441, 102-575, and 103-116, and for 
     implementation of other enacted water rights settlements, 
     including not to exceed $8,000,000, which shall be for the 
     Federal share of the Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina 
     Claims Settlement, as authorized by section 5(a) of Public 
     Law 103-116; and of which $1,045,000 shall be available 
     pursuant to Public Laws 98-500, 99-264, and 100-580; and of 
     which $1,000,000 shall be available (1) to liquidate 
     obligations owed tribal and individual Indian payees of any 
     checks canceled pursuant to section 1003 of the Competitive 
     Equality Banking Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-86 (101 Stat. 
     659)), 31 U.S.C. 3334(b), (2) to restore to Individual Indian 
     Monies trust funds, Indian Irrigation Systems, and Indian 
     Power Systems accounts amounts invested in credit unions or 
     defaulted savings and loan associations and which were not 
     Federally insured, and (3) to reimburse Indian trust fund 
     account holders for losses to their respective accounts where 
     the claim for said loss(es) has been reduced to a judgment or 
     settlement agreement approved by the Department of Justice.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall be 
     available for expenses of exhibits, and purchase of not to 
     exceed 275 passenger carrying motor vehicles, of which not to 
     exceed 215 shall be for replacement only.
                 Territorial and International Affairs


                       assistance to territories

       For expenses necessary for assistance to territories under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, 
     $69,232,000, of which (1) $65,705,000 shall be available 
     until expended for technical assistance, including 
     maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, insular 
     management controls, and brown tree snake control and 
     research; grants to the judiciary in American Samoa for 
     compensation and expenses, as authorized by law (48 U.S.C. 
     1661(c)); grants to the Government of American Samoa, in 
     addition to current local revenues, for construction and 
     support of governmental functions; grants to the Government 
     of the Virgin Islands as authorized by law; grants to the 
     Government of Guam, as authorized by law; and grants to the 
     Government of the Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by 
     law (Public Law 94-241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $3,527,000 
     shall be available for salaries and expenses of the Office of 
     Insular Affairs: Provided, That all financial transactions of 
     the territorial and local governments herein provided for, 
     including such transactions of all agencies or 
     instrumentalities established or utilized by such 
     governments, may be audited by the General Accounting Office, 
     at its discretion, in accordance with chapter 35 of title 31, 
     United States Code: Provided further, That Northern Mariana 
     Islands Covenant grant funding shall be provided according to 
     those terms of the Agreement of the Special Representatives 
     on Future United States Financial Assistance for the Northern 
     Mariana Islands approved by Public Law 99-396, or any 
     subsequent legislation related to Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands Covenant grant funding: Provided 
     further, That of the amounts provided for technical 
     assistance, sufficient funding shall be made available for a 
     grant to the Close Up Foundation: Provided further, That the 
     funds for the program of operations and maintenance 
     improvement are appropriated to institutionalize routine 
     operations and maintenance of capital infrastructure in 
     American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the 
     Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of 
     Micronesia through assessments of long-range operations and 
     maintenance needs, improved capability of local operations 
     and maintenance institutions and agencies (including 
     management and vocational education training), and project-
     specific maintenance (with territorial participation and cost 
     sharing to be determined by the Secretary based on the 
     individual territory's commitment to timely maintenance of 
     its capital assets): Provided further, That any appropriation 
     for disaster assistance under this head in this Act or 
     previous appropriations Acts may be used as non-Federal 
     matching funds for the purpose of hazard mitigation grants 
     provided pursuant to section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5170c).
                      compact of free association

       For economic assistance and necessary expenses for the 
     Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 
     232, and 233 of the Compacts of Free Association, and for 
     economic assistance and necessary expenses for the Republic 
     of Palau as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 232, and 
     233 of the Compact of Free Association, $24,938,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as authorized by Public Law 
     99-239 and Public Law 99-658: Provided, That notwithstanding 
     section 112 of Public Law 101-219 (103 Stat. 1873), the 
     Secretary of the Interior may agree to technical changes in 
     the specifications for the project described in the 
     subsidiary agreement negotiated under section 212(a) of the 
     Compact of Free Association, Public Law 99-658, or its annex, 
     if the changes do not result in increased costs to the United 
     States.

                          Departmental Offices

                        Office of the Secretary


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     the Interior, $55,982,000, of which not to exceed $7,500 may 
     be for official reception and representation expenses.

                        Office of the Solicitor


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, 
     $34,608,000.

                      Office of Inspector General

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $23,939,000.

                   National Indian Gaming Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

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

       There is hereby authorized for acquisition from available 
     resources within the Working Capital Fund, 15 aircraft, 10 of 
     which shall be for replacement and which may be obtained by 
     donation, purchase or through available excess surplus 
     property: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, existing aircraft being replaced may be sold, 

[[Page H 6950]]
     with proceeds derived or trade-in value used to offset the purchase 
     price for the replacement aircraft: Provided further, That no 
     programs funded with appropriated funds in the ``Office of 
     the Secretary'', ``Office of the Solicitor'', and ``Office of 
     Inspector General'' may be augmented through the Working 
     Capital Fund or the Consolidated Working Fund.
             GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or 
     office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the 
     emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft, 
     buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment 
     damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other 
     unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until funds specifically made 
     available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies 
     shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds 
     used pursuant to this section are hereby designated by 
     Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and must, be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible.
       Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or 
     transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in 
     addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of 
     the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency 
     prevention of forest or range fires on or threatening lands 
     under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for 
     the emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its 
     jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or 
     actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other 
     unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to 
     actual oilspills; response and natural resource damage 
     assessment activities related to actual oilspills; for the 
     prevention, suppression, and control of actual or potential 
     grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the authority in 
     section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 Stat. 1658); for 
     emergency reclamation projects under section 410 of Public 
     Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year funds 
     available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit 
     assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy 
     State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in 
     this title for fire suppression purposes shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding 
     fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies 
     for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in 
     connection with their use for fire suppression purposes, such 
     reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently 
     available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further, 
     That for emergency rehabilitation and wildfire suppression 
     activities, no funds shall be made available under this 
     authority until funds appropriated to the ``Emergency 
     Department of the Interior Firefighting Fund'' shall have 
     been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds used 
     pursuant to this section are hereby designated by Congress to 
     be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and must be replenished by a supplemental 
     appropriation which must be requested as promptly as 
     possible: Provided further, That such replenishment funds 
     shall be used to reimburse, on a pro rata basis, accounts 
     from which emergency funds were transferred.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for operation of warehouses, garages, shops, and 
     similar facilities, wherever consolidation of activities will 
     contribute to efficiency or economy, and said appropriations 
     shall be reimbursed for services rendered to any other 
     activity in the same manner as authorized by sections 1535 
     and 1536 of title 31, U.S.C.: Provided, That reimbursements 
     for costs and supplies, materials, equipment, and for 
     services rendered may be credited to the appropriation 
     current at the time such reimbursements are received.
       Sec. 104. Appropriations made to the Department of the 
     Interior in this title shall be available for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the 
     Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment 
     of dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library 
     membership in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members.
       Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of the 
     Interior for salaries and expenses shall be available for 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902 and D.C. Code 4-204).
       Sec. 106. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for obligation in connection with contracts issued 
     for services or rentals for periods not in excess of twelve 
     months beginning at any time during the fiscal year.
       Sec. 107. Appropriations made in this title from the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund for acquisition of lands and 
     waters, or interests therein, shall be available for 
     transfer, with the approval of the Secretary, between the 
     following accounts: Bureau of Land Management, Land 
     acquisition, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Land 
     acquisition, and National Park Service, Land acquisition and 
     State assistance. Use of such funds are subject to the 
     reprogramming guidelines of the House and Senate Committees 
     on Appropriations.
       Sec.  108. Amounts appropriated in this Act for the 
     Presidio which are not obligated as of the date on which the 
     Presidio Trust is established by an Act of Congress shall be 
     transferred to and available only for the Presidio Trust.
       Sec. 109. Section 6003 of Public Law 101-380 is hereby 
     repealed.
       Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended by the 
     Secretary of the Interior for developing, promulgating, and 
     thereafter implementing a rule concerning rights-of-way under 
     section 2477 of the Revised Statutes.
       Sec. 111. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore 
     leasing and related activities placed under restriction in 
     the President's moratorium statement of June 26, 1990, in the 
     areas of Northern, Central, and Southern California; the 
     North Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; and the Eastern Gulf 
     of Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude and east of 86 
     degrees west longitude.
        Sec. 112. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of leasing, 
     or the approval or permitting of any drilling or other 
     exploration activity, on lands within the North Aleutian 
     Basin planning area.
       Sec. 113. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of 
     preleasing and leasing activities in the Eastern Gulf of 
     Mexico for Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sale 151 in the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Oil Resource 
     Management Comprehensive Program, 1992-1997.
        Sec. 114. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of 
     preleasing and leasing activities in the Atlantic for Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lease Sale 164 in the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Natural Gas and Oil Resource Management Comprehensive 
     Program, 1992-1997.
                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Kolbe

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

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Kolbe: Page 19, line 15, after 
     ``property'' insert the following: ``except when it is made 
     known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or 
     expend such funds that the survey or research has been 
     requested and authorized in writing by the property owner or 
     the owner's authorized representative''.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been cleared with the 
majority and the minority. It has been cleared also with the 
authorizing committee, so I will take less than 30 seconds to describe 
it.
  Basically, when we transferred the functions of the NBS, National 
Biological Survey, to the U.S. Geological Survey, we put in language 
which prohibited the use of any funds to conduct surveys. USGS does do 
surveys, always with written authorization, so this simply restores 
that and clarifies it and makes it clear that if they are requested, 
and if it is authorized in writing by the private property owner, they 
can do the survey. Without this, USGS, for example, would be unable to 
go on the property of Phelps Dodge or Magnum or some other company to 
do a geological survey. We think it does clarify it, and it has been 
cleared.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, it is cleared with the 
authorizers?
  Mr. KOLBE. It has been, that is correct.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have examined the amendment, we think it 
is a good one and we are in agreement. We accept the amendment.
  Mr. YATES. If the gentleman will yield, we have no objection to the 
amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Regula

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Regula: On page 9, line 22, strike 
     ``498,035,000'' and insert in lieu thereof: ``499,235,000'', 
     and
       On page 18, line 25 strike ``686,944,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``685,744,000'', and 

[[Page H 6951]]

       On page 19, line 3, strike ``112,888,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``111,688,000''.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment transfers $1.2 million to 
support the breeding bird survey that transfers from the USGS to the 
Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and Wildlife Service prior to 1993 
performed this function. We want to give it back to them. I think this 
is a very important function.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the 
full committee, filed a dissent. It is on the back page of the report. 
I think the information and the ideas he expressed therein are very 
constructive. We are trying to respond to the concerns expressed by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I share them.
  Many groups across the country participate in the survey on the 
breeding birds and they find this something they like to do, so we want 
this to continue. Therefore, we are taking some of the funding in the 
resource research division we have created in USGS and have transferred 
it to the Fish and Wildlife for that function.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I am impressed with the chairman's argument. 
Why do you not do it for all the other places where you have banned the 
use of volunteers?
  Mr. REGULA. In response to the gentleman's question, Mr. Chairman, 
this is the biggest item in terms of volunteer hours. It is a selected 
function in terms of dealing with the migratory birds. We felt that it 
would be very appropriate to have the volunteers do this.
  Mr. YATES. I do not think there is any doubt that this is a place 
where you can use volunteers. But I should like to suggest to the 
chairman that there are other places as well. I would hope that he 
would give them his close attention.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that with the exception 
of the natural resource research function, within the USGS there is no 
restriction on the use of volunteers, and as we all know, there are 
hundreds of thousands of volunteers in forests, parks, BLM, Fish and 
Wildlife, USGS, and they are in no way restricted by this bill.
  Mr. YATES. If the gentleman will yield further, I have a factsheet 
from the Department of the Interior. It says that during the last 4 
years, 32 veterinary medicine students and 18 others have volunteered 
over 3 person-years to the National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, 
WI, to perform postmortem examinations and other highly technical 
activities in collaboration with the center's diagnostic staff.
  Apparently even in scientific work, volunteers have done a creditable 
job.
  Mr. REGULA. We discussed that with the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller], and I know it is a matter of a difference of opinion.
  Let me just mention one further thing. The language in the science 
portion of USGS as provided in this bill says that if there is an 
authorized bill on this subject, and I know that the authorizing 
committee plans to bring one out, that the language in the 
appropriations bill will drop out and whatever comes in the authorizing 
bill, they can address the volunteer issue in that bill.
  Mr. YATES. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment transfers $1,200,000 from the 
U.S. Geological Survey, surveys, investigations, and research 
appropriation, natural resources research activity, to the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, resource management appropriation, migratory bird 
management activity to support the Patuxent bird banding lab and the 
breeding bird survey, the latter of which is conducted largely by 
volunteers and is essential in the promulgation of Federal migratory 
bird hunting regulations. This transfer also includes $200,000 for the 
related waterfowl survey work on the Yukon Delta refuges in Alaska. 
These activities were formerly funded in the Fish and Wildlife Service 
and were transferred to the National Biological Survey when it was 
established. The amendment does not transfer back the computer support 
for this program, with the expectation that the data analysis needs of 
the breeding bird survey be given the highest priority within the 
resources research activity.
                              {time}  1315

