[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 113 (Thursday, July 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6967-H7008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H 6967]]
{time} 1548
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1996
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as I look around this Chamber and as I think about the
promises in January, the notion was to come here and to end business as
usual, and that is in fact the intent of many of us in this Congress.
Ofttimes it involves reaching across the aisle, listening to different
arguments, and basing our support or our opposition not on previous
partisan labels, but taking a look and carefully examining the problems
one by one. That is why I am pleased to stand in strong support of this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a large portion of the Navajo Nation, that
sovereign nation within the Sixth District of Arizona and reaching
beyond the borders of Arizona to several other States. I am mindful of
the fact that in our treaty obligations to the Navajo Nation, we have a
variety of promises that were made well over a century ago.
Now, I stand here in support of this amendment not to criticize my
friends on this side of the aisle, who believe we can look for other
sources of funding, but, instead, to underline the importance of
upholding these treaty obligations and looking to educate the children
of the native American tribes, for it is a sacred obligation we have,
and it is a proper role of the Federal Government to move in that
regard.
So, for that reason, again, I stand in strong support of the
amendment.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentlemen from New Mexico and Wisconsin and myself. I want to make the
distinction that while we are asking our colleagues to reexamine and
recommit to restoring the $81 million for the Indian education program,
I want us to understand that this is not duplicative of the program
that is already there. This really has a distinct value in and above
that, and it is supplementary and not duplicative. It means these are
programs going to public schools to enable 92 percent of all Indians
who live in this country to get additional supplemental education. It
is an opportunity to make sure that those young people, who are falling
through the cracks academically, have an opportunity to be competitive
and do well.
Further, Mr. Chairman, I would think our colleagues would find it
unacceptable that $81 million would get in the way of doing what we
should be doing for the very first inhabitants of this country.
Further, I think we would want to support education as being consistent
with self-sufficiency. I see all of these reasons and others as to why
we should want to restore this to its full amount, and not reduce it to
a lesser amount than it is presently. Really, it should be increased.
In the spirit of keeping the budget constraints, we are saying restore
it to the $81 million.
So it really is a thoughtful amendment that recognizes under the
constraints that all programs have to adjust. I would ask that my
colleagues across both sides of the aisle understand, this is an
opportunity really that we can say to the native Americans, that we do
care about them, and that education is important.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I rise in very strong support of this amendment. I think
unfortunately we know very little about the whole issue of treaty
keeping, and I want to congratulate my Republican colleague from
Arizona, who understands that we have a sacred trust responsibility to
keep treaties. These education funds are just a tiny little
downpayment, shall we say, on the land that we enjoy, which we have in
our trust because the Indian tribes signed treaties many years ago.
My colleague from North Carolina mentioned that 92 percent of Indian
children are affected by this funding, and that is absolutely true. We
are told it is duplicative, but in fact the Bureau of Indian Affairs
schools do not meet more than 8 percent of the Indian children's
educational needs.
We can indeed, and my colleague has spoken of that, change the
poverty that has so impacted native Americans by making sure that we
live up to our responsibility, our treaty responsibility, a treaty
which we swore to uphold when we became Members of this body. We cannot
abandon these native American children; we cannot abandon this
opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I congratulate the
gentlewoman and her colleagues for having brought this amendment
forward.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, let me associate myself with the remarks of
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in favor of this very
important amendment. I think that this legislation, absent the Obey
amendment, would be morally bankrupt and fatally deficient for this
Congress to pass. We have an absolute commitment, and we should always
remind ourselves that no matter how expensive we may perceive education
to be, ignorance costs more.
I come from the city of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, and I just know
that my constituents support fully this country's continuing commitment
to Indian education. I hope that we would favorably approve the Obey
amendment.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the
gentlewoman for offering this amendment to keep our commitment and our
trust obligations, and to thank her and her colleagues, Mr. Obey and
Mr. Richardson, for this amendment. I rise in support of it and hope
the House will pass this amendment.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is an
opportunity. Education is important. More important, it is an
opportunity to say the American Indian children are important and they
should be included in our commitment to all Americans.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and any amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, 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 gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will manage 5
minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will manage 5
minutes.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Native Americans and Insular Affairs of the Committee
on Resources, I want to express my strong support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member
of the House Committee on Appropriations. The amendment simply restores
the badly needed funds for education of American Indians and Alaskan
Native children in public schools.
Mr. Chairman, I submit this is a downright tragedy that the Congress
of the United States would take away money from our American Indian
children's future to fund other programs like timber sales management.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to make it clear that funding for title IX
is not duplicative of BIA directed funding. Title IX funding is for
children in public schools, while BIA funding is for Indian children in
BIA or tribally operated schools.
Mr. Chairman, as so eloquently stated in a letter by my good friend
from Alaska and chairman of the House Committee on Resources, why do we
continue to pick on those who simply cannot defend themselves, the
children?
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment and
restore the funds needed for the education of American native and
Alaskan Native children.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H 6968]]
Mr. Chairman, let us make it clear what is going to happen here. We
will have a vote on the Obey amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no
on the Obey amendment because it takes the money out of fossil energy
research. We have already cut that 10 percent. It impacts heavily on
States like Ohio, California, Indiana, Illinois, New York, places where
we are doing research. It takes money out of the Bureau of Mines. We
have already cut them back. We just leave them enough to close out. If
we take any more money, they cannot even do that. It takes money out of
the Naval Petroleum Reserves. We have already cut that 20 percent. This
is a function that generates $460 million a year in revenues.
I think that we need to foster energy security. We are not arguing
about giving the money for the native American education programs. This
gives about $153 per child to schools to have enrichment programs for
Indian children. We agree on both sides that this needs to be done. The
question is where to get the money.
We are going to have a Coburn amendment that is in title II, so it
cannot be done immediately, but the Coburn amendment will do
essentially the same thing, except it takes the money out of Forest
Service administrative expenses. Because of the spend-out rate we only
need to take $10 million from forest administration to provide the $52
million in the Coburn amendment to provide for the Indian education.
I think it is important that we provide the funds for Indian
education, but I think it is also very important that we use the
financing mechanism provided in the Coburn amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the Obey
amendment, recognizing that you will get an opportunity shortly to vote
yes on the Coburn amendment to take care of the Indian education, but
the source of funding would be far less serious in its impact on the
policies of the United States.
Again, ``no'' on Obey, and very shortly when we get into title II, we
will be able to vote for the Indian education with the Coburn
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey
amendment that is coming up for a vote immediately, knowing that you
can vote ``yes'' on the Coburn amendment to accomplish the same
objective.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 143,
noes 282, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 501]
AYES--143
Abercrombie
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Yates
Young (AK)
NOES--282
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--9
Ackerman
Bono
Collins (MI)
Fields (TX)
Green
Hefner
Moakley
Reynolds
Tauzin
{time} 1620
The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote:
Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Bono against.
Messrs. DAVIS, FRELINGHUYSEN, VOLKMER, and HILLIARD changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska and Mr. BERMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. gallegly
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gallegly: Page 34, line 24, strike
``$69,232,000'' of which (1) $65,705,000 shall be'' and
insert ``$52,405,000, to remain''.
Page 34, line 25, strike ``technical assistance'' and all
that follows through ``controls, and'' on line 1 of page 35.
Page 35, strike lines 11 and 12 and insert: ``272):
Provided''.
Page 35, line 25, strike ``funding:'' and all that follows
through line 23 on page 36 and insert ``funding.''.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment as the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs.
[[Page H 6969]]
I am also offering this amendment with the support of the ranking
member, the delegate from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.
My amendment, quite simply, would cut $16.8 million for funding of
the obsolete Office of Territorial and International Affairs and its
associated programs. The termination of this one Office will result in
a 7-year savings of $120 million.
In the previous Congress, a number of my colleagues joined me in
cosponsoring legislation to abolish the office which formerly
administered islands with appointed Governors and High Commissioners.
This should have taken effect last October when the United Nations
terminated the U.S. administered trusteeship.
Earlier this year, Secretary Babbitt formally signaled that it was
time to turn the lights out at the OTIA.
As a result of this the Native American and Insular Affairs
Subcommittee conducted an extensive review and held hearings to
reexamine existing policies affecting these island areas and also
concluded that now was the time to terminate this Office. Subsequently,
the subcommittee as well as the full Resources Committee passed H.R.
1332 with overwhelming bipartisan support. We expect to bring this
legislation to the House floor very soon.
Finally, during our hearings, Gov. Roy L.
Schneider of the Virgin Islands testified that ``abolishing the
Office will save the Federal Government money and will not harm the
territories.''
The bottom line here, my colleagues, is that we have an opportunity
to end a program which was begun when Alaska and Hawaii were
territories and save the taxpayer $17 million.
I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee, my friend Mr. Regula, for his willingness
to work with me on this effort.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to join in a
substantive action to streamline the Federal Government, advance self-
governance, and save taxpayer funds.
I urge passage of the amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the committee mark already poses a 22.5-percent
reduction that is already in the bill for territorial programs. In
addition, we have eliminated the Assistant Secretary for Territorial
and International Affairs. The bill takes the first steps. These are
additional steps being proposed by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Gallegly].
I urge that we adopt the amendment. I think that the Territorial
Office is an anachronism in this period. It saves a considerable amount
of money. I think it would be an excellent amendment and an excellent
thing for us to accept.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr YATES. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of questions that require
answers. For example, we are told that in eliminating the territories'
administrative fund, the Secretary of the Interior continues to be
responsible for nearly $2 billion; the current Treasury balance is $310
million; that the future funding mandatory is $1,603,000,000. What
happens to that money? Under his amendment, what would happen to that
money? Can the gentleman answer my question, or can somebody on that
side answer the question? The Secretary now has $2 billion belonging to
the territories, for which he is responsible. There is $310 million in
the current Treasury balance.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the proponent of this amendment,
what happens to the almost $2 billion which is now with the Secretary
of the Interior, which he is holding in trust for the territories?
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to try to respond. We still
have 25 people in the inspector general's office that are prepared to
administer those funds. We no longer need the OTIA to continue to
provide that service.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, do I understand the gentleman, then, to be
saying that the administration of the territories will be moved to the
inspector general's office?
Mr. GALLEGLY. Only for the purpose of auditing the funds.
Mr. YATES. Who will have the responsibility of supervising the
territories, Mr. Chairman, until they have their freedom?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond, what the Secretary
of the Interior has done is terminated the Office of Assistant
Secretary of Territorial and Insular Affairs. In doing so, he is
placing part of the responsibility to his Assistant Secretary for
Budget and Planning. Within the Office of Budget and Planning, I am
told that under the Deputy Assistant Secretary and further down the
line there, he is going to establish an office which is called the
director that is supposed to be keeping an eye, at least on behalf of
the Secretary, on whatever is left to do with the territories.
What we are trying to do here, if I might respond to the gentleman,
the Secretary of Interior made an announcement based on our hearing
that he was going to terminate the entire Office of Territorial
Affairs. I assume that he is going to do it directly under the auspices
of his office and assistants.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, however, I do
not know how this would correct that situation. In other words, what
the gentleman has been saying is the Secretary of the Interior has just
practically relieved himself of administering the territories.
Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the only thing
I would like to say is that we no longer have trust territories. What
we do have are elected Governors, democratically elected Governors of
these territories. We are absolutely convinced that the territories
really should have the right, and we have the confidence that they have
the ability to self-govern.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, to respond
further to him, Mr. Chairman, the Federated States of Micronesia, the
Republic of the Marshalls, and the Republic of Palau, are basically
independent. Basically whatever funding Congress provides for them as
part of the compact agreement is administered directly from the
Secretary's office. I assume that it now falls in the responsibility of
the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Budget.
{time} 1630
Mr. YATES. The gentleman from American Samoa has just said the
Secretary of the Interior has moved responsibility for the Territories
to the Office of Planning and Budget.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That is correct.
Mr. YATES. Do I understand that your amendment will move supervision
of the Territories, such as remains, from the Office of Planning and
Budget in the Secretary of the Interior to the Office of the Inspector
General?
Mr. GALLEGLY. No, it does not, I say to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Yates].
Mr. YATES. Where does it go, then? If it is not to remain in the
Office of Planning and Budget, who will have supervision?
Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman would yield further, we are in a new
era, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. We no longer are
operating the way we have for the last many years.
These Territories have elected Governors and legislators. They have
the ability, and the time has come, as the Secretary has said, to allow
them their own ability to self-govern. With the exception of the
Northern Marianas, there is a Delegate to the House of Representatives,
as is the case with the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr.
Faleomavaega]. Every one of the Territories, with the exception of the
Northern Marianas, has a Delegate in this body, and the Northern
Marianas has a democratically elected governor.
Mr. YATES. I continue to be concerned about the administration of the
funding. Even though they are now self-governing, what happens in the
even that there is a significant financial loss?
Mr. GALLEGLY. As I said to the gentleman, they do have representation
[[Page H 6970]]
here in this body in the form of Delegates and representation in the
committee. I do not see that as a problem. The Secretary of the
Interior himself says the time has come to turn out the lights, and I
am using his quote.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of Congressman
Gallegly's amendment to title I of H.R. 1977, the Interior
appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Committee on Resources had
approved by voice vote an authorization bill (H.R. 1332) which will,
among other things, delete the position of Assistant Secretary for
Territorial and International Affairs, terminate funding for the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, terminate funding for
four territorial assistance programs, provide multiyear funding for the
territory of American Samoa, and add procedural improvements for the
relocation of the people of Rongelap. H.R. 1332 will save the U.S.
Government in excess of $100 million over the next 7 years.
Regrettably, the Appropriations Committee has chosen not to accept the
approach adopted by the Resources Committee.
Earlier this year the Secretary of the Interior announced that he was
going to close the Office of Territorial and International Affairs,
within the Department of the Interior. Later, as the details became
available, it became apparent that the administration wanted only to
downgrade the office and reduce its size to approximately 25 people.
Given that the territory of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands are the only territories in which OTIA is
actively involved, and given the increased level of self-autonomy
already provided to the territories, I submit that 25 people is much
too large a staff for this office, and believe it should be terminated
or cut substantially. While the four assistance programs contained in
the President's budget and the appropriations bill have been useful in
the past, the time has come to terminate these programs as well, and
move forward in our relations with the territories.
Mr. Chairman, the Gallegly amendment is consistent with the budget
resolution for fiscal year 1996 and consistent with the actions of the
authorizing committee this year. In effect, the authorizing committee,
and the full House are moving in one direction on these issues, while
the Appropriations Committee is moving in another.
The Gallegly amendment cuts Federal spending, reduces Government
bureaucracy, and moves the administration of the U.S. insular areas
toward greater self-autonomy.
Chairman Elton Gallegly and I have been working on an authorizing
bill for the territories all year. Our approach has been approved by
the Resources Committee, and will be a significant change in insular
policy for our Government. This change has been a long time in coming,
but the time has come.
Mr. Chairman, Congress' move toward reduced Federal spending is
causing significant pain throughout our Government. I am pleased that
insular policy is one area in which the authorizing committee has
achieved substantial bipartisan agreement. Insular policy is not an
area followed closely by most of us, but those of us who work in the
area see this as a positive change, and I urge my colleagues to support
the Gallegly amendment and conform the appropriations bill to the
budget resolution and the action of the authorizing committee.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mrs. vucanovich
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Vucanovich: On page 33 line 17
strike ``67,145,000'' and in lieu thereof insert
``$75,145,000'' and on line 18 strike ``65,100,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``$73,100,000''.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Nevada?
There was no objection.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores $8 million for
the Pyramid Lake water rights settlement. Funds available from a
previous amendment which reduced funding from the territorial
assistance account is sufficient to offset this amendment.
This water rights settlement is very important to the constituents
within my congressional district. The final payment for the Pyramid
Lake settlement is due next year, at which time an agreement will be
implemented to supply much-needed water to the Reno-Sparks area. It is
my understanding that the committee intends to fully fund this program
in time to consummate this important water rights agreement.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, our side has no objection to this amendment.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection. This is an obligation
of the U.S. Government. We have freed up the funds to do it because we
are on a very tight budget. We are pleased that we are able to accept
the amendment.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I thank the chairman very much. I urge the
acceptance of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Miller of California
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment,
amendment No. 32 printed in the Record, and I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be modified as set forth in the amendment I have at
the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment and report the
modification.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California: Page 5, line
15, strike ``$8,500,000'' and insert $14,750,000''.
Page 11, line 16, strike ``$14,100,000'' and insert
``$67,300,000''.
Page 17, line 21, strike ``$14,300,000'' and insert
``$84,550,000''.
Page 17, line 26, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert
``$3,240,000''.
Page 47, line 23, strike ``$14,600,000'' and insert
``$65,310,000''.
Page 55, line 5, strike ``$384,504,000'' and insert
``$200,854,000''.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Miller of
California: Page 5, line 15, strike ``$8,500,000'' and insert
``$14,750,000''.
Page 11, line 16, strike ``14,100,000'' and insert
``$67,300,000''.
Page 17, line 21, strike ``$14,300,000'' and insert
``$84,550,000''.
Page 17, line 26, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert
``$3,240,000''.
Page 17, after line 26, insert the following:
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.
2501-2514), $5,000,000.
Page 47, line 23, strike ``$14,600,000'' and insert
``$65,310,000''.
Page 55, line 5, strike ``$384,504,000'' and insert
``$195,854,000''.
Mr. MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as
read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
There was no objection.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be
supported by all Members who care about our national parks, national
wildlife refuges, national forests and public lands. This is an
amendment that should be supported by those who care about our parks
and outdoor recreation opportunities in our urban areas. No doubt about
it, this amendment directly benefits people in every congressional
district in this country.
The land and water conservation fund is one of the most popular and
successful programs that our government has run. Funded by a portion of
[[Page H 6971]]
the oil and gas revenues generated from leasing Federal lands on the
Outer Continental Shelf, the land and water conservation fund helps to
meet the increasingly heavy demand for hunting, fishing, and recreation
areas, protects outstanding resources, and preserves the Nation's
natural and historical heritage.
In addition to Federal land acquisitions, the fund provides for
direct grants to States for parks, open space and outdoor recreational
facilities. Since 1965, over 37,000 State and local grants have been
awarded, totaling $3.2 billion. The States and localities have matched
this amount dollar for dollar to acquire $2.3 million acres of park
land and open space and to develop more than 24,000 recreation sites.
In fiscal 1996 there will be $11 billion in this trust fund, yet
unappropriated for a lot of political reasons, but unfortunately the
short fund, the recreational needs of this country.
My amendment would fund the Land and Water Conservation Program at
the same levels that Congress appropriated in fiscal year 1995. In
addition, my amendment provides for $5 million to fund the Urban Parks
and Recreation Recovery Program. The current bill provides no funding
for this program.
My amendment would provide an increase of $183 million over the $51
million which is provided in the bill as reported by the Committee on
Appropriations.
The increased funds for land and water conservation provided in this
amendment are offset by a corresponding $183 million reduction in the
Department of Energy's fossil energy research and development fund.
It is true that the budget resolution which Congress has adopted
calls for a 7-year freeze on Federal land acquisitions, but I would
remind my colleagues that this House also had voted to abolish the
Department of Energy, and yet the bill before us today would provide
Department of Energy funding for fossil fuel research to the tune of
$384 million. It is my understanding that this research appropriation
greatly in excess of the $220 million level which the Committee on
Science has authorized in H.R. 1816. By contrast, my amendment would
bring the DOE spending within the Committee on Science limits by
allowing $195 million for DOE's fossil research programs.
This amendment presents a very real question of priorities. In my
view, the national wildlife refuges, the national forests, the public
lands and the urban park areas outweigh the need for the excessive and
above the level the Committee on Science recommends for spending on DOE
research for coal, oil and gas, research which can and should be done
by those industries without these Federal subsidies.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment ought to be considered
in the context of the debate on the Endangered Species Act and the
private property rights. Members recently have received a July 10
``Dear Colleague'' on the recent ``Sweet Home'' Supreme Court decision
on the Endangered Species Act. In that
``Dear Colleague,'' the gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of our
committee, and five other Members state that if we are to have wildlife
refuges and sanctuaries, we should go back to the right way of
obtaining them, buy them or pay them for the use of the land for
refuges.
We will debate the merits of the Endangered Species Act at length
when that legislation is reported to the floor. But what we must
understand, that Members cannot continue to claim that they think the
right way to provide for these lands is to pay for those private
properties, which it is, and then not provide the money to do so when
these lands are so important to helping our urban areas, our suburban
areas and our rural areas meet the demands for recreation and for
public space and to meet the needs of both endangered species and
habitat.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund has a priority list of lands
that include bear habitat within the Kodiak National Refuge, the Upper
Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Iowa, and Illinois; preserve the natural water flow patterns for the
critical Everglades National Park in Florida; to promote the outdoor
recreation of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in Connecticut,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New
York; to protect the historical integrity of the Gettysburg National
Military Park in Pennsylvania; to enhance the scenic and natural values
of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in Los Angeles,
the important national forests of the greater Yellowstone area in
Montana; to help protect the salmon streams and the national forests in
Oregon and Washington; and to provide resources to those urban areas
who are trying to reclaim the recreational opportunities for their
youth in cities throughout the country that are trying to bring back
the streets, a very successful program where again local government has
sought to participate far in excess of the moneys that are available,
and without these moneys they simply will not be able to take care of
those urban resources and to fully fund the backlog of acquisition and
problems that we have.
We have people who are inholders who want to get rid of their private
lands, who want the Government to buy those lands. We have management
problems created in some cases by those, but there is no money. This is
the great backlog that we continue to discuss in this Congress where we
continue to add to it. Hopefully we will not continue to add to it in
the new Congress, but we ought to start getting rid of it out of
fairness to those landholders and those people who are concerned about
the integrity of our natural resource system.
{time} 1645
So those are the priorities. The Congress can choose, as this bill
does, to force feed energy research in oil and gas and coal far beyond
the recommendation of the Committee on Science, or we can take that
excess force feeding of those moneys and apply them to very high-
priority items throughout the entire country to protect and preserve
the environment, to protect and preserve our national parks, to protect
and preserve our national forests, and to expand and protect and
preserve the recreational opportunities for our citizens in our inner
cities and suburban communities and small towns across the country.
That is the choice that this amendment presents. It is neutrally
funded. It costs no more money than to force feed this energy research.
I would hope my colleagues would choose their local community that is
requesting these funds. I would hope they would choose their local
counties. I would hope they would choose their local States and the
gems of the natural resource system of this country, the national
parks, the national wilderness, and the national refuge system of the
United States.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, so the Members understand the issue here clearly, this
has an appeal, but let me say that the House-passed budget resolution
that was adopted here some weeks ago, provided a 5-year moratorium on
land acquisition, because when we buy land, we have to take care of it.
If we buy land, it means more people, it means more of everything.
We are talking about trying to get to a balanced budget in this
Nation in 7 years. We cannot get to a balanced budget by buying more
than we can take care of. That is the reason the Committee on the
Budget put a moratorium on land acquisition. This would scuttle that
moratorium totally and go back to business as usual.
The statement was made that we are force feeding programs in energy
research. Let me tell my colleagues again, we have cut back
considerably, but we have contractual obligations. We have a number of
projects in fossil energy research that have contracts with the private
sector. The private sector is putting up anywhere from 50 to 75 percent
of the money, which means that they believe that these will be
successful.
I think it is a big mistake in terms of national policy to cut back
any further on fossil energy research. We are going to downsize it. We
are going to get down to the numbers of the authorizing committee,
maybe not as quickly as they would but we are headed that way. But we
have to recognize our contractual obligations. If we suddenly pull our
part of it out, we are subject to lawsuits for failure to perform on
contracts that we have made.
[[Page H 6972]]
Let me also tell my colleagues that we did put in $50 million in an
emergency fund for land acquisition. We recognize that there may be
parcels of land that become available that we should take advantage of.
So, we do have a cushion in the bill, in spite of the fact that the
Committee on the Budget and the budget we passed called for a
moratorium on land acquisition. The use of that money for land
acquisition is subject to the reprogramming, so it has to come back, in
effect, to the appropriate committees.
The reason we reduced land acquisition was to fund operations. The
money that might have otherwise been spent on land acquisition is put
into the operations of the parks. We actually increased the operation
money in the parks over 1995.
We want to keep the parks open. We want to keep the forests open. As
I said at the outset, these are must-do's. We must keep the facilities
available to the public and therefore we have flat-funded them and used
that money for the operations that we normally would have put in land
acquisition, because we have a responsible number on fossil energy
research.
