Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 115 (Monday, July 17, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 115 (Monday, July 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7030-H7062]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1996

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

{time} 1804

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1977) making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. Shays (Chairman pro tempore) in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Thursday, July 12, 1995, title II was open for amendment at any point.
Pursuant to House Resolution 189, further consideration of the bill
for amendment shall proceed without intervening motion except
amendments beginning in title II printed in the Congressional Record
before July 14, 1995; motions that the committee rise offered by the
majority leader or his designee, and motions that the committee rise
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted offered a preferential under clause 2(d) of rule XXI.
Each further amendment to the bill may be offered only by the Member
who caused it to be printed, is considered read, is debatable for
either 10 or 20 minutes, as the case may be, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not
be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less
than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic
device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting
by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not
be less than 15 minutes.
Are there any amendments to title II?
amendment offered by mr. bass

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Bass: Page 47, line 25, insert
before the period the following:
``: Provided: That the Forest Service shall make a priority
emergency purchase of the Bretton Woods tract within the
White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire.''

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass] will be recognized for 5
minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that this amendment is subject to a point
of order and I plan to withdraw it shortly. However, I would like to
enter into a very brief colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee
on the Interior of the Committee on Appropriations.
Is this acceptable to the gentleman from Ohio?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes, it is. We
do object to the amendment, but I think the colloquy will clear that
up.
Mr. BASS. I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that certain funds will be
available in this bill for emergency land acquisitions. These
acquisitions include tracts of land which are surrounded by existing
national forest land and are imminently threatened by development. It
is my further understanding that the Bretton Woods tract in the White
Mountain National Forest is the type of acquisition that might qualify
for funding.
Is this also the understanding of the gentleman from Ohio?
Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, yes, it is. I would
point out, as the gentleman did earlier, that the money in here only
applies in the event of an emergency. This is the type of thing that
might qualify.
Mr. BASS. Very well. I thank my colleague for his courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for the
acquisition of the Bretton Woods tract and its incorporation into the
White Mountain National Forest. Historically, aesthetically, and
recreationally, this 480-acre tract is invaluable to New Hampshire's
North Country. This expanse is one of the last remaining undeveloped
private ownerships that lies within the panorama of the historic Mt.
Washington Hotel where the Bretton Woods Treaty was signed 50 years
ago. The property contains over 10 miles of trails that provide the
area's many visitors with outstanding recreational opportunities,
including hiking, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, and
snowmobiling.
The Forest Service has informed me that this tract's acquisition
would qualify as an emergency. The land is surrounded on three sides by
the national forest. While the land is zoned for development, the owner
is ready to sell the parcel to the Forest Service. However,

[[Page H 7031]]
if an emergency acquisition of this land is not made, the land will be
developed for economic reasons. I believe that it would be a serious
mistake to allow development of this land located in the midst of the
White Mountain National Forest.
Mr. Chairman, I include a letter from the Forest Service for the
Record, as follows:

Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service,

Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles F. Bass,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Bass: The President's FY 1996 Budget
included $1,000,000 for land acquisition within the White
Mountain National Forest. The funding request is intended to
allow for a partial purchase of the Bretton Woods property.
We are currently working with the landowners and the Trust
for Public Land to complete an appraisal of the property.
This property is a priority for acquisition. National
Forest System lands about the property on three sides and we
believe development is likely if we are unable to purchase.
The property would qualify for emergency and inholdings land
purchase funding, as currently identified in the Department
of Interior and Related Agencies FY 1996 Appropriations bill.
However, the current funding level of $7,100,000 is
inadequate to meet our emergency acquisition needs, and we
are unable to commit how this funding will be utilized.
Brent Handley of my staff is available to work with you if
you have any additional questions. He can be reached at 205-
0945.
Sincerely,
Gordon H. Small,
for Director of Lands.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Hampshire?
There was no objection.

amendment offered by mr. coburn

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn: Page 45, line 24, strike
``$1,276,688,000'' and insert ``$1,266,688,000''.
Page 66, strike lines 11 through 15 and insert the
following:

Department of Education

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

indian education

For necessary expenses to carry out, to the extent not
otherwise provided, title IX of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, $52,500,000, to be allocated to local
educational agencies.
amendment, as modified, offered by mr. coburn

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
be considered as modified and reported in the Congressional Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Coburn: Page 45,
line 24, strike ``$1,276,688.000'' and insert
``$1,266,688,000''.
Page 66, strike lines 11 through 15 and insert the
following:

Department of education

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

indian education

For necessary expenses to carry out, to the extent not
otherwise provided, title IX, Part A, Subpart 1 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended,
and section 215 of the Department of Education Organization
Act, $52,500,000.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] will be recognized for 5 minutes,
and a Member opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, there is no one in this House who is more
committed than I to cutting unnecessary spending and balancing the
budget. I strongly support streamlining programs and cutting the
bureaucracy in Washington. However, as written, this bill cuts more
than just bureaucracy in the Office of Indian Education. It guts grant
money for schools and for children.
My amendment does not restore the Office of Indian Education.
However, it sends money directly to those schools who depend on it for
educating their students. Again, the Coburn amendment restores money
for schools, not for bureaucracy. Although the amendment does not
restore the Office of Indian Education, I am willing to work with the
Department of Education to see and to assure that the grant money is
administered.
The Coburn amendment pays for these school grants by reducing an
offsetting amount from the general administration accounts within the
Forest Service, an amount for that general administration account in
excess of $1.3 billion.
Balancing the budget includes balancing priorities. If money for
schoolchildren is more important than money for bureaucracy, then you
should vote for the Coburn amendment.
We must as we bring this budget down and control the spending not
throw babies out with the bath water.
In educating our children, there cannot be a higher priority for this
country. We must spend the dollars wisely, we must spend it on the
children, not on bureaucracies.
It is my hope that the Congress will honor this amendment and will
make the necessary correction in this appropriations bill so that
school children throughout this country will receive the appropriate
dollars required to educate themselves.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. We
had a discussion on this on Thursday on a previous amendment concerning
Indian education. At that time, it was stated by myself and others that
we would support this amendment. The reason that we are in favor of
this is the following:
First, it does restore the $52,500,000 to Indian education. The
previous amendment was a larger amount.
Second, it offsets from administrative costs as opposed to program
reductions.
I think this is a very important element. What it really means is
that this money will actually go to programs for the Indian children
and will not be spent on administrative costs.
One of the things we have tried to do in this bill is to get more
money on the ground and less in administrative-type functions.
Third, the money is directed to local schools only and no special
programs are funded. In other words, it gives the school districts the
flexibility to design programs for the Indian children that will
perhaps meet their needs in unique ways.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, how will these funds be distributed? If
there is no longer an Office of Indian Education, who will receive the
money for distribution to the various school districts that are to
receive them?
{time} 1815

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think, in response to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Yates], it would be done through the BIA or some other
administrative function. And what we are trying to do is to avoid
overhead costs and get the money out to the children and to the
schools.
It is basically a formula grant, so a computer can designate the
amount that goes to each school, depending on the evidence the school
would present as to the number of Indian children that are enrolled in
that particular school district.
Mr. YATES. If the gentleman would continue to yield, does the
amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] provide for that
duty to be undertaken by either BIA or some other agency?
Mr. REGULA. It is structured in a way that it will take care of
getting the money to the school districts on a per capita basis. That
has been historically the case.
Mr. YATES. But my question, Mr. Chairman, is there in the gentleman's
amendment a provision that will have some authority providing the
distribution?
Mr. REGULA. That would be in the agency known as the Office of Indian

[[Page H 7032]]
Education and that office would be responsible for distributing the
money on a formula basis.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. REGULA. I think this discussion brings this out, and that is that
this amendment will greatly reduce administrative overhead in the
office. In the age of computers, it is fairly easy to distribute funds
that are on a per capita basis and are strictly by formula. For all of
these reasons, we support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition?
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this additional money
for Indian education is well worthwhile. I think the committee has
recognized that they are incorrect to chop Indian education, although I
share the ranking member's concern that without an Office of Indian
Education, you will have trouble getting this money to the schools.
By the way, the Office of Indian Education money did not go to the
schools. It did not follow the schools. It follows the students. That
is the value of it, because it will follow them off of the reservation.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman restoring the money and
understanding the error that the subcommittee made.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, like the chairman of the committee, I have
no objection to this amendment and I think it ought to be adopted.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend my colleague from the
other side of the aisle, Congressman Coburn, for his amendment on
funding for the Office of Indian Education. However, I have some
concerns about this amendment.
First, the amount addressed here--$52.5 million is not adequate to
reinstate the Office of Indian Education, and instead gives the money
to the local Indian education programs. Some program areas will
benefit, some may not.
Second, I am concerned about the source Mr. Coburn has earmarked to
secure this $52.5--worthwhile programs under the general administration
of Forest Service will be sacrificed.
I filed an amendment which will restore the funding level to the
current $81 million because I believe in the Office of Indian Education
and the programs which it offers. I cannot concede that the programs
will be as well run as they were when monitored by the Office of Indian
Education. This office serves unique cultural and academic needs of
Indians. These needs will not be adequately met at a funding level of
$52.5 million.
I agree that--in most cases--some money is better than no money. But
to cut a limited program which has proven to work is not good. It
should be our charge to find the money to fund the Office of Indian
Education at a level which will at least maintain the current level of
solvency.
If not here today, then through the conference process.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my esteemed
colleague, Mr. Tom Coburn's amendment to the Interior appropriations
bill. His amendment restores funding to local schools which receive
funding from the Department of Education to support the special
educational needs of Alaska Native or American Indian students. While
Mr. Coburn's amendment does not restore the Office of Indian Education,
it provides for program funds within the Department of Education to
schools who provide academic tutoring, personal counseling, career
counseling and other services to Alaska Native and American Indian
students who are at risk. As a former educator, I believe it is vital
that native students be given a fair opportunity to achieve their
highest potential. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Coburn
amendment to restore $52 million for the Department of Education
program funding to schools who help disadvantaged children meet high
standards.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Coburn
amendment to restore $52.5 million to the Office of Indian Education.
As I noted during debate on the Obey amendment last week, over a
century ago the United States entered into treaties with many native
American Indian tribes. My congressional district contains portions of
eight sovereign Indian nations, including the Navajo Nation, America's
largest reservation.
Although I would prefer restoring the entire $80 million cut from
this important program, I am grateful for the opportunity to restore a
good portion of these funds. I believe that if this amendment should
fail to be adopted, Congress would be reneging on an important promise
made to native American children. I hope that my colleagues will join
me in keeping our treaty obligations by supporting the Coburn
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike
the last word for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Deal] is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] in a colloquy with regard to the
source of continued funding for an ongoing project which involves the
construction for a bypass route around the Chickamauga-Chattanooga
National Military Park, which is the oldest and largest military park
in the country.
By way of background, this project was initially authorized in 1987
and has been continually funded since then on agreement between the
National Park Service and the State of Georgia. The land acquisition
necessary for this route has been substantially completed and
construction has begun.
The State of Georgia has already spent $7 million on this project
under its agreement with the Park Service.
It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Ohio
has consulted with the Park Service and that there is an agreement with
the director of the Park Service to use discretionary Federal Highway
Administration dollars to fund this project.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia is correct.
Because I believe it is important to continue to fund projects such as
this one on which construction has begun, I have contacted the director
of the National Park Service on this issue.
I have been assured by the director of the National Park Service that
he will use $4.544 million in discretionary Federal Highway
Administration dollars allotted to the Park Service to proceed with
construction of the project.
I might add that the highway money is a separate pool that is
allocated from the Committee on Transportation specifically for highway
projects that affect parks.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
amendment offered by mr. stearns

Mr. STEARNS. 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. Stearns: Page 72, line 19, strike
``$82,259,000'' and insert ``$74,033,100''.
Page 73, line 4, strike ``$17,235,000'' and insert
``$15,511,500''.
Page 73, line 6, strike ``$7,500,000'' and insert
``$6,750,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Stearns] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for
10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] was here Friday night
saying, ``Let us bring the Stearns amendment forward,'' so I appreciate
the gentleman advertising the Stearns amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think many of my colleagues know what this is about.
This is about a reduction to the National Endowment for the Arts. I
rise today to offer this amendment to H.R. 1977. It cuts an additional
$10 million from the fiscal year appropriations for 1996 for the NEA.
I want to recognize, of course, my colleague on the other side of the
aisle, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.