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, on the point that the 
gentleman from Illinois was pursuing with you, I appreciate what the 
gentleman is doing in terms of the migratory birds. But, again, I do 
not understand why we are going to draw a barrier around one provision 
where he will not be able to use volunteers.
  We started to talk about it this morning in the debate on the rule. 
But can the gentleman tell me, he says, Well, not for the science 
functions. He wants everybody to be a Ph.D. But I do not understand.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that this is 
to try to address the property rights issue. As you know from service 
on the authorizing committee, there is a divergence of opinion.
  As I know the gentleman is the senior member of the minority on the 
authorizing committee, he is going to be addressing this problem in 
that committee and I would suggest that the volunteer issue should be 
raised by the gentleman in developing authorizing legislation.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the author of this amendment, but I 
think the gentleman could get greater commendation by doing rather 
more.
  I am curious, why is it that this amendment deals only with the 
breeding bird situation at Fish and Wildlife and the Interior 
Department as opposed to dealing more broadly with the entire program 
for the use of volunteers by the Fish and Wildlife Service? Can the 
gentleman inform me why this narrow limitation on this matter?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. In responding, to a certain extent, to the dissenting 
views of the ranking member of the full committee, and he addressed the 
breeding bird issue, the migratory breeding birds and, the fact that 
the great bulk of the volunteer effort is expended on doing the surveys 
on the migratory breeding birds. And the gentleman is a sportsman and 
understands that very well.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I support what the gentleman is doing, but 
he still has not answered my question. The question really is why is 
the gentleman just making the use of volunteers by Fish and Wildlife 
Service available in the case of the migratory bird survey? Volunteers 
are used by Fish and Wildlife Service for running refuges, for 
conducting a whole series of surveys, for dealing with the salmon 
problem in the Pacific Northwest, for addressing different problems 
that exist within the Service in terms of serving as guides and 
interpretive people at the refuges.
  Indeed, in many refuges these are the only people, the volunteers are 
the only people that are available to make the refuge system work. I am 
unaware of any abuse that has been committed by the volunteers or any 
abuse that exists with regard to this system. And If the gentleman can 
inform me what that abuse is, or why is it that we are terminating the 
use of the volunteers in the refuge system, and why the gentleman is 
limiting this addition only to volunteers with regard to the breeding 
surveys, he will help me enormously.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, all the 
activities you described are not affected in any way.
  Mr. DINGELL. As a matter of fact, I think they are, because the 
language of the bill, if the gentleman will permit, simply bans the use 
of volunteers.
  Mr. REGULA. For natural resource research only in USGS. That is the 
only place it is affected. Fish and Wildlife is in no way affected in 
the use of volunteers. The Park Service is not affected. The other 
divisions of the USGS are not affected. And all I have done in the 
proposed amendment is transfer additional money to the Fish and 
Wildlife Service to do the functions you are talking about, and 
specifically the breeding bird survey.
  Mr. DINGELL. It may well be that that is so, but the hard fact of the 
matter is that the Fish and Wildlife Service uses them for fish surveys 
in the Pacific Northwest, something that is extremely important. The 
salmon are 

[[Page H 6952]]
now approaching the status of endangered species in the entire 
northwestern part of the United States.
  Without that particular use of volunteers for surveys on streams, and 
things of that kind, to count breeding populations and things of that 
kind and to identify reproduction, you are going to find a major threat 
to the salmon resource in the entire Western part of the United States.
  Now, why are we not including them?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the only limitation is on the natural resource function in USGS as far 
as volunteers.
  As far as the Fish and Wildlife Service, any science that they are 
doing, any activities that they are doing, can be done by as many 
volunteers as they choose. There is no limitation.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to make it 
very, very clear to my friend, and I applaud what he is doing, but I 
want to make it very clear to my good friend that I did not favor the 
idea that we would create a U.S. Biological Survey. I thought it was a 
step backward. I thought it created great peril. I thought it set up a 
target where we could do great hurt to the Fish and Wildlife Service 
and to the conservation efforts of this United States by setting up 
this kind of an entity. I opposed it on this floor and I think it is a 
bad idea.
  But that is not the problem we confront. There are a number of 
scientific efforts that are conducted now by this entity. I intend to 
try and get rid of it at the earliest possible moment. But during the 
time that it is there, whether you like it or not, the hard fact is 
this agency has to be able to perform the scientific research that has 
to be done in order to get the information that is necessary for us to 
properly manage our Fish and Wildlife resources.
  I am not talking about going out and shutting down somebody who has a 
controversy involving the Endangered Species Act or anything of that 
sort. I was just saying to find out about the wildlife resources of the 
United States, this kind of survey has to be done. This kind of survey, 
under the unfortunate existence of the Biological Survey, is done by 
the biological Survey. It is not only the breeding bird population 
survey which is at stake here.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. OBEY and by unanimous consent, Mr. Dingell was 
allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear, I am trying to 
proceed in a friendly way. I have great respect for the gentleman, and 
what he is doing is good, but not good enough.
  I yield to my good friend.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to reemphasize that any science done 
by the Fish and Wildlife Service is not affected one iota. This is only 
the natural resource research, and it is only after October 1.
  The NBS, the National Biological Survey that you do not like, and I 
do not have any great affection for either, will be able to continue 
their programs until September 30, and by that time we hope the Fish 
and Wildlife Service can address their needs.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but remember you have 
runs of spring Chinook. They will be coming in during the time in which 
this is forbidden. It is not Fish and Wildlife that conducts all of 
those research efforts. And a lot of the people that do the work are 
now shifted by a bookkeeping effort from Fish and Wildlife's budget 
over to the Biological Survey. They are doing the same work that they 
did when they were in the Fish and Wildlife Service, and they are doing 
it in concert with people in the Fish and Wildlife Service, but they 
are paid by the other agency.
  So, whether this amendment carries or not, and it is a good 
amendment. I intend to support it, but I would like to support it if it 
were better. Whether it carries or not, still the question is going to 
exist as to whether or not volunteers can participate in that survey.
  But I want to reiterate for the benefit not of my friend, because I 
know he understands what is going on. I understand the politics of this 
situation. He has been caught in a political situation where some know-
nothing somewhere came to the conclusion that we had to do away with 
the use of volunteers by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Interior 
Department.
  I want to give my colleagues here some appreciation of the hard 
facts. If my colleague were to offer a similar amendment with regard to 
the Defense Department or the Veterans Administration and say that you 
could not use volunteers in a hospital run by the VA or run by the 
Department of Defense, people would say you are crazy.
  We run the entirety of these hospitals in almost total dependence on 
volunteers. The volunteers there do the work. The volunteers there 
comfort the patients. The volunteers do actually research, and things 
of that kind, which is extremely important to the existence of those 
agencies and the services at the hospitals.
  Now, a similar situation obtains with regard to the Fish and Wildlife 
Service and the Interior Department. I still have not heard from my 
dear friend why it is that we are prohibiting the use of volunteers in 
this. If the Biological Survey is bad, I will be happy to join the 
gentleman in offering legislation which will simply do away with it. I 
think it was extremely unwise it was ever adopted. But I do not think 
we ought to punish ongoing efforts which are extremely important in 
terms of efforts which are done using scientific methods to manage our 
living resources, not only in the West but in the East. Can the 
gentleman tell me why this thing was done in the first place?
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman would yield, as a veteran, if I go to a 
veterans hospital, I do not want any of the medical procedures carried 
on by the volunteers. What we are trying to go on here is the science.
  Mr. DINGELL. There are volunteers in the VA hospital and you are 
going to find out how well you are going to do there, but the gentleman 
still has not answered the question. And having dealt with the 
gentleman over the years, I know how adept and adroit my good friend 
is, but I want to make it clear that he has not answered the question 
as to what blockhead it was that did this on this particular 
legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I share the concern of the 
gentleman in the well about the creation of the National Biological 
Service in the first place. I think it was a tactical mistake. I do not 
think it should have been done and I would join him in the actions that 
he described.
  Mr. DINGELL. Absolutely.
  Mr. OBEY. But I want to ask the gentleman from Ohio to reconsider 
what I think is really a mistake in attitude about how different 
functions of this Government can be carried out. You said during the 
debate on the rule that you would be happy to provide support for all 
of the volunteers that we wanted, if they were Ph.D. biologists.
  I would just make this observation. At the National Institutes of 
Health, if we insisted that only Ph.D. scientists could review routine 
data and perform routine tasks in compiling observations, we would 
raise the cost of medical research in this country tenfold.
  You do not need Ph.D. scientists to perform a lot of the functions at 
NIH or with respect to some of the surveys that the gentleman in the 
well is talking about and, with all due respect, to those who can make 
somewhat flippant remarks about the knowledge level of these 
volunteers, I suggest that their usage is perfectly appropriate in most 
of the instances that the gentleman in the well is talking about.
  And if you want to set up a standard that you have got to have a 
Ph.D. every time you deal with either a medical problem or an 
environmental problem, you are going to raise the cost of these 
programs by 10 to 15 times their present cost.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is particularly 
true in view of the fact that the Republican Party is also talking 
about the need to have volunteerism. Here we have a piece of 
legislation which simply bans volunteerism in a very important area.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.

[[Page H 6953]]