I think what we have done represents a balance. It represents the
will of the House as reflected in the budget adopted here. It takes
care of operations, and I do not think we ought to tamper with it.
These are nice to do. It would be nice to go out and buy more land. It
would be nice to fund the UPARR Program, but we cannot do it all when
we have a 10-percent cut and we can look forward to more next year. We
need to avoid doing things that have substantial downstream costs or
otherwise we cannot leave as a legacy for future generations a strong
economy that would be generated by a balanced budget.
Mrs MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, on that point about not wanting to
saddle the Federal Government with the maintenance cost for new
acquisitions, I understand that motivation prompted the Committee on
the Budget, of which I am a member, to put a freeze on the purchase.
But the fundamental principle of the land and water conservation
fund, so far as I am acquainted with it, is that there are acquisitions
made on a local level and that the maintenance and the care and the
development of these lands are basically turned over to the counties
and to the States for their assumption of that future responsibility.
And all that the land and water conservation fund does is to provide
the moneys for acquisition.
So, we are not transferring. By approving this amendment, we would
not be transferring a future cost to the Federal Government; is that
not true?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman from
Hawaii is absolutely correct on the UPARR portion, but that is a small
part of this amendment. A great bulk of what the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller] proposes to take out of fossil energy research
is going to land acquisition on the national parks and other land
management agencies. A very small part of what his amendment would
delete would go to the mission that the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs.
Mink] has described.
For that much of it, the gentlewoman is correct. But to put over $200
million in land acquisition, obviously, has to generate very
substantial maintenance costs downstream for the U.S. Government and
that is the reason the Committee on the Budget put a moratorium on
additional land acquisition and we tried to respond to the House-passed
budget.
(Mrs. MINK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the amendment of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], because I feel that the set
aside that we so wisely did in putting aside these oil exploration
funds into this land and water conservation fund was for the future use
and acquisition of these lands, which are the precious acquisitions for
the entire country. It is not for one particular State of locale; it is
acquisitions that go to the total assets of the United States.
So I rise in very strong support of this amendment and I hope that
the Members will agree and I yield to the offeror of this amendment,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Hawaii
[Mrs. Mink] raised the question, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Regula] raised the question, about maintenance costs. in many
instances, the land that is in the backlog waiting to be acquired is
held by private landowners in the middle of a national forest, on the
edge of a national forest, or surrounded on two sides or three sides or
four sides by a national forest.
These people want out. They are encumbered by the fact that the
forest is there. The Forest Service or the Park Service or the Refuge
Service would reduce their operational costs and administrative costs
because of these in-holdings. These people in many cases have been
standing in line for years after year after year. We have heard about
them.
And this committee is struggling. I do not doubt what they try to do
every year. This committee has struggled to try to meet that demand.
The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and I have sat in our committee
and continued to make sure that they never whittle the backlog down.
the fact is, the backlog exists. I think that with the new Congress,
the backlog is about to not be added to, if I hear what is going on in
our committee correctly. But we owe it to those people who are waiting
to have their lands purchased.
And there is money available, but there is not if we choose to use it
in the Department of Energy fossil fuel research; again, which many of
these companies can do on their own and have the availability to do.
It is a question of priorities. Let us understand that in many
instances, this is about reducing administrative costs in Park Service
units, in National Park Services, in wildlife refuge units. So, it is
not all about that.
This would give, obviously, the Forest Service and the Committee on
Appropriations the ability to set priorities, but let us get rid of
some of this backlog. It is not fair to these people to just leave them
hanging there as we have purchased all the land around them. I would
hope that we would support the amendment.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield to a
question from me, is not it true that this backlog that the gentleman
speaks of are already acquisitions that the Congress has already acted
upon to some extent? It is not as though we are coming in with a new
acquisition, a new park idea or some new enhancement of our
environment. These are items that have already been set down, but for a
variety of reasons, the land and water conservation fund has not been
tapped to do this purchase.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct.
Many of these properties are subject to congressional designation. Many
these properties have a cloud on their title in one fashion or another
because of what has taken place around them. And the question is do we
start to whittle down that backlog?
Let us understand something here. There is $11 billion in the land
and water conservation fund and the agreement was with the American
people that we would allow oil drilling off of the coast of this
country and we would use those resources to add to the great resource
base of this country for recreation and for public use.
That promise was never kept; not by any Congress, not by any
administration. It is a little bit of the kind of fraud that we have
sometimes around the highway trust fund or the airport trust fund. We
put the money in there and we say this is going to go for
airport safety or this is going to go for improved highways. But then
somehow this Congress starts dipping their fingers into this trust fund
or one administration or the other wants to make the budget deficit
smaller than it does.
Who are the victims? The victims are the people who paid for the
gasoline that expected better roads and safer roads. The victims are
the people who bought an airline ticket and expected safer airlines.
The victims are the people who agreed to have this oil explored
[[Page H 6973]]
off their coast and said that the tradeoff will be that we will create
this trust fund.
We have been robbing this trust fund for years. Now all we are
suggesting is that we authorize them to spend some of the $11 billion.
I do not think the Committee on Appropriations in the last few years
has spent more than $100 million out of the trust fund for acquisition.
That is how you get a backlog. You lie to the American people. You
lie to the American people. All of these things that are on this list
for acquisition are because Members of Congress thought they were
terribly important and voted to pass them. We ought to keep faith with
the American people, faith with the budget process, and vote for the
Miller amendment. It is a hell of a good deal.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Miller amendment to the Interior appropriations bill which would add
$184 million for land acquisitions for preservation of our natural
resources.
The Miller amendment attempts to restore the land and water
conservation fund [LWCF] to fiscal year 1995 levels, through decreases
in fossil energy research to authorized levels set forth by the Science
Committee. There is $11.2 billion surplus in the Treasury for the LWCF.
The Miller amendment appropriates a mere 2 percent of this surplus.
The LWCF has been essential to the conservation in perpetuity of
lands for recreational use since 1965. Under LWCF, local communities
and States have the opportunity, through the fund's 50/50 matching
grants, to directly invest in parks and recreation in local areas. A
modest Federal role in the LWCF provides States and local officials
primary responsibility and flexibility for such land acquisition and
development projects made possible by the fund.
The reduction in fiscal year 1996 appropriations out of the LWCF
represents a serious threat to the promotion of America's national and
historical heritage. My State acquired under LWCF Hakalau National
Wildlife Refuge, the very first refuge for forest birds in the country
and a vital part of Hawaii's battle against an endangered species
crisis. Of the 128 bird species that originally nested in the Hawaiian
Islands, 58 have disappeared and 32 are on the endangered species list.
Habitat for endangered waterbirds has been protected by the LWCF at
the Kealia National Wildlife Refuge on the Island of Maui, which
consists of 700 acres of wetlands.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, through the LWCF, has worked with a
private landowner to secure the 164-acre James Campbell National
Wildlife Refuge, which contains habitat supporting 35 species of birds
making up the largest population of waterbirds in Hawaii.
The LWCF funded the Oahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge in the
Koolau Mountain range, which is on its way to being the first actively
managed habitat for Hawaiian endangered and indigenous tree snails,
birds, bats, and plants.
The National Park Service has used the LWCF to augment Hawaii's two
major national parks--Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on the Big Island
and Haleakala National Park on the Island of Maui.
Since 1965, the LWCF has funded more than 37,000 projects with more
than half of these projects invested in urban and suburban areas. To
keep the fund at the level in H.R. 1977 would be to rob countless
communities across the Nation of the ability to continue developing
projects for which substantial sums have been invested, good faith
commitments have been put into place with willing landowners, and
timetables have been congressionally authorized.
I urge my colleagues to cast their votes in favor of the Miller
amendment to restore funding for land and water conservation fund
acquisitions for purposes of conservation.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly, but enthusiastically, rise in opposition
to the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. Much of
what the gentleman said is true, but let us keep in mind that these
properties that we were supposed to be purchasing were set off limits
by another Congress.
In fact, if we look at the GAO report, which I requested with the
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], that was reported in 1995, we
purchased in 1993, through the agencies, a little over 203,000 acres of
land. The Forest Service purchased 72,000; the LM 27,000; the Fish and
Wildlife, 82,000; the National Park Service, 22,000.
What we have done in the past, and I will respectfully say, we have
now hopefully addressed that issue with a commission that will look at
our parks. We hope to come forth with another recommendation that we do
not constantly create these units without proper scientific research
and input.
Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree that there is $11 billion in the fund
to buy these properties. We have not. We have used them. All
administrations, including this one, have used these moneys to balance
the budget, or other purposes than what they were collected for.
But more than that, we have stopped drilling off shore too. There is
no drilling taking place in the United States, other than in the
Mexican gulf. There is a little off of Alaska. There is none around the
United States and I do not think anybody here is advocating that. None
in Florida. I am not saying that.
What I am saying is that the gentleman from Ohio said that we did on
this side, I am saying this for our Members, agreed to a budget target
to balance it by a certain time.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to request, respectfully, we vote no on
the gentleman's amendment, although much of his argument is correct as
to how this has been misused. But I do believe if we want to reach that
target, we should reject the amendment, support the chairman of the
committee, and go forth with our business.
{time} 1700
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
You know, over and over again we have heard Members of the 104th
Congress speaking very vocally, obviously very enthusiastically, in
favor of protecting private property rights, and I do the same myself.
But we have heard them say if you want to protect endangered species
living on private lands, then buy the land. In fact, I got this
interesting dear colleague letter from people on both sides of the
aisle really saying the same thing. Well, this House has passed
legislation requiring that the Federal Government purchases property at
a landowners' request if the Government impacts its value more than 50
percent. But here we are, we have this bill which is just gutting the
very account that would allow us to acquire land.
So I would say to Members who are concerned about private property
rights, I would say let us put our money where our mouths are. There
are numerous examples of property owners ready, willing to sell their
land to the Federal Government so that we can protect fish and
wildlife.
In Oregon, we have landowners along the Siletz and Nestucca Rivers
who want to sell some of this region's most productive wetlands in
order to provide habitat for bald eagles, snowy white plovers, and at-
risk of salmon. That is great. We have a willing seller, a willing
buyer, we have a good idea.
Farther north on the Columbia River, the endangered Columbia white-
tailed deer is a shining example where you have a good management plan,
you can take the animal off the endangered species list. We need a
little more land to make sure that that habitat is there.
We have willing sellers. We need the money in this account to do
that. Now, land acquisition, it seems to me, is a most cooperative,
nonintrusive way to protect both the endangered species and private
property rights.
At a time when divisiveness has paralyzed many resources issues, land
acquisition provides us with that win-win solution that we are all
looking for.
It is hypocritical to claim that you want to preserve the rights of
private landowners or that you want to prevent species train wrecks,
and then turn around and cut the funding for the land acquisition. If
you colleagues support private property rights, and if you support the
prevention of extinction of species, you have a great opportunity here.
Vote ``yes'' on the Miller amendment. It is a win-win situation.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in very strong support of the
amendment by my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
I think it would be a very sad mistake for this new majority to miss
an opportunity, and that opportunity is really to provide the
preservation of some of our natural lands in this country.
You know, these bills that we are looking at provide, and this
particular
[[Page H 6974]]
legislation provides, opportunity to spend money on surveys and studies
and administration. But, really, what do we leave the next generation?
I tell you that we cannot do anything that would be more lasting for
the next generation than to invest this small amount of money on
preservation of lands, many of them endangered, throughout the United
States.
Let me speak from a personal standpoint. I and my family lived, and I
grew up, in Miami, and I saw what happened to the Everglades there, how
they became neglected and how we did not take the time to preserve that
area.
I now have the opportunity to represent central Florida, a beautiful
area that has natural bodies of water and hundreds of lakes, and that
area is endangered. You know, we have the Ocala National Forest to the
north. The State has preserved some land around the urban areas. This
area is impacted by tremendous growth, and we have the opportunity to
acquire some land in a Federal-State partnership, and that money is not
available, and that is sad and that is tragic because the same thing I
saw happen as I grew up as a young man now is taking hundreds of
millions, billions, of dollars to restore the Everglades. And because
we did not make the investment that we needed, we may never get another
chance.
I have a photo of the area that I am talking about, the St. John's
River, in my district, $15 million from the State, $15 million from the
Federal. But we do not have a penny in this bill for land acquisition,
and that is wrong, and it is wrong for this side of the aisle to reject
this amendment. Because this should be a priority, and we will not get
another chance to save these lands.
So I urge my colleagues to look at this. A lot of the things we say
here will not make any difference, but something we do here will make a
big difference, and that big difference is preserving this land and
these natural preserves for the future.
We should be investing in that. I am one of the most fiscally
conservative Members in the entire House of Representatives, according
to voting records, so I come here speaking not to spend money idly, not
to spend money on pork projects, but to spend and make an investment in
the future so we can leave a legacy for our children.
So I strongly--I strongly advocate passage of this amendment.
I had an amendment in here just to add a few more dollars to this,
and I commend the gentleman for adding the many more dollars that can
be well spent and well expended in the national interest, in the public
interest and in the interest of our children.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman's
statement, and I say to him, he need not worry, as I am sure he knows,
about putting his conservative credentials at risk. The proposition on
behalf of which he speaks is the most profoundly conservative
proposition that could possibly come before us. It is literally
conservative. It is conservative; it is conserving those things of
greatest value to us and future generations.
The gentleman speaks for the best heritage of his party. I hear Teddy
Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot in his voice, and I commend him.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
His State is exactly the kind of State that needs this acquisition
because they are going through an incredible transition to try to hold
onto one of the world's great resources, and to do so, they need the
cooperation of farmers and cities and private landowners and
homebuilders and others, and they have worked out a State plan. They
have tried to patch this together so that they can protect the Florida
Keys, they can protect the Everglades, and they can protect the economy
in the northern end of that ecosystem.
But they need help in land acquisition because people are willing to
help but, as so many have said on both sides of the aisle, they want to
be paid. They cannot just give away their families' assets. But those
assets, in some cases, in central Florida and elsewhere, are farm lands
that are productive but they are key if we are going to save Florida
Bay, the Keys, and this great ecosystem.
I really want to commend the gentleman and thank him.
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I regret that I
take this position. I know the committee and the chairman have done a
great job.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] has
expired.
(At the request of Mr. Regula and by unanimous consent, Mr. Mica was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware that we have funded
the 1995 level on the south Florida ecosystem? We are very aware of the
problems.
Mr. MICA. Yes. I do not speak, sir, to the south Florida ecosystem. I
am talking about the ecosystem of the United States and the investment
that we are making. These are so few dollars compared to the whole
budget and to the money that is spent on studies and surveys and
administration.
We will never get another chance, and what I would like to avoid is
the mistakes that were made in south Florida that I saw as I grew up in
south Florida. So again, I strongly urge my colleagues who talked about
property rights, about preservation, about environment and being strong
supporters, to come forward and to support this amendment.
And I regret that I take a position in opposition to you and the
committee.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, for years this body has tried to purchase land when
they had no money to buy it, and not only no money, they were in
arrears of billions of dollars paying for land that they have already
taken, and then they go ahead and try to buy more.
The last Congress, the same gentlemen that are arguing took 3\1/2\
million brand-new acres in the California desert plan. They took in
Mojave about 1.4 million acres, in Death Valley, they took 1.5 million
acres in Joshua Tree, totaling over 3.5 million acres. They did not
have the money then to manage it, and then what happens is people go on
this list. They say, ``Do not leave these people in this position.''
Well, when you try to buy land and you do not have the money in the
first place, not only in our Congress but for the last 20 years, and
you go billions of dollars in the hole and then you take people on that
list and you do not let them improve their property, you do not let
them do certain things to it and the value goes down and then you come
in and say, ``Now, we want to give you fair market value, which is
probably 10 percent on your buck,'' that is wrong.
Even in the California desert plan, they are coming up with odd ways
to keep people out of it by not even letting them use the current roads
that access the California desert.
You say it is wrong to leave these people in there. Well, look who
put them in there in the first place. You need to be able to pay for
the land that we have. Over 50 percent of California is owned already
by the Federal Government, and we are billions of dollars in just the
operations.
The chairman is trying to put the money in the operations to manage
the systems that we have that are also in arrears.
We need to take a look at what is fairness and access. Yes, there are
needs for the environment, and there are certain areas, we have got an
area in Carmel Valley I would love to be able to purchase. As a matter
of fact, the builders will sell it to us. We do not have the money to
do it. I would love to. But we are so many billions of dollars behind,
I am going to have hard trouble finding it. It would be a good area
because it connects all the things that you want to in endangered
species. It gives corridors, it gives areas where we can protect those
things.
I would love to help work with you to get the dollars for it, but we
do not have it, and if we keep doing this and we keep taking
governmental land and
[[Page H 6975]]
making new land and not being able to pay for it, that is wrong, too,
by putting private property rights at risk, and that is why most of us
are against this.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. I say to the gentleman, you know, you
brought up the California desert. That was already Federal land. We
changed the management structure from BLM to the National Park Service.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There are 3.5 million acres of brand-new land in
that. The total was about 7 million acres.
Mr. MILLER of California. No, no. Those are public lands already
owned by the United States.
Let me say this is not unique.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. What about Catellus?
Mr. MILLER of California. This backlog, Catellus, is not in it. This
backlog is not unique to the Democrats, because the majority on our
Committee on Resources just reported out a $5 million new national
park. I mean if we are really serious about no backlog and whittling
down the backlog, let us whittle down the backlog. Let us not add to
this. This is money the taxpayers have deposited in a trust fund that
they believe that was going to be utilized to take care of whatever
that valuable piece of property you described or some other ecosystem
of the United States.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There are lands, I would say to the gentleman from
California, that I would love to work with the gentleman on, especially
in our jewel State of California, that I think we can still say that
cannot be used, that we would not be violating those private property
rights.
I think the chairman has done a good job in acquiescing to the point
that we need to support the current systems that we have and maintain
the operations.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. One of the things that concerns me is that we do not have
funds available for land acquisition for Florida, for example, or for
the situation that you have described. How would you propose that we
get those funds? I share all of your concerns.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The first thing, I would not give $5 billion to the
former Soviet Union when they are building submarines. I would not give
money to Haiti that can sit there for the next years, and we are
spending billions of dollars there. We are looking into Somalia. We are
going to spend billions of dollars there. There are a lot of areas this
Congress could do it. We are not doing it. I think the chairman, with
the limited resources he has, has done a good job.
Mr. VENTO. 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 California [Mr. Miller].
As I was listening to the debate on this, obviously I think a lot of
people are talking by one another with records to what the gentleman
from California [Mr. Miller] is proposing.
What he is proposing is to try to keep the commitments that we have
made with regards to purchasing lands that are already mostly and
already have been designated by this Congress, and these are lands
obviously within parks, within the forests, within other areas which
are very sensitive, which generally, in fact, of course, when the land
management agencies, whether it is Fish and Wildlife Service or any of
the others that are to be extended some extra dollars under this or
given such authority, it is a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis.
{time} 1715
And I just wanted to point out that these are already decisions that
have been made, so, the gentleman from California, when these lands are
available in Carmel, or wherever we are talking about that are
sensitive lands, this is the opportunity to do it. We have set aside
this fund. We set aside over $1 billion a year from land water
conservation moneys and historic preservation, and it comes out of the
resources that were pumping the oil out, that we are using up our
natural resources, and the commitment that has been made is that we
would take those dollars and put them back into building a legacy for
the future, for the next generation, in terms of these special lands
that have been designated by Congress.
And the fact of the matter is that we are not, we are not, keeping
that commitment. Those dollars are being taken out of the offshore oil
and gas reserves and expended in other ways. We tried to do that to
insulate it from the type of decisions that we are dealing with when we
are dealing with human investment programs and foreign aid programs so
that we could have that particular program be inviolate. Today we are
$11 billion behind in terms of that fund that is available until
expended, so that is where we are at, and we are not going to catch up
with it, we are not going to deal with this important legacy, with
these commitments.
I can think of parks in my own State that have been designated some
25 years ago which still have inholdings. We have willing sellers,
willing buyers, and they are waiting. They are waiting for the Federal
Congress, for us, to appropriate the money so that they can begin to
negotiate and to purchase these particular inholdings. We have people
literally from Alaska to Florida, from California to New York, that
basically these commitments have been made, and these parks exist, and
it is very complicated.
I say to the gentleman, You talk about administrative costs. You try
to administer something when you have lands within that are not public
lands within these parks, willing sellers. You are gravely complicating
the costs of administering those particular lands under those
circumstances.
So the Miller amendment would take this money out of other accounts
and provide it so that the States would be able. Here is a very good
program where the States have cooperated in partnership, where urban
areas would receive a small amount of money and where the Federal
Government, our forests, our parks, our Fish and Wildlife Service
areas, and the BLM which is buying sensitive riparian lands in their
areas so that they have the water to go with the lands, are on a
willing seller, willing buyer basis purchasing these particular sites
so that we could, in fact, have a meaningful program and protect the
legacy of the next generation.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned that we had
commitments. Commitments in what way? Do we have contracts with
landowners, or is the gentleman just simply saying these are within the
boundaries of the parks or forests as the case might be?
Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, of course they are within the
boundaries of places like the Voyageurs where people have lands, of
course, because they are within parks. We do not want them to develop
it. They are in abeyance. They are holding it. We are building in
controversy here. We are, as the gentleman knows, obviously causing
greater problems.
As the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] has mentioned, he has seen
in Florida the type of problems that have envolved where we made
special commitments to the purchase, and nothing is more important than
the all right purchases in an honest way.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. In fact, would not the gentleman view this as a pro-
property-rights amendment because we have told so many people out there
that we are going to pay for their land, and, if we deprive them of the
right to use that land, that is fact that this is a pro-property-rights
amendment, that the questions of access, the questions of takings and
other issues that have been raised here--would not the gentleman say
that they are in fact false issues because we are talking about whether
or not we have any funds to acquire these lands?
Mr. VENTO. I think the gentleman makes a very, very good point. I
think the reason we have the issue of takings, the limitation on land
is aggravated greatly by the fact the Federal Government----
[[Page H 6976]]
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. VETO. Mr. Chairman, just to conclude, I think that the reason we
have the problems in terms of the Federal Government and its contact
with landowners, whether it is in Alaska or other places, is because we
are not keeping our commitments with regards to these sensitive lands
and these programs. It has led to the types of problems that we have
seen in the sort of solutions that are very--are not workable but
nevertheless are being advanced simply on an off-and-on emotional
basis, so I hope today--I think we should be able to come together, and
put the dollars up there where the commitments have been made to honor
basically the contracts we made when we designated these lands, and to
help in the efficiency and proper administration, whether it is parks
or other public lands. Giving these dollars to the Federal Government
under the conditions and strictures that have been in place, the
Committee on Appropriations has to approve each one of these particular
purposes. I say to my colleagues, ``You have got absolute control over
this in terms of the reporting requirements which many of us would
object to, but that is the case, so I think you can rest assured that
these dollars will be spent well. I think we should trust our States
and work in a cooperative and a collaborative manner with them on these
programs which we have made commitments to rather than pulling the rug
out from under them which this bill does today without the Miller
amendment.''
Vote for the Miller amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes 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 gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will be recognized
for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Pombo].
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me, and it is quite entertaining to listen to this debate and the
poor-mouthing that is going on about the poor people, the poor Federal
Government, that has not been able to purchase land. I think that the
facts may surprise a few people.
Out of 650 million acres that the Federal Government currently owns,
35 million acres have been bought in the last 20 years, 35 million
acres.
Now the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] talks about Florida and
areas that he would like to protect in Florida, and granted they may be
areas that need to be protected and maybe should be bought and set
aside as a preserve, or a wildlife habitat, or a wilderness area for
that matter, but in looking through the GAO report, the Federal
Government owns 4 million acres in the State of Florida already.
Now is all this 4 million acres land that the Federal Government
should own, or maybe should some of it be sold so some money could be
gathered up to purchase the land?
I think that it is extremely important that we realize that the
Federal Government is adding land every year, not just purchasing land
every year, but we are authorizing them to purchase more.
It was brought up by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] that
we approved a new park recently which I did not happen to agree and
think was that great an idea. I think that maybe we ought to look at
all the parks we have right now and decide whether or not they are all
that we have.
But we have 650 million acres of Federal land. There is absolutely no
reason why we cannot sell off some of that Federal land to purchase
some of these sensitive environmental areas, some of these areas that
would be ideal endangered-species habitat or wilderness areas.
As the gentleman knows, in my State, 50 percent of which the Federal
Government owns, we have enough Federal land. We would be willing to
sell some of our land to purchase some sensitive areas.