[[Page H 7033]]
Yates]. Both he and I have discussed this in the past for a number of
years, and I have great respect for him and great respect for his
opinion. But I think the time has come now to bring this debate forward
to a higher level.
I know that people on both sides of the aisle have different opinions
on this, but I think we are now at a point of not only fiscal
responsibility, but we are talking about good stewardship.
So as I said before, I have offered reductions to
the NEA funding for many years and I believe that at this time, in
this time of fiscal crisis, we must put each and every Federal program
under the microscope.

And so my colleagues bear with me, let us take a good look at this
program. Is this program vital to our Nation's well-being or could it
be reduced and phased out? H.R. 1977, as reported, reduces funding for
the NEA 39 percent from the fiscal year 1995 levels of $167 million; a
small but timed step in the right direction.
My amendment would cut closer to what I believe the majority want;
reduce, saving further, saving the taxpayers $77 million. In addition,
my amendment moves us one step closer to full and total phaseout of the
NEA. This is the first of a 2-year phaseout. Under my amendment, the
NEA would be eliminated during this, the 104th Congress.
Unlike the agreement reached and outlined in the rule, my amendment
would not guarantee the NEA a fiscal year 1997 funding level of $99
million. It would give the NEA only those funds necessary for the
agency to close its door with all deliberate speed.
The amendment also, as I mentioned earlier, strikes a strong blow for
fiscal responsibility. I think, my colleagues, we must demonstrate
tonight that we are serious about reducing spending and only fund those
projects that are absolutely necessary.
Ask yourself this question: Does the NEA defend Americans against
invasion? Does it protect Americans from crime? Does it shield them
from economic hardship? In other words, does it do these things that
are important for the Federal Government to do for its citizens?
Simply put, the NEA has not proved itself necessary of this Federal
funding. In a world where every American family now owes $80,000 of the
national debt, every penny counts and in this type of world, we must
look at the NEA.
Many of my colleagues might say to themselves, ``Well, the NEA has
done a lot of good projects.'' But, Mr. Chairman, over the years there
has been a great deal of controversy from this agency.
This agency continues to have controversy. This very summer, the NEA
has been embroiled in controversy surrounding its support, but
financially and philosophically, of Highways, a Los Angeles Performing
Arts Center.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure most people in the House
do not know what Highways, a Los Angeles performing arts center,
does. As reported in the newspaper, the center received $15,000 this
year from the NEA. I have here a brochure, if people in the House would
like to look at this brochure. It has all the lurid details and the
photographs that will help my colleagues understand that there has not
been good stewardship.

My colleagues will notice in the left-hand corner of the brochure,
there is the good seal of approval from the National Endowment for the
Arts. I think most of my colleagues would realize that this brochure,
which talks about the performing arts schedule out at Santa Monica, is
not the kind of literature the taxpayers should be supporting.
This is sexually explicit homosexual art material and it is entitled,
and I am reading right off the brochure, ``Ecco Lesbo--Ecco Homo,''
series of plays. Apparently, the chief purpose of this festival is to
provoke conservatives and religious Americans with their presentation.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to go into all the details, but for some
of my colleagues I just want to take one moment to read what one of the
scheduled performances on July 2, in fact from June 28 to July 2, they
are talking about pain, regret, self-pity, doom, and quote, ``Sex With
Newt Gingrich's Mother.''
I bring that forward not because it is inflammatory--which it is--but
to point out this is just a small sample of the things that are in this
brochure. These are performances that are occurring in July and August:
The Funny Gay Males in July 5 through 9, and it just goes on and on
with things that I think are just too lurid to talk about, even on a
Monday night.
Mr. Chairman, we could say to ourselves, ``Where is Jane Alexander?
Let us talk to her about this. She is the chairwoman of the NEA.''
Well, she has written a letter to all my colleagues. She argued that
NEA paid only for general administrative support to the Highways Arts
Center and none of the money went to the performing artists.
Furthermore, she goes on to say ``Federal funding is simply a
reflection of the community they are attempting to serve with our
help.'' But the majority of taxpayers do not agree.
She actually defends this lurid junk by claiming that such
performances are an exemplification of Los Angeles. I do not think this
is. I think my colleagues from Los Angeles should be offended. I know I
am.
There is no argument here. By giving Highways one taxpayer dollar,
the Government and its Federal arts agency implicitly supports the
Highways Arts Center. They put the NEA sealer on this flyer, so we have
to endorse it. After all, we wrote the check. My colleagues, it is
wrong and there are no two ways about it.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to stop at this moment to allow the other
side an opportunity, before I continue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, here again, like the swallows that return annually to
Capistrano, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] has made his
annual return to his attack on the NEA. This time, he wants to cut it
by an additional 10 percent. The Committee has already cut it by 40
percent. The NEA has literally been crippled by the amount of money
that the committee will be taking from it.
We also know that this bill will kill the arts in 2 years, there will
be no more NEA, according to our bill.
The question is whether you will listen to the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Stearns] in his attack on the NEA. The gentleman has pointed to
one grant, one grant by NEA out of 4,000. Out of 4,000 grants that it
makes annually, he has pointed to just one of them.

{time} 1830

He says nothing about the grant of the NEA to the symphonies. He says
nothing about the grants of the NEA to chamber music. He says nothing
about the grants of the NEA to the theaters. He says nothing about the
grants of the NEA to educational institutions to bring the arts to the
curricula of school children.
Will you accept what the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] says
about the NEA, or will you listen to what all of the Presidents of the
United States since 1965 have said in favor of the NEA? President
Kennedy was very strongly in favor of the NEA. President Johnson was
strongly in favor of the NEA. President Nixon strongly supported the
NEA. President Ford, President Carter, President Bush, and President
Clinton, all of them favored Federal support for the arts. As a matter
of fact this is what President Nixon said about the arts, and I quote
from December 1969, ``The attention and support we give the arts and
the humanities, especially as they affect our young people, represent a
vital part of our commitment to enhancing the quality of life for all
Americans.''
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] spoke about the fact that we
find ourselves in stringent budget circumstances. This is what
President Nixon said at a time of severe budget stringency: ``Doubling
of the appropriation for the arts and humanities might seem
extravagant. However, I believe the need for a new idea has a
compelling claim on our resources. Studies in the humanities will
expand the range of our current knowledge about the social conditions
underlying the more difficult and far-reaching of the Nation's domestic
problems.'' That was in

[[Page H 7034]]
a speech that President Nixon made to the Congress.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the House will recognize that the
NEA has already taken a beating. It has taken a beating by our
committee. It has been cut 50 percent already. Another cut of $10
million will cripple it further. I do not think the House wants to do
that.
And so I urge the House to reject the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding
me this time.
The gentleman from Florida asked some good questions. He asks if the
NEA is vital. Most Americans can answer that for him. The answer is
``yes.'' It is vital to American culture. It is vital to American
enlightenment.
In the past 25 years of success, extraordinary success of culture and
the arts of this country are testimony to how vital it is.
He asks if the continuation of the NEA is in the wishes of the
majority. The majority have answered that time and again in poll after
poll. The answer is overwhelmingly ``yes.'' The American people support
the National Endowment for the Arts and its continuation.
He asks if it defends America against invasion, and again the answer
is ``yes.'' It defends us against the invasion of misunderstanding. Any
promotion of the arts does. It protects us against the invasion of
ignorance. Federal promotion of the arts does that.
He asks if it shields us from economic hardship, and the answer is
``yes.'' In major cities and small towns across this country, its
cultural institutions have
risen up and been shielded from economic hardship because of the
National Endowment for the Arts.
And, finally, he raised the question of obscenity. Four years ago
this House, the U.S. Senate, and under signature of the President of
the United States, for the first time made obscenity funded by the NEA
illegal, and if they are doing it, if they are doing it, action can be
taken against them. Obscenity is not protected speech. The Supreme
Court has found, and this House and the U.S. Senate and President Bush
made obscenity by the NEA illegal.
I know many of the Members on that side have recently come to this
Chamber, but obscenity is not permitted by the NEA. It is illegal. The
NEA can be taken to court. There are restrictions.
Is the NEA vital? Absolutely. Do not kill it tonight. It is vital to
this country and to the cultural improvement of this country.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
The gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] should realize that a poll
done by the Los Angeles Times in the early part of this year showed 69
percent of Americans felt the NEA should be reduced drastically. A poll
done by CNN in June said 54 percent said it should be eliminated.
Let me just tell the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams], and I ask
him the question rhetorically, he does not have to answer it, in this
grant that went to Highways on July 24 they are going to show a
performance of ``Boys Are Us, the next installment in our continuing
series of hot summer nights with hot fags.'' Now, on August 14, there
is going to be ``dyke night, our series of hot nights with hot dykes.
Mr. Chairman, this has the seal of approval of the NEA. This is a
rhetorical question. There is the seal of the NEA. There has got to be
public stewardship here somewhere down the line. I say to the gentleman
from Montana [Mr. Williams], in all deference to him, the American
people do not believe we cannot eliminate this program.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman From New York [Mr. Houghton].
(Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I do not know why
we are whipping this horse again. The House voted a few days ago to
phase out the NEA in 2 years, period, paragraph, end of story.
I do not agree with it. I do not think it was a good idea. But that
was the vote.
Now we are going at this thing again. It is absolutely crazy. Is an
agreement an agreement? I do not know around here anymore.
I would like to feel that vote last week was an agreement. We ought
to hold to it.
I do not think the Stearns amendment is worthwhile approving.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield I minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to stand and say that I believe that
we should continue to support the National Endowment for the Arts. If
you go back as far as 1964, when the endowment was created, and you
look at the private sector involvement since that time, the NEA's
impact has been dramatic.
Because we put in a few seed dollars into the Arts through the NEA,
we have seen a dramatic increase in private funding for the Arts, and
we have seen arts institutions spring up all over this country, and not
just in the big eastern cities. I believe that if you look at the
numbers, they will demonstrate that for every 1 Federal dollar we
invest in the Arts, $11 are invested from the private sector. That is a
dramatic indication of the success of this partnership between the
public and private sector.
Again, the subcommittee has already reduced funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts by 40 percent, which is clearly too large a
reduction.
Therefore, I would strongly urge the House to vote against the
Stearns amendment. I know that there are those who want to play
politics with this issue. However, the endowment, if viewed in any
objective way, has been an enormous success.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's
amendment to cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA].
This action would be highly irresponsible and I believe against the
interests of the American people.
For those in this body concerned and conscious of deficit reduction,
let me point out that the Interior Appropriation Subcommittee has
already drastically reduced funding for the Arts for fiscal year 1996,
by 40 percent. The NEA's base funding has gone down from $171 million
in fiscal year 1994, to a further reduced base of $162 million in
fiscal year 1995, to only $99.4 million in the fiscal year 1996 bill
that is being brought to the floor today.
Let me also remind you that the funding level for the arts agency as
reported out by the subcommittee is consistent with the level proposed
for fiscal year 1996 in H.R. 1557, the reauthorization bill for the NEA
that was prepared by Chairman Goodling and the Economic and Educational
Opportunities Committee. So the NEA has given to deficit reduction. In
fact, the NEA has given more than its share, and we have nearly
crippled the agency's ability to be viable at the levels we have
reported out in this bill.
Those who believe the NEA funding should be reduced further or
eliminated are saying to this Nation and their constituents that we
should not invest in our culture and in creativity. To be against the
arts agency's existence is to say that we should not support ballets,
symphonies, or theatre performances. It's time to look at the real
truth and the real value of the NEA, and move beyond the scapegoating
for convenience of this important cultural institution for our Nation.
Let's examine the real record, and stop viewing this agency through a
prism of distortion. Since its creation in 1965, the NEA has awarded
over 100,000 grants and less than 40 have been considered to be very
controversial. It is estimated that the Endowment costs each American
just 64 cents a year. However, with this modest investment, the agency
helps enhance the quality of life for our citizens, by supporting
theatres, touring dance companies, folk festivals, arts education,
orchestras, museums, and a wide variety of other programs.
Many widely acclaimed programs began with the talent of individuals
who had received seed money from the NEA, and many rural areas of our
Nation would not be able to enjoy arts programs without outreach by the
Endowment.
We must recognize that the small investment made by the Federal
Government in funding the NEA creates tremendous leverage in obtaining
private investment. For every dollar spent by the Endowment, it
attracts $11 in investment from the private sector. In fact, many
private sector contributors rely heavily on the NEA's grant selection
process as a guide to the kinds of programs that should be supported.
Endowment support has helped to increase audience support for all art
forms. For example, the annual audience for professional