  Mr. Chairman, I support the Gilchrest-Dingell NBS [National 
Biological Service] volunteers amendments. During a time when budgets 
are being cut and agencies are being asked to do more with less, it 
makes little sense to prohibit the use of properly trained volunteers 
working under the supervision of professionals.
  Volunteers have provided a wide variety of services, from common 
labor to highly specialized areas of expertise. The last year for which 
national statistics were gathered--6,080 volunteers added at least 240 
FTE's to the National Biological Service's work force. That, Mr. 
Speaker, was an increase to the paid staff of almost 13 percent. The 
Department of the Interior's 30-year-old breeding bird survey would 
have been impossible had they not used volunteers.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleague not to set up artificial roadblocks 
to impede the Department of the Interior from gathering information 
that allows us to understand the health of our living resources. 
Support the Gilchrest-Dingell amendments.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Just to respond to the gentleman from Wisconsin, I would 
point out that there are over 200,000, probably 300,000, volunteers 
that serve all the agencies, and this amendment, nor does this language 
in the bill in any way affect them, and all I said is that if you are 
doing scientific work, it should be done by professionals as much as 
possible, and that is what we are attempting to do. If it is a high 
degree of science and the volunteer limitation is in the area of USGS 
that is devoted to natural resource research to developing ideas, then 
I think the researcher needs to have skills in order to make sure that 
is valid and quality science, and I know the gentleman from Michigan 
would agree with that.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, if that is so, why is this amendment 
necessary? This amendment is necessary to cure the mischief that is 
included in the appropriations bill which prohibits the use of these 
kinds of volunteers for this kind of work.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, this amendment is 
necessary to enable Fish and Wildlife to have adequate funds in 
addition to their regular duties, to do the breeding bird survey, which 
the gentleman very much wants to happen.
  Mr. DINGELL. I applaud what the gentleman is doing, but he still has 
not addressed the problem.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment that the reason 
that we wanted to ban volunteers in the scientific part of this bill 
was we feel that we need to depend upon better science than what is 
being used right now, and that if you have volunteers out gathering 
scientific data, that data can come back reflecting the agenda of the 
volunteers. If we are going to, as policymakers, make decisions based 
on science, we need to have it based on good science.
  If you have a bunch of volunteers running all over the country 
supposedly collecting scientific data, I believe that the data can come 
back skewed one way or the other, which does not benefit us.
  What the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is trying to do with this 
amendment is to cure one part of the bill that was overlooked when they 
drafted it. I believe it is a correct amendment. I support that 
amendment.
  But I will also support the ban on volunteers in gathering scientific 
data that we are supposed to base our decisions on.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. I hate to belabor the point, ladies and 
gentlemen, but the gentleman from Ohio has simply not answered the 
question the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and others have 
asked, and that is: Why do you have a ban on volunteers?
  And we are told that we have a ban on volunteers by the gentleman 
from Ohio and the gentleman from California only because we want good 
science. Well, if a PhD, if a Nobel Prize winner wants to volunteer, 
they cannot volunteer, because this says, ``No volunteers in the 
USGS'', so a Nobel Laureate cannot go out on the weekends and take 
water samples, take a little test tube, put it into the river and 
collect it and give it to a government scientist, because it says, ``No 
volunteers.'' It does not say, ``Volunteers except for Einstein.'' It 
says, ``No volunteers.''
  So you have not answered the question.
  It is not a property issue, because we just accepted the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] that says you can go 
onto private property if you are, in fact, invited by the owner of that 
property, as we have seen with a number of timber companies that want 
this service provided so they can design their cuts to maximize the 
efficiency of their operations and environmental protection. So you are 
stuck here with something that does not quite smell right.
  Now what else have you done? You really denigrate hundreds of 
thousands of people in this country. Some are bird watchers, some are 
reptilian fanciers, some are people who are interested in habitat, some 
are interested in this as a hobby, and they are very skilled people. 
They work in Yosemite National Park, they work in the Sequoias. They 
are collecting data. Yes; I say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] 
they are interrupted because every study that Fish and Wildlife does 
now will have to be redesigned and refunded because it is relying on 
volunteer programs designed by the National Biological Survey, which 
has now been put into the U.S. Geological Survey. You cut that budget 
by $49 million. You start to see the picture? You cut the budget. We 
need more volunteers. You prohibit the volunteers, and the other 
agencies that are relying on these volunteers now will not be able to 
use them because they come out of USGS.
  Why do you not give back the American people the right to volunteer 
on behalf of their Government? And why do you not give back to the 
Government the right to supervise those people? Because we have not had 
these complaints. We have not had the complaints in California where 
they are working in the Rosewood National Park to document changes in 
channel stability so we know what the farmers can do upstream in that 
area. They are working in Sequoia National Park, and they have over 480 
hours, for a total of 1,920 hours they have given collecting data, not 
rocket scientists, collecting data under the direction of people there.
  Over the last 15 years, 75 volunteers have contributed to the efforts 
of the Santa Cruz field station to help the 5 employees who are there. 
We see it in the National Park Service and the National Marine 
Fisheries, studies that are used that rely on these same people and 
these volunteers.
  They are doing it in Maine at Acadia National Park, monitoring bald 
eagle reproduction which contributed to the downlisting to removing 
this bird from the endangered species; the Southern Science Center has 
over 30 volunteers. These volunteers help in laboratories and 
greenhouses and help with the coastal mapping activities.
  These are American citizens who are out there helping their 
Government, helping the private sector, and what you are telling them 
is, ``No,'' you are telling them ``No.''
  You have them in Massachusetts at Turner Falls, at the global change 
lab in Hadley and the Cape Cod National Seashore field station; you 
have the great American fish count, where every year during 2 weeks in 
July thousands of people go in to count the fish. So, again, we can 
start to map what catches will be available or not be available. You 
have them in Alaska, where they help out in counting the Canadian 
geese. It goes on and on and on.

[[Page H 6954]]

  The point is this: The point is that many of these are very talented 
graduate students from our finest universities, and they volunteer. 
Now, mind you, some only have masters degrees, a hell of a lot more 
educated than many Members of this Congress in a specific field, and 
they are volunteering. Some of them are some of the most noted people 
in their fields as private citizens, but they go out during certain 
periods of the year to help us find out more and more about species and 
about habitat, to help the Government make intelligent decisions, and 
we are going to cut these people off. We are going to cut these people 
off even though we have the protection that they cannot go on private 
land without being invited and even though they are following the 
direction of government employees or contractors or what have you.
  We have them in the State heritage programs, very important programs 
to most States. They are helping the States design these programs. We 
cannot use them, because they are now in the USGS. Why can we not use 
them? Because we said that we did not want to use them because they are 
scientists; they are scientists in many instances. You ought to get 
yourself out of this situation. You ought to get yourself out of this 
situation. You ought to go back to what President Bush talked about, 
the 10,000 points of light. We have got to go with what every President 
of the United States has talked about, encouraging voluntarism.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 4 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have got to understand the 
kind of time that these people are giving the Government, and now 
apparently if they are not associated with the USGS, they will still be 
allowed to do that.They could do it for NASA, they could do it in the 
fields of education, they could do it at NIH, they can do it everywhere 
else in the Government, but we are not going to let them wade into our 
streams and put a beaker down and pick up some water and take it to the 
laboratory. We are not going to let them pick a little bit of flowers 
or identify a bird even though they may be the best people in the 
Nation identifying the bird.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, as a member of the 
authorizing committee, knows full well that USGS will now have four 
branches, including the one on natural resource research. There is no 
limitation in the other three divisions, geologic, water, you mentioned 
water, there is no restriction, and mapping.
  Mr. MILLER of California. There is a restriction.
  Here are all the grants; here are all the programs ongoing for 5 
years, 3 years. They have to be rewritten now because you prohibit the 
thousands of Americans who are helping their Government because these 
programs are off limits. Now these programs are off limits.
  You say you want the authorizing committee, fine, let us design it. 
You put a ban on it, so for the next fiscal year they cannot do this.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, if you read the 
language carefully, it says in the natural resource research arm of 
USGS. That is just 1 out of 4.
  Mr. MILLER of California. That is the people running this program.
  Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate what you are saying. 
You have taken the National Biological Survey, you have put it into the 
science function of USGS.
  Mr. REGULA. We abolished it and created this function.
  Mr. MILLER of California. In the transfer, somebody lost $50 million, 
and in the transfer they lost the right to all the volunteers, and in 
the transfer they lost the right of these thousands of citizens to 
participate with Fish and Wildlife or any other agency who are relying 
on these; yes, they were relying on the Biological Survey. The programs 
have now been abolished and transferred.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. When we started getting into this whole argument about 
what we did with NSB, the National Biological Survey, in maintaining 
the science function, I was told as we passed on the House floor last 
year, there was a ban on volunteers, that the National Biological 
Survey was not using volunteers in accordance with the ban that was 
passed on the House floor.
  Mr. MILLER of California. You are getting bad information. Here is 
program after program in our State and other States.
  Mr. POMBO. If the director of the National Biological Survey is 
giving me bad information, I apologize.
  Mr. MILLER of California. They are in fact using the volunteers. Here 
it is. You still have not told me why you would ban this group of 
Americans from participating with the Government like hundreds of 
thousands of other Americans getting to participate on a voluntary 
basis.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] says if he goes into the 
hospital, he does not want a volunteer doing the work.
  Mr. REGULA. Specific work.
  Mr. MILLER of California. When the doctor gets to taking your urine 
sample, who is going to carry it down the hall? Do you want to pay the 
surgeon's rates, or would you like to have somebody else help out the 
surgeon?
  Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman would yield, the reason that we are 
banning them on science is that you are fully aware of the fact that 
there is very little effort on the part of private property owners in 
this country to participate with volunteers. We feel that the best way 
to collect scientific data is using professionals, and we feel it is 
extremely important that we use the best science possible.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, the point is this: As 
already stated, you can have people who have their Ph.D.'s, who have a 
Nobel Prize, and they cannot volunteer in the science part of USGS 
under this bill. There are no exceptions.
  Now, even though they cannot get onto the land that you are concerned 
about, and we are all concerned about, without the owners' invitation, 
and I suspect he would ask are you going to have 50 grade school 
children running around my land, or are you going to have some serious 
scientists conducting this study, then he would decide whether or not 
he or she would extend that invitation. You have all those built-in 
safeguards. Somehow we are not going to let highly qualified, talented 
people who happen to want to volunteer in one little piece of the 
Federal Government, and I still have not heard the reason why.
  I think we ought to strike this provision.


 Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest as a substitute for the amendment 
                         offered by Mr. Regula

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Regula: Page 19, line 17, insert 
     after ``program'' the following: ``when it is made known to 
     the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend 
     such funds that the volunteers are not properly trained or 
     that information gathered by the volunteers is not carefully 
     verified''.

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say something quickly 
about volunteers. My own son right now is an unpaid volunteer to record 
information for the Museum of Natural History. I was a volunteer for 
the Forest Service in a wilderness cabin, designated wilderness area, 
because the Forest Service could not afford to put somebody in that 
particular cabin.
  We are working with the USGS; that is a little bit different, but the 
concept is the same.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fairly straightforward. It would 
allow the U.S. Geological Survey to use volunteers for research, 
provided those volunteers are appropriately trained and supervised and 
that their data is verified. It reflects almost exactly the language 
adopted in the subcommittee.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. 

[[Page H 6955]]

  Mr. YATES. I accept the gentleman's amendment. I think it is a good 
amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman.
  I would like to make just a couple more points, if I may.
  Last year we all learned many Members had concerns about the National 
Biological Survey. There was a perception that it was a band of 
environmental activists who would seek to find endangered species on 
private property, and I would be willing to say, in some instances, 
that probably happened. It was feared that volunteers had more agenda 
than training and that their data would be inaccurate. I believe, at 
best, these concerns very often are overstated.
  Let me talk about what this amendment does not do.

                              {time}  1345

  It does not allow anyone to collect any resource data on private 
property. The explicit language of the bill prohibits research on 
private property. It does not allow untrained environmental activists 
to sign up to count species. All volunteers must have adequate 
training. For those who are concerned that volunteers will manufacture 
data, the amendment requires supervision of the volunteers and a 
verification of this data.
  This amendment is not about property rights. Again let me emphasize 
that the language of the bill prohibits data collection on private 
property. Researchers could only collect data on public property.
  This amendment is not about the Endangered Species Act. The purpose 
of this research is to take inventory of natural resources. If this 
study were to overlap the Endangered Species Act, it would most likely 
be because new counts of certain species would result in their being 
upgraded or delisted, which would help all of us. This is not an effort 
to find out which species are endangered; it is an effort to find out 
what species we have.
  Day after day on the House floor we hear people talking about good 
science. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science just 
yesterday, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], made an 
excellent speech about the value of research, and volunteers are 
critical for this effort. We simply do not have enough money to pay all 
the people necessary to collect this data. If this amendment is not 
adopted, then a retired professional with a degree in ornithology, or 
something of this nature, would not be allowed to help collect 
scientific data even though he was perfectly trained to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, who benefits from this substitute amendment? How can 
someone argue that we are better off not knowing what plants or animals 
are out there? Does anyone believe, does anyone believe, that ignorance 
is our friend and knowledge is our enemy? I do not think so. People 
want to give us verified information for free. I cannot understand why 
we would not want that, and we are prohibiting the Federal Government 
from accepting it. In fact, we will only accept it if we are allowed to 
pay for it. I do not think that is being very wise.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close by emphasizing that this amendment is not 
about property rights. We already have that. This amendment is not 
about endangered species; that fight is yet to come. It is simply about 
allowing the Government to accept free research, and I would ask my 
colleagues to accept this substitute amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's explanation has confirmed 
the opinion that I expressed in the first place. I think it is a very 
good amendment, and, as far as our side is concerned, we are willing to 
accept it. I would urge my chairman to accept it as well.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one other comment 
about volunteers and use the State of Alaska for an example.
  For 10 years over 20 Yupik Eskimo student volunteers have donated 
over hundreds of hours assisting the Alaska Science Center band 
cackling Canada geese in western Alaska. They calculated the annual and 
seasonal mortality of the population by resighting the neck-collared 
geese in Oregon and California, their wintering habitat.
  Without this data collection there would be basically no hunting 
season. This type of data collection by volunteers who are trained, 
whose information is verified, will save the U.S. government millions 
of dollars and, I am sure, do what both sides of this issue wanted to 
do. That is try and get information.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Pombo and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gilchrest was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, ``You in your 
amendment say that the volunteers are not properly trained or that 
information gathered by the volunteers is not carefully verified. I 
would like to ask the maker of this amendment who will be determining 
whether or not the volunteers are properly trained or that the 
information is carefully verified.''
  Mr. GILCHREST. The Federal officials will verify the research and 
have the funding for that particular program which ultimately is the 
Secretary of the Interior.
  Mr. POMBO. So the gentleman's definition of this is that the Federal 
officials themselves would be determining that.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition. I am a big fan of 
volunteers. As we have hearings, I ask each of the agencies, ``How many 
volunteers do you use?`` I am a volunteer myself. I just worked on a 
home for Habitat last Saturday, and I am not a skilled carpenter, to 
say the least. But I want to point out to the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Gilchrest] that this would in no way inhibit his son from working 
with the Forest Service. It in no way inhibits the volunteers in 
Alaska. It is a very restrictive area that we do not allow the use of 
volunteers.
  In addition I would say to the gentleman he is a member of the 
Committee on Natural Resources. The language in this bill that 
establishes the Natural Resources section of USGS says clearly that, as 
soon as an authorizing committee produces legislation, that will 
override, and I would urge the gentleman, as the authorizing committee 
works on developing legislation in this field, to bring to that, the 
members of his committee, his ideas on volunteerism, and perhaps it can 
be very narrowly restricted to ensure to the owners of private property 
that they will not have the
 problems that they have suffered to some extent in the past.