I think that we have to really look at what we are talking about
doing here instead of continuing to add more and more Federal lands.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, just to get this all totally in focus I say to my
colleagues, ``If you voted for the budget resolution, it had a
moratorium on land acquisition so you should be against this
amendment.''
We have already cut fossil energy research. This really decimates it.
I say to my colleagues, '`If you don't care about our energy future, or
our energy independence, or our national security, then you're not
going to worry, but I think it is important. We have to balance out the
needs.''
The reason we are not buying a lot more land is that we do not have
enough money to take care of what we have, and, therefore, I think it
does not make a lot of sense to buy additional land. We could generate
revenues with offshore drilling in California and Florida, but I
suspect that the proponents here that would like to buy more land and
have more money are opposed to offshore drilling.
I would also point out when we did the rescission we found millions
of dollars that have been appropriated that have not yet been spent.
One last thing:
We provide in the bill that the agencies can do land exchanges with
private for public to adjust the boundaries, and that offers them an
opportunity to get lands that are needed without spending more money or
without taking on additional responsibilities.
I believe we have a very responsible approach in this bill. I would
strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. We do not
want to decimate fossil energy research. We do not want to buy more
land. Already more than 38 percent of America is owned by the Federal
Government, and we should use these lands for productive purposes. We
have great lands that we need to enhance and operate effectively, and
to take on more responsibility makes it impossible to get to the kind
of deficit lowering that we want to see in the future.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that we already take in
the money from the offshore oil and gas. Opening up more would not get
us the money because it is being diverted to some other place. I know
we talk about what was in the budget resolution. The budget resolution
abolishes the Department of Energy, abolished it. That is where this
money is being taken from, is from the Department of Energy. The
question is we have had a lot of these paper promises in terms of
delivering the money. As far as the Federal Government is concerned, we
have given away 200 million acres of land in the last 30 years. We have
given it away, and that is fine. That is appropriate in terms of many
of the laws we have, so there is nothing wrong with that in terms of
what we purchase. We are buying the sensitive riparian areas, the areas
that have the endangered species, trying to round out the ownership for
the parks, the BLM, so that we, in fact, can avoid the types of
conflicts and reduce the administrative costs, and we need to have a
funding account here with these dollars for reasonable land purchases
which are approved by the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee,
and I know they have done good work in the past and they will do it in
the future. We can count on them to properly screen and filter these
purchases. Vote for the Miller amendment.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I want my colleagues to understand we
have a several-hundred-million-acre backlog here, and this money is
greatly needed. We are not doing the job now.
Now by the way, these are private landholders who are trying to
strike agreements, and some of them have waited a very long time, and
they will expect that their Government is going to follow through on
its commitments. The money that the gentleman proposes to put back in
will only bring us
[[Page H 6977]]
up to a level where we still have a several-hundred-billion-acre
backlog, but at least it will not get worse.
For the good of habitat in this country, for the good of wild lands
in this country, for the good of wild rivers in this country, and for
the good of private land holders who want to help and expect the
Federal Government to keep the agreements that have been made with them
please support this amendment.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is
recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
this is about priorities. This budget resolution froze land
acquisition. It also abolished the Department of Energy. One of the
reasons it abolished the Department of Energy, I suspect, was we have
already put $8 billion into this fossil fuel research, and we have
gotten bupkiss out of it. We have gotten a huge debt out of it. Here is
one of the wealthiest industries in the world who makes huge financial
decisions about research, about exploration, about development and the
hundreds of billions of dollars, and we are telling ourselves we
believe in the marketplace, so to speak, but they are only $200 million
of taxpayers' moneys away from a breakthrough. They could not do it on
the first 8 billion, and actually it is far more than that. That is
just the last 5 or 6 years, $200 million.
So, I say to my colleagues, ``Choose the priority. You can choose
land acquisition and protection for the national parks and the wildlife
refuges, or you can choose to force-feed $200 million more than the
Committee on Science tells you that they are prepared to see this
organization spend, and this adds to the $8 billion you have tried to
force-feed in terms of energy development.''
Now, you said abolish the Department of Energy. But apparently when
it is gone, the subsidy to these corporate clients will continue to be
left.
{time} 1730
So this is about priorities, this is about stark choices, and this is
about decisions. When your constituents ask you why don't you run the
government like a business, it is because you are feeding business $200
million they do not need, do not want, and do not find in their
priorities. If this was a priority, they would be spending money on it.
They are out in deep waters in the Gulf, they are in Russia, they are
in the Middle East, they are in Kazakhstan, they are in China, and they
are in Vietnam. And we are, like fools, sitting here saying, ``Oh, will
you do some energy research in the United States of America?''
Let's choose the ecosystem of America. Let's choose the national
parks. Let's choose the refuges, let's choose our urban park land, the
families and recreation and the 300 million visitor days that will take
place this summer, as we sit here and debate, by people who have chosen
our national parks, chosen our seashores, chosen our refuges, chosen
our national forests. Give them a hand. Give them a hand. Exxon,
Chevron, Shell, Phillips, these boys, they will figure it out
themselves. They always have. Vote for the Miller amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], as modified.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170,
noes 253, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No 502]
AYES--170
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bishop
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Conyers
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klug
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stark
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--253
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Bono
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Fields (TX)
Green
Greenwood
Hefner
Moakley
Montgomery
Reynolds
Tauzin
{time} 1755
The clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Bono against.
Messrs. HORN, TAYLOR of Mississippi, BENTSEN, and Ms. JACKSON-
[[Page H 6978]]
LEE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. GILMAN, de la GARZA, and PETERSON of Florida, Mrs. KELLY, and
Messrs. FOX of Pennsylvania, SAWYER, ZELIFF, BRYANT of Texas, and
LONGLEY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. neumann
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The Clerk will
designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Neumann: Page 12, strike lines 4
through 8.
Page 12, strike lines 21 through 25.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that the
time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the gentleman
from California feels very strongly about this. He is willing to agree
to 30 minutes, 15 minutes on each side, if that is agreeable.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment
and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes and that the time be
equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state his understanding of this request.
The time for debate on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto
shall be limited to 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] will be
recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Washington [Mr.
Dicks] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
{time} 1800
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]
for joining me as a cosponsor in this bill. We have bipartisan support
for this bill.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation stands $4.8 trillion in debt. We will
overdraw our national checkbook this year alone by over $200 billion.
Our children and our grandchildren are counting on us to stop spending
money that we do not have. We must start prioritizing ourspending
habits. This amendment would cancel the expenditure of $800,000 of
taxpayer money to be spent on elephants, tigers, and rhinoceroses. I
care about wildlife and I sure do not want to see elephants, tigers, or
the rhinos become extinct.
The Neumann-Stenholm amendment would not mean that elephants, tigers,
or rhinos would become extinct. In fact, the African elephant fund has
collected over $4.5 million since 1991 in private contributions. The
taxpayers of the United States have added $3.7 million since that time.
This amendment simply turns off the use of Federal tax dollars for this
purpose. These programs and activities are properly left for private
foundations, not to be paid for by the U.S. taxpayers.
Some people here in Washington would have us believe that $800,000 is
not worth worrying about. Let me respond. I understand it take $1 per
day to keep a starving child alive in some of these same foreign
countries. That means we could use these same tax dollars to keep 2,100
starving children alive, rather than spend the money to preserve
tigers, elephants, and rhinos.
We have told our senior citizens that Medicare is broke, and it is.
The fact of the matter is that by the year 2002 the Medicare system
does not have enough money to pay its bills. We have told them there is
no extra money to put into the system. I would like to know how we are
going to explain this sort of an expenditure to those same senior
citizens.
Our Nation is counting on this new Congress to solve the financial
problems facing our country today. This is just one small step in
restoring fiscal responsibility so as to preserve this great Nation of
ours. I urge the passage of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] who has been one of the most
knowledgeable Members of this institution on these very important
programs. I strongly support these programs, as he does.
(Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Stenholm-Neumann
amendment, which would eliminate all funding for the African Elephant
Conservation Fund and for the rhinoceros and tiger Conservation Fund.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to say at the outset that I hope we have
not reached the point around here where every good and useful thing
that we have ever done, or every program, no matter how successful and
useful, is automatically suspect, and automatically subject to being
eliminated just because it costs some money, even if it is a very, very
small amount of money, such as in the case we are discussing here
today.
These two programs, tiny as they are, hold the best hope, perhaps our
only hope, of saving from extinction three of the world's most
venerated creatures. The decision by Congress to eliminate these
programs could have terrible consequences that we would never have the
chance to reverse.
The amendments being offered, despite the fact that the bill already
cuts the elephant fund to $600,000, half the money of this year's
appropriation, only half the amount requested by the administration, it
also cuts the rhino and tiger fund by $200,000, half the amount
required by the administration, so along with virtually everything else
in this bill, because of budget constraints, these programs are already
being cut by 50 percent with the committee bill.
For the very minor amount of savings that would be gained by this
amendment, a total of $800,000, its enactment would deal a potentially
catastrophic blow to our efforts to save three species of animals that
are on the brink of extinction, and would harm as well many other
species which benefit from these programs.
There are fewer than 11,000 rhinoceroses left in the wild today.
There are fewer than 6,000 tigers left in the wild today. The numbers
of these two creatures have declined rapidly in recent years because of
the demand for their parts and the poachers who supply that demand.
There may well be no rhinoceroses at all, no tigers at all, left on the
face of the earth in the next few years' time, except perhaps for a few
in the zoos, and they will not last very much beyond a few additional
years.
Mr. Chairman, I personally, and I hope the Members also, find that
inexpressibly sad and potentially tragic. I believe that our modest
efforts to save these species are well worth the mere $800,000 that we
are arguing over here tonight. Although all tiger subspecies and all
rhinoceros species have been listed as endangered for many years, the
prohibition on trade of these animals has not been well enforced in
some countries where their parts are believed by man to have medicinal
value. Because of the strong cultural belief in the rhinoceros' and
tiger's curative powers, it has been an extremely difficult and complex
task to eliminate trade in these species.
However, as the plight of the tiger and rhino has grown increasingly
serious, so too has our response. Last year the President imposed trade
sanctions on wildlife products from Taiwan, which was the first time
the United States has ever opposed such sanctions for trade in the
Endangered Species Act. Those sanctions were lifted recently in
recognition of the progress Taiwan has made in combatting trade in
endangered species, but the situation still requires close monitoring
.
[[Page H 6979]]
In tandem with that effort, toward the end of last year Congress
authorized the rhinoceros and tiger
Conservation Fund. We knew from our successful experience in slowing
the decline of the African elephant that we could stop the decline of
rhinos and tigers by providing assistance to other countries that they
need to conserve these animals. The fund would provide grants to
foreign governments and nonprofit groups that develop rhino and tiger
conservation projects. In addition, private donations could be accepted
and used for approved projects.
This is an example, Mr. Chairman, with the rhinoceros there has been
some success in efforts to form new herds from scattered individual
rhinos and remaining members of herds that have been decimated. If they
are brought together in suitable habitat with greatly increased
security, in time, group bonds form and a new herd can be established.
Unfortunately, rhinos all live in developing nations, which simply do
not have the resources to undertake this kind of preservation effort on
a sufficiently large scale to ensure the recovery of the species.
Mr. Chairman, we have had a decent amount of experience with such
programs. Mr. Chairman, we have had a decent amount of experience with
these programs, because the rhinoceros and tiger fund is modeled on the
successful African Elephant Conservation Fund that has been in
existence since 1989, and is the other program which would be
eliminated entirely by this amendment.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], who unfortunately cannot be
here today because of a death in the family, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], and I, concerned by the catastrophic
decline of the African elephant whose numbers plummeted from 1.5
million to about 400,000 just in the decade of the 1980's, were the co-
authors of that bill, which President Reagan signed into law about 6
years ago.
Under that program, with a relatively modest amount of funding, less
than $1.2 million a year, the United States has supported 55 projects
in 15 African countries, many of which are extremely poor and
desperately need the scientific and antipoaching assistance that we and
other nations have to offer to help them manage their elephant
populations. In fact, the elephant program has been perhaps the most
successful effort ever undertaken anywhere in the world to ensure the
preservation of a species in its native habitat.
Because of our leadership and contributions to the
international coordinating group, every range country in Africa now
has a short-term and a long-term conservation plan and we are all
actively engaged together in efforts to implement that plan. Elephant
populations now have been stabilized for the first time in recent
memory, in the last 6 years, at about 400,000, the level they were at
the end of the 1980's.
In addition, the elephant fund helps protect other species as well,
because elephants play an enormous role in the ecosystems they inhabit,
take up an enormous amount of space and area. Anything we could do to
conserve them conserves other species who live in those same spaces.
Most importantly and finally, Mr. Chairman, our efforts have served
as a catalyst in generating major contributions and technical
assistance from nongovernmental organizations, from other donor nations
such as Japan and several western European nations.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I believe, and I hope Members do too, it
would be unspeakably tragic if three of the most wondrous and beloved
creatures on earth, creatures we have always thought of as part of our
world, were no longer in existence. The tragedy would be greatly
compounded if in the years to come our children and grandchildren,
looking back at this time, saw that one major reason these creatures
were no longer part of their world was because back in 1995, the
Congress of the greatest, most powerful, and wealthiest Nation of the
world refused to spend a mere $800,000 to help to try to save them.
I know it is not a lot of money, I know it is easy to make fun of
such a program, I think it is terribly important what we are embarked
on here. We are not asking a lot of help. It is being cut by one-half
anyway. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and do what the
people of this country, if you were to ask them, would want us to do:
help preserve these magnificent creatures.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and perhaps one of the finest people in the United States of America.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to yield an additional
2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, the Speaker, if he would so
choose.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] is recognized
for 4 minutes.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I very much
appreciate the graciousness with which my colleague, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, yielded time to me.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which means well, but I think does
wrong. This is a very small amount of money, but it is symbolically
very important, and symbolically important in part for the signal it
sends to people, particularly in Africa and Asia, about whether or not
the United States is prepared to reach out and be helpful.
I want to confess up front, from a Republican standpoint I have some
concern for elephants, but as a person, and maybe this is because of my
own physique, I have a particular affection for rhinoceroses. I
happened to have helped the Atlanta zoo get two rhinos. I do not want
anyone on this side of the aisle to start making all the obvious
comparisons.
However, I will say that when we think about the gesture we are
making, and this has already been modified by the subcommittee in a way
which I thought was very helpful in moving toward raising private
sector funds and in making sure that we had to get involvement from the
private sector, but I think that for this tiny amount of money, we are
helping maintain an effort on behalf of some large mammals, all of
which are severely threatened and all of which could disappear,
literally be gone, unable to ever again find them in the wild. Frankly,
we are learning more and more about just how difficult it is to
reintroduce large animals, because they do not learn the habits in zoos
of being capable of survival.
Therefore, I would simply say to all my friends, we have done a lot
to cut spending this year. I am eager to get to a balanced budget. Most
of us have actually voted for a massive cut in overall spending. We
have proven we are committed to fiscal conservatism. This is a very
tiny, very good series of programs which are not only important for
ourselves, but which I believe send a signal; and I will tell all of
the Members, when we look at some of these countries that are very
poor, and they have suppressed poaching, and they have suppressed that,
if you look at the value of a rhinoceros horn and you are a poor
villager in southern Africa, look at the value of an elephant tusk,
look at the value of a tiger skin, and look at countries which have
voluntarily imposed on their own local people economic deprivation in
order to sustain these species so that our children and our
grandchildren can have a chance to see some of the most magnificent
animals in the modern era; and then to say that we are going to allow
them to disappear, and join that dinosaur skull I have in my office and
be extinct, for $800,000 total, it just seems to me that there are lots
of places to find savings.
We have found vastly more savings, I would say, with the help of the
gentleman from Wisconsin, we have found more savings from the
legislative branch, we are finding savings every week in the executive
branch, and we will continue to work to find places to cut, but I would
urge all of the Members, if this comes to a recorded vote, to join
together in sending a signal to these poor countries in Africa and
Asia, that this is a project they ought to have courage to stay with,
that we want to stay with them in making it possible, and then some
day, 20 or 30 years from now, if the rhinoceros still survives in the
wild and the tiger still survives in the wild and the elephant still
survives in the wild, you can feel like, hey, this was a nice thing to
do for the human race.
Frankly, I think it is the kind of thing that, occasionally we ought
to
[[Page H 6980]]
just stop; we do not have to cut mindlessly just because we want to get
to a balanced budget.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add two things to what the Speaker
says. First, I have the greatest respect for the Speaker of the House
of Representatives. I would like to agree with him that this is clearly
a symbolic vote, and that it clearly does send a message to the people
of the United States of America as well as to foreign countries.
This is a question about whether we are going to cut back on programs
or zero programs out. We have made the efforts to cut back on this
program, I concur. The question now is whether we are going to go ahead
and zero out programs, as opposed to just cut them back.
{time} 1815
The Republican Party has talked a lot about zeroing out programs, and
I would concur that this is a symbolic vote. I would also add that
passing this amendment is not designed to terminate the programs to
preserve elephants, rhinoceroses or tigers. It is simply an effort to
say that the United States tax dollar should not be used for that
purpose. We in this Nation need to reach the point where Government
does not keep doing for others what others ought to be doing for
themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Stenholm].
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Neumann-Stenholm
amendment to H.R. 1977, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal
year 1996. First, I would be remiss if I did not commend the gentleman
from Wisconsin for taking the lead on this issue. He is serious about
deficit reduction and I am pleased to be a part of this small effort
with him.
Our amendment is simple; it is about budget priorities. Our Nation
currently has a $4.8 trillion debt. Medicare, Medicaid, education,
agriculture, and many other important programs are being forced to make
painful cuts due to a significant reduction in their funding. Yet this
bill proposes sending nearly $1 million to Africa and other countries
for preservation of elephants, tigers, and rhinoceroses.
The folks in my district tell me it is time that the Federal
Government set reasonable budget priorities for their hard-earned tax
dollars. While the preservation of exotic animals is a worthy goal,
which I support wholeheartedly, I do not believe that sending $800,000
to Africa for this purpose meets the test of a reasonable budget
priority.
I certainly do not oppose the common sense protection of endangered
species. Many species have been saved and some are even flourishing now
due to protection of their habitats. Our amendment will not mark the
end of financial support for the African elephant, rhinoceroses or
tigers. Over the past 5 years, outside groups have donated money for
preservation of these species and their habitats totaling over $4.5
million.
Due to our current budgetary crisis, we are being forced to cut many,
many good programs. The issue is not whether it is a good idea to
preserve the habitats of elephants, rhinoceroses, and tigers in Africa
and other countries. The issue is whether this is a current budget
priority on which to spend American tax dollars. In this case, there is
obviously significant interest and willingness to help from outside
groups--they have done and are doing a great job of raising money for
this purpose. To the extent possible, I believe we should encourage the
private sector to provide funding for these types of projects. As a
matter of fact, if those who are busy lobbying against this amendment
spent the same amount of time, energy and money on fundraising--
everyone would win.
Interestingly, the Federal Government does not currently compensate
U.S. landowners whose use of their property is restricted due to the
inhabitation of an endangered species. By law, these landowners cannot
disturb an endangered species habitat even if it is on their private
property. Therefore, the financial cost of protecting a domestic
endangered species often falls on everyday U.S. citizens. Yet, at the
same time, we send American tax dollars to foreign countries for the
purpose of protecting an endangered species and its habitat. This
simply does not make sense.
The Neumann-Stenholm amendment makes good sense. I urge my colleagues
to support this fiscally responsible amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, just very quickly, I have a great deal of
respect for the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], but I have to disagree with them strongly
on this issue and certainly agree with what the Speaker said.
The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned children and the gentleman
from Texas mentioned education. I cannot think of anything that is more
important in a sense, in an overall sense for children and education,
than trying to preserve the species. If anybody, and I am sure many of
you have, have ever taken your children to a zoo to see elephants or
rhinoceroses, the type of pleasure children get out of seeing those
species, so many of the programs that children watch on TV, whether it
be cartoons or educational programs, have elephants, rhinoceros and
tigers. There is really a great thrill that children get in seeing the
species, the animals themselves, as well as seeing the representations
on TV.
I think the bottom line here is that these species are seriously
threatened. A small amount of tax dollars will only help these
nonprofit associations raise money. For the small amount of money we
are talking about here, I think it is wisely intended, and we should
oppose this amendment.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Regula].
Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, the Speaker was very eloquent in opposing this
amendment, and I would only add an ``amen'' to what he had to say. The
request we received from the President was for $1.6 million and it was
well-justified. However, in putting our bill together, we recognized we
had to cut back as much as possible. So we cut the President's request
in half, and that is what is in the bill today.
There has been an enormous decline in the rhino population, the tiger
population, the elephant population. Many of us can remember as
children first learning about these species in reading the National
Geographic, and we want our children and our grandchildren and great-
grandchildren to likewise have the experience of knowing about these
kind of animals.
We spent last year $69 million here in the United States on
endangered species. The rhinos and the tigers and the elephants are
more than just the Africans' possessions; they belong to all of us.
They are part of our heritage and part of our natural cultural
experience. We go to the zoos, we take our children to the zoos, our
grandchildren, to see these animals. If they were to become extinct, it
would be a tragedy for all of the people of the world.
These countries are poor. They do not have the resources. Of course,
as was mentioned, the sale of the rhino horns and other things are an
attractive thing for poachers. The way we have structure this, it
requires a 2-to-1 match from the private sector. We provide $1, we get
$2 from the private sector. Generous people, all over the United
States, who care, are contributing.
I would urge my colleagues to vote against this. This is a wonderful
investment. When you think we spend $69 million on endangered species,
and here we are talking about a mere $800,000 which will be multiplied
many times over by the countries where these animals are indigenous by
the private sector contributors. I cannot say as eloquently as the
Speaker how important this is for the preservation of these species.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I think everyone in this room knows what HIV is, and
that
[[Page H 6981]]
it leads to AIDS. HIV is human immunodeficiency virus.
It has just been discovered by a gentleman from Maryland that cats,
cats in the wild, have FIV, that is feline immunodeficiency virus. They
got it about 200 million years ago and through the course of time they
have developed a resistance to FIV. Cats some time ago gave it to
monkeys, SIV, simian immunodeficiency virus, and they gave it to
humans. If we lose the wild cats in the wild, we will not have any
sense of understanding about how they were able to balance HIV with not
getting AIDS.
It is important, I think, for us to have some sense of preservation
for these wild animals. I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular
amendment. If we want to understand the nature of nature and preserve
the quality of life for people, let's contribute just a few dollars
which will add up to big bucks later.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
(Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition today to the
Stenholm-Neumann amendment eliminating funding for the Rhino and Tiger
Protection Act.
This funding was secured last year as a result of efforts by
Congressman Jack Fields and several members of the Congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus. This funding is vitally important to the
international efforts to rehabilitate the populations of these two
species of animals.
I believe the question we are facing today goes much deeper than
whether or not the U.S. should fund efforts to protect a foreign
species. The question we are facing today is whether or not the United
States should force unfunded mandates on other governments.
Until last year, the United States had mandated Rhino and Tiger
management principles to countries in Africa without providing funding
for those mandates. While we are at it, I might as well mention what
those mandates are.
As a result of domestic laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the
United States has unilaterally dictated to African countries what
management principle they can or cannot use. Controlled sport hunting
in many countries is the best and/or only way of producing revenues for
the management of their domestic wildlife. We have told these countries
that they cannot use hunting, which is a scientifically proven and
successful wildlife management tool. Because of our unilateral threats,
these countries have no way to fund their wildlife management without
our support.
We have no more right to send an unfunded mandate to a foreign
country than we do in sending an unfunded mandate to the State of
Oklahoma or the city of Chicago.
Vote no against the Neumann-Stenholm amendment.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend the gentleman from
Wisconsin for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment proposed by my
friends the gentlemen from Wisconsin and Texas. I do not doubt for one
moment the importance of wildlife management and preservation. I do not
doubt for one moment the sincerity of the commitment of the Members who
oppose this amendment. But I do not doubt for one moment that a huge
majority of our constituents if asked to review our priorities in this
case would want us to vote for the Neumann-Stenholm amendment.
The test that I think Members ought to use here, Mr. Chairman, is
what I call the supermarket checkout line test. If this Saturday, Mr.
Chairman, a Member were home in his or her own district and had to
stand in the supermarket checkout line on Saturday morning and look one
of their neighbors in the eye and explain to them why they had voted to
spend their tax money on this program at a time when we are considering
ways to spend less on reading teachers in the public schools, on the
acquisition of public lands, on public health research in this country,
I do not think there are many of us, Mr. Chairman, who could do that.