[[Page H 7035]]
dance has grown from 1 million to more than 16 million over the past 28
years. Audiences for the work of professional opera companies have
grown to over 7.6 million, compared to only 5 million a decade ago.
Non-profit theaters serve an audience that has grown to over 20
million. Symphony performance attendance has risen to over 27 million
annually. All of this has occurred with seed support from the NEA.
Each year radio programs reach millions of Americans bringing the
best of the arts to urban and rural communities through such Endowment-
funded series as ``American Jazz Radio Festival'' and ``Mountain
Stage.''
The NEA's Underserved Communities Initiative, created in 1990, has
awarded grants in every State to broaden public access to art in rural,
inner-city, and artistically underserved areas.
Also, support for the arts is support for the economy. The NEA's
modest budget has annual generated matching funds estimated at over
$1.2 billion. These moneys permeate the economy. At least 1.3 million
full time jobs are supported by the arts; $25.2 billion is earned
through salaries, wages, and entrepreneurial income; local governments
receive $790 million in taxes and fees; State governments receive $1.2
billion; and the Federal Government receives $3.4 billion in income tax
revenue.
It is clear that the outreach and support granted by the NEA to the
arts has an incredible ripple effect throughout our economy, and
restricting or eliminating the NEA's ability to perform that outreach
would be both economically and culturally devastating.
In my home State of Washington, many arts and cultural institutions
have benefitted from NEA grants, including: Tacoma's Broadway Theatre,
the Tacoma Art Museum, the Centrum Foundation, the Washington State
Arts Commission, the Before Columbus Foundation, the Pacific Northwest
Ballet, the Bainbridge Island Arts Council, the Seattle Art Museum, the
Spokane Symphony Society, the Washington State Historical Society, and
the Seattle Children's Theatre Association.
Not just in my district, but throughout the Nation, the National
Endowment for the Arts [NEA] is serving our Nation well. It is
important for our future, and it should receive the support of this
Congress because that is what the American people expect of us, and we
should not let them down.
Reject this amendment, and any other amendments offered today to cut
or eliminate the arts. Let's do what's right for the Nation, let's
support the NEA.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
The gentleman from Washington will remember our debate in prior
times. He will remember that I tried to cut the NEA by 5 percent, and
his side said we could not cut it 5 percent, we could only cut it 1
percent. We had a vote on that. Then we went up to 2 percent and the
2.5.
But I would say, in all deference to the gentleman, you have to admit
now you are saying that you are not necessarily supporting, but you
acknowledge a 40 percent cut is something you are not arguing against.
You are not here saying restore more money to the NEA.
Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield, I am, too. I would like to. I
realize realities.
Mr. STEARNS. These are all rhetorical questions. You can use your
time.
You worked as hard as you could to represent a 2 percent cut as the
maximum the NEA could take, The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]
said 1 percent was all he could accept.
By golly, now, we are taking 39 percent. I am asked for another 10
percent tonight, another 10-percent cut. I ask people on this side to
realize there has got to be some stewardship when the chairwoman of the
NEA says it is all right to give money to this.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Invest in creativity, do not cut it.
Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts is an investment in
our culture, our civilization, our future, which must be protected.
The background material that my office has received against the NEA
is tantamount to propaganda and is untrue and offensive and adds
nothing to honest debate.
The truth is, the NEA enables struggling performers to bring their
art to the masses.
In my district in Monterey, CA, the Endowment has awarded eight
grants totaling $160,000.
It is not much, but with those funds, the Monterey Peninsula Museum
of Art and the Monterey Jazz Festival were able to survive Prop 13 and
an economy in flux. And despite those financially troublesome times,
the people of the Monterey Bay area knew affordable arts were always
available to them. It was the NEA that guaranteed that access.
The oddity, Mr. Chairman is that of $160,000, hundreds and hundreds
of people got a chance to experience music, or theater or art, while at
the same time, the Republicans are proposing tax breaks for more than
that.
There's something wrong with that equation, Mr. Chairman.
The majority is right when they say we have to set spending
priorities. But I want to know why they define priority as meaning only
those options that destroy middle class access to government programs.
Defense contractors haven't lost access.
Stockbrokers and bankers haven't lost access.
Let's set priorities but let's set them in favor of the people. The
budget bulldozer weaves out of control when it turns over the poor,
runs over children, runs over the elderly, and now is set to run over
artists, musicians, and actors.
The arts are something to be cultivated and encouraged in our youth.
A ``yes'' vote on the Stearns amendment sends a message that there is
something wrong with art, that persons with artistic abilities should
hide their talents and be ashamed of their creativity.
Censorship and irresponsible deficit reduction are ugly things that
do not have a place in this chamber or our country.
I urge you all to vote ``no'' on this amendment!
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
We have all heard the term ``throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.'' I think that is what this amendment does.
I think some of the critics of NEA have legitimate points, but those
criticisms have been addressed.
Obscenity is no longer fundable, as it should not be. Certainly, that
is progress that has been made in this area.
But while grants are talked about for NEA funding, most people do not
realize far more funding goes to education programs. Consider the NEA
places thousands of teachers in schools to teach young people art.
I understand the gentleman's concern for budget restraints. I urge
Members to vote against this amendment and support responsible funding
for the arts.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the distinguished chairman from the
committee.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I simply want to point out to the Members that what was alluded to, a
poll, that people would like to reduce funding for the NEA; we have
reduced it $63 million from 1995 levels. That is a 40-percent
reduction.
It was said that the people would like this ended. In 2 years, it is
over. This is a phasedown, and in 2 years the NEA would no longer
exist.
Third, it is subject to authorization, and the agreement is that,
hopefully, the authorization committee will limit these grants during
this phasedown of NEA to institutional grants, such as the concert on
the mall. I do not know how many watched this on July 4, but if you saw
the credits, one of the sponsoring agencies, was the National Endowment
for the Arts. That was a good example of what they can do with these
funds.
Also, there are many worthy education programs where groups go into
the schools, and so all I am saying is that in the committee we have
taken the steps that have been shown to be what the public wants by the
polling that was described by the gentleman from Florida.

The CHAIRMAN. Each side has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very important vote. The agreement that was
reached on the rule is self-actuating. It was done in the middle of the
night. Now, however, we have the opportunity to put this vote on the
House floor, an up or down, on taking this program and eliminating it
in 2 years.

[[Page H 7036]]

It is accountable to the public? No, I do not think it is. This kind
of literature that the NEA is supporting is wrong.
The NEA betrayed the people who made its existence possible. Would
you get reelected tomorrow if you betrayed the public trust? No.
Sure, you have done a lot of good things. But if you continue to
betray the public trust day in and day out, year in and year out, you
are not going to get reelected. NEA should not be reelected.
This is an important vote. You will have to vote up or down. It is
for a 2-year phaseout. My colleagues, we deserve this vote, and I
appreciate the leadership giving it to me.
Can you really say the NEA has exercised good stewardship of your
public money? Send a message to this organization. Make this agency
know they are not being responsible. Vote for decency, morality, and
stewardship, and vote ``yes'' on the Sterns amendment to the NEA. It
cuts a further 10 percent. That is all. It phases the NEA down in 2
years.

{time} 1845

Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining minute to the
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Yates] for yielding this time to me, and I have so little time, I want
to be as concise as I can.
This is not a debate about any money at all. This is purely
philosophy. Anytime we spend $160 million in this House and get back
$3.4 billion, we make a pretty good deal, so it does not have anything
to do with money. It simply has to say, what is Government doing in
this? What Government always does, it is leveling the playing field
when hundreds and hundreds of people can go to Central Park and watch a
Shakespeare performance that they would never have an opportunity to
see otherwise, when the kids in my colleague's district, Mr. Stearns',
go to concerts that they would not have any other opportunity to. It is
important, and let me tell my colleagues something as crass as I can
say this because it is pretty terrible, and I am ashamed.
Mr. Stearns, every child in this country that studies art for 4
years, their SAT scores, verbal scores, go up 57 percent, their math
scores go up 45 percent. Can you match that? It is not your children,
Mr. Stearns, who are going to be hurt. It's going to be the children in
every nook and cranny of the United States who will not have any
opportunity to develop who they are. The children who create do not
destroy, and this is the only way we reach children at risk, and it is
cheap at the price, and the United States of America cannot say we
don't care for creativity here.
Mr. Chairman, if we ever say to the Pentagon, You make a mistake, we
won't give you any more money, I would sure like to be here to hear it.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to the Stearns
amendment. As Chair of the Arts Caucus, I have watched in amazement
year after year, as Mr. Stearns attacks the pittance that the National
Endowment for the Arts receives. And all this from an agency whose
entire budget is below what is allocated for military bands.
While Federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts costs a
mere 64 cents a year, per person, it is no secret that for each $1 the
NEA spends, $11 of economic activity results. The non-profit arts
industry alone contributes $36.8 billion to the U.S. economy and
provides over 1.3 million jobs to Americans nationwide.
The arts support more jobs than either the legal services sector or
the police and firefighter sector. These jobs have a tremendous
economic impact, they provide $790 million in local government revenue,
$1.2 billion in State government revenue, and $3.4 billion in Federal
income tax revenue. Based on these numbers alone, we cannot afford not
to fund the arts.
Business, tourism, restaurants, and hotels thrive on the arts.
Further
reductions in funding for the NEA would have adverse implications on
both constituents and the cultural agencies in our districts. In my
district of Rochester, NY, the National Association of Local Arts
Agencies found that non-profit arts organizations spent approximately
$124 million annually and supported more than 4,000 full-time jobs.