  In addition let me point out again that this in no way, no way 
whatsoever, affects volunteers in the Forest Service, the Park Service, 
the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 
USGS, except for the very narrow activities in the area of natural 
resource research.
  I think it is great. Volunteerism is very much a part of the American 
way, and it's just, that in this instance, we are trying to narrow the 
way in which this program is used.
  This is not NBS. This bill will eliminate NBS. Until September 30 
they would continue to use volunteers as they choose, and, hopefully 
before that, the gentleman's committee will have a bill and will 
reflect some of the gentleman's ideas on volunteerism.
  Mr. GILCHRIST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHRIST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his suggestion 
about correcting some of the problems so that we can make better use of 
volunteers, reduce the costs of collecting data to enhance the quality 
of data we collect, and I certainly will pursue that agenda. But I 
think we could correct the problem right now if we adopt the substitute 
amendment.
  I also want to make two other quick points, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield. The bill says the following if there are any 
concerns about private property rights on page 19, starting on line 12:

 
[[Page H 6956]]

       Provided further, That none of the funds available under 
     this head for resource research shall be used to conduct new 
     surveys on private property.

  So the key has locked the door and slammed it shut to protect private 
property rights.
  What we are looking for, Mr. Chairman, and I understand and I 
appreciate the fact that National Biologic Survey has been wiped out, 
but sent over to the U.S. Geological Survey, which is a reputable, 
scientific organization, but in that area of USGS where they will be 
collecting data for species around this country so that we can have 
some sense of the
 health of the biological diversity of this country, the importance of 
biological diversity of this country, the potential value of biological 
diversity in this country, will be hampered and hindered unless we give 
that particular agency the tools to collect that data, and I think we 
have strapped USGS by limiting the use of trained volunteers when the 
information that they bring back to them will be verified.

  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, two points. One is that the gentleman 
will have an opportunity in the authorizing committee to bring to that 
committee his ideas. We would hope there would be a permanent bill 
prior to October 1 and, therefore, this language will not go into 
effect.
  Second, we just accepted an amendment on both sides of the aisle that 
says that, if it is requested and authorized in writing by the property 
owner, that they can under this natural resource research division in 
USGS go on private property lands. So it is not just restricted. I say 
to the gentleman, ``You see that changes the dynamics.''
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. There have been some significant changes that I think 
have gone in the right direction. The Breeding Bird Survey I think 
takes up about half of the volunteers in this country. To allow a 
willing property owner to have species studied on his property, that is 
another move in the right direction, I think, for fiscal reasons.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. Chairman, again with great respect and great affection for my 
good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, I would like to support 
this amendment very strongly which is offered on behalf of the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and by our good friend, the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest]. It is a good amendment.
  As my colleagues know, I cannot understand what it is that the 
Committee on Appropriations has against using volunteers to collect 
scientific data and information. If that is their concern, they should 
say so. I have asked on a number of occasions why is the language at 
lines 12 through 17 in the bill? There is no answer. What abuse is this 
language directed at? Has there been some impropriety by Fish and 
Wildlife or by the Biological Survey which has been committed which 
would trigger this kind of response? The answer is nobody knows, but 
all of a sudden this language shows up, and it says:

       You can't use volunteers at the Biological Survey to 
     collect data and information which would be of value in 
     understanding what is going on with regard to our fish and 
     wildlife resources in this country.

  Now this language is not something which is thought lightly of in the 
conservation community. The Audubon Society, the Trails Unlimited, 
National Wildlife Federation, and the International Association of Fish 
and Wildlife agencies all are opposed to the language, and all support 
the amendment because they recognize that we need to have information 
to manage wildlife resources. Without it we cannot do an intelligent 
job of managing those precious resources.
  We are not talking about endangered species. We are not talking about 
regulatory actions. All we are talking about is the collection of 
information and data of scientific information and of utilizing 
volunteers to assist the taxpayers and the Government in carrying out 
the mission of this Government. Why that should cause distress, pain, 
suffering, and heartburn on the part of my friends on the Committee on 
Appropriations I do not know.
  Mr. Chairman, I have inquired to find out what it is that distresses 
so many of my friends on the Committee on Appropriations about that 
situation. They cannot say.
  The hard fact of the matter is that volunteers are used throughout 
the entirety of government and they serve well and honorably. They 
provide informational services. They serve as associates in the 
administration of public lands. They serve as volunteers at hospitals 
to assist the sick and the ill in government-run hospitals. They serve 
at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation. 
We have a large internship program here, and yet we say no Fish and 
Wildlife, Biological Survey, Interior Department can use volunteers. 
Why? Nobody knows, but it causes great distress to the Committee on 
Appropriations so they put in this language.
  Now the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, all 
of my colleagues' home-State Fish and Wildlife administrators, their 
game and fish commissions in their own States, say that is a bad thing, 
that that language should be removed, that we should use volunteers. My 
dear friend from Ohio, for whom I have the most enormous respect, 
cannot tell us why this language is here. Obviously he is under some 
sort of pressure, and I respect him for having responded to it with 
such grace and dignity, and I must say that there is no man who could 
have done a better job in handling a bad hand in a poker game, but the 
hard fact of the matter is this language is bad, it is unwise, it is 
unnecessary. The chairman of the subcommittee cannot explain why it is 
here.
  So, we ought to adopt this amendment. What we really ought to do is 
to strike the entirety of the language from line 12 down through line 
17. Then we would have a program which would continue to make the 
public be able to participate in their government, to enable us to 
derive enormous advantage from the service of ordinary citizens to save 
money on behalf of the taxpayers, to gather needed information in a 
timely fashion so that we can protect the precious and treasured Fish 
and Wildlife resources in the United States.
                              {time}  1400

  Why we are trying to deny ourselves that, I cannot explain. My good 
friend from Ohio, the chairman of the subcommittee, cannot explain why. 
I have asked him on several occasions. He suffered mightily over the 
question, but he cannot answer it.
  So my urging to my colleagues is, join the responsible people in the 
conservation community. Join your own home State fish and game 
administrator. Support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], and then let us try and lay to rest this 
cockamamie idea that we should not use volunteers in this country 
because some oddball somewhere gets the idea that we really should not.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing here that says we cannot 
use volunteers in America. It is a very narrowly constricted area. We 
permit hundreds of thousands of volunteers, and your friends at Fish 
and Wildlife can continue to volunteer. I am trying to let them do the 
breeding bird survey, if you let me get to the amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gilchrest amendment. I 
am a little bit baffled by the language this bill is amending. Why is 
the Committee on Appropriations so fearful of volunteers? I always 
thought the Republican Party was the champion of volunteerism. That is 
what Ronald Reagan said, volunteers were to take over what had been 
government responsibilities. That is what George Bush said, volunteers 
were 1,000 points of light.
  But here we have a program that uses thousands of volunteers to help 
carry out what would otherwise be a very expensive government function, 
and we want to turn them away unceremoniously.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H 6957]]

  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. This is a new program. It cannot have used thousands of 
volunteers, because it has not been in existence.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, for such a reversal 
of our party's course, quite frankly, one must assume that these 
volunteers were some sort of dangerous cabal or cadre. But who are most 
of these volunteers? Bird watchers? Not a bunch who are thought to be a 
very dangerous group.
  Well, I for one am willing to take the risk and let the bird watchers 
and the fish counters and other volunteers go about their business. I 
am willing to trust that they will be well-trained and well-supervised, 
as they have been, and as the Gilchrest amendment requires, and they 
will provide information to help policy makers make informed decisions.
  I have said it many times on this floor and I will repeat it: The 
American people want us to do more with less, not to do more knowing 
less. I urge my colleagues to support this well-reasoned, very 
carefully crafted amendment, and to endorse our traditional source and 
encouragement for volunteers.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment about 
volunteers that would come under the jurisdiction of USGS as far as 
collecting data on species. In Maine and Maryland, recently volunteers 
are the ones who collected the data that was used by the National 
Biological Survey that would now be incorporated into the USGS to 
delist bald eagles. It was the important use of those volunteers that 
went out into the field, very well-trained, the information was 
verified, and in the State of Maine now and the State of Maryland, the 
bald eagle is now delisted from endangered to threatened. That was the 
value of volunteers. It could not have been done without those 
valuable, trained volunteers.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, volunteers all across America, in so many 
aspects of our daily life, do wonderful service for the American 
people. We here in the people's House should be encouraging them.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to myself and all of my colleagues 
who have participated in this debate, not only today, but its 
predecessor a couple of years ago when we first authorized in this 
House the National Biological Survey, this has to be one of the 
silliest debates I have ever had the privilege to be participating in.
  I invite Members to concentrate on what it is we have been talking 
about. There have been three propositions before us in the course of 
the day: The first is the one that is in the bill, and it is based on 
the premise apparently there is something inherently pernicious about 
volunteers, because it prohibits them outright from the research of the 
U.S. Geological Survey. No volunteers. No one has yet told us what is 
particularly pernicious and dangerous about volunteers, but it 
prohibits them.
  The second proposition before us is offered by the distinguished 
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio. The
 essence of the gentleman's amendment is, well, on the other hand, 
maybe you can have them. They are OK for the migratory bird survey, but 
not for anything else. But that raises the obvious question, if they 
are not pernicious for the migratory bird survey, why are they so 
dangerous for the rest of he Geological Survey?