There is sincerity in this program, but there is not priority. It is
a relatively small number, but it is a relatively big principle.
I urge my colleagues to support the Neumann-Stenholm amendment.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to
associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. I think he has hit the
nail right on the head, if not the rhino, that this is not a priority,
particularly when we have cut back so dramatically on open land in our
own State and our own Nation. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend the gentlewoman from New Jersey, and I
urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close. Do I have
the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] as a
representative of the committee has the right to close.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate that this
is somewhat of a symbolic vote, a message to the people of the United
States that we are serious about changing the spending practices here.
No one that I have talked to in this questions the importance of
maintaining and preserving endangered species, preserving rhinos,
elephants and tigers. No one is questioning that whatsoever. What is
being questioned here is whether U.S. tax dollars should be used for
that purpose or whether private funding should be doing that. Our
children and our grandchildren are counting on this Congress to change
the practices of the past, to zero out programs that we can no longer
spend money on. If we had the money to spend on this program, it might
be a fine program. We do not. Our checkbook is overdrawn. It is time we
stopped spending money in this country that we do not have.
I would just close with a statement to reiterate, that it is time
that the people in this Congress start sending a loud and clear message
to the people of this country that the U.S. Government cannot keep
doing for others what others ought to be doing for themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1830
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, again, I think the Speaker
hit the right tone this evening. This is a very modest amount of money
to help preserve the African elephant, the rhinoceros and the tiger.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] I think, made a very
impassioned plea.
I would urge the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], I would hope
in deference to the speaker, that he would withdraw his amendment. But
if not, I would hope we could have a voice vote, vote this amendment
down and follow the wise counsel of both the gentleman from California
[Mr. Beilenson] and the Speaker.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present.
Mr. STENHOLN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of no quorum.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair announced that pursuant to clause 2, rule
XXIII, he will reduce to a minimum of five minutes the period of time
within which a vote by electronic device if ordered, will be taken on
the pending question following the quorum call.
[[Page H 6982]]
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we not have a
quorum call and we go immediately to a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already announced the absence of a
quorum.
The Chairman announced that pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, he will
vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum of the Committee
appears.
Members will record their presence by electronic device.
The call was taken by electronic device.
quorum call vacated
The CHAIRMAN. One hundred Members have appeared. A quorum of the
Committee of the Whole is present. Pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII,
further proceedings under the call shall be considered as vacated.
The Committee will resume its business.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] for a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 132,
noes 289, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 503]
AYES--132
Allard
Andrews
Armey
Baker (CA)
Barton
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Danner
Dickey
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
Ewing
Fields (LA)
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Funderburk
Ganske
Graham
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
King
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McNulty
Metcalf
Mfume
Minge
Montgomery
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Parker
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Petri
Pickett
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Riggs
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Sisisky
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Watt (NC)
Weldon (FL)
White
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOES--289
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Archer
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Cardin
Castle
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Combest
Conyers
Cox
Coyne
Cremeans
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hinchey
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
LaFalce
Lantos
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Paxon
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Roberts
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--13
Bono
Collins (MI)
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Green
Greenwood
Hefner
Martinez
Moakley
Reynolds
Solomon
Tauzin
Volkmer
{time} 1856
Ms. HARMAN, Ms. PELOSI, and Mr. HOKE changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Messrs. ZIMMER, STUMP, EWING, CRAMER, HERGER, SALMON, SANFORD,
STEARNS, and Ms. DUNN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 503, I was absent due to
the death of a friend.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
amendment offered by mr. underwood
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Underwood: Page 37, insert before
the colon at the end of line 7 the following: ``, and
$4,580,000 for impact aid for Guam under section 104(e)(6) of
Public Law 99-239''.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, may I inquire,
if I might, about the possibility of a unanimous consent agreement?
Would the gentleman be willing to limit the time on this to 10 minutes
on a side?
Mr. YATES. If the gentleman will yield, until we hear from the
leadership, we are not going to agree.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me to explain to
the membership what the situation is?
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood] controls the
time. He has an amendment pending before the body. The gentleman from
Guam has 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the gentleman from Guam [Mr.
Underwood], with the understanding that he would be given 1 additional
minute of time, if he would yield to me so I could respond to the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] in a constructive way?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Guam [Mr.
Underwood] has 1 additional minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think Members should simply understand
there are discussions going on right now between the leadership on both
sides of the aisle to try to find some way to get out of here at a
reasonable time tonight. We have been asked, until those discussions
are over, if we could just continue going in the regular order to keep
things as calm as possible, and I would hope that shortly we could get
an agreement on time for the remainder of the title.
Mr. KOLBE. If the gentleman from Guam would yield to me to respond,
[[Page H 6983]]
and I would certainly ask unanimous consent for time if he needs more
time, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I understand those discussions are going on.
I was just trying to expedite what I thought was an amendment we did
not need to spend an awful lot of time on, so we could continue moving
on.
Mr. OBEY. So as not to inflame people's tempers on arguments over
time limits at this point.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood] is recognized
for the remainder of his time.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I present this amendment. It is designed
to reprogram funds to reimburse the government of Guam for expenditures
on behalf of immigrants from three newly created independent nations in
1986.
By way of background, three countries were created out of the former
trust territory of the Pacific Islands, and the United States
negotiated a treaty with each government, allowing unrestricted
immigration to the United States.
In 1986, three new nations were created out of the trust territory of
the Pacific Islands, and unrestricted in-migration was allowed into the
United States. These are the only countries of the world that have that
right, and by virtue of Guam's proximity, most of the immigration has
been to the island of Guam, so that today approximately 6 percent of
our population is composed of these immigrants.
At the same time that these nations were created out of congressional
action in recolonizing the trust territory, Mr. Chairman, an obligation
was made to the people of Guam that any educational and social costs
attendant to this in-migration would be paid for. In the course of over
8 years some $70 million has been expended by the government of Guam on
behalf of these immigrants, and to date only $2\1/2\ million has been
spent. My amendment requests $4\1/2\ million, and this is in accordance
with an administration request earlier this year. It is bipartisan in
nature, and it is supported by the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Insular Affairs and Native Americans.
{time} 1900
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Gallegly].
(Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood]
is correct. As the chairman of the subcommittee, I stand in strong
support of the gentleman's amendment. It is fair.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman],
chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support Mr. Underwood's amendment
to provide Guam with immigration impact assistance.
This amendment would provide $4.58 million to assist Guam in meeting
the demands of new immigrants to have settled in Guam. I understand the
amendment is within the budgetary caps, and seeks to carry out a
program authorized by Public Law 99-239 the act which set forth the
Compact of Free Association between the United States and the Federated
States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
Given our recognition of these States formally in 1986, it makes
sense for them to take part in determining the priorities for federally
funded programs. Accordingly, I urge support for Mr. Underwood's
amendment.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
(Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Underwood
amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in voting to uphold the
commitment of the Federal Government to the citizens of Guam.
In adopting the 1986 Compact of Free Association with the Federated
States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall islands, and the
Republic of Palau, the Federal Government made a promise that Guam
would be reimbursed for the costs associated with unrestricted
immigration from the Freely Associated States.
Unfortunately, that promise was not kept until last year when the
Congress appropriated $2.5 million for fiscal year 1995. Having just
begun to live up to our promises, we should not back out now.
Mr. Chairman, we have all too often overlooked our responsibilities
and our promises to the peoples of our Pacific Islands Territories.
By adopting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Guam, we can
take a small step toward reversing that record.
It is a step well worth taking.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``aye'' on the Underwood
amendment.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller],
the ranking member of the Committee on Resources.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to strongly support
this amendment offered by the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood] and
again tell the House that this is neutral. He has taken the money that
we have saved by closing--a portion of the money from OTIA, and it is a
very important amendment, badly needed, and I hope the House will
support it.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify this amendment
takes advantage of savings made earlier by the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] in which the Office of
Territorial and International Affairs was closed and in which technical
assistance money is reprogrammed from other territories. I have the
full support of all the Territorial Delegates. I have the full support
of all the Territorial Governments on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to understand that this is really the
quintessential unfunded mandate. What we have here is a series of
unrestricted immigration. It is important to understand that there are
only three countries in the world where its citizens can come into the
country without a passport, without a visa, and they can come into any
area and work without any restrictions whatsoever, and this happens in
the case of Guam.
In order to make the comparison, in the past 8 years we have had
8,000 immigrants come into Guam. This represents approximately 6
percent of our total population. In comparison to the United States
this would approximate 15 million people.
I urge support of this. I say to my colleagues, If you are interested
in sending a message about unfunded mandates, if you're interested in
sending a message about meeting failed Federal commitments on local
communities, this is a good way to make that statement.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire 5 minutes, but I will rise
in support of this amendment. We have previously with the Gallegly
amendment made a reduction in some of the funding so that the dollars
are available for this purpose, and as has been pointed out, there has
been a commitment that has been made to fund in this compact this aid.
This has been an informal agreement that has been made through the
years between the Territory, and the administration, and this Congress,
and for that reason I do support the funding.
I would, however, note that in doing this we do use all the remaining
dollars from the amendment that was struck and that this puts us right
at our total allocation.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly willing on the part of our
side to accept this amendment if the gentleman is willing to accept it,
and I would urge the committee to accept this amendment.
[[Page H 6984]]
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would urge support of the amendment.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of
Congressman Underwood's amendment to reallocate funding to the
Government of Guam to compensate the financial burden placed on the
local government by actions of the Federal Government.
In 1986, by public law the Congress adopted the Compact of Free
Association between the United States and the Governments of Federated
States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the
Republic of Palau. This compact exempts citizens of the freely
associated states from meeting certain U.S. passport, visa, and work
permit requirements, and allows them to reside, work, and attend school
in the United States and its territories. Guam and the other
territories were not involved in these discussions.
Because Guam is the closest United States soil to the Freely
Associated States, many indigent citizens of these states have migrated
to Guam, and the Government of Guam has been required to expend in
excess of $70 million to provide for the educational and social
services of these people. While the United States Government has agreed
in principle to assist the Government of Guam with these expenses, to
date, only $2.5 million has ever been appropriated.
In fiscal year 1996, the administration proposed $4.5 million for
this purpose, but the Appropriations Committee did not include that
amount in its bill. As the gentleman from Guam has been saying since he
came to Washington, this is a $70 million unfunded mandate. An unfunded
mandate we can easily correct with the savings approved in the Gallegly
amendment. In effect this is simply a reallocation of a portion of
these funds, and the bill will remain below the subcommittee's 602(b)
allocation.
I urge my colleagues to provide the funding for this prior U.S.
commitment and vote in favor of the Underwood amendment.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I speak in favor of the amendment, and
the remarks of the Delegates from Guam and American Samoa would be as
my own.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. hutchinson
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hutchinson: Amendment No. 54: On
page 16, line 25, delete $37,934,000 and insert $34,434,000.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I commend the work that the committee
has done. I think it is an excellent Interior appropriation bill. I
think this amendment is important.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering today is based on the
principle that the Government, especially in this time of severe budget
constraints, should not and cannot financially support every interest
group, particularly those which have demonstrated the clear ability to
be self-sufficient.
My amendment would eliminate the Federal subsidy for the National
Trust for Historic Preservation and save the taxpayers $3.5 million.
Now let me emphasize that my intention is not to abolish the Trust or
the many good programs that they carry out--but to remove a totally
unnecessary Federal subsidy.
The Trust is a congressionally chartered organization established by
an act of Congress in 1949. Its original primary mission was to
preserve buildings, sites, and objects of historical significance, but
since this time, the Trust has acquired 18 such historic properties.
But today, the Trust only allocates about 20 percent of their annual
$33 million budget to this primary mission. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the
Trust has adopted significant administrative barriers which
substantially preclude them from carrying out their primary mission.
The Trust does not accept new properties unless they are fully endowed
to cover all future operating expenses.
The other 80 percent of their budget, according to their 1949
charter, goes to ``facilitate public participation in the preservation
of historic sites, buildings and objects.''
Now apparently, my colleagues, under this category lobbying expenses
of over three-quarters of a million dollars is included, lobbying
expenses on things like this publication put out by the National
Historic Trust lobbying against the free enterprise system, what most
of us believe in. They have claimed that they do not engage in
lobbying, at least that they do not use Federal expenditures for that,
but it is used at least to utilize their private funds in order to
lobby State legislatures, local and Federal level. In one case they
sent bulletins to all their Virginia members urging them to write their
State senators, write their delegates, to oppose pending legislation.
They even provided sample letters as to what should be said. They have
lobbied repeatedly against the free enterprise system and have waged a
virtual war on the mass retailing industry.
Also under this category falls litigation expenses for the Trust. In
recent years, the Trust litigation department has had a budget of
$700,000. In the last 5 years, the Trust has entered over 30 lawsuits
against the Federal Government. They have entered suits against the
FAA, State Department, Army Corps--and even the Justice Department and
Interior Department, which by law sit on their board of trustees.
The Trust has also managed to come up with $233,000 annually to pay
the salary of the organization president.
I ask my colleagues, ``Does an organization that pays almost a
quarter of a million dollars for their president need a Federal
subsidy?''
Six positions at the Trust paid salaries in excess of $100,000 in
fiscal year 1994 for a total of $773,482--50 percent of this was
charged to the Federal appropriation. In fiscal year 1995, there are
five positions paid in excess of $100,000 and $333,362 is being charged
to the Federal appropriation.
How do we justify a Federal subsidy for an organization that can
afford this?
The bottom line here is that the Government cannot afford to
subsidize groups with a proven track record of being able to support
themselves. Over the last 5 years, revenues have exceeded Trust
expenses every year and have contributed to the Trust developing a
lucrative portfolio of assets which now exceeds $50 million. The
private funding base, which already constitutes over 80 percent of the
funding for the Trust, would only need to be slightly expanded to cover
any shortfall.
In November, the elections demonstrated that the American people are
clearly disillusioned with the direction the country is taking. We need
to restore faith in our Government by honoring our commitment to the
American people to reduce unnecessary spending.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, You're going to hear that
the issue is the mainstream program. It is not. It is not. How can
cutting $3\1/2\ million out of the budget of over $33 million possibly
endanger or jeopardize that program? It jeopardizes litigation,
lobbying, entertainment, and high salaries.
My colleagues will hear that the issue is historic preservation. It
is not. It is not historic preservation, it is not mainstream, it is
whether we can afford to subsidize well-endowed organizations.
Mr. Chairman, let us return the Trust to the same status that it
enjoyed for nearly 20 years when it existed without the benefit of an
annual Federal subsidy in realization that we must restrict Federal
expenditures to our country's most essential needs. I urge support for
the Hutchinson amendment.
Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
Mr. Chairman, the National Trust is an American success story. In
over 1,000 communities across this great Nation it has worked to help
revitalize our downtowns, our Main Streets, and throughout the land
since 1980, Mr. Chairman, it has been a very real positive effort in 39
of our States, creating
[[Page H 6985]]
over 23,000 new businesses, over 85,000 new jobs, over 33,000 building
rehabilitation projects, and $3.6 billion in new investment and actual
physical improvements. Every dollar spent by a local Main Street
organization leverages over $25 from other sources.
Mr. Chairman, the committee chose to reduce the appropriation by one-
half and to phase out Federal involvement. This amendment would
abruptly end one of America's success stories.
{time} 1915
It is untimely to do so in such a success story. I, who do support
efforts for fiscal responsibility and balancing our budget, do not want
to encourage that membership to abandon our downtowns, to abandon our
local communities. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. McCARTHY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate
myself with the gentlewoman's remarks, and to thank her, because I
think that we are picking up on a single issue over here which may have
been in fact nothing more than a mistake, and trying to jeopardize the
entire program for the Historic Trust. In fact, as the gentlewoman has
pointed out, this has been a program that has been used and leveraged
in our communities to save in many cases decaying parts of our
community, which has brought new investments to our community, and has
also preserved the Historic Trust of this Nation, the assets of this
Nation, which we want to bring into the future for our children and
grandchildren. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her support in
opposition to this amendment.
Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is another good
example of a local and Federal partnership, and again where those
dollars leveraged have been a great boon to the communities. So I do
urge defeat of the amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, with some reluctance I rise to oppose the Hutchison
amendment. This was thoroughly debated in the committee, as well as a
lot of discussion in the subcommittee. As has already been pointed out,
we have made a very substantial reduction in the amount of funding for
the National Trust for Historic Preservation. We have essentially
reduced it 50 percent, from the $7 million that was there, to $3.5
million, and we have indicated our intention to reduce that funding to
zero in the year after this. We have suggested there would be no
funding in fiscal year 1997.
But, as with several of the agencies and programs that I think that
the Republican majority has been talking about eliminating, we do
recognize that there are many valuable things that are done here, and
that we need to give some time for the changes to get made and for them
to find alternatives to continue to do the work, which I think most of
us would support, or at least many of the things that the National
Trust for Historic Preservation does.
Let me just mention a couple. There are very few Members of this body
that have not been touched one way or another by the Main Street
program. I have had it operate in several of my communities. It has
done a lot, I think, to restore and revitalize some historic downtowns
in some smaller communities in my district. The Trust makes grants and
loans in case after case that help for this kind of program for the
Main Street program.
The Federal funds help to leverage the private local dollars, and the
grant funds also enable the National Trust to support the historic
preservation work of local communities, helping preservation groups to
obtain needed technical assistance.
Mr. Chairman, the point of all of this is I believe this is a
function which we can turn over to the private sector, but I do think
we need to give it another year to do that. I think the reduction of 50
percent, with the clear understanding that we are not going to fund it
in the years beyond that, is appropriate. This was the decision of the
committee, the full committee, and that is the reason that I would
oppose this and urge my colleagues to oppose this.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. One is,
does the gentleman approve of the fact that the Trust has filed over 30
lawsuits against various agencies of the Federal Government in the last
5 years, and, if that is the case, and it is, that in fact the cost to
the Federal Government and the American taxpayer is not just the $3.5
million Federal subsidy, but all of the litigation costs that we have
to pay in order to defend the Federal agencies they are suing?
Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, without commenting on the specifics of
the litigation because I am not familiar with each of them, my answer
to that would be no. What we seek to do by this reduction of 50 percent
and terminating it in the second year is to give it an orderly time to
phase out what I just mentioned are, I think, the worthwhile parts of
this program, to retain that.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. If the gentleman will yield further, would it not
follow that if the $3.5 million which we are subsidizing the Trust
could be achieved by reducing a few executive salaries that exceed
$233,000, if by reducing the expenditures on lobbying and entertainment
and catering, which exceed three-quarters of a million dollars, and
this lobby sheet has been passed out all afternoon out front, would it
not make a lot more sense for the reductions in those kind of
expenditures to pick up the $3.5 million subsidy, and in fact there
would be no loss at all in the programs or worthwhile efforts of the
Trust?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would certainly trust
that in a 50 percent reduction, that the National Trust for Historic
Preservation would indeed be looking for those kinds of reductions, to
reduce those things first. We have had considerable discussion in our
subcommittee about this. We have also had considerable discussion with
the leadership of the National Trust, and expressed our deep concern
about the salaries that have been paid.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, in response to Mr. Hutchinson's question,
is it not true that the Historic Trust is working to reform itself from
within already, and they have offered a plan to somewhat go private and
change the way they are doing business, and in that regard they are
moving towards what Mr. Hutchinson wants, but probably not at the speed
he wants, but they are not sitting there trying to preserve status quo?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the comment
that the gentleman has made. The National Trust has, indeed, even
before our subcommittee's action, had started work on a 5-year plan for
eliminating Federal funding, and what we are doing is insisting we are
going to speed it up slightly, and that it will be done in the course
of 2 years. I think that is a rather considerable change, and I think
it is an orderly way to eliminate the Federal funding for the National
Trust.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. The proposal by the gentleman
from Arkansas is unwise, and it is unwarranted. I rise in opposition to
the Hutchinson amendment and offer my support for the National Trust
for Historic Preservation.
Since the Trust was chartered by this Congress in 1949, the Federal
money allocated to the Trust has been effectively used as seed money
and has nearly quadrupled through private donations. These funds help
to finance a series of programs aimed at teaching communities
revitalization and economic growth through preservation. These programs
have proven to be tremendously successful, creating thousands of new
jobs and businesses, and financing restoration and renovation projects
in distressed communities throughout the country.
An excellent example of this work that the Trust has done would be
found in the city of Northampton, Massachusetts, where the First Church
of Northampton have duly received assistance. It has helped not only to
support efforts to support the church, but also to
[[Page H 6986]]
repair the stonework, to repair the roof, and to make
the 117-year-old building fully accessible to the public.
In addition to being a place of worship, the church also houses
several community groups and serves meals to the homeless and the
needy. Now, thanks to the assistance offered by the Trust, the First
Church can continue its contributions to the community in a sturdier
and more accessible building.
The National Trust for Preservation is an example of a Federal
program that works, and eliminating or curtailing its funding would be
a terrible mistake. This program should not be eliminated; it should be
imitated. Our country needs more cost effective programs like the
National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this proposal.
Anthony Lewis of the New York Times has said that we are rapidly
becoming a nation without a memory. The Trust does not allow that to
happen. Just as importantly, let me say this, if I can: I served as
mayor of a good sized city, the 95th largest city in America,
Springfield, MA. I fought with the preservationists time and again. You
know what? They took me to court time and again, but at the end of the
day their achievements far outweighed their shortcomings.
It is working. The Main Street program has restored thousands of
homes across this country. It has renewed neighborhoods that were
lifeless. It has brought Main Street, America back to viability.
Just as importantly, a great Republican initiative at the time, the
historic tax credit, allowed people to use the Tax Code to rebuild Main
Streets across this country. New England today has a complex that has
changed in large measure due to the work of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation.
It would be shortsighted tonight to go beyond what the committee has
recommended. Let the Trust alone. It has succeeded. There are times
when I have disagreed with it, but overwhelmingly, its work has been
effective and successful.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the amendment of the gentleman
from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson]. I think it is long overdue. I think why
should we be paying taxpayer funds to support lawsuits being filed
against the Federal Government, or any government, for that matter. It
just does not make sense.
This Trust is a successful organization, obviously, by the size of
its budget, by the fact that 80 percent of its funds come from non-
Federal sources. We are in an era where we are trying to bring down our
deficit. This is a small but symbolic cut, but I think it is important
to send this kind of a message.
This organization can stand on its own. I do not know why we would
want to support or subsidize, if you will, an organization adding to
the congestion of the courts, adding to the costs imposed upon
individuals and businesses and families by bringing lawsuits against
them.
I do not know why we would want to support an organization that has
an extensive lobbying component. Obviously, if they are capable of
funding that kind of a thing with 80 percent of non-Federal funds, they
ought to just get off the Federal dole, get out of the trough. That
time has ended. We have got some serious priorities to fund, and this
ought to be one of the things that we certainly could cut.
By the way, I would just observe that when the president of this
organization makes more than the President of the United States that
would suggest to me that this organization can stand on its own.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson]
has a great amendment, and I strongly urge its adoption.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rarely am on the opposite side of issues with my
friend the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Tim Hutchinson]. He is a great
budget watchdog, a super friend of the taxpayers, but this time I find
myself going against him. And yet I can say this, that you can vote
against the Hutchinson amendment and still be a friend of the
taxpayers, because as the committee has reported this bill, it still is
in the 602(b) allocation which will move us to a balanced budget. This
bill is a bill that is a cut and a reduction bill. Indeed, this program
alone has been reduced by 50 percent.
I heard the gentleman from California speaking up on the peanuts. Let
me tell you about farm programs and why people from the agriculture
communities should listen to this. What we are doing on the Committee
on Agriculture is we are saying to our farmer friends, change status
quo. Your farm subsidy may be a good investment, there may be a reason
for it, but we need to change status quo. The Committee on Agriculture
is responding that way.
Well, these folks are doing the same way with historic preservation.
They have taken a 50 percent cut, and they have come up with their own
plan to reform themselves. In addition to that, keep in mind this is
not a frivolous program. They have a statutory obligation under the
National Historic Preservation Act. They are doing things which the
Federal Government has mandated by law. If we do not like that law, we
should change it. We cannot do that on an appropriations bill.
Keep in mind this: the previous speaker said we are forgetting our
national heritage. One thing we are not doing though is forgetting our
tourism. Tourism in 30 states is the top first, second, or third
highest industry, the big top three economic industries there are.