What my colleagues on the other side fails to understand year after
year, is that most importantly, the NEA provides equal access and
opportunity to the people of our Nation and specifically to the people
of our congressional districts--many of whom would otherwise be
deprived from experiencing the arts in American society. There are
people all over this country who without the NEA would not have access
to some our Nation's greatest cultural treasures.
I am sure that the constituents in Mr. Stearns' district value the
money that the Studio Theater of Sarasota received (fiscal year 1995)
so that it could bring its Write a Play Program to Jacksonville, Ocala,
Belleview, and Green Coves Springs, FL. This valuable NEA program helps
strengthen the language skills and creative thought of at-risk
students, minority, and financially disadvantaged youth. These are the
people who really depend on the NEA.
The arts serve as a medium of documentation, the essence of the
American experience is recorded through art. Art remains a living
record of civilization and society. Every civilization judges the
civilization before it by the art it has left behind. Are we going to
leave anything behind? I urge my colleagues to vote against further
cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts. Vote no on the Stearns
amendment.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, the orchestrated, deliberate assault
against public support for American arts and culture--led by my
colleagues from the other side of the aisle; the self-described
conservative revolutionaries--is, I believe, a smokescreen, covering a
darker agenda, which strikes directly to the heart of the universality
of art and, most importantly, of the potential which art possesses to
unify our diverse cultures. It is true that art often surprises,
provokes, and even angers the viewer. By definition, artists seek to
express thoughts, feelings and perspectives that may never have been
seen or heard before. The artists' unique perspective can act as a
societal lens which brings its problems and flaws into sharper focus.
These expressions can be the catalyst of debate and of conflict, they
can be the insights promoting understanding.
As we are witnessing from today's debate over the value of public
funding for our national arts and cultural institutions, the vital
societal role of the artist is becoming more difficult in today's angry
climate. On both ends of the political spectrum across the full range
of American society, it is now becoming almost routine to challenge and
attempt to suppress any kind of expression one finds objectionable for
any reason. Art is just one of the many forms of expression threatened
by the rising tide of intolerance in America today. These battles are
becoming a proxy for political differences and social conflicts that
should be discussed openly and worked out rather than removed from the
public view--and support.
Bashing the NEA has become a high profile, low cost way, for the GOP
revolutionaries to shift the political focus to some ``cultural
elite,'' rather than tackle our society's economic and social
inequalities. Opponents of public funding for the arts argue that the
arts are a frill for an elite. This statement is a part of a deliberate
misinformation campaign.
Intellectually elite cultural institutions from the Metropolitan
Opera in New York, to the Los Angeles Philharmonic, receive less than 1
percent of their yearly budgets from the NEA; they'd hardly feel a cut.
Direct grants to individual artists--the targets of the revolutionaries
from the GOP, total only 4 percent of the NEA pie.
The biggest victims of a maimed NEA will be the smaller arts
organizations--including, say, the Atlanta Opera and Center for
Puppetry Arts, both of which use NEA funds and perform in the Speaker's
own district.
Now, the cultural watchdogs of our revolutionary GOP, have combed NEA
files for a new victim to justify their pursuit of cultural correctness
and purity. They have targeted a performing arts center from southern
California, called ``Highways'', Inc. You've heard the attacks on
Highways, let me share with you some information on this community
cultural center which the protectors of cultural purity have not
provided to you. Highways, Inc., presents more than 200 performances of
music, dance and theater each year. It serves its audience with
programs, workshops and professional training. Highways serves the Los
Angeles community, which is comprised of groups with widely varying
ethnic/cultural, geographic, economic, and social backgrounds--as well
as the physically challenged,
and victims of abuse. Highway's programs reflect the make-up of its
home community, and address the goals of fostering mutual respect for
the diverse beliefs and values of all persons and groups.

The rich participation of all culturally and ethnically diverse
constituencies of Los Angeles has made this theater an invaluable
school for citizens--described by some as the highest

[[Page H 7037]]
function a theater can fulfill. The Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle
recognized the special importance of Highways with an award in 1995.
NEA seed money has brought private sector funds from groups such as:
The Lila Wallace-Readers Digest Fund, the Rockefeller, Getty,
Annenberg, Irvine, Warhol, and Norton Families, the Pepsi and Target
Corporations, the California Arts Council, the Los Angeles National
State/County Partnership, the Los Angeles Department of Cultural
Affairs, and the Santa Monica Arts Commission.
The defenders of cultural purity have targeted Highways programs
which reflect the diverse sentiments of the Los Angeles community. So
Highways is now suspect because it reflects sentiments--and opinions--
which are unpopular to our guardians of cultural purity. Highways is
now being used as a vehicle to attack the NEA because it has been a
forum for the city's diverse voices. Highways is committed to a
critical principle.
I would urge my colleagues to pay close attention to the principle
which is the subject of this attack. The principle is that a community,
and a nation, can be enriched, uplifted, and unified--not torn apart--
by our differences as people, if these differences are articulated,
shared and understood. Simply put, that is what the arts do best. In
attacking NEA through Highways the assault is aimed at the very dream
and promise of our united diversity. As spoken so eloquently by the
artistic director of the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles:

The NEA must continue its work, and continue supporting
highways, so that we can be sure of properly continuing the
democratic experiment, the alchemical process of self-
government, and the great debate: where did we come from?
where are we going? what kind of people are we? what kind of
people should we be? If the right-wing revolutionaries and
protectors of cultural purity truly deplore what they see as
a culture of trashy values--I would think they would want to
increase, rather than reduce the NEA seed money which is
promoting a higher culture, promote understanding, and
provide the desperately needed bridges of unity between the
diverse cultures and communities of thought which comprise
this great country.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to resist these waves of cultural
purity and correctness, to stay the course of over 30 years, and
continue our policy of supporting public funding for our arts and
cultural groups.
Mr. Chairman, if the spirit of this country is not its foremost
national interest, what is? And when government abdicates its
responsibility to nourish that spirit, who is being served? I urge my
colleagues to defeat this misdirected amendment.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the Stearns amendment
which would reduce funding for the National Endowment for the Arts
[NEA] by $10 million.
I wholeheartedly believe that government should support the arts:
Americans value the arts. Other great nations fund the arts. We spend
64 cents per capita for the NEA. That is 50 percent lower than our
major allies spend on the arts.
The Federal Government can afford to fund arts and cultural programs
at a time of fiscal restraint: Funding for cultural arts programs is
two one-hundredths of one percent of the budget. The not-for-profit
arts create $37 billion in economic activity. Arts programs create 1.3
million jobs, and return $3.4 billion to the Federal Treasury through
income taxes.
The majority of Americans say they want the Federal Government to
continue support for the arts: According to a recent Lou Harris poll,
60 percent of Americans believe that the arts should receive assistance
from the Federal Government. Fifty-six percent said they would be
willing to pay $15 of their own money to help government support the
arts.
The NEA is not an elitist for the upper class: The NEA increases
community access to the arts and culture. The NEA supports community
programs where families can experience the arts. I invite anyone who
thinks the NEA funds elitist programs to visit the Puppet Co. Playhouse
in Glen Echo Park, just a few miles from the Capital. The facility that
houses the Puppet Co. is a two-hundred seat theater created out of a
portion of an historic ballroom at Glen Echo Park.
The audience is usually made up of children accompanied by their
families and teachers, representing the cultural and economic diversity
of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. An NEA grant
allows the Puppet Co. to keep the ticket prices low enabling many young
families to attend the performances. The Puppet Co. is run by four
dedicated associates who work very hard for modest salaries, in the
true spirit of keeping their company non-profit. I think most taxpayers
would be pleased to know that they support such a worthwhile project.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the appropriations bill before us will
eventually phase out government support for the Arts. The NEA needs
time to reorganize and adjust to the provisions in the Interior Bill. I
urge my colleagues to vote against the Stearns amendment.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support
of NEA funding and regret the narrow 2-year window this bill provides
for the reorganization and restructuring of support for the arts in
this great Nation.
First, supporting the arts is as much sound economic policy as the
Government building the interstate highway network, funding airports,
or paying for basic research in agriculture, energy, health, or any
other area.
Not-for-profit arts organizations, many leveraged by small amounts of
Federal dollars, generate $37 billion in economic activity and $3.4
billion in Federal tax revenues every year. The not-for-profit arts
industry provides $1.3 million Americans with jobs and is a key
component of the complex of attractions that has made tourism big
business in our big, diverse, beautiful and creative Nation.
Since NEA was funded, the number of performing arts companies,
museums--chamber orchestras, local art leagues--and other arts
organizations has grown from 50 to 900 in my State, with all the impact
on the economy and cultural strength of our towns and cities that
dramatic growth implies.
But the arts are not just good business, and preserving this industry
that has grown as a result of Federal incentives, is not just good
economic policy. Preserving the NEA is about more than money. It is
also about quality and culture.
The highest quality product in any sector is the result of great
knowledge, good communications, and competition. The Federal Government
has broadened and accelerated the growth of top quality manufacturing
by sponsoring the Mac Baldridge Awards and providing tax credits for
research and development. It has provoked great achievement in science
by sponsoring national merit scholars and challenging people and
organizations to excel and invest in research. The Federal Government
plays a key role in fostering a rising standard of excellence in every
aspect of our society.
Likewise in the arts. Opponents of NEA are overlooking the value of
the NEA's role as bringing experienced, brilliant minds to the
evaluation of our symphony orchestras, theaters, and arts projects of
all kinds. One of the most important aspects of receiving an NEA grant
is the imprimatur of quality it conveys. NEA has the breadth and
expertise to validate both the quality of vision and quality of
organization of specific arts organizations and projects. Few local
communities, not even all States, can mobilize an organization that is
sufficiently knowledgeable in all areas of the arts to judge the
quality of grant applications. Without NEA, fewer private funds will
flow to the arts because many contributors are not in a position to
judge the value of projects and have relied on NEA for guidance.
Not only does the NEA play a very valuable national role in
stimulating private support for the arts and the development of arts
organizations of international repute, but it has enabled the arts to
help our children in the inner cities. An NEA grant--given to the
Bushnell for Language Arts Education for Elementary School Students--is
creating new options in the inner-city schools of Hartford, helping
kids make sense of their harsh world, grow in self-esteem through being
able to express their hopes and fears, and see a whole range of career
opportunities that they could not possibly see through the adults in
their lives.
In sum, no nation in history has developed a great culture, or a
strong spiritual life, without some significant government involvement,
not to determine the message but to assure the resources of growth and
to stimulate the competition that produces greatness. Just as the
Federal Government funds basic research, pays for a transportation
network and funds educational opportunity for special needs kids, so
the Federal Government must assure the continuation of those small
dollars that enable orchestras and theaters to compete for national
recognition, leverage private funds, and make the arts a far stronger
component of local economies offering both jobs and inspiration to our
people.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to vehemently oppose this
misguided amendment. I believe the National Endowments for the Arts and
Humanities provide a valuable service both to groups and individuals in
the artistic community, but also to the American people.
Annually, New Jersey receives $2.7 million from the NEA to conduct
programs like the cultural diversity initiative, folk art
apprenticeships, and arts education programs for teachers and students.
NEA grants are made to the Jersey City Museum, the American Boychoir
School, the New Jersey Ballet Company, the Newark Museum, the New
Jersey Symphony Orchestra, and the Paper Mill Playhouse. NEH grants
have supported projects for the New Jersey Historical Society, Rutgers
University, New Jersey Institute of Technology and the Foundation for
New Media in Hoboken.