  Now, believe it or not, the third proposition before us, offered by 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], is, if I may roughly 
translate it, volunteers are OK, as long as they are competent.
  What is truly staggering is that is being opposed here on this floor 
passionately by Members who think this is a major issue. We must not 
allow competent volunteers to participate in the Geological Survey.
  A citizen, in the unlikely event that one is still listening, might 
ask himself or herself, what are they doing? Have they lost it 
altogether? We are actually opposing the proposition that competent 
volunteers ought to be allowed to help us. For God's sake, we are 
proposing to extinguish the Points of Light that Republican Presidents 
used to talk endlessly about.
  Not only that, but, shockingly, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] 
has revealed that in our very midst there are volunteers, on this floor 
as we speak. My God, there are volunteers. The gentleman from Ohio has 
pled guilty, the gentleman from Maryland has pled guilty, and I have a 
revelation to make. I hope Members will not be shocked, because I know 
there are Members here who are offended, frightened, and somehow 
outraged by the very thought of volunteers. We do not usually do this, 
but the distinguished gentlewoman staff member of this committee, Karen 
Stoyer, was a volunteer. I hate to tell you she is not a Ph.D. She was 
counting whales at a research center on Cape Cod. She concluded, and I 
think most Members might agree, that you do not need a Ph.D. They are 
very big. They are not hard to count. That is part of the work that is 
being done here.
  I submit that the propositions before us are apparently absurd. We 
have more important work to do. Let us adopt the extraordinary 
contention of the gentleman from Maryland that competent volunteers are 
OK, and get along with our business.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak adamantly against the proposal, the 
amendment that is on the floor. First of all, I want to make it very 
clear that none of us oppose the use of volunteers, and I think those 
who have any honesty on the other side really do know that. But we are 
opposed to using volunteers when the work product that is produced is 
not adequate and is not accurate.
  It has been asked several times, well, just exactly what is the 
problem? Well, I am here to tell you what the problem is. I am from the 
West, and I notice that people who have spoken in favor of this 
amendment are from Maine and Maryland and Massachusetts and Michigan 
and New York. And what they do not understand about places like Wyoming 
and Nevada and Utah is the ownership configuration of the land. It is a 
checkerboard configuration. Forty acres is about 2.2 square miles. So 
every other 2.2 square miles is privately owned, and then publicly 
owned, privately owned, and then publicly owned. So when volunteers go 
out, they, unknowingly, possibly, go on to private land and violate 
private property rights. That is a problem, because this boils down to 
private property rights.
  Many, many times, in their zeal to protect and preserve the resource, 
they show little respect for private property rights. They also, again, 
with all the best intentions, sometimes have a subjective bias to the 
resource that they are counting. That is why they are there, because 
that is their interest. So they have a subjective bias, and most have 
their own environmental bias, which tends to totally disregard private 
property rights.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CUBIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that if you wanted to 
do surveys on promoting unionism, labor unionism, the volunteers you 
would get would be labor. They would not come from the management side. 
If you wanted to get volunteerism to promote abortion rights, you would 
not get volunteers from the other side of the issue.
  On this issue, the volunteers have a specific agenda, as the 
gentlewoman has mentioned, and that is natural that you will get 
volunteers from that side. And when the agenda requires research, and 
the only research you are going to get and the numbers you are going to 
get are from the side that promotes the environmental side, that is 
wrong, and that is the whole reason that you have to do this. Even 
Ph.D's that have an agenda are not going to solve the problem. If you 
could get a 

[[Page H 6958]]
balance of those that would do the research and the counts and the 
numbers, that would be a different story, but that is not what is 
happening.
  I could give you horror story after horror story on my own properties 
as well as property owners within my district that simply say you have 
got to do away with the people that impose upon your property rights.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to explain one 
more thing. My district, my State, is 98,000 square miles. As I said, 
much of it is owned in this checkerboard fashion. So it makes it very 
difficult to have volunteers go out and have control over them.
  If you are going to cover 98,000 square miles with volunteers that 
are closely supervised, why not just have the supervisors count the 
flora and fauna on the public lands and leave the private land alone.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mrs. CUBIN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, we want to ensure that no one is going 
to go on private land. We realize, and I have lived in the West, the 
difficulty sometimes of knowing what is private land and what is public 
land. That is why we wanted these volunteers to be very well trained 
and supervised, so they do not violate anybody's private property.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, many of these places 
have not been surveyed. Many of these sections have not been surveyed. 
So it requires a professional to know what is private land and what is 
public land.
  Again, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of square 
miles that are owned in this way without markers, without corner posts, 
so that people will know where the land is. That is why I am saying 
that is is necessary that professionals do the counting in the West, 
and that is the reason for the chairman's amendment, and I think the 
chairman's amendment is good, and I hope you will defeat the amendment 
on the floor.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just would like to ask the chairman if he could 
propound a unanimous consent request regarding debate time on this 
amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we have been 
thinking about getting a unanimous consent agreement. Does the 
gentleman's side want to limit debate to another additional 20 minutes?
  Mr. YATES. We would be willing to vote as soon as the gentlewoman 
from Colorado is through.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, we have a couple more 
speakers.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all time for debate on 
this amendment be limited to 2:30 p.m.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand as a westerner to engage myself in this debate. 
Mr. Chairman, there seemed to be a protest from the other side that 
there was nobody talking from the West. Colorado is from the West. I 
was born in the West, Oregon, and I have letters here from my very own 
district saying that they really do believe that volunteers are very 
essential. I have a letter here from a women in my district talking 
about how important these surveys are and that as an Audubon volunteer 
she is willing to go out and do all of this.
  You just heard about private property, private property, private 
property. Guess what; you cannot go on private property as a volunteer 
without permission of the owner. So that is kind of a bogeyman that 
someone is throwing out there.
  The other thing you hear about volunteers are biased, what do you 
mean? How can you be biased in favor of birds, or biased in favor of 
migratory birds? I do not understand what all this bias, bias means.
  I assume that these are good citizens who are wanting to go out and 
take a look at what the wildlife is looking like, and they are trying 
to monitor it. There is never enough money to get that kind of 
information, I cannot understand what they are talking about, whether 
they are going to be biased or not.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I just heard the gentleman from California 
somehow talk about unionization in this effort. Is the gentlewoman 
aware of any effort that she knows of to unionize birds?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the birds have a union. 
I have been listening to this debate thinking it is not worth getting 
into because it does not make any sense. My understanding is all this 
debate is about is an amendment to allow volunteers to be used to 
monitor migratory birds and then there is an amendment to the amendment 
saying they have to be competent volunteers. I think that is what it is 
about.
  All of this is modified by the fact that you cannot go on private 
property without the owner's permission and now we are hearing that 
some of them might be biased or birds may be getting a union. People 
are wondering what is going on with us. They are going to want 
volunteers to be in here carrying on this debate.
  I have a letter from a woman in Colorado. Her name is Pauline Ritz. 
She is with the Denver Audubon society. She points out that she is 
considered
 perfectly competent to volunteer in her children's schools, as many of 
us do.

  She was considered perfectly competent to volunteer at the Denver 
Arsenal, when we were busy trying to make it into a wildlife refuge, 
even though that arsenal had some of the most polluted land in the 
world. People were able to figure out how to utilize volunteers very 
well to move that forward and create something very exciting. And she 
goes on to point out many other things.
  So I think this is a wonderful use of resources. America is about 
volunteerism.
  You could go all the way back to the 1700's, Europeans visiting here 
could never believe the passionate volunteerism that we had trying to 
make this country great.
  Now, migratory birds and all of these issues are terribly important, 
I think, for future generations, and nobody wants to go out and hire 
Federal employees to sit around and count them, because we do not have 
that kind of money. We are cutting off some essential services.
  If I am missing something, let me know what it is. This just seems so 
simple that I understand frustration of the gentleman from Illinois. 
Why are we debating this? What is wrong with competent volunteers being 
able to deal with migratory bird issues, even though we are shutting 
them out of everything else and with the whole private property area 
saying you have to have the owner. Why is this a debate? People keep 
accusing this side of the aisle of stalling things, but these 
amendments are coming from that side of the aisle. And they are just 
incredible amendments that I cannot figure out why we are spending this 
body's time.
  I would hope that this body could move propitiously to endorse the 
amendment to the amendment and then the amendment to the bill, and I 
think everybody out there will scratch their head and say, my goodness, 
what is going on there today. There must be something in the water.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and any amendments thereto close at 2:30 and that time 
be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close at 2:35 and that the 
time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, there are 

[[Page H 6959]]
  Members here who have not had an opportunity to speak. And I would 
appreciate it if the gentleman would at least extend this time. I am 
sure there are other Members who would like to speak yet.
  Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, we were all going to speak for 5 
minutes, too. We said that we will not object to the limitation of 
time. We would all like to get through the thing and give the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller] his time and us, too. I will not take the 
5 minutes, and I was even going to yield to cut the time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this 
amendment and all amendments thereto close at 2:40 p.m. and that the 
time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time for debate on the pending amendment and all 
amendments thereto shall expire at 2:40, which would be 20 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] 
and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the bird survey that we are talking about is put there 
for a specific agenda; it is to count birds. We have been asked why 
would we oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest]. Some of the Members have indicated that it is trivial, why 
we would oppose it. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that it is not.
  Why would I say that? The previous actions of this House and of the 
Members and of specific agendas that have been pushed through in the 
past have superseded common sense. I look at the last time that this 
body was in the majority on the other side. They were pushing to even 
have these volunteers to be able to go on the land without permission, 
without permission of the private property owner. Now they cannot do 
that, so they are trying to get volunteers.
  I would look at the comments of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Packard]. If you have different agendas, you would go to those groups 
to have them go into those areas. And the other side of the aisle, some 
of the speakers, and some on our side, too, as well, believe and they 
will say strongly, and they have a right to their opinion, but have 
pushed that agenda to the extreme. And the people that are out in the 
field, they support that agenda. That is why those volunteers would be 
even further pushing that agenda. We think that that is wrong.
  I look at past actions on private property rights and the inability 
of those same people that I discussed of yielding anything but to push 
right through.
  The gentleman here that offers the amendment on private property 
rights, on the California desert bill, we had a thing in California 
where people were even asking to disk around their field because there 
is a fire season, and we were denied. We lost a whole bunch of homes 
because of it.
  It is that reason why we question this amendment. In the future, if 
we can work closer together to come somewhere to the center of these 
things, then it would be frivolous to bring this up. But at this time 
we do not feel it is.
  There is no definition of carefully trained. There is no definition 
of carefully verified. It would be those individuals with that specific 
agenda in mind that would be out there in the field that would also 
gather the data, which would be biased. And we object to that type of 
motivation.
  So it is not just volunteers. It is the type of volunteers that would 
be worked in this group to push a specific agenda.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the supporters of banning 
American citizens from volunteering for the USGS are simply not being 
candid with the Members of this House. They say that the volunteers may 
be biased. Does that mean that people who they want to volunteer for 
the migratory bird count are not biased? Are the environmentalists who 
go out and count for migratory bird count, are they undercounting the 
birds so the shooting limit will be less? Are the gunners who go out 
and count for the migratory bird count, are they overcounting the birds 
so the limits will be higher, the seasons will be longer. You trust 
those people. But you do not trust the Boy Scouts who gave 1,000 hours 
in Wisconsin. You do not trust 32 veterinary students who volunteered 
the time of three full-time employees to do autopsies on animals. You 
do not trust them.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] comes down here and 
talks about some conspiracy of bias, and he is sponsoring legislation 
and pushing for legislation to let us accept science from industry. 
Something is going on here. What is going on here is a very, very 
extreme agenda about taking American citizens who are interested in the 
environment out of the equation.
  This amendment now says you must be qualified and supervised, you 
cannot go on to private land without the invitation of the owner. So it 
is not a property rights issue. It is not a competency issue. It is an 
extreme radical right-wing agenda about taking American citizens out of 
one part, one small part of the environmental movement, one small part 
of data gathering for the entire Federal Government.
  Under the bill as written, it does not matter, as I said, if you have 
a Nobel laureate; you cannot gather this information. You cannot gather 
this information. Graduate students cannot gather this information. 
There is something terribly wrong here, because they are talking all 
around the amendment, but they will not talk to the amendment.
  We look out here at the Patuxent environmental science group; 849 
volunteers provide the information. They gather if for the scientists 
who put it to peer review. We are not going to allow them to do that 
under this legislation. The thousands of people that go on the Fourth 
of July butterfly count, the butterfly count across this Nation on the 
Fourth of July could not turn in their information to the USGS. The 
Christmas bird count, thousands and thousands of your citizens who go 
out every year could not turn in their information to the USGS under 
this amendment.
  Is that really what you want to do? Do you want to single out the Boy 
Scouts, the Nobel laureates, the Fourth of July butterfly count, the 
Christmas bird count? I do not think that is what you want to do. What 
you really are trying to do is strangle, strangle our ability to gather 
information that has an impact on our ability to manage habitat, to 
manage species and try to help private citizens, governmental agencies, 
and corporate America make decisions about the use of their lands, the 
sustainability of their profit-making use of the land and the 
environmental use of that land.
  And somehow this is what you have done. You have decided that you are 
going to take tens of thousands of Americans who are qualified, who are 
carrying out the best tradition of volunteerism. You do not like 
AmeriCorps. You do not like them if they are paid. And now you do not 
like them if they are volunteers. It is simply not fair to these 
Americans. It is simply not fair to our constituents.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by Mr. 
Gilchrest that would return H.R. 1977 to its original language 
regarding the selection of personnel for resource research by the 
National Biological Survey. I believe that the language of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee had thoughtfully covered the concerns of 
all parties involved. Volunteers had to be properly 