In my district, Savannah, Georgia, one of the leading tourism centers
of Georgia, people come because it is the largest historic preservation
community or landmark community in the country. Brunswick, Georgia, has
come a long way in the last five years because of the Main Street
program
These are economic investments. They are not things that are just
preserving a building just because it is nice or aesthetically
pleasing. This group works closely when a new building is proposed in
an historic area. When there is a renovation that is going to take
place in an historic area, where there is economic changes or growth in
an historic area, they work with the community, with the local
officials, with the planning boards, and so forth. This group is
important to your community.
I would say this: I reluctantly hate to oppose the gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], but you can oppose the Hutchinson amendment
and still support a balanced budget, because the bill, as reported,
does that.
{time} 1930
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman and agree with his
statement.
I, furthermore, think that the litigation that has brought is often
sometimes necessary. It is the cutting edge of trying to define what
the property rights are, what the covenants are, how we are going to
proceed with this. And that differs in all 50 states. Frankly, we get
by with very little dollars in the Historic Preservation Act.
The state historic preservation offices have little money coming from
the Federal Government. We try to set national standards with regards
to that so that fabric is consistent nationally.
They have done a very good job in this particular program. If you
want to change it, fine. But give them a chance to do it. They have
leveraged. They have completed their statutory mission. They are doing
it today. Obviously, the fundraising and other activities they do, even
the lobbying is set out there separately.
I worked very hard with them on, for instance, the establishment of a
coin so that they could issue the Civil War coin. They stated their
dollars and accurately, and part of these fundraising and other efforts
obviously spill over into that. They are allocating it properly. I
think they have done a good job. You have cut them deeply. I do not
think we ought to eliminate it. This would be a real mistake.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. Let me ask the
[[Page H 6987]]
gentleman one more question: Are there any other programs that you know
of offhand in this Interior bill that are cut 50 percent?
Mr. VENTO. Well, there are some that are eliminated. I think that is
a mistake. In cutting this, you are really forcing change at a rapid
pace. We ought to give them an opportunity to survive so that we can
fulfill the essential mission that we envision and that we all share in
terms of cultural resource preservation.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, 50 percent is a very significant cut.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is too bad that we really have to spend all this
time on this particular amendment. I just do not know why we are even
discussing this. This has such tremendous leverage. It had such impact.
We have so many things to do in this Congress. To eat up time this way
discussing something like this, I think it is too bad. But the reason I
do stand up here, because I think it is important and it has got
leverage.
Let me make sort of an autobiographical comment. I come from a small
town. That town was dying. That town was resuscitated principally
because of a grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
That grant alone contributed at a minimum of $100 in private funds to
that $1 that was given here. That is far in excess of many of the
small-time programs. But that is what it was.
Main Street USA is struggling. The soul of a community is in
downtown, small town America. This helps. There is no other fund like
it.
I strongly oppose this particular amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOUGHTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of what the
gentleman has just said. I come from a community, Tacoma, in the State
of Washington. And we did about the same thing. We restored a theater,
the Pantages Theater, also our main train station in the community,
Union Station, into a Federal courthouse. And I must tell you, it has
done more to restore the spirit of that community and that downtown
area. It has created jobs and it has made the city look a lot better.
This idea that somehow these partnerships between the Federal
Government where we put in a very small amount of money and the private
sector puts in a lot of money and a lot of good things happen because
of it, that somehow that is wrong, I think that is ridiculous.
I applaud the gentleman for his statement, and I hope the House will
remember, we have cut this program by 50 percent. We have listened to
the people and said, we are going to move this budget down. We had to
do it. We had to cut more in this bill than I wanted to cut. But to say
in one year we are going to take it from 7 million to zero, I think is
just ridiculous. I hope that we will all vote down this not-well-
thought out amendment.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say this, you take
the coldest, hardest financial analyst or investment analyst and you
say, you give me $1 and I will create $100 for you, it is not a bad
return on your money.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns of the gentleman from New
York and the gentleman from Washington. But this agency, this
organization, let us put it that way, it is a public/private
organization because it receives public funds, got and raised its own
fund for years, for years. They did not need Federal funds. They
operated very well, like we have come to this Congress to try to make
happen. They do not need this money.
Frankly, most of the people that belong to the National Trust for
Historic Preservation are rich enough to write checks for the amount of
money we are quibbling over here and take care of it and leverage it
all they want to.
The point is, if we cannot do this, what are we going to do?
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the amendment to
eliminate the Federal subsidy for the National Trust for Historic
Preservation. I offered the very same amendment during consideration of
the fiscal year 1994 Interior Appropriations bill several years ago.
I'd like to commend the chairman of the Interior subcommittee for
recognizing the questionable nature of the Federal subsidy for the
Trust by cutting the appropriation in half and directing the Trust to
figure out how to make up these funds in the private sector, as they
won't be receiving any Federal funds next year. The question is, do we
want to sink another $3.5 million into this program--I submit that the
American taxpayers do not.
The Trust was chartered by the Congress in 1949 to protect buildings,
sites and objects significant in American history, but not suitable for
inclusion in Federal trusteeship. However, only 20 percent of the
Trust's budget goes toward administration of their 18 historic
properties and the Trust does not accept any new properties unless they
come fully endowed to cover all future operating costs.
The other 80 percent of their budget is allocated to activities which
facilitate public participation in the preservation of historic sites,
buildings and objects. These activities include extensive lobbying,
regularly suing the Federal Government, organizing opposition to
private property rights and what they call the greatest opponent to
historic preservation, superstore sprawl.
These efforts are not activities taxpayers expect to be underwriting.
Moreover, the Trust could do this work without tax dollars. The Trust
has an extensive fundraising ability as well as dues paying members.
Its budget has increased in the last 6 years and its portfolios of
assets exceeds $67 million. If this Congress can't find the intestinal
fortitude to save tax dollars from being spent on a program which
doesn't need it, I have serious doubts about our ability to ever
balance the Federal budget.
I'm sure we're going to hear loud wails from opponents of this
amendment about how the loss of Federal funds will threaten the
Mainstreet program or other true preservation activities of the Trust.
Such cries--no doubt prompted by lobbying from employees of the Trust--
are simply an effort to allow the Trust to continue its elitist
activities and to avoid prioritizing spending.
Let's look at how the Trust allocates its spending:
It pays its president a salary of over $233,000;
Six positions at the Trust paid salaries in excess of $100,000 in
fiscal year 1994 charging $385,000 of it to the Federal appropriation--
in fiscal year 1995, five positions paid in excess of $100,000 and
$333,000 is being charged to the American taxpayers;
In 1993, the Trust spent $884,000 for lobbying, entertainment and
catering;
In 1991, the Trust spent over $700,000 on its legal department, which
has entered over 30 cases against the Federal Government in the last 5
years.
The Trust also organizes numerous workshops and seminars. Perhaps the
workshop that included the Eco Tour of the Boston Park Plaza hotel
enabling participants to see an environmentally sound hotel that
integrates environmental action into all daily decision making it an
activity that could be cut out.
Likewise, perhaps organizing international trips such as the Red Sea
Passage tour to Egypt and Jordan, described in the Trust materials as
travel with fewer than 95 passengers aboard the splendid Regina
Renaissance could be minimized.
Trust efforts like the Mainstreet program should be a top priority
for the Trust. It is widely supported and good work is done through the
program. To suggest that this would be the first to go if the Trust's
budget is a couple million dollars less than this year is absurd. It's
a matter of setting priorities and surely I've described many actives
in which the Trust is involved that could be cut back or eliminated.
Day after day, we hear cries over the future of our children, of
people who rely on Federal welfare and others in need and everyone asks
the question, ``where can we cut funding so these people don't get
hurt.'' Well, this is a great place to start.
The Trust serves as a slush fund for the most wealthy and elite
members in
[[Page H 6988]]
every community to oppose development that offends their aesthetic
tastes. A recent article critical of the Trust's efforts to prevent
what they call public enemy number one--superstore sprawl--stated,
WalMarts and similar stores may not be as quaint as Georgetown shops
but they usually offer consumers more for less.
If in these days of fiscal crisis we can't face a program like the
Trust and recognize that it's a luxury for a few, not a necessity for
many, and discipline ourselves to put the money elsewhere, I fear for
our ability to make the far tougher choices we have ahead of us.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. The
gentleman points out that the Trust has gone out and raised at least 80
percent of the money itself. I think the American people would be very
pleased if they knew that every dollar that we have invested in the
Main Street organization has been leveraged by $24.46 of from other
sources.
Now, what does the National Trust do? One of the major programs and
one of the reasons I have always supported it is because of the Main
Street program. What does it do? It works with communities to
demonstrate how historic preservation can stipulate community
revitalization and economic development. The National Trust, national
Main Street program helps revive neglected and abandoned downtown
commercial districts by providing local groups with organization,
design, economic restructuring and marketing assistance.
Since 1980, Main Street has been active in over 1,000 communities in
39 States, creating over 23,000 new businesses, over 85,000 new jobs,
over 33,000 building rehabilitation projects, and $3.6 billion in new
investment and actual physical improvements.
Now, I think, again, what is wrong with the Federal Government saying
that as a nation we care about historic preservation and that we have
certain historic buildings that we would like to see preserved? I think
the American taxpayers would be pleased that they are making a small
contribution to this very important effort.
I hope that we will remember now that the committee, run by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], our distinguished chairman, made a
significant reduction in this program and that we are going to end it
in a year. This is one group that came in and said we can be phased out
over a period of time. But to come here now and breach the committee's
action I think would be unwise.
So I urge that all of us on both sides of the aisle resoundingly
defeat an amendment aimed at, I think, undermining historic
preservation in this country, which the Trust has been at the forefront
of and this Congress has supported ever since the creation of the
Trust.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I was not going to speak, but I rise
in strong but reluctant opposition to the amendment by the gentleman
from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] and also the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
DeLay]. Let me tell you why.
One, the committee has cut them by 50 percent already. Secondly, they
have a plan to go private. Third is the good that the Trust has done on
Main Street programs throughout the country. In the town of Winchester
in my congressional district, the city of Winchester changed hands 72
times in the Civil War, 72 times. The Trust has been involved, and they
have saved Civil War battlefields. The battle of Cedar Creek, which is
the only battle in the Civil War that the North and South won the
battle the same day, in the morning of the battle, the South won. After
they finished winning, they stopped. Then Sheridan came down and then
came back and attacked the South and they lost. There at Belle Grove at
the Battle of Cedar Creek they have saved. They have done so many other
things.
The Civil War battlefields, Montpelier, you go on
and on. I think the committee has a reasonable thing. They cut them
50 percent. They are out of business federally next year. But to pull
the rug out now I think would be a mistake. I strongly urge Members to
vote ``no'' on the Hutchinson amendment.
{time} 1945
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I would like to engage in a question
with the author of this amendment. First, let it be said, I am a strong
supporter of historical preservation. I think it is a good activity at
the local level. I think as long as we protect private property rights,
it is an appropriate level for local governments to be engaged in.
With regard to the Main Street program, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the
author, is it his intention that this $3 million cut in any way reduces
funds available for that program?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I appreciate the question, Mr. Chairman. I would say
to the gentleman that I also am a strong, strong supporter of the Main
Street program. It affects 17 cities in the State of Arkansas, and it
does a wonderful job and I fully support that. I would hope that the
Trust would prioritize their funds so that program is not touched. We
are talking about less than 10 percent of their operating budget.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that what we would jeopardize would be
things like $700,000 for the legal department of $700,000 for lobbying,
entertainment, and catering, that those would be the things that would
be cut instead of good quality programs that are helping our cities
like the Main Street program.
Mr. McINTOSH. My vote on this, Mr. Chairman, and I think the issue
here is whether we should have government-funded, taxpayer-funded
lobbying. As I walked into the Chamber earlier today, I was handed a
sheet of paper that urged me to vote against this amendment, because
one of the valuable things that the National Trust did was lobby with
taxpayer dollars.
I disagree with that in principal, Mr. Chairman. I think it is wrong.
I plan at a future date to have legislative activity to make it illegal
for government grantees to be able to lobby government.
However, at this point, Mr. Chairman, I think the appropriate thing
to do would be to support the amendment, to send a message that we do
not want taxpayer-funded lobbying.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should know, I think he does
know, that it is illegal to use government-provided funds for any
lobbying. It has been in this bill for years. Maybe they used some
private sector money, but the money they get from the Federal
Government cannot be used for lobbying. Therefore, if the gentleman is
going to vote no on that basis, he is making a big mistake.
Mr. McINTOSH. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I am aware that there are
restrictions on the use of government funds to lobby. They are
inadequate. They do not work. They clearly do not work when the
supporters of this institution tell me that I should vote for $3
million to them so they can continue to engage in lobbying. I think it
is wrong. We do not need taxpayer lobbying.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, is it not true that money is
fungible; that the money coming into this organization from the Federal
Government can be allocated based upon their needs as they take in
other money from private sources? If they need additional funds for
lobbying, they can take that from the private sector and use this money
for legitimate purposes, so therefore the result of our funding them is
to effectuate their ability to lobby the government?
Mr. McINTOSH. Yes, that is correct, especially on the overhead costs,
it is very easy to have government funds be fungible.
[[Page H 6989]]
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, that would hold true for anyone that got any
Federal dollars, even tax expenditures, that they may use those dollars
actually for lobbying. Therefore, we probably should not have any type
of funds going to any private person that exercises First Amendment
rights. Is that the position of the gentleman from Indiana?
Mr. McINTOSH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe when
you fail to tax somebody that you are giving them money. What you are
doing is letting them keep their own money, so there is a fundamental
difference there.
Mr. VENTO. I am talking about with regard to grants.
Mr. McINTOSH. Let me say in closing, Mr. Chairman, I support this
amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I reluctantly rise in support of this
amendment. I for many years was a Member of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation. I joined it at Montpelier in Virginia. I
strongly support their efforts to acquire historic properties like
Montpelier and Belle Grove, and their efforts to support battlefields
and other historic treasures in this country.
However, the role and the scope of the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, unfortunately, in recent years, has taken a new direction
that we can no longer as a Congress publicly fund, because the effect
is to have money spent by the Federal Government to support litigation
all over this country, to support lobbying efforts in this Congress, to
affect rights of local governments and State governments, to affect
private property owners' rights.
We have seen an example of it right in my State of Virginia in the
past few years. The effort on the part of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation to control land use planning in the entire
northern Piedmont area of Virginia, 8,000 square miles, because they
were opposed to the Disney project, is a tragic broadening of the scope
of that organization. They should not be involved in that type of
thing. If they choose to be involved, they should do so without the
support of the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, when they go around the country filing lawsuits, as
they intended to do in that case, and supporting lobbying efforts and
other efforts, contrary to the interests of the people of the State of
Virginia, certainly of the government of the State of Virginia, that is
entirely wrong.
While I will continue to support their efforts to acquire historic
properties, Mr. Chairman, and I think that is a very worthwhile goal,
they, I think, have stepped over the line when they attempt to use
their organization and the funds of the organization to inject
themselves in massive land use planning issues that should be left to
the discretion of State and local governments. I strongly support this
amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Does the gentleman think we should do away with the
Historic Trust, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I think the National Trust for Historic Preservation
should make a choice. They should either make the decision that they
are going to simply be involved in preserving individual historic
properties, in which case there may be an argument to be made for
Federal funds, or they should do what they are doing now, but do it
only with private support, and not with the support of direct taxpayer
subsidies.
Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would suggest
that we created the National Historic Trust, we told them to go out and
preserve these important properties around the country which have
historic heritage. Now we are saying ``We are not going to give you any
money.'' Is that not an unfunded mandate?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I would say to the gentleman, it is not an unfunded
mandate. It is because they have changed the scope and mission of the
organization when they have in recent years expanded beyond their
original purpose, which was to acquire and protect individual
properties, which I think is a fine idea, and have instead gone into
the effort of trying to control development.
In this case, their efforts in Virginia were to say that we should
not allow a development like Disney in the entire northern Virginia
Piedmont, 8,000 square miles. There may be reasons not to support that,
but those reasons should be left to the people of Virginia, and not to
an organization funded with taxpayer dollars.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would ask, is it not essentially one of the ways of protecting
these resources that we have charged them to in fact go into the
courts, to implement the laws, to educate about the laws that are
passed by the Commonwealth of Virginia, or by the State of Minnesota,
or by the national government?
Mr. GOODLATTE. The people of the State of Virginia, through their
elected representatives, have the right to decide this issue. We in the
Federal Government should not be funding a rogue organization that is
going to go in and offer a contrary view to the rights of the people of
Virginia, or any other State that faces this type of effort on the part
of the Federal Government to fund land use planning contrary to the
interests of people at the local or the State level. That is my
position.
Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will yield, was it not consistent with
the laws of Virginia, the zoning codes and so forth, that they were
trying to implement, educate, and to facilitate the process in terms of
the goal of preserving this precious resource?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the Federal
Government does not need to get involved in promoting and supporting
the laws of the State of Virginia. The people of Virginia are perfectly
capable of doing that on their own. When it is correct to historically
preserve property, they should do so, and when it is not, they should
not.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, very briefly, we have group after group come up to us
and say, ``Do not cut my program.'' The National Trust has said they
can live with the cut if it is phased in. We finally have a group that
is saying ``We will raise the money privately. Just do not take it all
away from us at once. Do it on a phase-in basis.'' The bill before us
is a phase-in. The gentleman's amendment seeks to eliminate funding all
at once.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. I support historic
preservation. I ask all my colleagues to support historic preservation
and vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hutchinson amendment to
eliminate the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
The National Trust was chartered by Congress in 1940, and its mission
was significantly expanded by the National Historic Preservation Act in
1966. Last year the National Trust received approximately $7 million in
federal funding. The National Trust has initiated many successful
programs that leverage private sector investment in preservation
projects at a very impressive rate.
Since 1980, the National Trust's Main Street program, which helps
revive neglected and abandoned downtown commercial districts by
providing local groups with organization, design, economic
restructuring and marketing assistance, has been active in over 1,000
communities in 39 states, helping create over 26,000 new businesses,
over 100,000 new jobs, and over $5 billion in new investment. Every
federal dollar spent through a Main Street program leverages over
$25.00 from other sources.
In Massachusetts, the Main Street program has been very successful.
Forty-four communities in Massachusetts, including Beverly, Haverhill
and Peabody, have participated, resulting in over $66 million in
cumulative reinvestment.
There are few federal programs as successful in leveraging private
sector investment than the National Trust and its Main Street program.
In light of this, $3.5 million--a fifty-percent reduction from last
year--is a modest amount of funding.
[[Page H 6990]]
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is expanding its
outreach to enable it to rely solely on private dollars. Elimination of
the National Trust's appropriation today would jeopardize these
privatization plans and will destroy its ability to carry out its
congressionally mandated functions. In addition, eliminating these
funds will cripple the National Trust's efforts to replace the current
federal appropriation with private dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Hutchinson
amendment and preserve our Historic Trust.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 129,
noes 281, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 504]
AYES--129
Allard
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Bartlett
Barton
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Boehner
Bonilla
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Franks (CT)
Funderburk
Gekas
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
Klug
Largent
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Manzullo
McCollum
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Moorhead
Myrick
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Oxley
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Ramstad
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Saxton
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOES--281
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefley
Heineman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Vento
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--24
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Becerra
Bono
Collins (MI)
Fields (TX)
Green
Greenwood
Hefner
Martinez
McCrery
Moakley
Parker
Pastor
Reynolds
Richardson
Scarborough
Smith (TX)
Tauzin
Torres
Velazquez
Volkmer
Ward
Watts (OK)
{time} 2103
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Bono for, with Mr. Richardson against.
Mr. SCHAEFER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. METCALF, PORTMAN, and PORTER changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I struck the last word so that I could try to make the
Members of the House aware of what at least some of us have been trying
to do to get people out of here at a reasonable time and to set
reasonable time limits on this bill.
About 6:30, I was informed by representatives of the majority side
that they would like to reach a time agreement on this bill and what
was suggested to me is that we try to reach agreement to limit title I
and all remaining amendments, finish that by roughly 9 o'clock this
evening, go home, work over the weekend to set reasonable time limits
for the remainder of the bill, and stick to those time limits when we
come back.
So, after some negotiation, I agreed to that suggestion.
{time} 2015
I was informed that at a higher level on that side of the aisle that
offer was not acceptable and that, in fact, the intention was to keep
us here regardless of what we did until about midnight tonight. I do
not think honestly that most Members on either side of the aisle think
that that is the rational thing to do. Everybody is tired, and it is
well if we are making decisions when we are reasonably fresh, and I
think we are also much kinder to each other when we are.
So we then went into negotiations to try to find some way to limit
time. I then suggested to the majority leader that because I had been
told that we had major amendments such as NEA, National Endowment for
the Arts, the Humanities, the weatherization amendment, two major
amendments on energy program funding, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,
another one on Indian education to replace the one that I offered, the
best estimate was probably about 4\1/2\ to 5 hours of debate left if we
got lucky. There were 20 amendments pending to that title. That is what
I was told, that people expected to be offered. So they thought if we
limited that to 4\1/2\ hours and then
took the votes, that would be reasonable length of time.
There were then about 12 or 13 still alive possible amendments to the
remainder of the bill. We thought we could compress that to maybe 2
hours in total.
So what I offered was a suggestion that we finish title I, get out of
here by 9:30, by that time, and then set a time limit under which we
would finish all remaining debate on Monday to title II, stack the
votes so that they would occur immediately on Tuesday morning, finish
the 2 hours of debate on Tuesday morning on the remainder of
[[Page H 6991]]
the bill and get through at a reasonable hour.
I respect the desire of the majority leader to try to do it somewhat
faster, but I do not know how, and so we offered that motion. It was
considered for roughly an hour. Then an offer was made, which I think
was represented as coming from the majority leader, to finish title I
and they go to the NEA tonight. That would still mean we would be here
until midnight tonight. I do not think that is reasonable.
I do think I am willing to do almost anything to get reasonable time
limits on this bill, and if the majority would like, I would even be
willing to take up immediately the Stearns amendment on NEA, and have a
vote on that, if you want, 10 minutes' debate on each side, vote on
that baby, and go home for this evening with the same kind of time
limits that we have been talking about for the remainder of the bill. I
do not know if they are perfect. But at least they end this bill and
get us on to the next one.
So that is what I have tried to offer in good faith. I do not want to
see Members stuck here until midnight tonight for no reasonable purpose
when, without time agreements, we are going to continue to be debating
title I all night.
So at the end of these remarks. I am going make a unanimous-consent
request to see if we can reach that agreement, and I would hope that we
can get this done so that we can get this finished in a reasonably
bipartisan fashion, and that is all I am trying to do.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much my
colleague yielding.
When he was talking about this, and I did not get up earlier, the
next amendment is an amendment that affects my district nonetheless,
and I am very concerned about that.
But I have no problem whatsoever with some kind of a limitation on
time. But I would hope that that would come in the context of our
working reasonably together, and I would also hope that it would,
beyond this amendment, take us to the point where maybe we could close
down reasonably early.
Mr. OBEY. I would like to do the same thing. I have been advised that
probably on that amendment it would probably take about 15 minutes a
side. I do not know if that is true or not. I am willing to settle on
any time limit on that amendment that we could agree on.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. At this moment I guess I am the higher level. I have been
looking around.
But anyway, I would like to make a suggestion to the gentleman. We
have four amendments left in title I. People have missed their
airplanes.
If we could take these one at a time and get time limits, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the gentleman from New Mexico
[Mr. Richardson], the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], and the
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], are what we show as being left
in title I. If we could get time limits as we go like, for example,
perhaps a half hour, whatever, I would like to reserve for our side on
time limits, and I think, with a little bit of effort, we can get
through these four. We will be finished with title I so when we come
back we start on a new title.
Otherwise, if we do not finish title I, we are going to have another
20 amendments on Monday.
Mr. OBEY. That is what I had offered, but I was told by the majority
leader he would prefer to see to it that we dealt with NEA tonight. I
am trying to accommodate that request.
The unanimous consent request that I would make would be, unless you
suggest just to title I, I would suggest we do NEA tonight, if that is
what the majority leader wants, do the Stearns amendment, and come back
to title I first thing Monday. I am trying to be reasonably responsive
to what I thought the majority leader wanted.
Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, I think if it is agreeable,
I would like to go ahead and try to finish these four amendments in
title I, get a time limit on each one as we go along. We will get them
as short as possible, and hopefully then we can finish up title I.
Mr. OBEY. Then let me simply stop my remarks and let me make the
unanimous-consent request if I could.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I want to find out from the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Regula] as to whether if we do finish title I, that he would
be agreeable to considering title II, not tonight, but on another day.
Mr. OBEY. If I could reclaim my time, I think I will be able to
answer that question by the nature of the unanimous consent request
that I make.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on all remaining
amendments to title II be finished, including votes, by 9:30.