[[Page H 7038]]

If the NEA and NEH were privatized, large institutions would survive,
but many community-based programs, touring exhibits, and mid-size and
smaller institutions would be crippled by the cuts.
The Endowments provide access to the richness of our culture for the
poorest of our people. In supporting artists and writers they open the
door for all of us to learn and experience their work.
In New Jersey each year, 8.5 million people visit museums,
performances, or art exhibits; 3.5 million New Jerseyans view or listen
to broadcast programs; and 3 million school children visit cultural
attractions on field trips or participate in school-sponsored art in
education programs.
Wealthy communities will always enjoy the generosity of art patrons.
But national programs sponsored by the Endowments disseminate resources
for these activities throughout the Nation, in every community. Thanks
to the Endowments, the creative energy once confined to a few cities is
finding expression in the minds and hands and voices of a diverse
people in every community.
The NEA is able to generate $11 of activity for every 1 dollar of
Federal funding and the NEH requires many grants to have $1 to $4
dollars in non-Federal funding for every $1 of Federal funding. To
highlight just how effective funding is, consider the fact, that the
annual budget for the Lincoln Performing Arts Center is greater than
the total Federal funding received by the NEA.
The limited funding received by the Endowments is carefully
regulated. Since becoming Chairperson, Jane Alexander has successfully
implemented steps to tighten and strengthen the Endowment's grant and
reporting procedures. The NEA has made a concerted effort to assure
that grants are artistically meritorious. To assure adherence, if the
NEA finds that a grantee has failed to meet congressional or Endowment
requirements the Endowment may suspend payments, terminate a grant,
recover grant funds already awarded, and declare an applicant
ineligible for any future funding.
The arts also generate important economic activity. The arts provide
over 1.3 million full-time jobs to Americans nationwide paying $25.2
billion in salaries, wages, and entrepreneurial income. Local
governments receive $790
million in taxes and fees, State governments receive $1.2 billion, and
the Federal Government receives $3.4 billion in income tax revenue.
These returns are far greater than the $167 million operating budget
for the NEA. Perhaps, most importantly, the arts revitalize downtown
business areas attracting conferences, conventions and increased
tourism, and boosting the value of commercial and residential real
estate. The elimination of funding for the arts will have a definitive
economic impact on our communities.

While I share the belief that we need to balance the Federal budget,
we must consider the benefits of modest Federal funding for the
Endowments, the ability it has to generate private funding, and the
income it generates for local economies. Lastly, we must not forget the
unique ability of the Endowments to touch the minds and hearts of those
who benefit from their endeavors.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendments before the House to further cut funding for the National
Endowments for the Arts and Humanities.
I have received literally hundreds of letters from the people I
represent in support of continued Federal support for the arts and
humanities. One of my constituents from Southfield, MI, wrote and told
me how much our Nation's art and culture meant to her immigrant
grandmother during the Great Depression. She writes:

Rep. Levin, how well I remember my immigrant grandmother
taking me for a walk on Sundays during the depression, and
pointing out with great pride the museum (Detroit Institute
of Arts) and the Main Detroit Public Library in her own
language. We'd go in and spend hours gazing at the paintings.
My grandmother would ask me to read the names of the
artists for her since she was unable to read or write
English.
She soon learned the names by heart and as my younger
sister and brother grew older and joined us, she was able to
tell them the names of many artists and paintings.
I hope I have, in some way, convinced you that these
institutions, aforementioned, are absolutely necessary to
maintain our standard of achievement in the humanities which
is so important for an enlightened society.

Mr. Chairman, I am amazed by the misplaced priorities of this
Congress. This House recently voted to build two more B-2 bombers at a
cost of over $1 billion apiece. The Secretary of Defense does not want
these planes. the B-2 is expensive, unneeded, and, according to recent
news reports, the B-2 may not be nearly as stealthy as advertised.
The House is willing to spend billions on a bomber we do not need
that does not work. At the same time, beginning in just 2 years, the
majority is unwilling to spend even a dime on our country's arts and
humanities. These are not my priorities and I don't think these are the
priorities of the vast majority of the American people.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Stearns-
Crane amendment.
Republicans are trying to run roughshod over the majority of the
American people.
A nationwide poll shows that 60 percent of Americans want Federal
support for the arts. And why not? The arts attract tourist dollars,
stimulate business development, spur urban renewal, and improve the
overall quality of life--they are an investment in our communities and
in our children.
Some of my colleagues justify terminating this worthwhile program in
the name of budget austerity. Yet cultural funding costs only about 64
cents a year per capita and helps generate $37 billion in economic
activity, including over $3 billion in Federal income taxes.
Mr. Chairman, this is not deficit reduction--it's a mean-spirited
attempt to do away with what benefits the American people. I urge my
colleagues to defeat his amendment.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Chairman
Regula's bill and against the Stearns amendment that would make
additional cuts in the National Endowment for the Arts.
Let me begin by saying that I am truly disappointed in the events
that took place late last week regarding this bill and, specifically,
funding for the NEA. Those Members who oppose any arts funding are
entitled to their position, but it is a position that should be debated
on the House floor. Putting NEA funding into a special category and
changing authorization conditions should be debated, not mandated.
Today, in this debate democracy wins!
As a member of the authorizing committee, I supported Chairman
Goodling's bill providing arts funding as a means of assuring that
funding for the arts was authorized prior to consideration of
appropriations.
With that said, I do not think that we should be eliminating the
Endowment for the Arts nor do I think we should be cutting as deep as
we are. I support the proposal in the other body sponsored by Senator
Jeffords, chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee on
Education, Arts and the Humanities, and cosponsored by Senator
Kassebaum, the chairwoman of that full committee that authorizes the
arts for 5 years at reduced funding levels without a phase-out or
elimination. And, I hope that we are able to move toward the Senate
bill when we do go to conference.
However, I commend the chairman of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee for his efforts to protect funding for the NEA and for
using our authorizing bill as an original guideline for that funding.
Faced with a $4.7 trillion debt, $200 billion annual deficits, and
fierce opposition to all funding for the arts, Chairman Regula saved as
much money possible.
Mr. Chairman, there has been much name calling and finger pointing in
this debate over the arts. As in the debate over the flag, it is
unfortunate that there is little tolerance for those with deeply held
visceral convictions regarding these important issues. This is not a
matter of partisan politics. That is evident by the expression of a
diversity of opinions on both sides of the aisle. Republicans do not
favor censorship or limitation on the freedom of expression, just as
Democrats do not.
That brings me to my central point: That is, the limitations that a
great many people, including myself, feel that necessarily must come
with the expenditure of Federal dollars have little to do with
censorship and everything to do with sponsorship.
No one doubts the right of the Federal Government to proscribe how
Federal dollars are spent in the hundreds of programs created by
Congress over the years. Congress explains in excruciating detail how
federal funds must be spent in everything from education programs to
farm programs. Every Federal agency must operate within the confines of
legislative restrictions and the intent of Congress. This is as it
should be . . . And, this is the way it should be with the National
Endowment for the Arts. This is not inconsistent with freedom of speech
or artistic expression.
As with any other federally funded organization, project or program,
the Government is able to fund or not fund art as it chooses. Does this
mean that Congress should be in the business of determining what is and
what is not art? Absolutely not. However, Congress has the right and,
yes, the duty to proscribe standards and selection parameters to
determine that the taxpayers' money is spent according to its wishes.
In deed, obscenity and blasphemy are no longer tolerated by the
chairs of these programs.
Past funding by the Endowment of the Mapplethorpe and Serrano
exhibits and, most recently, the Highways Inc. grants to a performing
arts center in Santa Monica, CA, which my colleagues will continue to
hear about this evening, exhibits a clear violation of the intent of
Congress. Certainly, refusing to subsidize obscene art is reasonable
exercise of the prerogative of Congress.
It was for reasons such as these that we enacted the Arts,
Humanities, and Museums

[[Page H 7039]]
Amendments of 1990. These strong reforms improved the NEA grant process
and allowed NEA funds to be recovered if that art was deemed obscene
``in the final judgment of a court.'' I have long argued that it is the
constitutional duty of Congress not to subsidize obscenity as it is
defined by the Supreme Court in Miller versus California. Beyond that,
I believe it is possible and reasonable for Congress to adopt and
expand the Miller decision through statutory language that can
withstand judicial scrutiny. In fact, I was successful in 1992 in
changing the statutory standards.
The primary need for this is to ensure that Federal funds are spent
according to congressional intent. This is what we are elected to do.
And, in fact, the 1992 Interior Appropriations bill added an
authorizing statute stating that, when awarding future grants,
``general standards of decency and respect for diverse beliefs and
values of the American public'' must be considered.
Also part of the 1990 reforms, the Chairperson of the NEA was given
final authority to approve each application and, in instances when a
project is determined obscene ``in the final judgment of a court,'' the
Chairperson is required to recover those funds. In past discussions
that I have had with Jane Alexander, Chairwoman of the NEA, she
acknowledged that these reforms greatly enhanced the responsibility of
her office. And, we must continue to hold her completely accountable
for each and every grant that the NEA makes so that lewd and
objectionable works of art are not subsidized by the Federal
Government.
We also passed more specific reforms that substantially changed the
NEA decisionmaking process. For example, the NEA application must
include a detailed project description, date of completion, interim
reports,and a final report describing the applicants compliance with
regulations that ensure artistic merit and which clearly indicate that
obscenity neither has artistic merit nor is protected speech and,
therefore, should not be funded. Moreover, the policy meetings held by
the members of the National Council on the Arts who help to determine
grant recipients must be open to the public including written records
of meetings, discussions, and recommendations. And, the reforms require
the GAO to conduct studies evaluating the roles of the NEA, State, and
local arts agencies in making arts funding most efficient.
In 1994 alone, these reforms helped to direct 56 grants totalling
almost $2.4 million to New Jersey for various dance, theater,
orchestra, museum and other projects throughout the State. And,
widespread support over the years for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial,
productions such as ``Driving Miss Daisy'' and ``A Chorus Line,'' and
the Fourth of July concert on the Washington Mall were all made
possible by the National Endowment for the Arts. So, certainly, not all
NEA funds are misspent.