[[Page H 6960]]
trained and supervised, and the information collected carefully 
verified.
  I admit that to be supporting language that does anything less than 
gratefully thank volunteers for their indispensable assistance is 
certainly a first for me. We are talking here about citizens who care 
enough about an issue to give their time, energy, expertise, and 
dedicated effort for a task that is seldom easy. For example, to obtain 
information about the causes of the declining populations of canvasback 
ducks who winter in and around the Chesapeake Bay requires studies of 
their mortality, nutrition, activity, and habitat. How can we justify 
refusing the scientists the benefit of volunteer, unpaid assistants to 
help with this demanding work? In just makes no sense.
  I would also like to state that I do not support an interruption in 
the listing and prelisting process under the Endangered Species Act, 
even though it is stated that it is only until the act is reauthorized. 
In addition, I believe that the funding level for the ESA is woefully 
short of being adequate. Again, I look to the reauthorization process 
and intend to share my concerns at that time. I do appreciate, however, 
that the Appropriations Committee has worked long and hard to balance 
conflicting interests and I accept the fact that several programs that 
I strongly support will have major changes. However, I think that this 
particular one, the use of trained and supervised volunteers, will have 
far-reaching negative and unintended consequences.
  I urge this body to support the Gilchrest amendment.
                              {time}  1430

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of 
the Gilchrest amendment. Let me just state from the outset that we have 
seen the devolution of authority go back to the States with respect to 
a number of programs, one of the most critical of which is protecting 
our environment. To show the absurdity of the Republican effort to 
protect the environment, they say ``Let all thee States do it. Let us 
have a State by State approach.''
  It really makes no sense, when you are trying to clean up the air, 
because you cannot draw State lines around our air quality. We cannot 
draw State lines around our water quality.
  Now, with the amendment being proposed, they want to draw private 
property rights around migratory bird patterns. They want to draw 
property rights around fish species, like the fish only go to some 
person's property as opposed to someone else's. They want to say, 
``Listen, if we want to put the power back into the locals' hands,'' 
that is what the big Republican mantra is, give it back to the locals; 
yet with the amendment being proposed, and hopefully we will support 
Gilchrest that would remedy it, they want to take the local initiative 
out of environmental protection.
  I think this is the critical issue why we need to support the 
Gilchrest amendment, because we have seen the bumper stickers, ``Think 
globally, act locally.'' How can we expect people to take the 
initiative on the local level if we say to them, ``We are not going to 
allow you to participate in protecting your own backyard?'' In my 
State, people are passionate about conserving and protecting their 
environment. Yet, this proposal by the Republicans on the floor today 
would say volunteers cannot go out and try to protect their own 
environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that this House adopts the Gilchrest amendment 
and strikes the language that would bar volunteers from participating 
in protecting their own environments.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would really like once again to 
reiterate some points. First of all, this is a Republican amendment, I 
would just like to make that point. I am a Republican. We are all 
working together here.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, no one wants to violate anybody's 
property rights at all. We do not want to do that. It is in the bill to 
protect property rights.
  This agenda to have volunteers is not to make something out of 
nothing. We are not going to run around there and try to find some 
hidden way to keep people from using their property. This is about 
biological data. What is the potential use of collecting biological 
data? There are a lot of viruses out there that are becoming resistant 
to antibiotics now. There is endless potential for a variety of 
chemical agents, yet uncovered, to be able to avoid calamities and 
disasters with new diseases or present diseases.
  This is about collecting biological data which will cure or help with 
heart problems, with cancer problems, with hypertension, with new 
viruses, with pain killers, with natural insecticides, with this plague 
that we call AIDS. This is biological data. We do not have enough money 
to pay for all of this information. We need well-trained, well-
verified, good volunteers. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
substitute amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that pro-choice and pro-
life was brought up, perhaps we can assure our colleagues that we will 
see to it that the volunteers are equally divided between pro-choice 
and pro-life, understanding, of course, it is choice for the birds.
  Mr. GILCHREST. That is a very good recommendation, and it is whether 
or not to eat the chicken eggs, or to hatch the chicken eggs, I guess. 
The question is collecting biological data, the health of the country, 
using well-trained volunteers. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Gilchrest amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this amendment 
is a compromise amendment. I cannot imagine why anybody would vote 
against it. It is not what a lot of people have indicated, an open door 
to volunteers being able to be utilized.
  What the bill says, and I think that the author of the bill 
recognized it as a Republican amendment, but the bad side is also a 
Republican bill. That is that the bill says that none of the funds 
provided for resources research may be used to administer a volunteer 
program; and what the language says, ``unless that volunteer is 
properly trained and the information is carefully verified.'' So this 
is a half a loaf, it is a good amendment. I urge everybody on both 
sides of the aisle to support it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is alluding to the amendment 
of the gentleman from Maryland, and it is a Republican amendment. I 
hope everybody will support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been here 18\1/2\ years. This is the weirdest 
debate that I have ever participated in. For an hour and a half, for an 
hour and a half, we have been talking about whether we can use 
volunteers or not. How much money are we saving, here? We are not 
saving a whole bunch of money, we are not spending a whole bunch of 
money, we are just asking the right, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest] is, the right of people, taxpayers, the people that Members 
are supposed to be so proud of, and these are people that are out there 
working day and night, and they are taking their time off to go out and 
get information, information.
  Are Members scared of information? That is what it sounds to me like, 
that the radical right is scared to death that they might find 
something out that they do not want to know about, so we put it away, 
do not find out about it. It is only volunteers. What my former 
President, my President, your President, Reagan pushed so hard for was 
voluntarism. Now we are saying no to voluntarism.
  There might be something under that rock that we do not want to know 
about, or something in that water, ``Oh, oh, we do not want to know 
about it''; or something in the sky, what is it? No, it is not 
Superman. It might be a bird. We do not know, we do not want to know. 
Weird, weird. Oh, boy, scaredy folks. Be scared, the bogeyman might get 
you. The
 bogeyman might get you 

[[Page H 6961]]
right-wingers, watch out. These volunteers are bad, bad people. Watch 
out, folks. Be careful. Be careful. Step lightly.

  The amendment of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] may pass 
and we may have somebody out there that finds something out that we 
really do not like. However, I think we can live with it. I think the 
country will survive. I do believe that we should, and I agree with 
Reagan, we should use volunteers. I do not see anything wrong with it.
  I hope that this House has the sense enough to let volunteers do the 
work that Government agencies and Government money will not be spent 
for. I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Gilchrest] wholeheartedly.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I started out here to allow money in Fish and Wildlife 
to use the volunteers to count the birds, migratory birds, breeding 
birds. Of course, this was something the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] is interested in, and all of us are interested in. I have been 
involved in that, too. We use Boy Scouts, we use 4-H Club members, we 
use all kinds of people. I do not want to lose sight of the original 
objective of what I was trying to achieve here.
  Mr. Chairman, I will say, in fairness to the westerners, and I have 
recently spent 2 days in California in the mountains, and there is 
absolutely no indication, no boundary markers, nothing. If you look at 
a map, it is a section of private land, a section of public land, a 
section of private land, and it is a checkerboard, because, of course, 
that is the way it was laid out when the land was originally given to 
the railroads, so people who would be out there trying to do any kind 
of a count, whether it is a fauna or flowers or birds or whatever, 
would not really know whether they were on public lands or private 
lands. That was the concern that is expressed.
  One last thing, Mr. Chairman. It illustrates the problem, and I hope 
the gentleman, Mr. Gilchrest, and the gentleman, Mr. Miller, both of 
whom are members of the authorizing committee, will resolve this 
problem in their committee and bring us a piece of legislation. When 
that happens, all of this drops out. This illustrates the importance of 
the authorizers dealing with this. This is temporary legislation to 
deal with an immediate concern.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the fact that the 
gentleman with his amendment tried to respond to concerns that I raised 
in the minority views in the report. It is a constructive effort. 
However, I would also say that I think that we obviously would prefer 
to make it even more constructive by adding the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] to that amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I deemed a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair will 
reduce to 5 minutes the time for a recorded vote, if ordered, on the 
Regula amendment without intervening business on debate.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 256, 
noes 168, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 500]

                               AYES--256

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--168

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bono
     Collins (MI)
     Fields (TX)
     Ford
     Green
     Hefner
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Tauzin
     Towns

[[Page H 6962]]


                              {time}  1501

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Bono against.

  Mr. MOORHEAD changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MILLER of Florida and Mr. MINGE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Davis). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. regula

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment marked No. 2.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Regula: On page 15, line 3, strike 
     all beginning with ``: Provided further,'' down to and 
     including ``subparagraph (B)'' on page 15, line 16.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, this is a bipartisan 
amendment. It strikes the language in the Fish and Wildlife Service 
administrative provisions which amends the Emergency Wetlands Act of 
1986 to allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to retain the refuge 
entrance fee collections.
  Under the current law, 70 percent of these fee collections are 
distributed through the Migratory Bird Conservation Act to be used for 
land acquisitions approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation 
Commission. And I might add that my amendment that was just approved, 
as amended by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], provides 
funds to do the bird count.
  We looked at the language. In effect what this does is allow the 
refuge entrance fee collections to be used to buy additional wetlands 
which, of course, provide habitat for migratory birds. It is supported 
by a wide range of groups who are interested in the preservation of 
wildlife, as well as the various sportsmen groups.
  I think it is a good amendment. We have worked it out with the 
authorizers and I know that we have had support on both sides.
  The amendment strikes language in the Fish and Wildlife Service 
administrative provisions which amends the Emergency Wetlands Act of 
1986 to allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to retain all of the refuge 
entrance fees. Under current law, 70 percent of these fee collections 
are distributed to the migratory bird conservation account to be used 
for land acquisitions approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation 
Commission. Currently the Commission receives approximately $21 million 
from duck stamp receipts, $18 million from import duties, and $1.7 
million from refuge entrance fees, which are all available for land 
acquisition through a permanent appropriation.
  The committee had proposed language to allow the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to retain the $1.7 million which goes to the migratory bird 
conservation account since the current amount which the Fish and 
Wildlife Service retains does not cover the costs involved to collect 
the fees, and serves as a disincentive to increase future collections. 
The committee also noted the 5-year moratorium on land acquisition that 
was included in the budget resolution, and reduced funding in the bill 
for land acquisition by 78 percent or $184 million. The $41 million 
permanent appropriation out of the migratory bird conservation account 
for land acquisition would have been reduced by 4 percent or $1.7 
million. However, in deference to the authorizing committee which 
raised an objection to this language in the Rules Committee, the 
amendment is being offered to strike the language.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the leadership of 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the leadership of the other 
side and the chairman of the authorizing committee [Mr. Young of 
Alaska], for their work on behalf of resolving this issue which is 
extremely important to all of us in this country, especially the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and I, who serve as 
representatives of this body on the Migratory Bird Commission.
  This will allow us to continue to voluntarily set aside land to be 
used for our refuge system and for the migratory bird flyways of this 
country and throughout North America. In fact, if this amendment had 
not been ruled in order and accepted by the chairman, we could have 
seen 3,500 to 5,000 less acres set aside voluntarily in the next fiscal 
year.
  I might add for my colleagues on both sides, this is a total 
voluntary program; no condemnation, no taking. This is done through 
voluntary purchases and setting aside of land to be used for the 
flyways of our migratory birds. Since the existence of this program, 
over 4 million acres of land have been set aside for this purpose.
  It is supported by groups as diverse as the NRA to Ducks Unlimited to 
the Nature Conservancy. I applaud the leaders on both sides for this 
amendment, for accepting it, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] 
and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and certainly the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I personally believe the original idea that the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] had was much better than his 
amendment. It was a good idea. I think the Fish and Wildlife Service 
spends more money collecting fees than they now get in return.
  But I am not going to oppose the amendment. I just want the Record to 
show that I have no objection to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Page 23, line 19, strike 
     ``$87,000,000'' and insert ``$70,220,000''.
       Page 55, line 5, strike ``$384,504,000'' and insert 
     ``$347,724,000''.
       Page 55, line 22, strike ``$151,028,000'' and insert 
     ``$124,247,000''.
       Page 66, strike lines 11 through 15 and insert the 
     following:

                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

              Office of Elementary and Secondary Education


                            indian education

       For necessary expenses to carry out, to the extent not 
     otherwise provided, title VI of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, $81,341,000.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of us on this side of the 
aisle who feel that many of the reductions that are being made in this 
bill to crucial environment programs, to crucial natural resources 
programs, are being made for the purpose of transferring these 
resources to the Ways and Means Committee to, in effect, finance a tax 
cut for lots of people making $200,000 a year or more. We do not happen 
to think that is the best use of money.
  There is another program which is being savaged in this bill which is 
the Indian Education Act. This bill eliminates funding for Indian 
education. My amendment would simply restore funding for that program.
  We would restore $80 million for the amendment and we would take it 
from sources that we think are much less damaged. For instance, we take 
it from the fossil fuels account, which is already very much over the 
authorized amount. It is $163 million over the amount provided in the 
authorized committee. So we think that $36 million reduction does no 
harm there and it takes it from other sources which we think do very 
much less harm.
  Mr. Chairman, let me explain what it is we are doing. I had always 
thought that there was general recognition that the education of Indian 
children was significantly a Federal responsibility, because of the 
Federal trust status that many of our tribes have.
  Now, the money in question, which I am trying to restore, will not go 
to tribes. The money that I am trying to restore will go to local 
school districts, will go to local public school districts. It will not 
go to tribal schools. And this money, if it is not provided, will, in 
fact, be lacking in those local school budgets and those local school 
districts will have to raise their own education budgets and their own 
property taxes to support education to the tune of about $80 million. I 
do not think they ought to have to do that.