Mr. REGULA. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I do not
think this is fair to the Members who have an interest in these
amendments and, therefore, I have to object to that request.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, trying to respond to
the majority leader's interests, and I do not want to imply that he has
agreed to it, he has not, but I think it is a reasonable proposal, I
ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the Stearns amendment, debate
on NEA, debate that for 10 minutes on each side, have a vote, adjourn
for
the evening, and when we return, agree to a time limit for title II on
Monday of 5 hours of debate, with the votes to be taken the next day
followed by the discussion on the remainder of the bill to be limited
to 2 hours with whatever time is required for rollcall.
The CHAIRMAN. The request for adjournment and votes to be postponed
to the next day has to be made in the House.
Would the gentleman care to restate his unanimous consent request?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply state that I would, or my
intention would be to deal with the Stearns amendment tonight for 10
minutes apiece, take the vote, and then adjourn for the evening, and
when we go into the full House, I would make the motion with respect to
the remaining consideration of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman should confine his request to the Stearns
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Then I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Florida be permitted to offer the amendment, notwithstanding title II
of the bill is not yet considered as read and without prejudice to
further amendments to title I of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
Mr. REGULA. I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move the committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168,
noes 233, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 505]
AYES--168
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Danner
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefley
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
[[Page H 6992]]
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Mollohan
Montgomery
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--233
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--33
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Becerra
Bono
Clinger
Collins (MI)
Costello
Fields (TX)
Gallegly
Green
Greenwood
Hefner
Johnson, Sam
LaFalce
Lipinski
McCrery
Moakley
Moran
Neumann
Parker
Pastor
Reynolds
Richardson
Roukema
Scarborough
Smith (TX)
Tauzin
Torres
Velazquez
Volkmer
Ward
Watts (OK)
Williams
{time} 2044
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if it is in order, I ask unanimous consent
that we have 30 minutes, 15 minutes for each side, to debate the
amendment to be offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]
and any amendments thereto.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, can we reach
an understanding that this will be the last amendment of the evening?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. No, Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to make that
agreement.
Mr. OBEY. Then I object, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
{time} 2045
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, at this point, we will just go ahead with
the bill and take whatever the next amendment is.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161,
noes 233, not voting 40, as follows:
[Roll No. 506]
AYES--161
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Mollohan
Montgomery
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rangel
Reed
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--233
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Beilenson
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
[[Page H 6993]]
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--40
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Barr
Bateman
Becerra
Berman
Bliley
Bono
Chapman
Chenoweth
Coble
Collins (MI)
Costello
Fields (TX)
Gallegly
Geren
Green
Greenwood
Hefner
Johnson, Sam
LaFalce
Lipinski
McCrery
Moakley
Moran
Myers
Neumann
Parker
Pryce
Reynolds
Richardson
Scarborough
Smith (TX)
Tauzin
Torres
Velazquez
Volkmer
Ward
Watts (OK)
Williams
{time} 2104
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
motion offered by mr. regula
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to limit debate on title I and all
amendments thereto to 90 minutes not including vote time.
preferential motion offered by mr. obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a privileged motion. I move that the
Committee rise and report the bill back to the House with a
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.
Mr. Chairman, what is at issue here, in my view, is whether or not
this House is going to be able to conduct its business at reasonable
times in public view or whether we are going to be reduced to making
virtually every major decision in subcommittees and on the floor at
near midnight, with minimal public attention and minimal public
understanding and minimum attention.
Mr. Chairman, the motion that was just offered by the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio is virtually identical to the proposition which I
first made to the majority leader 2\1/2\ hours ago. The only thing that
has prevented us from being out of here and all of title I finished by
now, because our request was to be finished with title I by 9:00, the
only thing that has prevented that has been willfulness, in my view.
And I am simply suggesting that it makes no sense whatsoever to be
doing at midnight what we could have done at 7:00 or 8:00 in the
evening.
I would simply make the additional point that the motion that I made
then was made after a request to provide limitations was offered by
those on the majority side of the aisle. So what I am been trying to do
for the last 2\1/2\ hours is to get done what majority Members of this
House have asked me to help get done. I do not think that is
unreasonable.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the motion.
I was not a party to the earlier negotiations. The gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Yates] and I discussed a possible agreement here that we
would finish title I with time limits on the amendments that remain.
The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] did not agree with that.
Frankly, at this point, let us do the people's business. That is what
we are elected to be here for.
Mr. Chairman, I move the previous question on the motion.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162,
noes 236, not voting 36, as follows:
[Roll No. 507]
AYES--162
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Mollohan
Montgomery
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
NOES--236
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Beilenson
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--36
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Barr
Bateman
Bono
Collins (MI)
Costello
Fields (TX)
Gallegly
Green
Greenwood
Hayes
Hefner
LaFalce
Lipinski
McCrery
Moakley
Moran
Myers
Neumann
Parker
Payne (VA)
Pryce
Reynolds
Richardson
Scarborough
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
[[Page H 6994]]
Volkmer
Ward
Watts (OK)
Williams
Yates
Zeliff
{time} 2127
Mr. BERMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the preferential motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
preferential motion offered by mr. obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state the motion.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150,
noes 249, not voting 35, as follows:
[Roll No. 508]
AYES--150
Abercrombie
Andrews
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Mollohan
Montgomery
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rangel
Reed
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
NOES--249
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--35
Ackerman
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Bateman
Bono
Collins (MI)
Costello
Fields (TX)
Gallegly
Goodling
Green
Greenwood
Hefner
LaFalce
Lipinski
Martinez
McCrery
Moakley
Moran
Neumann
Olver
Parker
Pryce
Reynolds
Richardson
Scarborough
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Tauzin
Volkmer
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weller
Williams
Yates
{time} 2146
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
motion offered by mr. regula
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my pending motion.
Mr. Chairman, I move to limit debate on title I and all amendments
thereto to 60 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
The motion was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. fazio of california
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment,
amendment No. 12, printed in the Record on July 11.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Fazio of California: Page 2, line
11, strike ``$570,017,000'' and insert ``$569,417,000''.
Page 2, line 12, strike ``of which'' and all that follows
through ``, and'' on line 17.
Page 3, line 4, strike ``$570,017,000'' and insert
``$569,417,000''.
Page 16, line 5, strike ``$1,088,249,000'' and insert
``$1,088,849,000''.
Page 16, line 9, strike ``, and'' and all that follows
through ``serve'' on line 12.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, this does not need to be a
lengthy debate, because I think it is a rather simple question that the
Members need to decide here today.
This amendment, which is budget neutral, would reverse what I believe
is a back-door effort to gut the provisions of the California Desert
Protection Act. As all the Members who served in the last Congress
know, that act took us at least 3 weeks to pass this House of
Representatives. It was the culmination of some 8 years of hearings and
consideration in every Congress, during the last 4. It was finally
signed into law by the President during the last Congress after a
tremendous outpouring of political support in California, in the desert
and nationally.
Major changes were made in the bill on the House floor to address a
number of concerns of landowners and outdoor enthusiasts. We dealt with
problems and needs of the gunners and off-road vehicle people, we dealt
with the needs of grazers and miners who had long used the area. And
when the House acted, it did so with an overwhelming vote of 298 to
128, including the support of 45, as a matter of fact, with two
conversions, 47 Republicans who served in the last Congress. The Senate
passed it by an over 2-to-1 majority.
Now we have an attempt here, probably in a 10- or 15-minute debate,
in a very brief debate after a tremendous struggle that took place in
the last Congress. We are being asked, I believe inappropriately, to
use a process which does not provide for due deliberation in committee
to, frankly, make a mockery of the intense efforts this Congress made
to accommodate this wide variety of views with many, many amendments.
An amendment was offered by my good friend and colleague, who
represents much of the area that is at
[[Page H 6995]]
issue here. It was offered at his suggestion in the Committee on
Natural Resources. The subcommittee acted contrary to, I think, its
chairman's position to move from the National Park Service to the
Bureau of Land Management all the funding that had been provided to
implement the national park reserve as a result of this legislation
just enacted.
The kicker is only $1 remains to implement the multiple-use plan that
was agreed to by all of us. My
good colleague and friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis],
is making us, including many of those who supported it in the past, to
flipflop and to take a new tack after not even a year has passed since
the enactment of the legislation.
So my amendment would simply restore the bill to its original form. I
know that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has proposed a very
strong bill for the National Park Service generally. I want to support
his mark, the mark that he would really like to provide for those
across the country.
I think if my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis],
wants to act to change the law we just enacted, we really ought to move
legislation through the Committee on Natural Resources. I am sure the
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] would be quick to accommodate him
with hearings and a markup because I know he agrees with my friend's
view of the Mojave preserve.
But by interfering with the Park Service operation of the Mojave
national reserve, we are causing problems, adding to problems that I
know the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] wants to avoid. The
National Park Service has done an effect statement discussing the
impact of these changes. Let me quote from it. It says, ``While the
funding has been transferred, the national preserve is still, in fact,
a unit of the national park system. Implementation of the act requires
new activities such as survey and installation of boundary signs,
preparation of wilderness maps for 69 new areas, law enforcement
patrols and surveillance and resource protection of these areas.''
So by limiting the funds to just a dollar, the Park Service cannot
adequately carry out these roles. They have two people at any one time,
at most, on duty. They have already closed down two meth labs. This is
an area that deserves attention.
I think the owners of the 4,500 mining claims located in the preserve
would be particularly alarmed. The Park Service says to them without
funding, mining plans of operations will not be processed, validity
determinations will not be made and environmental reviews will not
occur.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Dicks and by unanimous consent, Mr. Fazio of
California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, the Mining in the Parks Act,
which requires plans of operation to be prepared prior to mining
activity, will still be in effect for the national preserve. We simply
will be doing nothing to put any of this into effect.
Now, let me say I think there has been a mood change in the area as
well. The San Bernardino board of supervisors, which originally opposed
the preserve, is now enthusiastic about winning full funding for it,
having noted that tourist visits in the area have increased
dramatically since the preserve was established. The Chambers of
Commerce of nearby Barstow, Baker and Newberry Springs have recently
expressed their support for the Mojave national preserve. Local
officials want to give this law a chance to work. We in Congress need
to do the same.
In short, we should support Chairman Regula's mark. We should support
the 8 years of careful crafting that went into establishing the
preserve. We should not be using appropriations, I think, as an
improper tool to reverse this law we only so recently have enacted.
In light of all the changes we made to accommodate all the critics,
legitimate critics of all types who had an input on this bill, in light
of the tremendous investment people on all sides of this issue have
made, I urge support for this amendment, and I urge restoration of the
law, and I urge all of my colleagues, particularly those who stood for
this before in the prior Congress, to reiterate their support and not
create any question about their dedication to desert protection in
California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I certainly hope it is the last word, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I do not intend to take a lot of
time, and I certainly want to join my friend, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio], in expressing our sensitivity about keeping you
here this late regarding this matter. It is an item that happens to
affect the districts of five Members from California. As this amendment
applies, however, it is almost entirely in my own district, a district
in which you can put five eastern States in just the desert that we are
talking about.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] is correct in saying that
last year we had a very, very extended debate and, as a result of that
debate, some very unusual things occurred. The chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee last year brought a bill to the floor, did a very
fine job representing the Senate sponsor of that bill, but there were
many aspects of the bill that were not supported by those people who
represented the territory affected, and as a result of that, on 10
different occasions the House, in a bipartisan way, chose to change
that legislation, overrode the committee and, indeed, reflected the
will of the people who live in and work in the territory involved.
There was one element of the bill that was a very significant
controversy, and that swirls around this amendment and problem this
evening. That element involves the East Mojave, which originally was to
be designated as a park, and as the gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio] suggested, we changed it so it could be more like a multiple-use
area. The Park Service was given responsibility to deal with the East
Mojave National Preserve, and that is when the problem began. We were
very interested to see what they would do with that preserve because it
is an area, some of which is very beautiful and very parklike, but most
of which has no parklike quality.
The Park Service immediately asked the agency to transfer $600,000
from the Bureau of Land Management, the multiple-use agency, so they
could have $600,000 to run this preserve. Almost overnight, they were
putting up no-trespassing signs, ``Do not drive your vehicle past this
point.'' Roadways that had been used
for decades by people, by families, by people who live there, suddenly
were no longer roadways. They were called ways, and they were not open
to vehicular traffic.
The public that lives in the area is reacting very intently. So an
amendment was made that essentially said, ``Hey, wait a minute, Park
Service, before you go forward, maybe the real multiple-use agency, the
BLM, ought to have that money, most of it, until we can see what your
plan really is.'' So an amendment came forth in the subcommittee that
took almost all of the $600,000 and gave it to the Bureau of Land
Management, a public agency for multiple use of public lands, and left
a dollar in the Park Service so that what we could have some basis for
negotiations.
As a result of that, all of those people who the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio] suggested from the area thought perhaps they
should work with them on the preserve have changed any position they
might have considered regarding supporting the Park Service's work. The
bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus opposes the change the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] is suggesting. All of the Members
who represent the area, the people who actually were elected from the
district, oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
[Mr. Fazio]. State Assemblyman Keith Olberg, from the territory,
opposes the change. The chairman of the San Bernardino County Board of
Supervisors, Marsha Turoci, the person the gentleman from California
[Mr. Fazio] suggested in the past was supporting the Park Service, now
says they should not go forward from here. We need to insist that we
see their plan first. Let the Bureau of Land Management in the meantime
go forward. The Needles
[[Page H 6996]]
Chamber of Commerce, the East Mojave Properties Owners Association, the
National Cattlemen's Association, hunter and wildlife conservation
groups are opposed to allowing the Park Service to go forward without a
plan, at least for the people who live there, who understand it, and
who love it the most.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I would not do this to your district.
There is not any question that there is a very small group of elitists
who would like to tell the people in the desert in California how best
this land should be managed.
Indeed, there are portions of it that are park quality. We have
recommended in the past that be put
into a park, not a preserve, and let the Park Service run it, but in
this case, absolutely, there is to question that the extremists are
having their way in terms of the ways this place is being run. There is
no need for this. The battle will go on forever unless we insist that
the Park Service have a plan first.
I urge you to help me with my district and vote ``no'' on the Fazio
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]
has expired.
{time} 2200
(On request of Mr. Fazio and by unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of
California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, we do not need to prolong this
too much. I think we all appreciate and understand the difficulty of
getting a new national park off the ground, and there is no question
there is some problems that would need to be addressed----
Mr. LEWIS of California. This is not in a national park.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I understand, but it is a preserve, and it
is under the park system, and I do not think there is any question that
the Park Service needs to reach out to the gentleman and to deal with
the gentleman on the issues of concern to his constituents. I think it
is fair to say that people really want to put this behind them, though,
and I know what the gentleman is attempting to do, and that is to get
the attention of the Department of Interior and people who need to
accommodate the local concerns. I think the gentleman has done that, I
think he has accomplished it, and I would only hope that he would sit
down with Roger Kennedy and others, and sort out the differences, and
see whether we can move to in the first 6 months of operation--some
solutions at this site.
Mr. LEWIS of California. In the spirit of that I say to the
gentleman, Mr. Fazio, I appreciate what you've said. I've attempted to
communicate with the Park Service. They have been nonresponsive. Let me
say that indeed if we make this change, if it goes forward from here, a
dollar for the Park Service, $599,000 for the multiple-use agency, the
Bureau of Land management, I know they'll be talking to me between now
and the time we go to conference, and that's exactly what the House
ought to do. If this House last year had believed--could imagine the
Park Service would do this to my district, they would have thrown this
idea out. I mean it is almost ridiculous, but we shouldn't prolong the
evening, Mr. Fazio. We have really said all there is to say, and I
appreciate your cooperation. I just wish you lived down there in San
Bernardino County with me.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Well, some day maybe we will have that great
privilege, but at the moment I just want to tell the gentleman that
Roger Kennedy has written to the gentleman, and he has indicated his
desire to meet with the gentleman, and I really think it is appropriate
for that meeting to take place. I am sure it will regardless of what
happens this evening, but I do hope that Members will stay the course
and follow through with their commitment made last year, and I am
certain the gentleman has gotten their attention.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge that we support the Fazio amendment, and I
would like to, in discussing the Fazio amendment, make a suggestion
that might get us out of here a lot earlier.
Mr. Chairman, the agreement we are now operating under is virtually
the same agreement that I offered to the majority leader at 6:30 this
evening. At the time, since it was first suggested to me by
representatives of the majority party that we ought to try to get a
time limit on title I, we constructed a time limit that was agreed to
by Members of both parties on the committee. But, when I then walked
over to the majority side of the aisle, I was informed by the majority
leader that it was not acceptable. Basically the time limit that had
been worked out on both sides at the committee level was that we should
finish all amendments to title I, including the votes, by 9 or 9:30
this evening. The majority leader then informed me that regardless of
how much progress we made on title I, Mr. Chairman, he wanted the House
to stay in session until midnight and expressed great frustration that
Members were offering so many amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I share that frustration. But I did not ask for a
totally open rule. The majority leader happens to believe in it, and it
is his privilege.
I then suggested, Mr. Chairman, to the majority leader that I would
be willing not only to agree to a time limit on title I, but on time
limits for the entire bill. I was asked what my estimate was of the
time that would be required to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I told the majority leader that after consulting staff
on both sides of the aisle that I was told that their best estimate of
the time needed to complete the 20 expected amendments of title II was
somewhere between 4\1/2\ and 5\1/2\ hours depending on what happened in
the forestry issue and the arts issue. I suggested we ought to get a
time agreement of that amount or any other number that could be agreed
to and that, if that kept us into an hour which would be too late on
Monday night, that we then stack the votes and have them occur
immediately Tuesday morning, and then we try to compress the 12
expected remaining amendments in title III to 2 hours. That is a lot of
compression. And that way we could get out of here in what I thought
would be the fastest possible way.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] suggested that he would like to
think about that. About an hour later I was told that he did not find
that acceptable but that he wanted to finish title I and then go on to
consider the arts issue. I suggested that we either finish title I or
go, if that was the preference of the majority party, go immediately to
the arts issue, and in fact I offered a motion to--I offered a
unanimous-consent request to complete title I and then go home. That
was objected to. I then offered a unanimous-consent request to proceed
to the Stearns amendment, which it was my understanding the majority
party wanted to deal with tonight, and then go home and consider the
title I items on Monday. That was again objected to.
Mr. Chairman, we are now going to get to about where I was asking
that we get to at 9 or 9:30 by about 11 or midnight. I regret that we
were not able to reach a bipartisan agreement because I honestly
believe, if we have any chance of completing our appropriations bills,
we need to have cooperation of Members on both sides of the aisle, not
just that at leadership level, but the rank-and-file level, because
there are lots of people who want to offer lots of amendments to lots
of coming appropriation bills, and I do not think we want to be here
until 1 or 2 o'clock every night. I do not think we do our best work
then.
So it seems to me that we have to establish some kind of trust and
some kind of willingness to work with each other to help facilitate the
majority leader's own schedule. That is all I am trying to do, and I
say to my colleagues, If you don't believe it, I invite you to ask any
Member of the majority side on the Appropriations Committee, Ask them
what I've tried to do on all the bills before us up to this time.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has
expired.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Wisconsin have 30 additional seconds.
[[Page H 6997]]
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, all I am trying to do, if you would have the
good grace to let me do it, is to suggest that I do not see any
constructive purpose to be served by further delay, and so what I am
trying to inform the House, unless I am forced to change my mind, is
that I have the right every 5 minutes, if I want, to offer another
motion to rise.
Mr. Chairman, this is why I do not think it is good to meet this
late, because Members do not often act in their own interests.
All I am trying to say is that I do not intend to offer any other
motions to rise this evening. I would ask only two things: that we
complete action on the pending amendments as quickly as possible and
that the majority leader take into consideration the right of this
House to consider every important issue we deal with under the most
optimum conditions possible, and that means, I believe, not considering
important legislation at 12, 1, and 2 o'clock in the morning, be it in
subcommittee or on the floor.
I offer my colleagues my intention to try to cooperate in that, but
the majority leader must have some realistic understanding of the time
realities which neither the minority on the Committee on Appropriations
nor the majority have any power to overcome. If the majority leader
wants to insist that every single appropriation bill have totally open
rules, then we must accept the logical consequences of that when some
70 amendments are filed. Most are filed on the majority side of the
aisle, and it just seems to me it makes no sense to want time
requirements that leave Members no time to debate the amendments which
the majority leader himself has insisted be made in order.
So with that statement I will simply indicate I am not going to offer
any more motions tonight, and I would hope over the weekend we can
reach a reasonable understanding on this so that we can deal with these
issues in a rational way. That is all I have been trying to do all
evening long.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 227, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 509]
AYES--174
Abercrombie
Andrews
Baesler
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Lantos
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Rivers
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Zimmer
NOES--227
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Boucher
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--33
Ackerman
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Bono
Collins (MI)
Costello
Fields (TX)
Ford
Gallegly
Green
Greenwood
Hefner
LaFalce
Lipinski
Martinez
McCrery
Moakley
Moran
Neumann
Parker
Pryce
Reynolds
Richardson
Rose
Scarborough
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Tauzin
Volkmer
Ward
Watts (OK)
Williams
Yates
{time} 2228
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Richardson for, with Mr. Neumann against.
Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Bono against.
Messrs. BROWN of California, LAZIO of New York, GILCHREST, GONZALEZ,
HOYER, and MARTINI changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will announce that under the agreement, there
are 38 minutes remaining for debate on the amendments.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. YOUNG OF ALASKA
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Alaska:
On page 13, beginning on line 10, strike ``113 passenger
motor vehicles, of which 59 are for police-type use and 88
are for replacement only'' and insert instead ``54 passenger
motor vehicles, none of which are for police-type use''.
On page 14, beginning on line 3, strike ``Provided, That
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service may accept
donated aircraft as replacements for existing aircraft:
Provided further'' and insert instead ``Provided''.
On page 9, line 22, insert ``(less $885,000)'' before ``,
to remain''.
[[Page H 6998]]
On page 27, line 23, insert ``(plus $851,000)'' before ``,
to which''.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alaska?
There was no objection.
{time} 2230
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I will not take a great deal of
time. This is a very simple amendment.
What my amendment does, very frankly, is to strike the funding for 59
new vehicles for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for police
activities and two airplanes for the Fish and Wildlife Service. It is
my strong feeling that these are not needed at this time, and, in fact,
these monies should be transferred, and that is what my amendment does,
to the BIA.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept this amendment on
this side, and concur in it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment, but
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] has a question.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, would the
gentleman explain why he strikes the proviso that the Fish and Wildlife
Service may accept donated aircraft?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are two
things: The Fish and Wildlife Service now has an exorbitant amount of
aircraft that they provide, and I would not like to get into the
subject totally tonight.
In my State alone we have over 110 aircraft. There are plenty of
aircraft to be chartered out, and my argument all along has been every
time they acquired aircraft, if it is from the military or any other
place, it takes tax dollars to maintain and operate those aircraft, in
direct competition with aircraft that are available for contract. I can
go to Alaska, and I hope you have a chance, the gentleman has been to
Alaska, and we can go on the turbo-goose, we can go into everything but
a big jet.
I am saying it is time we get out of this business. I am not striking
the aircraft that they have now, but the two aircraft they have
requested, I am saying no more. Until they can come to me and justify
that aircraft, they can show what the need is, I do not think we ought
to be having any more aircraft for them.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me make certain that I understand this
amendment. The gentleman is striking the ability for the agency to
receive aircraft, two of them.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Two new ones. And I am also striking the 113
passenger vehicles, the 54 remaining for them, the 59 for police work I
am striking, because they never justified the use of those vehicles,
and I am transferring that money to the BIA.
Mr. OBEY. These are enforcement vehicles that have been requested by
the agency?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Apparently they were requested by the agency,
but I do not believe they have been justified, and I really will tell
you sincerely, kind sir, that one of our biggest problems, they request
these vehicles, they have not shown where they are going to be used; I
am letting them purchase the 54, but not the 113.
Mr. OBEY. Could I ask what testimony the committee has taken that
indicates that these are not needed?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Well, I am not on the committee, and, very
frankly, I just know I am on the authorizing committee, and we are
going to review the Fish and Wildlife Service and all of the other
agencies that come before my committee. I have not had time to do that,
that is all. We will do it. If they can justify it, we will go forth at
a later date.
