[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.

                          ____________________