[[Page H 6963]]

  Now, there would be arguments made that this program is duplicative. 
People will say, for instance, that after all, you have a lot of 
programs within the BIA to educate Indian children. But the fact is 
that BIA programs only educate 8 percent of Indian children. This 
program deals with the rest.
  So you cannot fix this problem by relying on the BIA, because the BIA 
does not provide funding for this purpose.

                              {time}  1515

  People will say that impact aid will take up the slack, but, in fact, 
again, I would point out that impact aid payments flow only to about 
700 school districts located on or near Federal reservations. The 
program does not serve members of State-recognized tribes or off-
reservation Indians, and that would leave a substantial gap.
  Now, we will also be told, well, title I funds can take care of this 
problem. The fact is, however, that title I stresses basic academic 
instruction, while Indian education programs focus heavily on students' 
culturally related academic needs, and there is a big, big difference.
  So I want to make quite clear, and I do not think this is an 
especially complicated proposition, this is not a proposal which is 
going to make life easier for Indian tribes. This is not adding money 
into tribal budgets. This is simply protecting local school districts 
who have a right to expect that the Federal Government will live up to 
their responsibilities in educating Indian children.
  Now, I must say I think that there is a broader issue involved here 
than just Indian education. I think that the Federal Government for a 
long time has been becoming Mr. Bugout When it comes to meeting its 
responsibilities for educating lots of people.
  If this amendment does not pass, not only are we asking local school 
districts to pick up an obligation which belongs on Federal shoulders, 
but we are also in many other ways abandoning local school districts. 
Example: Immigrants who come into this country or refugees who come 
into this country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, now, I have no objection to an open and fair 
immigration policy, but I do have an objection when those refugees come 
into this country, are then dropped on the local doorstep and the 
Federal Government forgets its obligation to then help train and 
educate those children. Those local school districts should not have to 
carry that burden alone.
  All this amendment does with respect to Indian children is to 
recognize that the Federal Government should not be transferring large 
financial burdens back to local school districts to carry out what 
essentially is a Federal responsibility.
  And I would urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I want to commend the gentleman in the well for his work, 
for his statement and for his support. I think he points out here many 
of the poorest of the poor, and, you know, frankly, investing in 
people, and I think that obviously the native American plight in terms 
of education, in terms of development and skills and so forth has been 
something which I think is a growing awareness of the shortfall and the 
uneven nature of what has occurred.
  What the gentleman seeks to do is simply to restore the funding, 
basically a million dollars below this level of funding, simply to 
restore that by taking the money out of energy programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we can afford to go without that. I do not 
think we can afford to go without the investment in these kids that 
need this help in these areas. I might point out, many have pointed out 
the profits in terms of gaming and other factors, but in reservation 
after reservation and area after area, there are many that receive no 
benefits from that. These programs are absolutely essential for the 
type of qualitative education programs desperately needed in these 
areas where we have the greatest degree of poverty in this Nation, in 
the Indian communities of this Nation, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I understand the objective 
of the sponsor of this amendment. As a matter of fact, we will have an 
amendment shortly from the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] to 
accomplish the education part of it. But in the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], we will take the money out of 
the administrative functions in the Forest Service, the administrators, 
and I think that to get the necessary funds that the amendment by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] takes it from an area that is less 
important to the people of this Nation than are the things that are 
being deleted by the Obey amendment.
  I would point out that under the amendment by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], he would cut coal research, which we have already 
reduced 14 percent. He would cut oil technology, which is already 
reduced by 17 percent. He would cut natural gas research, which is 
reduced by 1 percent. And I might point out the budget that this body 
adopted proposed very large increases on natural gas research. He goes 
into fuel cell research.
  The problem we have here is that what we have tried to do in the 
energy portions of this bill is maintain basic research because we are 
a very energy-driven Nation. Jobs are a way of life because of 
transportation, because of distances in this country, because 
automobiles are very much a part of our culture. It puts great demands 
on our energy resources. We use a lot of electricity, which puts demand 
on coal, and we have to do a lot of research to ensure that we can get 
clean-burning coal and use this vast store of coal that we have for the 
decades to come.
  I am really concerned about taking any additional money out of fossil 
energy research programs, since we have already cut them nearly $40 
million in order to meet our budget targets, and I think as we try to 
have energy security, as we try to maintain a degree of energy 
independence, as we just fought a war, lost American lives and at great 
expense, to protect our sources of fuel in the Middle East, that we 
need to keep these programs going that develop research potential for 
oil, natural gas, fuel cells, coal research.
  If any of you have seen the Apollo 13 movie or the story of Apollo 
13, they were using fuel cells, and they lost a fuel cell, which almost 
resulted in a disaster. Fuel cell research is very important to the 
future, not only in space but on Earth.
  So, while I sympathize with the gentleman's desire to put money back 
in Indian education, I think the proposal of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] to take the money from the Forest Service 
administrative function would be a better way to do it. For that 
reason, I would have to oppose this amendment and will support Mr. 
Coburn's amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would simply point out that I happen to support these fossil energy 
programs, but I would simply take note of the fact that the number in 
this bill is some $163 million over the authorization number, and I am 
sure that many of the good conservatives on that side of the aisle do 
not want to see us violate authorization ceilings. So I think we are 
being very responsible in taking only $36 million out.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, as I said at the outset of the 
debate, we have some very important policy decisions. We both agree, 
both sides, we need to put the money back in Indian education. The 
position of our side is that the money ought to come out of the Forest 
Service administrative account and not out of energy research. And 
obviously the gentleman from Wisconsin would prefer it out of energy 
research and the areas I mentioned.
  I think if we vote, the vote will be essentially, if you vote down 
the Obey amendment and then you will vote for the Coburn amendment, you 
would indicate with that vote that you prefer to get the money for the 
Indian education program from administrative 

[[Page H 6964]]
services in the Forest Service, administrators, rather than take it out 
of energy research.
  So, for my colleagues that are listening to this debate, I just 
wanted to try to get the choices out here clearly.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Do I understand the gentleman from Ohio to be in favor of restoring 
the money for Indian education, and the only question is where the 
money is to come from for the offset?
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, that is correct.
  Mr. YATES. You do favor the restoration of the money for Indian 
education?
  Mr. REGULA. I think that we have been persuaded by circumstances, if 
the gentleman will yield, that we need to put some additional funding 
in Indian education.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I happen to think the gentleman from Ohio and 
yourself have made an agreement here that we want to restore the moneys 
for Indian education. Is that correct?
  Mr. REGULA. That is correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. There are other ways to restore this money other 
than taking it from the fossil fuel research. I will have amendments 
later on down the line that would save in the realm of $108 million 
that is unnecessary to spend at this time for the purchase of new 
vehicles and aircraft for agencies that have no reason to purchase them 
other than to have their own private fleet.
  What I am suggesting is that there is plenty of room in this bill to 
transfer moneys into. I think the gentleman from Michigan will agree, 
and yourself and the gentleman from Ohio, this is a much higher 
priority than to purchase hardware for those that want their own little 
playground to play on with their own little play toys. So I am glad you 
have reached this agreement.
  But I do not support the gentleman from Wisconsin taking it out of 
the fossil fuel research. I think in the meantime, before we get to 
title II, we can work out an amendment that can get the moneys to the 
American Indian education fund.
  Mr. YATES. Does the gentleman propose to offer a substitute to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Not at this time. I am going to be addressing it 
probably in title II concerning aircraft, concerning vehicles, and we 
can direct it at that time, I believe, maybe I am wrong, to the area 
which the gentleman from Michigan and yourself are seeking.
  Mr. YATES. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  I do not know about all of the offsets that have been discussed here 
in place of those suggested by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], 
but I do know that the Indian children need the funds that have been 
taken away from the Office of Indian Education. It would have been 
easier, of course, if the bill had not taken $81 million away from the 
education of Indian children in the first place. This should be 
corrected.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for correcting it. We 
have done enough to the Indian people in the course of the history of 
this country. We have a national trusteeship to make sure that this 
kind of treatment of the Indian people is not continued, and certainly 
when it is proposed to cut funds for education of the Indian children, 
we are abusing our responsibility.
  Mr. REGULA. if the gentleman will yield, I want to say, the gentleman 
from Illinois, as chairman of this committee for many, many years was 
always very sensitive to Indian education and health.
  Mr. YATES. That is correct.
  Mr. REGULA. We have tried to maintain that tradition, given the 
constraints that we faced, and Indian education is one of the few 
programs that did not receive much in the way of reductions even though 
we had an overall 10 percent, and we agree with what you are saying, 
and that is why it is not a question here of the money. It is where we 
get it.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin would take it out of the energy program 
research. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] would take it out of 
administrative programs and forestry. And it seems to me, at least, 
that it would be from the standpoint of national policy, I prefer to 
keep the energy research and reduce the forest administrative.
  But I think we are in agreement on the objective.
  Mr. YATES. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. KILDEE. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment. I suggest from 
time to time that we go down to the National Archives, just down the 
street, and read the treaties that we have signed with Germany and 
England, China, France, and the Indian tribes of this Nation. Those 
treaties are available for reading, and in almost every instance, when 
one reads the treaties with the Indian nations, we find the taking away 
of, very often, millions of acres of land, and almost in every instance 
the promise of one thing: Education.