By the way, we will have time as it goes to the Senate and goes to
conference, the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from Ohio,
if they are in fact needed and can be justified, that can be handled at
a later date. But, frankly, I am concerned that the money is being
spent by these agencies when they could be spent in other areas. Now,
that is what I am saying here.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am very dubious about accepting this amendment at
this point. And the reason I say that is because, as you know, in many
regions of the country, I know the West is one, I know certainly in my
own State, there are a number of organizations, malicious and
otherwise, who simply do not like the idea that Federal agencies are
purchasing or receiving additional equipment which can be used in law
enforcement. I really do not believe that their judgments ought to
supersede the judgments of agencies who we charge with the
responsibility to enforce the law.
I respect people's rights to join any organization they want, but
frankly, I am suspicious of many of the forces in this society who are
so suspicious of law enforcement officials, whether they be Federal or
State officials, that I do not believe that we should be making a
decision like this, especially at this late hour. So I do not like to
do it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have been assured by the gentleman from
Alaska that he will hold a hearing on this issue prior to the
conference on this bill, and if the evidence would indicate that these
aircraft are important to law enforcement, I think we can deal with it
in the conference committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for
that assurance, but let me be very blunt. I know there are a lot of
militia organizations around this country that do not like to see these
agencies get additional equipment that can be used in law enforcement.
I must confess that I am extremely concerned that this may be another
one of those cases.
So under those circumstances, I do not believe we ought to accept the
amendment, and I am going to feel required to push this to a rollcall
vote.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
think we really ought to understand whether any of these land
management agencies have vast responsibilities. We represent and have
had in the past a tremendous amount of testimony on illegal drugs
entering the country. And very often we have found that the various
land management agencies are absolutely key to in fact working with the
law enforcement agencies, whether it is the DEA or whether it is the
local law enforcement agencies.
Some agencies, as a matter of fact, these land management agencies,
have exclusive jurisdiction in some of the remote areas in terms of law
enforcement, in terms of enforcement of activities in those lands. The
gentleman from Alaska represents a state that has a number of areas
that maintains exclusive jurisdiction. I know this just deals with the
Fish and Wildlife Service, but the fact of the matter is it is an issue
that has brought implications.
We have repeatedly asked for hearings on topics in fact dealing with
the problems and the threats to such law enforcement agencies in this
instance. And if we are going to take away from them the very tools
that they need to do that job, I would have significant concerns about
such an amendment.
I just think that the fact is that on an arbitrary basis, coming up
here with no testimony from the agency, obviously this was put forth,
was looked at by the committee. I have heard no testimony that suggests
that they do not need this. I mean without aircraft in Alaska, you do
not really get around. You really cannot do your job in that particular
instance. We know that there is a greater and greater problem, and many
of the problems, frankly, many of the problems, frankly, relate to the
fact that in terms of not having and having inadequate personnel on
[[Page H 6999]]
the ground for any of these land management agencies, including the
Fish and Wildlife Service. So often they delegate and collaborate and
work with other agencies or State agencies. But if they do not have the
tools and the resources, we are simply lining them up for failure in
terms of these particular issues, and I understand the good faith the
gentleman brings this amendment forward with, but I think it has rather
significant ramifications, and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin has
picked up on it, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I say that I will
feel required to push this to a rollcall vote.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I think we have had the assurance of the chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee that there will be a hearing on this. This bill
does not take effect until October 1. We will have a conference
committee in September. If the hearing indicates that there is a need,
I have been assured by the gentleman that we can deal with that in
conference and ensure that there is adequate equipment.
I think the point is accurate; it is not just getting a donation of
an airplane. Again, it is the operating costs that factor in. So it
does not stop with the airplane.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I suggest, I see my good friend from
California and I listened to my good friend from Wisconsin, and it has
nothing to do with the militia or any other thing. What I am suggesting
respectfully, have not seen the justification for this amount of new
vehicles. Remember, this is what we call roaded areas. They may be
needed. But we have not so far found out if that need is true.
Second, the aircraft, may I stress, is nothing new. Right now they
have a humongous fleet of aircraft operating all across the United
States at the taxpayers' cost, and very frankly cannot justify them. I
have been fighting this issue for the last 15 years, as I was in the
minority. And I will tell you right up front that they cannot come to
this House or this committee or any other committee and say that they
can truly justify the cost to the taxpayer for this fleet of aircraft.
That is all I am saying.
They want two new airplanes. That is wrong. This has nothing to do
with the militia or anything else. I am saying if you look at the
moneys being spent, this is incorrect. You can say what you want to
say.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Ohio, though
I have the greatest respect and admiration for our friend from Alaska,
but I would feel a lot better if it was the Appropriations Committee or
Interior that had the oversight hearing and we brought up the Fish and
Wildlife Service and spent a morning and took a look at this so we
could assure our colleagues that we are doing the right thing here. As
I said, I am willing to go along, it is late at night, but I think if
we could have, say a one-morning hearing, we could get to the bottom of
this.
Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I do plan to have oversight hearings
and we will certainly include one on this prior to conference.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what mystifies me is I thought that
appropriation hearings on budgets were in essence oversight hearings. I
had the impression that what we had just been told is that no testimony
had been collected which indicated that the agency did not need this
equipment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not know that we
had testimony that indicated a need. I think we just accepted the
budget justifications that were offered by the department. It is kind
of a routine thing, but I think the issue has been raised, and
therefore, prior to conference we should have an oversight hearing in
our Appropriations subcommittee. We have had a huge workload, and I
think this indicates a need for that type of a hearing.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, what we are being asked to do here is to reduce the law
enforcement capability of the Fish and Wildlife Service by limiting
their ability to purchase vehicles that they have deemed and the
committee has already passed on as being important to their law
enforcement capabilities so we can take that money away and give half
of it to pay attorney's fees.
This is a law enforcement agency, or an agency that has law
enforcement responsibilities to deal with poachers, to deal with people
who traffic in illegal game and illegal protected mammals under the
Marine Mammal Act and other such acts, airborne hunting acts, where
people go out and illegally slaughter animals, and this is how they
enforce the law.
{time} 2245
Now what we are going to do is decide to reduce that, so we can pay a
bunch of attorneys half of that money to pay the people in Alaska, with
no showing that that is necessary, and no showing that this need does
not exist. However, here it is at quarter to 11 at night and we are
going to make this decision.
The Members would not do this to any other law enforcement agency in
the country at quarter to 11 at night, but somehow they decide they can
just dismiss the claims of these individuals, actually sworn officers,
people out there enforcing the laws of the land, and decide they are
just going to willy-nilly take away from them the necessary resources,
and even deny them the ability to receive donated planes that they use
in carrying out these activities on their behalf.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a poorly thought out amendment. As has
already been determined, we do not have the information to make this
decision, but they are giving the benefit of the doubt to the
attorneys' fees over law enforcement agents for the Fish and Wildlife
Service. I would hope Members would reject the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 281,
noes 117, not voting 36, as follows:
[Roll No. 510]
AYES--281
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
[[Page H 7000]]
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--117
Abercrombie
Andrews
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Evans
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Tejeda
Thompson
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--36
Ackerman
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Bono
Clay
Collins (MI)
Costello
Dickey
Fields (TX)
Gallegly
Gibbons
Green
Greenwood
Hefner
LaFalce
Lipinski
Martinez
McCrery
Moakley
Moran
Neumann
Parker
Pryce
Reynolds
Richardson
Rose
Scarborough
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Tauzin
Torres
Volkmer
Ward
Watts (OK)
Williams
Yates
{time} 2304
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Watts of Oklahoma for, with Mr. Richardson against.
Mr. Greenwood for, with Mr. Moakley against.
Mr. MFUME changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BASS, ZELIFF, and DeFAZIO changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendments Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and I ask unanimous
consent that they be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Vermont?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Sanders: Page 37, line 19, strike
``$55,982,000'' and insert ``$53,919,000''.
Page 75, strike line 14 through 17, and insert ``For
expenses necessary for the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, $3,063.000''.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple, and I want
to move it quickly. It transfers $2 million from the salary and
expenses of the Department of the Interior into the Council for
Historic Preservation. This is a relatively small sum of money, but it
is extremely important for historic preservation.
Without this amendment, the bill provides for the elimination of the
Advisory Council for Historic Preservation. This amendment saves the
Council and funds it at the level requested by the Clinton
administration. The Council plays an essential role in historic
preservation when the Federal Government's actions, like plans to build
a highway, threaten historic preservation.
When the Federal Government's actions, like plans to build a highway,
threaten historic properties, there is a consultation procedure that
promotes input from the local community preservation interests and
private property interests. Without the Advisory Council, special
interests would have too great a voice in the process.
The Council is extremely important, because many federally funded
projects have a potentially devastating impact on our historical and
cultural resources. Thanks to the Advisory Council, historical
landmarks throughout the Nation have been rehabilitated rather than
replaced. But today, Federal projects threaten many sensitive historic
buildings and districts. Those communities have a right to be heard,
and that is what this amendment is all about.
This is an issue of balance. Special interests with goals that are
inconsistent with historic preservation already have a significant
advantage. They have the political clout to lobby the Federal
Government and trample on local community interests. We need to
continue allowing the communities to have a voice, and that is what
this amendment is about.
Mr. Chairman, everyone benefits from historic preservation. In a
rapidly changing world, it is imperative for our children to understand
their roots, how their communities evolved, and where they came from.
What this amendment does is transfer $2 million from the bureaucracy
into a council that has historically done an excellent job, and I would
urge the support of my colleagues for this.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, it is late in the night. The gentleman is bringing a
very important amendment to the House. I think most Members are not
probably aware of what the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
does, but, as the gentleman has pointed out, they work as an
interagency function.
As an example, when we were having difficulties with NASA in some
structures that had historic importance with regards to our entire
culture in development of the space age, they intervened and worked out
and negotiated an agreement between the agencies. They had a high-
profile organization with various appointments, individuals very often
that are distinguished, that many times are professionals and an
excellent staff. They have just done a tremendous amount of work in
terms of the national government and the agencies that we have and, of
course, in terms of training.
Now, as I said earlier, if the gentleman would continue to yield, our
State Historic Preservation Officers are really carrying out national
policy with regards to historic standards. What this agency has done
is, of course, set up training programs, which keeps them abreast of
many of the issues and negotiates settlements. For the amount of
dollars, obviously, it is a difficult amendment, because it removes
money from our beloved Secretary of Interior, Bruce Babbitt's shop.
But, nevertheless, I think that he does not necessarily have always the
support. The Park Service does not have the high-profile position, but
this organization, these appointments have served us many times over.
So I know that my colleagues face difficult decisions here. I think
this is one that we would do well to keep, considering the scarce
dollars we have and how we can best stretch that to meet these needs.
They are fulfilling a good function. I would hope my colleagues, in
spite of the late hour, would listen to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think this underlines and provides a very important
Federal function between our agencies
[[Page H 7001]]
and between our States with the Federal statement.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
{time} 2310
I am somewhat surprised at my colleagues from the other side of the
aisle wanting to give this vote of no confidence in their Secretary of
the Interior. But apparently that is what the thrust of this would be.
Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman would yield, he might help pass this
amendment if he keeps putting that out.
Mr. REGULA. I would point out our subcommittee reduced the office of
the Secretary more than 13 percent below the enacted level of $62.5
million, and this is one of the highest cuts proportionally that we
took, and I do not think it is fair to the Secretary to take any more.
Now, that is on the side of where the money is coming from. Where is
it going? It is going, as proposed in the gentleman's amendment, to the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, nice to have, nice to do,
but not needed, because the law very clearly says that every agency has
to take into account the impact of its activities on the historic
resources.
They already have to do it by law. Sure, they can get an advisory
council to do some paper and send it over. They do not have to pay any
attention to it. The law does not require that they do anything with
the advice they are given by the advisory council, and people enjoy
serving on the advisory council, and it is nice to have, but it is $3
million.
As we went through the list of priorities, we felt that this is
something we can live without. If we had lots more money, that would be
one thing, but I do not want to penalize the Secretary of the Interior
any further than we have already. He has a lot of responsibilities, and
I would think that the gentleman from Minnesota certainly would not
want to do that to his Secretary.
Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield, I appreciate the gentleman's
defense of my beloved Secretary Bruce Babbitt. I must say, though,
that, and I hope that we can rectify some of the cuts and make
adjustments in terms of providing for the opportunity for the advisory
council, I think we have to look at the record in terms of the work
that this council has done. This has been a working council. This has
not been an honorific. These are important works; in other words in the
absence of their work, many agreements that we have had between the
agencies simply would not have taken place.
So I do not think we want to underestimate the work that they have
done and that agencies will do this on their own. Yet they will not.
Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I think, as the gentleman has pointed
out, it is nice to have, but there are a lot of things that are nice to
have. Here is an opportunity to save, in this round, $2 million. We
leave them a million to close out. In the future we will be saving $3
million year after year after year, and that is what we are trying to
do in this bill is to get on a glide path to savings that will benefit
the taxpayers.
They have no statutory responsibilities. It is nice to have, but we
do not think it is nearly as important as having the money in the
Secretary's office to administer the huge agency that is known as the
Department of the Interior, and we strongly oppose this amendment.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment, and let me
say I am going to keep my remarks very brief.
But I think this is a very significant amendment. By protecting and
continuing the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, we will be
supporting local historic preservation. In my view, this is extremely
important because this is the sort of activity that protects our
cultural treasures. We are voting tonight, if we vote for this
amendment, for our historical buildings and properties, for our
archaeological sites, for our cultural districts, and for a council
which has demonstrated that it can be a catalyst for local preservation
efforts.
May I note that this amendment provides no additional cost to the
taxpayers. What we are doing is transferring resources for the
bureaucrats to historic preservation, and I think that is very
important.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think everything has been said except for one thing.
This is not a huge advisory council, and maybe that is one reason why
many Members have never heard of it. They do not think what it does is
very significant.
If you live in an area where there is a big historic preservation
movement or even a small one, this advisory council is there. Their
work is very important, and I do support the amendment and appreciate
the gentleman for offering it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and this were--ayes 267,
noes 130, not voting 37, as follows:
[Roll No. 511]
AYES--267
Abercrombie
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunning
Callahan
Calvert
Castle
Chambliss
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cremeans
Cunningham
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefley
Heineman
Hilliard
Hobson
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hyde
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lantos
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waldholtz
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOES--130
Allard
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bass
Beilenson
Bevill
Bliley
Bonilla
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brownback
[[Page H 7002]]
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coburn
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Ensign
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Frank (MA)
Frisa
Funderburk
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Gunderson
Hancock
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
King
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
Matsui
McDade
McInnis
Miller (CA)
Moorhead
Moran
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Radanovich
Rangel
Regula
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Saxton
Seastrand
Shadegg
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Vucanovich
Walker
Weldon (FL)
White
Wicker
Wolf
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--37
Ackerman
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Bono
Clay
Collins (MI)
Costello
Fields (TX)
Gallegly
Gibbons
Green
Greenwood
Harman
Hefner
Istook
LaFalce
Lipinski
Martinez
McCrery
Moakley
Murtha
Neumann
Parker
Pryce
Reynolds
Richardson
Rose
Scarborough
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Stark
Tauzin
Volkmer
Ward
Watts (OK)
Williams
Yates
{time} 2333
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Watts of Oklahoma for, with Mr. Bono against.
Messrs. LONGLEY, CHAMBLISS, and CREMEANS changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
Mr. ZELIFF changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendments were agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. mica
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mica: Page 17, line 21, strike
``$14,300,000'' and insert ``$29,300,000''.
Page 18, line 25, strike ``$686,944,000'' and insert
``$671,944,000''.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, it is really a great honor and privilege to
serve in Congress, but it is also an important responsibility. And
tonight as we conclude our work on the Department of the Interior
appropriations bill, we make a bunch of choices. We decide whether we
are really going to do things because we are dealing with the people's
moneys and expenditures of public funds.
Tonight we decide whether we are going to spend money on
administration. Tonight we decide whether we are going to spend money
on studies. Tonight we decide whether we are going to spend money on
various new programs.
My amendment simply takes $15 million from the USGS, U.S. Geological
Survey, which has an increase of $112 million in this budget over the
previous years expenditures and says, we will put this into the State/
Federal land acquisition fund.
Earlier tonight we had 177 votes for people who believed in a State
and Federal acquisition land program.
This is not a Federal land acquisition. This is the money when you
come to the Department of the Interior and they say there are no funds.
But let me tell you what you will have if we do not pass my amendment.
You will have studies--and I have nothing against the U.S. Geological
Survey and their responsibilities since 1879 to conduct studies, and if
we expand it another $100 million. I am only taking a small amount of
that money for a purpose that I think is reasonable.
Let me ask you, what will we do, 10, 20 years from now? Will we take
our children and grandchildren to Florida or to Nevada or to your
State, California or wherever and say, my son, my daughter, my
grandson, my granddaughter, look at this beautiful study. We set the
priorities for this Congress. They have increased the studies and
funding for studies by $112 million, whether it is biological survey,
whether it is studies for the USGS.
We could line up our children and say, look at the beautiful trucks.
We made a decision on vehicles and airplanes tonight. We are making a
decision on whether there will be resources.
On the Republican side, the majority side, we have said, let us give
responsibilities to State and local government, and let me tell you
what this bill says. There are no funds provided for State grant
programs.
Read it. Get the bill. If all else fails, read the bill, page 39.
I tell you, when your State and your local governments come to you or
when you have a project and come to the Department of the Interior and
they say there are no funds, this $15 million transfer, we are not
cutting anything, it is a transfer, set some priorities. So we have an
opportunity tonight and a responsibility to set those priorities.
So my State does not have another five years. My state and my
districts do not have another five years. Maybe you come from some of
those areas. Out of the millions and billions of dollars that we are,
if we cannot put $15 million in the priority of state funding for these
projects, there is something wrong.
This amendment will not deny access to anyone. This will not spend a
penny on any lands that the people do not want or the State or
localities do not want purchased.
I am telling my colleagues that this provides a very limited resource
and a very limited amount for a very noble purpose of which every one
of you have an important interest.
It will protect land for the future. I cannot change the priorities
of the Congress in this bill and redirect money for foreign aid or
agricultural subsidies. But tonight you and I can decide whether there
are State funds and $15 million out of billions and billions of
appropriations. Would it not be a sad commentary on this House of
Representatives if we walked away from here and said that there is not
one cent, according to this bill, and again read it, this is the
language for state acquisition of public lands.
So my colleagues, I urge the adoption of this amendment. I thank you
for your consideration and the late hour.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, for the Members' information, I believe
this will be the last amendment and the last vote. There is one
additional amendment, and we are going to accept that amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. That is correct. This will be the last one that we will be
asking for a vote on.
Mr. REGULA. Secondly, I want to thank all the Members for their
patience today. It has been difficult, but we have dealt with a lot of
very challenging policy issues. I think we have tried to deal with them
in a fair way; you win some and you lose some, but that is the way
democracy should work.
Now, let us address this amendment.
We had over 400 letters from Members requesting something, almost
every Member in this body, we had 150 Members request land acquisition
projects, 150. We denied them all. But now we are being asked to give
just one out of 150. If we yield to this one, we will have 149 requests
later on that we are supposed to meet.
Let me tell you where the money is coming from. USGS, United States
Geologic Survey. What do they do, earthquake research, geology
research. They provide enormous amounts of scientific advice to many
different agencies, and we are being asked to take $15 million out of
this agency for one land acquisition, even though we have had requests
from 150 Members.
The Committee on the Budget clearly said a moratorium on land
acquisition. We have tried to respond to that because that became the
policy by a vote of this body. I would point out that this money goes
essentially to the State of Florida.
The State of Florida should be responsible for their own projects. I
am
[[Page H 7003]]
not questioning the merits of the land acquisition. I am simply saying
that, under the circumstances, this is not a good policy and would not
be fair to the other 149 Members that we have had to deny land
acquisition projects.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would urge all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle to support
the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Regula, in opposition to this
amendment. He is absolutely right. We turned down every single
individual. We had at least 150, maybe more Members who requested land
acquisition funds. We said no to everyone because we just did not have
the money. We had to cut this thing back that far.
To make it out of the U.S. Geological Survey, which does earthquake
research, deals with volcanoes, deals with some of the most seismic
disturbances all over this country. In my judgment that is, and we have
already cut it back.
{time} 2340
I would say please, on this one, stay with the chairman, let us vote
``no'' and go home.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, is it not true
that this bill provides $6.8 million for land acquisition management,
and so we have money for management and administration, and yet we do
not have funds for this? Is it not also true that this does not provide
any money or guarantee for my State, it provides an opportunity for
every one of the 149 Members or whoever came and asked for this? Is it
not true in fact that this set a priority and an obligation of this
Congress to commit some of these funds for this purpose for the entire
country?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me just make another point here. We
asked the Park Service, can we do it? What the gentleman is asking us
to do is give money to the Park Service and then make a grant to the
State of Florida. The Park Service says it has no legal authority to do
that, so we are going to take money away from the U.S. Geological
Survey, and legally we cannot even do what the gentleman is asking us
to do, so let us please, please, defeat this amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, just one point, one additional fact,
Mr. Chairman. That is that the USGS does the mapping for this Nation,
they did the mapping for the Department of Defense during Desert Storm,
it is a vital agency, and I think it is a great mistake to take money
from them. We have already cut them, and to cut more would be
irresponsible.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on behalf of myself and as a member of
the Committee on the Budget. Regretfully, I stand in opposition to the
amendment by my friend, the gentleman from Florida, because we worked
hard in the Committee on the Budget trying to get to a balanced budget
amendment by 2002.
The task force which I chaired dealt with natural resources and
agriculture and research. We said one thing you do not do when you are
going broke is you do not build new buildings, you do not acquire new
land. We put some restrictions on this. I would just ask for a ``no''
vote on this amendment that basically earmarks an acquisition of land.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by Mr. Faleomavaega
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Faleomavaega: Page 29, line 15,
strike ``Provided further,'' and all that follows through
``November 30, 1997:'' on line 18.
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment.
It has the support of the majority, and of the distinguished gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Regula] from the Subcommittee on Interior of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the House Resources
Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs, I rise to offer
this amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. Richardson, and Mr. Williams,
to hold the Bureau of Indian Affairs to a May 31, 1996, deadline to
report to Congress on the status of Indian Trust Fund Accounts.
Mr. Chairman, the Indian Trust Fund Accounts, the trustee of which is
the U.S. Government, have been a disaster. In good faith, the American
Indian tribes agreed to permit the U.S. Government to invest the
profits from certain oil and gas leases on Indian lands in trusts.
These funds were to be used for the benefits of the tribes. In what I
consider to be probably the biggest disgrace of this country's history,
the Bureau of Indian Affairs managed to lose records or misallocate
profits to such an extent that one of the major professional accounting
firms has not yet been able to determine the status of these accounts
after 4 years, and 20 million dollars' worth of investigations and
review.
Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. The Indian tribes and Congress have
already been patient for too long. If the BIA cannot find the records
after 4 years of looking, they are probably not going to find them in
an additional 18 months. Congress, and the Resources Committee in
particular, need this report to make a policy decision on how best to
proceed, given the current status of the trust accounts, whatever the
status might be.
Many of us on both sides of the aisle have been working on the
problems of Indian trust funds for several years. Just last November we
passed the American Indian Trust Fund Reform Act of 1994. This act
requires that a special trustee for trust funds be named to overhaul
the manner in which these funds are managed.
Further, this act calls for the BIA to submit a report to Congress by
May 31, 1996, on the reconciliation activities being conducted.
The date of May 31, 1996, was added to the legislation at the request
of the Department of the Interior and is more than adequate. By May
1996 we will know if these accounts can be reconciled or not. It is a
waste of time and money to continue to extend this process and it is
unfair to the Indian tribes who have shown an abundance of restraint
throughout.
Mr. Chairman, let's not extend this embarrassing situation any
longer. Let's ensure that the various Indian tribes which have been
waiting for an accounting of these trusts do not feel compelled to sue
the U.S. Government for the financial information to which they are
entitled.
Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleagues on the Appropriations
Committee, both Mr. Yates and Mr. Regula, who have been trying to come
to grips with this problem for the past several years. I want to
earnestly thank the gentlemen for their support on this proposed
amendment because I believe this amendment will give the Bureau of
Indian Affairs the time it needs to wrap up the reconciliation process
and provide Indian tribes and the Congress with the information needed
to determine what we need to do thereafter.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman. By October 1 of this year we will have
spent almost $20 million in 4 years on an attempt by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs to reconcile tribal trust fund accounts. These accounts
are comprised mostly of earnings from tribal leases of oil and gas,
agriculture, and grazing leases. The BIA is responsible for investing
these funds and managing the accounts.