However, as in the case of the misspending of Federal dollars,
whether it is in the housing industry or the defense industry, Congress
has the duty to search out and punish fraud and abuse. How can we
justify continuing to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on defense
programs that are unable to meet minimum test requirements while
banning an endowment with current funding of $168 million? Yes, I know
the argument of protecting American citizens from attacks abroad versus
protecting American citizens from attacks on morality here at home, but
the issue goes much deeper.
It is incumbent upon every Member of this body to ensure that Federal
funds are being spent according to congressional intent. And, in the
case of the National Endowment for the Arts, on a few occasions, as I
have already mentioned, the public trust was violated and Federal funds
were misspent. Therefore, we have a duty to continue to correct these
problems.
Many would argue that out of the over 100,000 plus grants awarded
through the National Endowment, only a handful have been controversial.
And, this is admittedly a good record. Over the past 30 years, the
Endowment has done well in its grant-making procedures, and recent
reforms have revamped the entire grant-making process so as to prevent
scandals of years past.
Just like every other agency, the National Endowment for the Arts is
not perfect. It too has had its share of controversy and questionable
spending. But, it has been the role of the NEA to leverage, not
replace, the private funding that allows the NEA to make valuable
contributions to communities throughout the country.
I strongly support continued funding and oppose this Stearns
amendment which further savages the Arts.
I urge my colleagues to prevent this from happening. Support the
arts, and support Chairman Regula's bill. Oppose the Stearns amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Slaughter] has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Are there further amendments to title II?
amendment offered by mrs. smith of washington

Mrs. SMITH of Washington. 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 Mrs. Smith of Washington: Page 72,
line 12, strike ``$6,152,000'' and insert ``$5,140,100''.

Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment reduces taxpayer-supported funding for the
Woodrow Wilson International Center. This center is something for all
Americans to be proud of. However it is not something that all
Americans should continue to support to the tune of over $6 million
every year. This amendment will reduce funding by approximately $1
million for fiscal year 1996, leaving over $5 million in taxpayer
subsidies in addition to approximately $2 million in public support.
This will leave the Wilson Center ample funding to continue to fulfill
their functions until offsetting private support is identified.
The House budget resolution passed by this Congress assumed that the
center's funding would be totally terminated. We know that there is a
big difference between no funding and $6 million. It is time that this
Congress live up to its commitment to balance the budget and reduce
funding.
In the well is a graph that will show my colleagues how different the
Woodrow Wilson International Center is from other centers, Presidential
centers, that have been established. The Woodrow Wilson Center started
with a good idea, but became very heavily federally funded. I say to my
colleagues, If you'll look, 76 percent of its budget is Federal
funding, while all of the other Presidential foundations are totally
private-funded. If you look at the staffing, you'll also see that it is
very helpfully staffed with very little money going out to grants.
What we believe is it is time to convert this, give it a chance; it
has a worthy objective, but downsize the funding a little bit; and
encourage it to move toward private funding.
I would urge my fellow colleagues to support this. This amendment is
supported by the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government
Waste, and Americans for Tax Reform.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].
Mr. Chairman, I think this is an outrageous and a grossly unfair
amendment. In our subcommittee in the past, as the gentleman from Ohio
can testify, we have appropriated funds for remembering Republican
Presidents. Four Republican Presidents come to mind immediately.
President Taft, President McKinley, President Garfield, even President
Harding were remembered appropriately in our committee.
The Woodrow Wilson Institution is a living institution that is a
memorial to the 28th President of the United States. I think that as
one of our greatest Presidents the effort by the gentlewoman is subject
to very strong criticism. The Woodrow Wilson Memorial does very good
work; as a matter of fact, the Woodrow Wilson Institute has already
been cut by 40 percent in this bill, and the gentlewoman's amendment
could cut it even more than that. This is the Nation's official
memorial to its 28th President. Would the gentlewoman consider cutting
the appropriation for the Washington Monument, or the Lincoln Memorial,
of the Jefferson Memorial? Of
course she would not.

Mr. Chairman, the Wilson Center uses its modest appropriation, and it
is

[[Page H 7040]]
a modest appropriation, for a very wide variety of donors, effectively
doubling the value of its appropriation. As President Ronald Reagan
once said, this unique national institution exists because Congress
chose not to erect a traditional memorial to the 28th President, but
instead to charter a living institution for outstanding scholars. The
work of this organization symbolizes the yearnings by Americans to
understand the past and to bring the lessons of history to bear on the
present. That is the statement by President Ronald Reagan.
I urge the House to strongly reject the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman.
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that we did take a $2.7
million cut below 1995, but part of that was originally designated for
a move of the center, and in the gentlewoman's amendment she eliminates
postage for the ``Wilson Quarterly'' which the subscriber should pay,
eliminates paid internships for college students--we have eliminated
those on the Hill--cuts stipends for foreign national scholars--their
own government should pay those--cuts a portion of other services, and
cuts a portion of grants and subsidies, and I think in the time of
tight budgets this in no way denigrates the memory of Woodrow Wilson,
but I think it is a practical matter, it is economically responsible,
and I, therefore, am pleased to accept the amendment on our side.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. The gentleman recalls; does he not, the truth of my
assertion that previously four Republican Presidents--the truth of my
assertion about the fact our committee has appropriated funds to
reestablish the homes of Presidents Taft, McKinley, Garfield, and
Harding? Those are memorials to those Presidents. We had recognized
them as memorials to those Presidents. This is the memorial to Woodrow
Wilson. This memorial should not be cut----
Mr. REGULA. I simply say they do not offer stipends or internships or
have a quarterly. Those are nice-to-do things. It does not go to the
question of the memorial itself.
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would again like to make a
comment on the chart in front of us, and my colleagues can see clearly
this is a different memorial, but there will still be sizable amounts
of Federal money going to this memorial, and the $3 million that they
requested will not be needed because they will not be moving.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] is recognized
for 30 seconds.
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington
for yielding this time to me, and I rise in support of her amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is another one of these efforts in which
we have to make priority decisions. I think this is a responsible
amendment because it does not suggest shutting down what apparently is
a very worthwhile organization. It cuts $1 million and suggests that it
should go the private route, as many other similar-type institutions.
I can concur that it is a worthwhile endeavor, but this is a time for
prioritization, and it seems this is a very reasonable amendment to be
taken at this time, and I urge its support.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith-Metcalf amendment
to H.R. 1977, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.
First, I would like to commend my colleagues from Washington for
identifying this amendment and for their hard work in ferreting out
low-priority spending.
This amendment reduces $1 million from the Woodrow Wilson
International Center's current $6 million appropriation.
While I believe that the Woodrow Wilson Center is a worthwhile
organization, the Federal Government can no longer afford to fund every
good idea. Therefore, organizations such as the Woodrow Wilson Center
are finding themselves in competition with other worthwhile programs.
As we are trying to set reasonable budget priorities, we should try to
encourage more significant support from the private sector on programs
where this type of relationship makes sense.
Several other foundations similar to the Woodrow Wilson Center, such
as the James Madison Memorial Fellowship and the Harry S. Truman
Scholarship, do not rely on the Federal Government for their existence.
They have sought, and found, significant outside support. The purpose
of this amendment is to encourage the Woodrow Wilson Center to follow
the example set by these other foundations and seek support from
outside organizations as their primary source of funding.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Smith-Metcalf amendment.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. YATES. Mention has been made, Mr. Chairman, of the fact that this
is an unusual memorial in that the memorials to Presidents Taft,
McKinley, Garfield, and Harding did not make grants to scholars; that
is true, but this memorial takes the form that it does because it was
created by the Congress to do exactly what the Woodrow Wilson Institute
does. Congress decided that the Woodrow Wilson Institute would be a
living institution, expressing the ideals and concerns of Woodrow
Wilson as the 28th President of the United States, a distinguished
scholar, an outstanding university president, and a brilliant advocate
of international understanding. Such a center, continues the
congressional resolution, symbolizes and strengthens the fruitful
relationship between the world of learning and the world of public
affairs. It would be a suitable memorial to the spirit of Woodrow
Wilson.
I regret my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm],
finds himself in agreement with those supporting the amendment to cut
the Woodrow Wilson Center. He finds that this is a worthy institution.
A $1 million cut unfortunately will severly harm the institution. It
would reduce the number of scholars that would be able to attend the
institution. It would impair its important operations.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the amendment would be defeated.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, ``Would you agree that
the Institution would still, with this amendment, have $5.7 million to
operate, and since it is housed in the Smithsonian, its overhead and
operating costs are not large, and therefore there would be a
considerable fund of money for the scholars?
Mr. YATES. I say to my colleague, ``If you cut the center by a
million dollars, the opportunity to invite scholars from all over the
world to participate in its activities will be forever lost.''
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The Wilson Center is
the nation's official memorial to Woodrow Wilson, our 28th President.
It was established by the 90th Congress, on the recommendation of a
bipartisan Commission.
The Wilson Center conducts activities that strengthen relations
between the academic world and the world of public affairs. Using the
words of the Appropriations Committee, the Wilson Center's role as ``an
international institute for advanced study, as well as a facilitator
for discussions among scholars, public officials, journalists and
business leaders on major long-term issues facing America and the
world'' is a fitting tribute to President Wilson's lifelong commitment
to this type of exchange.
Unlike any other advanced study center or think tank, the Wilson
Center is both non-partisan, and focused on topics that cross national
boundaries and academic disciplines. It is also unique in its
extensive outreach to the public. Accordingly, it has enjoyed the
support of every President since Lyndon Johnson.

The Wilson Center has already received a 40% cut from the President's
fiscal year 1996 request. We must cut no further. Congress chose to
create the Wilson Center, rather than a more traditional memorial to
the 28th President. We must honor that choice by continuing to support
this important institute.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith amendment and preserve this
vital center.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.

[[Page H 7041]]

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Washington [Mrs. Smith].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith] will
be postponed.