                              {time}  1530

  And that is a treaty obligation and, I believe, a moral obligation, 
and that is why in the 19 years I have been here in Congress I have 
tried to move toward fulfillment on our part of the treaty obligations.
  In the State of Michigan they took away everything in Michigan and 
promised education, and I have served on the former Education and Labor 
Committee for years, and I focused on Indian education. We have done a 
little better, but we have not done fully. We do have a moral and, I 
believe, a treaty obligation to the Indians in the area of education.
  Now I have a question, if I may address it to the gentleman. In the 
Obey amendment we restore about $81 million for Indian education. How 
much money is restored in the Coburn amendment?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. In our amendment we restored the $52.5 million that goes 
for actual education, we eliminate the bureaucracy associated with the 
Indian education department, but maintain the funds to the school 
districts where the actual Indian education takes place, and, if I may 
continue in answer to that, in supporting my amendment in lieu of the 
amendment that we are now considering of Mr. Obey's what my colleague 
will find is that we will be taking that from a source that is more 
readily available to us with less disconcerting changes for everyone, 
and so we were more likely to restore the funds for Indian education.
  Mr. KILDEE. Well, first of all there is not $30 million of 
bureaucracy. There is at least $10 million for adult education here, 
which the gentleman does not restore, and adult education is a very, 
very significant part of the Indian education money and bureaucracy.
  What is a bureaucracy my colleagues? My two sons are lieutenants in 
the Army. They are part of the administration of the Army. I guess we 
could call that bureaucracy and reduce the bureaucracy of the Pentagon. 
When it comes to Indians, we call it bureaucracy. When it is the 
military, it is part of the important administration which my two sons 
serve in. So it is very easy to give a bad name, and call it 
bureaucracy, but of the $30 million, over $10 million, almost $11 
million, is for adult education. It is extremely important.
  So I think the main issue here is not so much where we take the money 
for restoration, but how much money is restored. I say to my 
colleagues, ``You still are $30 million short in your restoration, and 
a good chunk of that $30 million is for adult education.''
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, my review of the Office of Indian 
Education would indicate that at all of its levels, at the very maximum 
eliminating totally its bureaucracy might save, just might save, $3 
million. So the gentleman is correct to question the 30, and I say to 
the gentleman:
  ``Bureaucracy, by the way, is the administration of the program, so 
you 

[[Page H 6965]]
get rid entirely of the bureaucracy, and there is nobody there to run 
the programs, although I do want to make this point: The office that is 
proposed by the committee to be closed here, and I know they are coming 
around on this, this is the office where the money follows the study. 
The BIA education money, as the gentleman from Michigan so well knows, 
that money follows the Indian schools. This money follows the Indian 
students. So for those Indian students who go to school in a town just 
off the reservation, you eliminate this money, you eliminate that 
school district's opportunity to help, specially help, those Indian 
children.''
  Mr. KILDEE. We have some public schools, I might add, that have about 
38 percent Indian students, and they depend a great deal upon these 
dollars. They do not have excess funds. They are not all on 
reservations. So we are really not only taking away from the Indian 
students, but taking dollars away from those schools that are educating 
Indian students.
  So I think the point here is the restoration is not total in the 
Coburn amendment. It is more fulsome in the Obey amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make the point in closing on the 
discussion on this amendment that first of all the real issue is Indian 
children and their education. That is what we are talking about. That 
is what we are talking about restoring.
  There is, in fact, $10 million spent on administration associated 
with this program. There are no ands, ifs, or buts about that, so 
therefore the choice is not $52 million or $80 million. The choice is 
$52 million or no money, and what I want, and I come from the third 
most populous native American district in this Congress, I want the 
people in my district to receive the funds for the children who are 
going to need this money.
  Mr. Chairman, I very well understand how important this money is, but 
I also understand what our priorities are, and this debate is about 
priorities, and it is about lessening the cost of government and still 
delivering the product of government, and I would urge that we would 
defeat the Obey amendment so that we can consider my amendment.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support for the Obey-
Richardson-Clayton amendment, and let me say that what is right now on 
the floor is the Obey amendment. I have heard this Coburn amendment. 
Nothing has been offered, and I am not sure it is in order. Let me just 
say what we are doing with the decimation of the Office of Indian 
Education:
  We are affecting 32 States. Any Member here that has a native 
American in their district is affected.
  Now I am the former chairman of the Native American Subcommittee. The 
gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega] is now the ranking 
member. He dealt with this issue for years. If the initiative of the 
Interior appropriations passes, 92 percent of Indian children in this 
country will not be served because they live off reservations.
  One of the myths that we have about the Indian people in this country 
is that they all live on reservations. They do not. They live in 
cities. They live in our rural areas. They live in all of our 
districts.
  So what we are doing, what the initiative of the appropriations was 
doing, was zeroing out the Office of Indian Education that serves 92 
percent of Indian children, and what the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] is trying to do, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. 
Clayton], and myself, and many others; and I think the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] has some very good intentions; those of us that 
have Indian districts, is restore the funds for this vital program.
  Now what is this money used for? It is used for formula grants. 
Seventy percent of funding is grants to local schools with Indian 
populations, special programs for Indian children, dropout prevention, 
programs for the gifted and talented students, programs for Indian 
adults. Less than 5 percent of these funds go toward administration.
  Now let me just give my colleagues some statistics about Indian 
children in this country: 12.5 percent below the national average. 
Thirty-seven percent of Indian children live below poverty level. Only 
50 percent of schools with a majority of Indian students have college 
prep programs compared to 76 percent of other public schools. Only 9 
percent of native Americans have bachelor's degrees compared with 20 
percent of other adults, and we are taking the money from the Naval 
Petroleum Reserve, the fossil energy R&D. It has a big budget, it got 
an increase, and that is important, but we are taking out $20 million 
or so from it. The Bureau of Mines is being phased out this year, but 
after this offset the Bureau is still going to have $70 million to shut 
down, so what we are doing is educating Indian children.
  If this amendment passes, we are creating a travesty of the special 
relationship the Federal Government and we all have with the Indian 
people that have no lobbyists around here. They do not have anybody 
down the halls with their Gucci loafers saying, ``Restore Indian 
education.'' But these are the forgotten Americans. These are the first 
Americans, and all of a sudden in the name of budget cutting, because 
we want to increase fossil fuels, they are paying 92 percent of Indian 
children, and we cannot have these special programs for us. Yes, we 
have increased money on BIA schools, BIA schools that are not run 
terribly efficiently on the reservation. That is 8 percent.
  So what we need to do is focus clearly on what the Obey amendment 
does. It restores the funds for these programs, and it takes it out of 
programs that have been working but clearly have been very generously 
funded in this subcommittee.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with what the gentleman has 
said. I support Mr. Obey's amendment to restore funding for the Office 
of Indian Education. Elimination of the funding will mean over a $2 
million loss to the State of North Carolina and over $1 million in my 
own congressional district. There are many members of the Lumbee Indian 
tribe in my district, the largest tribe east of the Mississippi, and 
the ninth largest in the United States. They have benefited greatly by 
the Indian education program. They have become doctors and lawyers. 
They have become productive, law-abiding citizens, teachers, many 
professionals, and I am proud of the contribution that the Indian 
Education Act has made to their lives.
  I think our human resources are clearly just as important as our 
natural resources, and to cut this out to accomplish fiscal austerity 
on the backs of Indian children is in my opinion mean spirited and 
shortsighted. Please vote for the amendment proposed by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Richardson] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Rose and by unanimous consent, Mr. Richardson was 
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciated listening to the 
gentleman's facts with regard to the plight of Indians, which is very 
real, and his facts are accurate. I do want to point out to my 
colleagues, however, that Indians have made extraordinary gains over 
the past approximately 15 years in educational achievement in the 
number of native Americans going to college and in college graduation 
rates, and in fact probably greater achievements than any other ethnic 
group in the United States. In my own State of Montana we have now 
reached the, some think, extraordinary situation where a higher 
percentage of native Americans now attend college than do the majority 
of Montanans, and so native Americans have turned the corner with 
regard to educational achievements, and we ought not abandon the 
Federal efforts that brought that about.

[[Page H 6966]]

  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. PASTOR. I represent the urban areas of Arizona, Phoenix, Tucson, 
and these areas are surrounded by Indian reservations, and because the 
economic opportunities on many of these reservations are very poor, 
lack of jobs, lack of opportunities, many of my native American 
constituents move into the urban areas. I have to tell my colleagues 
that they are people who do not have the highest education, do not have 
the talents to get the best-paying jobs, and so they tend to live in 
areas, in school districts, that do not have the highest resources, and 
that translates into that many of these young native Americans who are 
in our elementary schools or secondary schools have special needs, have 
special problems which the public school needs to address, and these 
moneys which service native Americans who are living in urban areas are 
much needed.
  If there is one thing we need to do as adults, that is to ensure that 
our children are well educated, and these native Americans need these 
programs, need these resources, and I would think that all of us would 
want to ensure that the native Americans of this country would have the 
opportunities to better themselves.
  So I would ask all of my colleagues to support the Obey amendment 
because it brings hope, it brings opportunities, to native Americans 
who want to better themselves, and they live in the urban areas.
                              {time}  1545

  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota.
  (Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I rise in strong support of the Obey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Richardson] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Richardson was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South 
Dakota [Mr. Johnson].
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, in an entire State, the 
State of South Dakota, nine Indian reservations, it has become apparent 
to me the one successful strategy to combat poverty and break away from 
dependence of the Federal Government, in fact has been quality 
education. Eliminating the Office of Indian Education would have a 
profound negative impact in my State of South Dakota. We would lose 
over $2.6 million in formula and discretionary funds, 49 South Dakota 
school districts would be negatively impacted, and 17,800 native 
American children would lose educational opportunities. This is the one 
area where we should not be retreating.
  Mr. Chairman, I again express my strong support for the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment before us proposed 
by the Representative from Wisconsin to restore funding for the 
Department of Education's Office of Indian Education, which has been 
targeted for elimination. Since 1972, the invaluable programs 
administered through the Office of Indian Education have helped over 
1,200 school districts nationwide address the unique academic needs of 
millions of American Indian and Alaska Native children and adults. Mr. 
Chairman, 56 percent of the American Indian population in this country 
is age 24 or younger. Consequently, the need for improved educational 
programs and facilities, and for training the American Indian work 
force is pressing. I wish to use the remainder of my time to urge our 
continued bipartisan commitment to the Education Department's Office of 
Indian Education, and the hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young 
people served annually by this Office.
  American Indians have been, and continue to be, disproportionately 
affected by both poverty and low educational achievement. In 1990, over 
36 percent of American Indian children ages 5-17 were living below the 
poverty level. The high school completion rate for Indian people aged 
20 to 24 was 12.5 percent below the national average. American Indian 
students, on average, have scored far lower on the National Assessment 
for Education Progress indicators than all other students. In 1994, the 
combined average score for Indian students on the scholastic 
achievement test was 65 points lower than the average for all students. 
These statistics reflect the continued neglect of America's under-
served Indian population and are unacceptable.
  By eliminating the Office of Indian Education, there is little hope 
of breaking the cycle of low educational achievement, and the 
unemployment and poverty that result from neglected academic potential. 
This Office, unlike any other, provides educational services that 
directly address the unique learning needs and styles of Indian 
students, with sensitivity to Native cultures, ultimately promoting 
higher academic achievement. Eliminating the Office would have a 
particularly profound impact on Indian education in my State of South 
Dakota. More than $2.6 million in formula and discretionary funds 
assisted American Indian children and adults in South Dakota in fiscal 
year 1994. Grants were made directly to 49 South Dakota school 
districts. The education of almost 17,000 of our American Indian 
children in South Dakota would be significantly affected if the 
programs administered by the Office were eliminated. In addition, if 
funding were no longer available, every South Dakota school currently 
receiving a grant would have to release at least one staff person, 
resulting in almost 200 teachers and aides no longer working in Indian 
education in the State. This past year, almost $300,000 went to tribal 
schools to support innovative approaches to Indian education and more 
than $350,000 supported student fellows in teacher training programs in 
colleges throughout our State. The loss of these discretionary programs 
will not only adversely affect potential recipients of teacher training 
and professional development, but will virtually cut off those tribal 
communities which benefit from students returning to education 
professions on reservations.
  In terms of local empowerment, Native Americans remain at a distinct 
disadvantage. While the growth rate of native populations is 
accelerating rapidly, the nearly 2 million American Indians living in 
the United States in 1990 represented an increase of 39 percent over 
the 1980 total, American Indians and Alaska Natives still comprise less 
than 1 percent of the total U.S. population. With more than 500 
American Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages, the population is 
also highly diverse in terms of culture and need. Small in numbers, 
isolated and diverse, this is a population that clearly needs and 
deserves our special attention.
  There are strong historical and moral reasons for continued support 
of this program. In keeping with our special trust responsibility to 
sovereign Indian nations, we need to promote the self-determination and 
self-sufficiency of Indian communities. Education is absolutely vital 
to this effort. The elimination of the Office of Indian Education would 
violate the Government's commitment and responsibility to Indian 
nations and only slow the progress of self-sufficiency.
  This question of eliminating the Indian education programs is not 
just about dollars and programs for a population in need. It is also 
about helping communities and cultures to survive.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let us invest in people 
and children. R&D for fossil energy can be done by the private sector, 
but let us not stop this investment in kids, in programs, and 
education. I urge support for the Obey-Richardson-Clayton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to respond to charges that our amendment 
restores unnecessary bureaucracy. Only $3.8 million of last years $83 
million appropriated for title IX funding was spent on the Office of 
Indian Education and the National Advisory Council on Indian Education.
  What Mr. Coburn's amendment, should it be offered, does not do is 
provide funding for special programs for Indian children and programs 
for Indian adult education. This is wrong.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order to receive 
a message.

                          ____________________