For years these accounts have been mismanaged and the BIA can not
even tell the account holders the balance of their accounts. As the
legal trustee to these accounts, which total over $1 billion, this
leaves the U.S. extremely vulnerable to liability charges.
The BIA entered into a contract with the accounting firm of Arthur
Anderson to conduct a reconciliation of tribal accounts and this
Congress has supported that process. The preliminary reports are that
they will be unable to reconcile most accounts as they have encountered
numerous instances of lost documentation.
Many of us on both sides of the aisle have been working on the
problems of Indian trust funds for several years. Just last November we
passed the American Indian Trust Fund Reform Act of 1994. This act
requires that a special trust for trust funds be named to overall the
manner in which these funds are managed. Further, this act calls for
the BIA to submit a report to Congress by May 31, 1996 on the
reconciliation activities being conducted.
[[Page H 7004]]
This report will tell us which accounts have been reconciled and
which could not be. With this knowledge Congress can determine the best
and most cost effective process to resolve unreconcilable accounts.
The date of May 31, 1996 was added to the legislation at the request
of the Department of the Interior and is more than adequate. By May of
1996 we will know if these accounts can be reconciled or not. It is a
waste of time and money to continue to extend this process and it is
unfair to the Indian Tribes who have shown an abundance of restraint
throughout.
I commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, both Mr.
Yates and Mr. Regula, who have bee with me side by side trying to come
to grips with this problem for the past several years. I hope you can
support me on this one because I believe this amendment will give the
Bureau of Indian Affairs the time it needs to wrap up the
reconciliation process and provide Indian Tribes and Congress with the
information needed to determine the next step.
I urge my colleagues to support The Richardson/Faleomavaega
amendment.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
amendment of my colleague striking the date November 30, 1997 as the
deadline for the reconciliation report to be submitted by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs.
This extension flies in the face of the Trust Funds Management
Legislation that became law in 1994. This legislation represented
another step in a long journey to restore the covenant between the
Federal Government and Native Americans. While the Bureau of Indian
Affairs has been authorized to invest Indian trust funds since 1918, it
was not until 48 years had passed--in 1966--that the agency began
exercising its full investment authority in terms of Indian monies.
Like so much of the relationship between Indian Tribes and the
Federal Government, the management of Indian trust funds is replete
with mismanagement, lack of accountability, malfeasance and broken
promises. As a result of this management hundreds of million dollars in
tribal trust funds and individual Indian monies remain unaccounted for,
the trust funds legislation recognized that problem and provided a
remedy for the hemorrhaging of Indian monies.
But now the Interior Appropriations Committee has decided that the
loss of Indian monies really is not that important and that the BIA
should be given an additional year and a half beyond the date required
by the trust funds legislation to complete the reconciliation report
relating to the amount of Indian monies that remain unaccounted for.
This extension seems particularly incongruous in light of the tenor
of this Congess--every penny counts--yet the message out of the
Interior Appropriations Committee is that every penny counts unless its
Indian money.
Please join me in supporting this amendment deleting the extension of
the trust funds reconciliation report.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
The text of title II is as follows:
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
forest research
For necessary expenses of forest research as authorized by
law, $182,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
1997.
state and private forestry
For necessary expenses of cooperating with, and providing
technical and financial assistance to States, Territories,
possessions, and others and for forest pest management
activities, cooperative forestry and education and land
conservation activities, $129,551,000, to remain available
until expended, as authorized by law.
national forest system
For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and
utilization of the National Forest System, for ecosystem
planning, inventory, and monitoring, and for administrative
expenses associated with the management of funds provided
under the heads ``Forest Research'', ``State and Private
Forestry'', ``National Forest System'', ``Construction'',
``Fire Protection and Emergency Suppression'', and ``Land
Acquisition'', $1,276,688,000, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 1997, and including 65 per
centum of all monies received during the prior fiscal year as
fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
of 1965, as amended, in accordance with section 4 of the Act
(16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)): Provided, That unobligated and
unexpended balances in the National Forest System account at
the end of fiscal year 1995, shall be merged with and made a
part of the fiscal year 1996 National Forest System
appropriation, and shall remain available for obligation
until September 30, 1997: Provided further, That up to
$5,000,000 of the funds provided herein for road maintenance
shall be available for the planned obliteration of roads
which are no longer needed.
fire protection and emergency suppression
For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression
activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency
fire suppression on or adjacent to National Forest System
lands or other lands under fire protection agreement, and for
emergency rehabilitation of burned over National Forest
System lands, $385,485,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That unexpended balances of amounts
previously appropriated under any other headings for Forest
Service fire activities may be transferred to and merged with
this appropriation: Provided further, That such funds are
available for repayment of advances from other appropriations
accounts previously transferred for such purposes.
construction
For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, $120,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for construction and acquisition of buildings and
other facilities, and for construction and repair of forest
roads and trails by the Forest Service as authorized by 16
U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205: Provided, That
funds becoming available in fiscal year 1996 under the Act of
March 4, 1913 (16 U.S.C. 501) shall be transferred to the
General Fund of the Treasury of the United States: Provided
further, That not to exceed $50,000,000, to remain available
until expended, may be obligated for the construction of
forest roads by timber purchasers.
land acquisition
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16
U.S.C. 460l-4-11), including administrative expenses, and for
acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in
accordance with statutory authority applicable to the Forest
Service, $14,600,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended.
acquisition of lands for national forests special acts
For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of
the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the
Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San
Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests,
California, as authorized by law, $1,069,000, to be derived
from forest receipts.
acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges
For acquisition of lands, to be derived from funds
deposited by State, county, or municipal governments, public
school districts, or other public school authorities pursuant
to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16 U.S.C. 484a),
to remain available until expended.
range betterment fund
For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection,
and improvement, 50 per centum of all moneys received during
the prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock
on lands in National Forests in the sixteen Western States,
pursuant to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as
amended, to remain available until expended, of which not to
exceed 6 per centum shall be available for administrative
expenses associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation,
protection, and improvements.
gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research
For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $92,000, to
remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund
established pursuant to the above Act.
administrative provisions, forest service
Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal
year shall be available for: (a) purchase of not to exceed
183 passenger motor vehicles of which 32 will be used
primarily for law enforcement purposes and of which 151 shall
be for replacement; acquisition of 22 passenger motor
vehicles from excess sources, and hire of such vehicles;
operation and maintenance of aircraft, the purchase of not to
exceed two for replacement only, and acquisition of 20
aircraft from excess sources; notwithstanding other
provisions of law, existing aircraft being replaced may be
sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in value used to offset
the purchase price for the replacement aircraft; (b) services
pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the
Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed
$100,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; (c) purchase,
erection, and alteration of buildings and other public
improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (d) acquisition of land,
waters, and interests therein, pursuant
[[Page H 7005]]
to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 428a); (e) for expenses pursuant
to the Volunteers in the National Forest Act of 1972 (16
U.S.C. 558a, 558d, 558a note); and (f) for debt collection
contracts in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3718(c).
None of the funds made available under this Act shall be
obligated or expended to change the boundaries of any region,
to abolish any region, to move or close any regional office
for research, State and private forestry, or National Forest
System administration of the Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture, without the consent of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations and the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in the United States
Senate and the Committee on Agriculture in the United States
House of Representatives.
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be advanced to the Fire and Emergency Suppression
appropriation and may be used for forest firefighting and the
emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its
jurisdiction: Provided, That no funds shall be made available
under this authority until funds appropriated to the
``Emergency Forest Service Firefighting Fund'' shall have
been exhausted.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for assistance to or through the Agency for International
Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service in
connection with forest and rangeland research, technical
information, and assistance in foreign countries, and shall
be available to support forestry and related natural resource
activities outside the United States and its territories and
possessions, including technical assistance, education and
training, and cooperation with United States and
international organizations.
None of the funds made available to the Forest Service
under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the
provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture
Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b unless
the proposed transfer is approved in advance by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the
reprogramming procedures contained in House Report 103-551.
No funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund of the Department of
Agriculture without the approval of the Chief of the Forest
Service.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service may
be used to disseminate program information to private and
public individuals and organizations through the use of
nonmonetary items of nominal value and to provide nonmonetary
awards of nominal value and to incur necessary expenses for
the nonmonetary recognition of private individuals and
organizations that make contributions to Forest Service
programs.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, money
collected, in advance or otherwise, by the Forest Service
under authority of section 101 of Public Law 93-153 (30
U.S.C. 185(1)) as reimbursement of administrative and other
costs incurred in processing pipeline right-of-way or permit
applications and for costs incurred in monitoring the
construction, operation, maintenance, and termination of any
pipeline and related facilities, may be used to reimburse the
applicable appropriation to which such costs were originally
charged.
Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to
conduct a program of not less than $1,000,000 for high
priority projects within the scope of the approved budget
which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as
authorized by the Act of August 13, 1970, as amended by
Public Law 93-408.
None of the funds available in this Act shall be used for
timber sale preparation using clearcutting in hardwood stands
in excess of 25 percent of the fiscal year 1989 harvested
volume in the Wayne National Forest, Ohio: Provided, That
this limitation shall not apply to hardwood stands damaged by
natural disaster: Provided further, That landscape architects
shall be used to maintain a visually pleasing forest.
Any money collected from the States for fire suppression
assistance rendered by the Forest Service on non-Federal
lands not in the vicinity of National Forest System lands
shall be used to reimburse the applicable appropriation and
shall remain available until expended as the Secretary may
direct in conducting activities authorized by 16 U.S.C. 2101
(note), 2101-2110, 1606, and 2111.
Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $1,500 is
available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official
reception and representation expenses.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Forest
Service is authorized to employ or otherwise contract with
persons at regular rates of pay, as determined by the
Service, to perform work occasioned by emergencies such as
fires, storms, floods, earthquakes or any other unavoidable
cause without regard to Sundays, Federal holidays, and the
regular workweek.
To the greatest extent possible, and in accordance with the
Final Amendment to the Shawnee National Forest Plan, none of
the funds available in this Act shall be used for preparation
of timber sales using clearcutting or other forms of even
aged management in hardwood stands in the Shawnee National
Forest, Illinois.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for interactions with and providing technical assistance to
rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, eighty percent
of the funds appropriated to the Forest Service in the
National Forest System and Construction accounts and planned
to be allocated to activities under the ``Jobs in the Woods''
program for projects on National Forest land in the State of
Washington may be granted directly to the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife for accomplishment of planned
projects. Twenty percent of said funds shall be retained by
the Forest Service for planning and administering projects.
Project selection and prioritization shall be accomplished by
the Forest Service with such consultation with the State of
Washington as the Forest Service deems appropriate.
None of the funds available in this Act shall be used for
any activity that directly or indirectly causes harm to
songbirds within the boundaries of the Shawnee National
Forest.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
fossil energy research and development
For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy
research and development activities, under the authority of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91),
including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible
and equitable interests in any real property or any facility
or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion,
$384,504,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no part of the sum herein made available shall be used
for the field testing of nuclear explosives in the recovery
of oil and gas.
alternative fuels production
(including transfer of funds)
Monies received as investment income on the principal
amount in the Great Plains Project Trust at the Norwest Bank
of North Dakota, in such sums as are earned as of October 1,
1995, shall be deposited in this account and immediately
transferred to the General Fund of the Treasury. Monies
received as revenue sharing from the operation of the Great
Plains Gasification Plant shall be immediately transferred to
the General Fund of the Treasury.
naval petroleum and oil shale reserves
For necessary expenses in carrying out naval petroleum and
oil shale reserve activities, $151,028,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the requirements of
10 U.S.C. 7430(b)(2)(B) shall not apply to fiscal year 1996.
energy conservation
For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation
activities, $552,871,000, to remain available until expended,
including, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
excess amount for fiscal year 1996 determined under the
provisions of section 3003(d) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C.
4502), and of which $16,000,000 shall be derived from
available unobligated balances in the Biomass Energy
Development account: Provided, That $133,946,000 shall be for
use in energy conservation programs as defined in section
3008(3) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507) and shall not
be available until excess amounts are determined under the
provisions of section 3003(d) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C.
4502): Provided further, That notwithstanding section
3003(d)(2) of Public Law 99-509 such sums shall be allocated
to the eligible programs as follows: $107,446,000 for the
weatherization assistance program and $26,500,000 for the
State energy conservation program.
economic regulation
For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Economic Regulatory Administration and the Office of
Hearings and Appeals, $6,297,000, to remain available until
expended.
strategic petroleum reserve
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve
facility development and operations and program management
activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $287,000,000,
to remain available until expended, of which $187,000,000
shall be derived by transfer of unobligated balances from the
``SPR petroleum account'' and $100,000,000 shall be derived
by transfer from the ``SPR Decommissioning Fund'': Provided,
That notwithstanding section 161 of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, the Secretary shall draw down and sell up
to seven million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve:
spr petroleum account
Notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 6240(d) the United States share
of crude oil in Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 (Elk
Hills) may be sold or otherwise disposed of to other than the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Provided, That outlays in fiscal
year 1996 resulting from the use of funds in this account
shall not exceed $5,000,000.
energy information administration
For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Energy Information Administration, $79,766,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That notwithstanding
Section 4(d) of the Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C.
353(d)) or any other provision of law, funds appropriated
under this heading hereafter may be used to enter into a
contract for end use consumption surveys for a term not to
exceed eight years: Provided
[[Page H 7006]]
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, hereafter the
Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey shall be conducted on
a triennial basis.
administrative provisions, department of energy
Appropriations under this Act for the current fiscal year
shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles;
hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase,
repair, and cleaning of uniforms; and reimbursement to the
General Services Administration for security guard services.
From appropriations under this Act, transfers of sums may
be made to other agencies of the Government for the
performance of work for which the appropriation is made.
None of the funds made available to the Department of
Energy under this Act shall be used to implement or finance
authorized price support or loan guarantee programs unless
specific provision is made for such programs in an
appropriations Act.
The Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings,
equipment, and other contributions from public and private
sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other
agencies, Federal, State, private, or foreign: Provided, That
revenues and other moneys received by or for the account of
the Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of
products in connection with projects of the Department
appropriated under this Act may be retained by the Secretary
of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for
plant construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-
sharing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing
contracts or agreements: Provided further, That the remainder
of revenues after the making of such payments shall be
covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided
further, That any contract, agreement, or provision thereof
entered into by the Secretary pursuant to this authority
shall not be executed prior to the expiration of 30 calendar
days (not including any day in which either House of Congress
is not in session because of adjournment of more than three
calendar days to a day certain) from the receipt by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of
the Senate of a full comprehensive report on such project,
including the facts and circumstances relied upon in support
of the proposed project.
No funds provided in this Act may be expended by the
Department of Energy to prepare, issue, or process
procurement documents for programs or projects for which
appropriations have not been made.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Indian Health Service
indian health services
For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5,
1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of
the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian
Health Service, $1,725,792,000 together with payments
received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 300aaa-
2 for services furnished by the Indian Health Service:
Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal
organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any
other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (88 Stat.
2203; 25 U.S.C. 450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the
time of the grant or contract award and thereafter shall
remain available to the tribe or tribal organization without
fiscal year limitation: Provided further, That $12,000,000
shall remain available until expended, for the Indian
Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund: Provided further, That
$351,258,000 for contract medical care shall remain available
for obligation until September 30, 1997: Provided further,
That of the funds provided, not less than $11,306,000 shall
be used to carry out the loan repayment program under section
108 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, as amended:
Provided further, That funds provided in this Act may be used
for one-year contracts and grants which are to be performed
in two fiscal years, so long as the total obligation is
recorded in the year for which the funds are appropriated:
Provided further, That the amounts collected by the Secretary
of Health and Human Services under the authority of title IV
of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act shall be available
for two fiscal years after the fiscal year in which they were
collected, for the purpose of achieving compliance with the
applicable conditions and requirements of titles XVIII and
XIX of the Social Security Act (exclusive of planning,
design, or construction of new facilities): Provided further,
That of the funds provided, $7,500,000 shall remain available
until expended, for the Indian Self-Determination Fund, which
shall be available for the transitional costs of initial or
expanded tribal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements
with the Indian Health Service under the provisions of the
Indian Self-Determination Act: Provided further, That funding
contained herein, and in any earlier appropriations Acts for
scholarship programs under the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act (25 U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available for obligation
until September 30, 1997: Provided further, That amounts
received by tribes and tribal organizations under title IV of
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, as amended, shall be
reported and accounted for and available to the receiving
tribes and tribal organizations until expended.
indian health facilities
For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and
equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities,
including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans,
specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase
and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers;
and for provision of domestic and community sanitation
facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act
of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
Determination Act and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act,
and for expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5,
1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of
the Public Health Service Act with respect to environmental
health and facilities support activities of the Indian Health
Service, $236,975,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds appropriated for the planning, design, construction or
renovation of health facilities for the benefit of an Indian
tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land for sites to
construct, improve, or enlarge health or related facilities.
administrative provisions, indian health service
Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service
shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109 but at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent
to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under
5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft;
purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints;
purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and
renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone
service in private residences in the field, when authorized
under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms
or allowances therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-
5902); and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are
concerned with the functions or activities for which the
appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved
conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or
activities: Provided, That in accordance with the provisions
of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, non-Indian
patients may be extended health care at all tribally
administered or Indian Health Service facilities, subject to
charges, and the proceeds along with funds recovered under
the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651-53)
shall be credited to the account of the facility providing
the service and shall be available without fiscal year
limitation: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
law or regulation, funds transferred from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service
shall be administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian
Sanitation Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended:
Provided further, That funds appropriated to the Indian
Health Service in this Act, except those used for
administrative and program direction purposes, shall not be
subject to limitations directed at curtailing Federal travel
and transportation: Provided further, That the Indian Health
Service shall neither bill nor charge those Indians who may
have the economic means to pay unless and until such time as
Congress has agreed upon a specific policy to do so and has
directed the Indian Health Service to implement such a
policy: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, funds previously or herein made available
to a tribe or tribal organization through a contract, grant
or agreement authorized by Title I of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (88 Stat.
2203; 25 U.S.C. 450), may be deobligated and reobligated to a
self-governance funding agreement under Title III of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of
1975 and thereafter shall remain available to the tribe or
tribal organization without fiscal year limitation: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available to the Indian
Health Service in this Act shall be used to implement the
final rule published in the Federal Register on September 16,
1987, by the Department of Health and Human Services,
relating to eligibility for the health care services of the
Indian Health Service until the Indian Health Service has
submitted a budget request reflecting the increased costs
associated with the proposed final rule, and such request has
been included in an appropriations Act and enacted into law:
Provided further, That funds made available in this Act are
to be apportioned to the Indian Health Service as
appropriated in this Act, and accounted for in the
appropriation structure set forth in this Act: Provided
further, That the appropriation structure for the Indian
Health Service may not be altered without advance approval of
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
indian education
For necessary expenses for the orderly closure of the
Office of Indian Education, $1,000,000.
[[Page H 7007]]
OTHER RELATED AGENCIES
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531,
$21,345,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act
are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups
including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands
residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and
all others certified as eligible and not included in the
preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any
single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985,
was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi
Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such
household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be
provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided
further, That the Office shall relocate any certified
eligible relocatees who have selected and received an
approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a
replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the
land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
Development
payment to the institute
For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title
XV of Public Law 99-498 (20 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.), $5,500,000.
Smithsonian Institution
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as
authorized by law, including research in the fields of art,
science, and history; development, preservation, and
documentation of the National Collections; presentation of
public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation,
dissemination, and exchange of information and publications;
conduct of education, training, and museum assistance
programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for
terms not to exceed thirty years), and protection of
buildings, facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000
for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to 5
replacement passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for employees; $309,471,000, of which
not to exceed $32,000,000 for the instrumentation program,
collections acquisition, Museum Support Center equipment and
move, exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum of the
American Indian, the repatriation of skeletal remains
program, research equipment, information management, and
Latino programming shall remain available until expended and,
including such funds as may be necessary to support American
overseas research centers and a total of $125,000 for the
Council of American Overseas Research Centers: Provided, That
funds appropriated herein are available for advance payments
to independent contractors performing research services or
participating in official Smithsonian presentations.
construction and improvements, national zoological park
For necessary expenses of planning, construction,
remodeling, and equipping of buildings and facilities at the
National Zoological Park, by contract or otherwise,
$3,000,000, to remain available until expended.
repair and restoration of buildings
For necessary expenses of repair and restoration of
buildings owned or occupied by the Smithsonian Institution,
by contract or otherwise, as authorized by section 2 of the
Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), including not to
exceed $10,000 for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
$24,954,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That contracts awarded for environmental systems, protection
systems, and exterior repair or restoration of buildings of
the Smithsonian Institution may be negotiated with selected
contractors and awarded on the basis of contractor
qualifications as well as price.
construction
For necessary expenses for construction, $12,950,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single
procurement for the construction of the National Museum of
the American Indian Cultural Resources Center may be issued
which includes the full scope of the project: Provided
further, That the solicitation and the contract shall contain
the clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR
52.232.18.
National Gallery of Art
salaries and expenses
For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of
Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and
administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by
the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the
public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9,
Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by
5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the
treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum,
and art associations or societies whose publications or
services are available to members only, or to members at a
price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances
therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C.
5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for
protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance,
alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches,
and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and
repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by
contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms,
or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms
and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $51,315,000,
of which not to exceed $3,026,000 for the special exhibition
program shall remain available until expended.
repair, restoration and renovation of buildings
For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and
renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or
occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or
otherwise, as authorized $5,500,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for
environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior
repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of
Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded
on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
operations and maintenance
For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and
security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts, $9,800,000.
construction
For necessary expenses of capital repair and rehabilitation
of the existing features of the building and site of the John
F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $8,983,000, to
remain available until expended.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of
the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356)
including hire of passenger vehicles and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $6,152,000.
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
National Endowment for the Arts
grants and administration
For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$82,259,000 subject to passage by the House of
Representatives of a bill authorizing such appropriation
shall be available to the National Endowment for the Arts for
the support of projects and productions in the arts through
assistance to groups and individuals pursuant to section 5(c)
of the Act, and for administering the functions of the Act,
to remain available until September 30, 1997.
matching grants
To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of
1965, as amended, $17,235,000 subject to passage by the House
of Representatives of a bill authorizing such appropriation,
to remain available until September 30, 1997, to the National
Endowment for the Arts, of which $7,500,000 shall be
available for purposes of section 5(p)(1): Provided, That
this appropriation shall be available for obligation only in
such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of gifts,
bequests, and devises of money, and other property accepted
by the Chairman or by grantees of the Endowment under the
provisions of section 10(a)(2), subsections 11(a)(2)(A) and
11(a)(3)(A) during the current and preceding fiscal years for
which equal amounts have not previously been appropriated.
National Endowment for the Humanities
grants and administration
For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$82,469,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for
the Humanities for support of activities in the humanities,
pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for administering
the functions of the Act, to remain available until September
30, 1997.
matching grants
To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of
1965, as amended, $17,025,000, to remain available until
September 30, 1997, of which $9,180,000 shall be available to
the National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of
section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be
available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal
to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of
money, and other property accepted by the Chairman or by
grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections
11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding
fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been
appropriated.
Institute of Museum Services
grants and administration
For carrying out title II of the Arts, Humanities, and
Cultural Affairs Act of 1976, as amended, $21,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 1997.
[[Page H 7008]]
administrative provisions
None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any
grant or contract documents which do not include the text of
18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may
be used for official reception and representation expenses.
Commission of Fine Arts
salaries and expenses
For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a
Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $834,000.
national capital arts and cultural affairs
For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190
(99 Stat. 1261; 20 U.S.C. 956(a)), as amended, $6,000,000.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the orderly closure of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, $1,000,000:
Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for the
compensation of Executive Level V or higher positions.
National Capital Planning Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National
Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C. 71-71i), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $5,090,000:
Provided, That all appointed members will be compensated at a
rate not to exceed the rate for Executive Schedule Level IV.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Memorial Commission, established by the Act of August 11,
1955 (69 Stat. 694), as amended by Public Law 92-332 (86
Stat. 401), $48,000, to remain available until September 30,
1997.
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the orderly closure of the
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, $2,000,000.
United States Holocaust Memorial Council
holocaust memorial council
For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Council, as
authorized by Public Law 96-388, as amended, $28,707,000; of
which $1,575,000 for the Museum's repair and rehabilitation
program and $1,264,000 for the Museum's exhibition program
shall remain available until expended.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Fox
of Pennsylvania) having assumed the chair, Mr. Burton of Indiana,
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 1977), making appropriations for the Department of the Interior
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________