{time} 1900

amendment offered by mr. kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA. 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. Kleczka: Page 55, line 5, strike
``$384,504,000'' and insert ``$379,524,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member
opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself
and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr.Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] that he and I are offering
together to cut a pork barrel set-aside for the National Institute of
Petroleum and Energy Research, or NIPER.
Mr. Chairman, our amendment does not eliminate all funding for NIPER
by any stretch. NIPER would still be able to get funding from the
traditional fossil fuel accounts. In fact, even with this cut, we will
be spending over $300 million for fossil fuel research. With the
taxpayer money, we are supporting NIPER, paying for research for a
multibillion dollar industry. This special earmark is corporate welfare
for a congressional pork barrel project. There are other Federal energy
labs, the Morgantown Energy Technology Center in West Virginia and the
Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center in Pennsylvania, that do the same
kind of research, yet are prevented from competing for this money.
As we reevaluate the mission of our national labs, we must insist
that the work being done there is of the highest possible caliber. The
best way to do this is to have our labs participate in a competitive
selection process, meaning good scientific research would get the
funding.
NIPER does research and funding in various ways to get more oil out
of oil fields so that they will not be abandoned before their time.
This certainly is a worthwhile endeavor, but with such little money
available, we cannot afford to squander the money the way it is being
done. All of our labs should be able to propose research and have an
equal chance at getting funding. That way, we can ensure that good
science is the basis for research.
Under the committee bill, science has nothing to do with this
particular program. It is all politics, and pure pork at that. The
report from the Committee on Appropriations states, ``The committee
directs that those fossil energy fuel research funds in the bill
allocated to oil research should be utilized at NIPER, and that such
work should be not transferred to any other research laboratory.''
Funding of research programs with taxpayer dollars should be done on
merit. By not using the competitive merit review, we face the real
danger of putting research in a particular Member's district.
That is all this bill comes down to. We have simply gone and taken
money out of the general research fund and said that we are not going
to allow it to go out under competitive bid to the other Federal
agencies that have the same capability; we are going to select this
particular $5 million and put it in a particular Member's district. The
Member that offered this amendment at the committee designed the
program for his particular district, and it is just simply pork.
Now, I understand that there are a lot of people that are concerned
about how we spend money in the Congress of the United States and have
run on the basis that they are opposed to pork. I would hope that those
Members stand up and vote against the funding that goes into this
particular project for the various reasons that I have gone through.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is recognized for
10 minutes in opposition.
Mr. REGULA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, how quickly we forget. For those in this body that were
here in the 1970's we forget the crisis that faced America. We forget
the long gasoline lines waiting for gasoline. We forget the industries
that were shut down, the schools that were curtailed, because of a
shortage of energy. As a result of that, we passed the Energy Policy
Act so that we would not again be caught short on energy. But how
quickly we forget.
In the Washington Post on June 14 of this year, 1995, is a story
headlined, ``Panel Warns of Crisis if Energy's Funding for Research Is
Cut.'' That says it all. The panel, a blue ribbon panel of analysts,
concluded that the Department of Energy's research and development has
helped, and I emphasize this, has helped, the United States keep up
with major advances and international competition in energy technology.
The report warned of a looming crisis if these efforts are not
continued at current funding levels. Mind you, this blue ribbon panel
said we should continue at current funding levels.
In reality, we are 10 percent below the level of funding of 1995, 10
percent below current levels, and we are on a glidepath, in conformance
with the authorizing committee to eventually get to zero. But in the
meantime, we have contractual obligations, we have money invested by
the private sector in energy technology. But I think it is vitally
important that we continue these programs.
How quickly we forget that just a few years ago we sent American
service people in harm's way with a resultant loss of life, to say
nothing of the expenditure of funds, to protect our energy sources. We
are now dependent, for more than 50 percent of our domestic oil on
sources outside the United States. Yet we are saying in this amendment
that we should reduce our research on alternative sources, we should
reduce our effort to stretch a gallon of oil further. We should not
worry about energy independence, we should not worry about the impact
of our energy dependence on our foreign policy.
Mr. Chairman, I say again to my colleagues, let us remember the
lessons of the 1970's; let us remember the lessons of Desert Storm; let
us ensure that the United States will never again be dependent totally
on outside sources for our energy needs.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Davis].
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise in opposition to the amendment. When they say pork, last year we
had $77 million earmarked for oil technology. The administration this
year asked for $87 million, and, of course, this $5 million is part of
the $64 million committee mark. So that is down from last year
significantly. It is way down from the administration's proposal, and
why should it not go to the NIPER facility in Barboursville, which I
might add, is a long way from my district across the river in Northern
Virginia. Because Barboursville, the NIPER there, the National
Institute for Petroleum Energy Research lab there, has won awards from
the National Performance Review, and been awarded by Vice President
Gore for its privatization efforts, showing how a model facility can be
not just Federal employees working together, but the private sector
working in partnership.
The other two main facilities where this could go, for example,
Morgantown and Pittsburgh, tend to specialize in the coal side. I think
that is a good reason.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think we need
to keep this money in oil research.

[[Page H 7042]]

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown].
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have no problems whatsoever with the research being
done at Barboursville. As far as I know, it is excellent research and
it deserves to be continued.
I listened with great interest to the remarks of the chairman of the
subcommittee about how we should not cut energy research, despite the
fact that this bill cuts it substantially. As a matter of fact, the
budget of the Republican majority provides, if they cannot abolish the
Department of Energy, which is doing this research, to cut all of its
energy R&D by 20 percent. I think this is short-sighted.
My problem is not with the energy research. If anything, I would
probably increase it. But the fact is I have spent a number of years
trying to develop a habit in this House of not making site-specific
designations for energy or any other research and development money,
but this flies in the fact of what I have been trying to accomplish for
a number of years.
At the same time that this bill specifically designates a certain
amount of money for this facility, other similar energy technology
centers are undergoing vast reorganizations and are being cut
specifically. There will be, for example, 90 jobs cut at the Pittsburgh
and Morgantown Energy Technology Centers. They are not being protected
by this bill, as the language with regard to Barboursville would
protect that facility.
I think that is wrong. I think that the Department of Energy should
at least retain the discretion, and we have urged that in my own
Committee on Science and in the energy authorization, energy R&D
authorization bill, which we passed not too many weeks ago in the
committee. We had a provision that required competitive peer review for
all of these kinds of facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge that we adopt this amendment, not
from the standpoint of cutting energy research, but from the standpoint
of making sure that all programs are peer-reviewed and that we get the
best bang for the buck.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would just like to point out, I heard
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] say the NIPER facility is a
long way from his district. It is not, however, so far that the major
contractor, as I understand from his district, has not bid on this very
contract.
So if we are going to deal with pork, I do not mind dealing with it.
I would just ask to be straightforward about what is going on in this
bill. This NIPER program has money that is going to go into Mr. Davis'
district, and that is why it is written into the bill the way it is.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, the corporation is not in my district.
There is a facility in the district of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Moran].
Second, in the interest of straight talk, this removes the money
entirely. This does not just take it away from NIPER; this removes
money for oil and petroleum research, and I think that is what we are
opposed to in the administration's mark. This does not just put it in.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman from Virginia would
yield. That is $5 million out of the $300 million fund that the
gentleman put in, or that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] put
in.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important to understand here that
what happens in fossil energy research is that for every one dollar
that is being spent on oil research, and that is all that the gentleman
from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Wisconsin want to attack, is
oil research, for every one dollar in oil research, there are two
dollars in coal research under this piece of legislation. I think it is
significant to understand that.
For example, for the gentleman from Massachusetts, we looked it up,
and currently Massachusetts is receiving over $51 million from the
Department of Energy for coal research.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that had the purpose of the gentleman from
Massachusetts been to try to be even-handed at anything, then he would
propose that for every one dollar you cut in oil research, you would
cut two dollars in coal research, and I am certain that he would
volunteer that that should come from the State of Massachusetts, were
that his objective.
Mr. Chairman, the only reason that $5 million was added back in
committee was to maintain that same two-to-one ratio, two-to-one in
favor of coal research, which has been the ratio for many, many, many
years. So that is all that is sought to be done with this legislation,
and it is important to understand that, you know what, Mr. Chairman,
under this bill research money for oil is being reduced. It is being
reduced by over $12 million. And yet, for the gentleman from
Massachusetts, that is not sufficient. He wants to protect coal, but
make further reduction in oil.
Now, I realize people in Massachusetts may not care about oil. They
may not care about the energy independence that is important to the
country.
{time} 1915

But it is important, Mr. Chairman, to the rest of us. So I would
certainly ask Members to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from
Massachusetts. Oppose the attempt to attack one industry while
protecting a different one that is important to the sponsor of the
amendment.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill does not have any sort of line
item in favor of NIPER or Bartlesville. In fact, if you look at the
report, the only specific line items with specific funding going to
specific institutions are for West Virginia and Pittsburgh in
Pennsylvania, when it comes to that fossil energy research.
So, Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge a ``no'' vote. Let us keep the
funding as it has been proposed. It is an absolute reduction. It
maintains the historical ratio between oil and coal. it is no
disadvantage to either one of them. I would ask that my colleagues join
in voting ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has 2 minutes and
40 seconds remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka]
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I do come from Texas, and believe in
energy independence. But I do not think this measure is about energy
independence. It is about pork futures.
I took a shot at NIPER, which is what this is all about, it is the
National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research, known by its
acronym of NIPER, in the Committee on Science. And we came within one
vote of eliminating this earmark, which is a good indication of how
really disputed this whole issue is.
If energy independence is the goal, then why is the authorizing
committee cutting fossil fuel research by 45 percent and why is it
being reduced in this bill?
The issue here is not energy independence. It is whether or not we
are going to earmark these moneys to be spent on one research institute
of all those in the country that just happens to be in Bartlesville,
Oklahoma.
When we begin earmarking to these particular institutes and
particular facilities, we violate the tradition that has gone on in the
Committee on Science up until this year. And we also essentially in
doing an earmark are doing nothing but having a sow's earmark. People
talk about cutting pork up here, but this is one of those little $5
million piglets that is squealing around this floor tonight.
If you believe we ought to provide not only for energy independence
but a little independence for the taxpayer and see that this kind of
special interest amendment is not included, then you vote for the
amendment that my colleagues have offered.

[[Page H 7043]]

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to answer the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook]. This happens to be a boy from
Massachusetts that spent some time in the oil business. I have frac
wells and I understand exactly what this technology is designed to do
and how much is available in this country to get more oil out of
existing wells.
The fact of the matter is, I would be in favor of this kind of oil
research. I would just like to see it go out to bid. I do not want to
see it to go to one guy's district and be denied from other Members'
districts that have the same capabilities of doing the research that is
in your district. That is all I am asking for.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I just want to establish that this was put
out for bid. It was bid only just about a year ago. So this is the
product of bidding.
Furthermore, this institution has been involved in privatizing and
reduction of the number of government employees and the research is at
the government-owned institution.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, why did the gentleman
have to write NIPER into the legislation, if it was put out to bid?
Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, NIPER is not mentioned
in the legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, it most certainly is.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the bill does not have any mention of
NIPER. It only mentions it during the report language. The report
language has specific line items for the institutions in West Virginia
and in Pennsylvania.
The language is only reflective of what the Committee on Science has
already established, what the Department of Energy has already
established. It is not creating anything. Frankly, the amendment does
not specify where any cut would be made. It is trying to attack oil
funding in general to protect coal.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from Oklahoma, the author of the
amendment in committee, states is not really accurate. In fact, if it
was accurate, the committee report language would not have to read,
``The committee recognizes the accomplishments of NIPER and directs
that these research funds in the bill be allocated to oil research to
be used by NIPER and such work should not be transferred to another
research laboratory.''
The last campaign by most of us in this Chamber was one about pork.
There were instances like the Lawrence Welk farm of years past, which
people just were abhorred over. Now here the gentleman from Oklahoma,
who he himself says pork is pork, even if it lives at home, goes to the
committee he serves on and puts in an additional $5 million above and
beyond the committee level to squirrel it away, to earmark it for his
district and an entity in his district.
I say to my colleagues, all 435 of us would like to bring home the
bacon, but in this atmosphere, we cannot. For a person who is opposed
to it to put it in, I think that is inexcusable. There is $59 million
left in this portion of the oil research part of the bill for oil
research, fossil research that will be put out by bid. And if, in fact,
the program is as good as the gentleman indicates, they will be
competitive. They will win a piece of that $59 million. But that is not
what happened in committee.
The gentleman introduced an amendment and first he wanted to take the
money from the endowment for the arts. He changed his mind and
scratched that and just out of thin air found $5 million and put it
into that line of the budget.
I am saying to you, that is not the way you talk in your campaign. It
is not the way the balance of us talk. However, when the campaigns are
over, at that point in time, you forget about that and when no one is
looking, you put in a little bacon for your district. I am saying, if
NIPER is as good as you say, they can compete, they can be successful
for a portion of the $59 million. Why did we put in the $5 million cut?
The only way you get at this pork project, the only way that we,
under the rules of the House, can get at it is to take an amendment,
reduce the appropriation reflecting your amendment in committee by $5
million, thus we take down the entire energy research and development
budget from $384 million to some $379 million; clearly, not devastating
to the appropriation, but recognizing the $5 million add-on that was
provided in committee is not fair, is not equitable, should not be
done. It is descried by everyone on the House floor.
When we find it, when it is bills like the one we are talking about
today, at that point in time I think the House has to stand up and say
what is good for Oklahoma is good for Wisconsin. If it is not good for
Oklahoma, Wisconsin should not do it either. I ask the Members to adopt
the amendment which in essence would strike this one pork project.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to make it clear to the Members, this technology, this money
that goes into the technology is used to take wells that are no longer
productive and put them back into production. It includes enhanced
fracturing techniques. It would include advanced injection techniques
so that the people of the United States could recover some additional
resources from our own domestic supply and thereby enhance our energy
independence.
I might also point out that most of these projects have a very
sizable amount of private money in them.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I agree with all the gentleman says.
However his mark coming before the committee was a $59 million
appropriations. If in fact he wanted more dollars in that line, why did
not the committee from the git-go put in the $64 million or $84 million
or whatever.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it was the feeling of the majority of the
full committee that we needed some additional funding for this
technology. In fact, we have many wells that are no longer productive.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
why was the $5 million earmarked for one project in Oklahoma?
Mr. REGULA This was the amount that was offered as an amendment in
the full committee and accepted by the members of the full committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is recognized
for 15 seconds.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the bill speaks for itself. It is a
reduction in the funding. It maintains simply the two-to-one ratio in
favor of coal with oil. It is clear that it is $12,914,000 below last
year's. It is not increasing anything. And the amendment did not line
item $5 million for NIPER.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the committee
divided and there were--ayes 21, noes 16.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] will be
postponed.
The point of order no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Yates] is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from North Carolina sought
time to speak on the amendment relating to Indian education.
Unfortunately, there was not enough time that could

[[Page H 7044]]
be allotted to her to make her comments.
She seeks to have her comments inserted into the Record during the
discussion on the Indian education amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that that may be done.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.

amendment offered by Mr. tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 65.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Tiahrt: Page 55, line 5, strike
``$384,504,000'' and insert ``$220,950,000''.

{time} 1930

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to H. Res. 189, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr.
Tiahrt] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, in this amendment I seek to restore the
appropriation to the level authorized by the Committee on Science. The
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], in the
House budget resolution had set the fossil energy program at $150
million for 1996. The Committee on Science then, after careful
deliberation, reviewing all research and development programs,
authorized even more funding at $220 million. The Interior
appropriations bill, however, adds an extra $170 million to the level
authorized by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] in the
Committee on Science.
Mr. Chairman, it is important for the American people to realize that
money is spent in Congress after the rigorous authorization process.
The committees in Congress study the issues, hold long hearings and
vote on the funding levels after long and tough debates. This process
is not perfect, but it is the process that usually results in
responsible compromise.
To add $170 million more to the level authorized by the Committee on
Science is excessive and thumbs the nose at the Committee on Science.
We worked hard to follow fiscal responsibility principles, because we
want to balance the budget for the future of this country and for the
future of our children.
Almost one-half of the increase to the fossil energy program goes to
the clean coal program. The clean coal program is to study technology
that has been around for decades. The question is not if we can burn
coal more efficiently; the question is can we afford it; and clearly,
we simply cannot.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee eloquently explains that
basic scientific research is a responsible Federal function. It is
quite a stretch to put the clean coal boondoggle under the banner of
basic research. In fact, the bill appropriates $12 million more than
the President even requested. If we pass the bill, we will spend more
on this program than even the administration wants.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment. We can and must do better than adding millions of dollars to
programs of dubious nature. Let us reject the concept of appropriating
money that has not been authorized. Let us listen to the chairman of
the committee, who arrived at the responsible funding level for fossil
energy, and follow the bold example of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Kasich], of making tough choices.
Let us stop asking middle-class taxpayers to fund research of some of
America's most profitable companies. Exxon, G.E., DuPont, Amoco,
Westinghouse deserve our credit for being industry leaders, but they do
not need our subsidies.
I come from a district in a State, Mr. Chairman, that is a large oil
and gas producer. No industry has had to sacrifice more in the changing
market. I have received phone calls and letters from small energy
producers in my district who are struggling. How can we look at them
and tell them we are broke and cannot help, but then give millions to
subsidize the big energy companies?
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, if they are serious about deficit
reduction, then let us vote to keep the authorized levels for funding.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help end corporate
welfare. Join me and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman, the subcommittee
chairman [Mr. Rohrabacher], the National Taxpayers Union, and Citizens
for a Sound Economy to make the tough choices and stand up for the
future of our children.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, once again, let me point out that we have
already cut 10 percent from this budget. We are on a glidepath to
achieve the goals outlined by the authorizing committee. I have
communicated repeatedly with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker], the chairman of the Science Committee, and it is our
understanding as a result of our conversations that we will get to the
authorized level in a period of 4 or 5 years.
However, let me point out to all Members here, that are listening and
viewing, that we have contractual obligations. These projects, over
300, have been established with the private sector. In many instances,
the private sector is putting up the bulk of the money. We have
contracts, and if we violate those contracts, we are going to be
subject to lawsuits. We have closing costs. In the meantime, we will be
losing enormously valuable research.
The Blue Ribbon Committee on energy R&D says this in their report:

Federal energy R&D has been cut by 75 percent since the
late 1970s. Currently the Japanese Government spends more
than twice as much on energy R&D as does the United States,

and keep in mind, that Government has half the population to serve.
They go on to say: ``Energy is fundamental,'' and let me emphasize
this,

Energy is fundamental to the ability of industrial
societies to function. Global energy demand arising mainly
from developing economies is expected to grow by 40 percent
is 15 years.

This report goes on to say,

Trends in the world oil markets point to growing stress and
tension. Oil demand is expanding rapidly, and projected to
grow by 30 percent. In less than 5 years oil demand in Asia
will outstrip all of North America.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say if we care about the future of this
Nation, if we care about preserving jobs, we have to care about energy.
I do not believe there is a job in our society that is not in some way
dependent on energy.
Energy is the lifeblood of an industrial society. It fuels all that
we do. Energy lights this room tonight. Energy, through many different
ways, is a part of the industrial fabric of this Nation. I think it is
foolish to not continue research, to keep our Nation energy-
independent.
We remember when OPEC decided to put an embargo on the shipment of
oil and raise the price. We had long
lines at the gasoline stations. We do not want to repeat that. Yet, we
are ``sleepwalking into a disaster,'' as Secretary Hodel said in a
recent op-ed piece. What we are trying to do in funding this research
is ensure that we can use resources that are available in the United
States, that we can enhance wells that produce oil and gas, but are no
longer functioning because of lack of technology, that we can use coal
to produce electricity.

The gentleman in his arguments said we already know how to burn coal
efficiently. That is true. However, we do not know how to burn coal
cleanly, and we just passed a clear Air Act a short time ago in an
effort to improve the quality of our air, and one of those ways we do
that is to burn coal in a clean manner, an environmentally safe manner.
That research is important.
I would also point out that we did not add any new budget authority
in clean coal. That is not the issue. The money here that is being
proposed for reduction does not impact on clean coal. It is not part of
this amendment. That is, nevertheless, a very important feature of our
enery research.
Mr. Chairman, I think we should be very careful in this budget, that
we do not do things that will precipitate a crisis down the road, that
will cripple

[[Page H 7045]]
the ability of future generations to have adequate supplies of energy,
to have the jobs that go with energy, to have the freedom from
involvement in military conflicts that result from the absence of
access to energy sources.
For all of these reasons, I think it is a great mistake at this point
to reduce our reseach. We are a nation that has prospered because of
science. We are the world's leader because we have developed technology
in many different fields, and certainly energy should be a vital
concern to all of us, because the quality of life, the quality of the
air we breathe, the quality of our standard of living, will be very
strongly tied to our ability to have access to energy. Let us not make
the mistake of the 1970's. Let us ensure that we do adequate research.
Mr. Chairman, we recognize that we need to get out of the business.
Our proposal gets on the glidepath to achieve exactly what the
Committee on Science has put in their authorization. As I said, the
chairman and I have discussed this and have a consensus that we have to
get there, but we have to recognize that we have close-down and
contractual costs that would otherwise result if we were to pass this
amendment.
I have a list here. There are over 30 States that would be severely
impacted by this amendment in terms of lost jobs, in terms of lost
research projects, but most importantly, all of the people of the
United States would be severely impacted if they were to have a
diminution of their access to energy of all forms in the years ahead.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher], the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I heard the saying a long time ago
that government is the most efficient method known to man of turning
pure energy into solid waste. Unfortunately, that is the feeling I get
when I see the way we are handling our budget decisions. We are taking
a perfectly good economy and we are trashing it by being irresponsible.
That is one of the reasons that I am supporting the Tiahrt amendment.
The Committee on Appropriations has again seen fit to add $163
million in funds not authorized by the Committee on Science. In the
case of coal programs, the figure is $126 million. That is 2\1/2\ times
the authorized level. There are millions of dollars earmarked in this
bill that the Department of Energy never requested. These funds will
not be for basic research in fossil fuels technology. Rather, it will
be used for large demonstration projects sponsored in many cases by
some of our largest corporations, corporate welfare.
The Members should know that electric and gas utility customers
already provide several hundred million dollars through a fossil R&D
surcharge that funds the Gas Research Institute and the Electric Power
Research Institute, so here we are, the people are being double taxed
for these very same research and development programs, this very same
welfare for corporations, welfare for the rich.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to save the taxpayers some money,
support the authorization process. Let us bring some responsibility to
the process. We are just starting out now. Let us make sure that
appropriators and authorizers work together, and vote for this
amendment. Support the Tiahrt amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle].
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Tiahrt amendment, and in support of fossil energy research funding
contained in this bill.
First of all, I would like to thank the subcommittee chairman, Mr.
Regula, and ranking member, Mr. Yates for their continued commitment to
this important area.
What is fossil energy research? We all know what fossil energy is,
oil, gas and--our most abundant domestic resource--coal. But I get the
sense that many Members who seem anxious to cut research in these areas
do not understand the type of work that is going on.
Especially in the area of coal research, we are talking about
extremely innovative research that is being undertaken by small
companies throughout the country.
Without the help of the Federal Government, these small companies
would be unable to undertake these important research efforts. Do we
really want to accept the status quo in our ability to utilize our coal
resources--or do we want to take advantage of our brainpower to make
cleaner, more efficient use of our most abundant energy resource.
By cutting the fossil energy budget, you are killing Advanced Clean
Fuels Research in both direct and indirect liquefaction--work that is
going on right now in Louisiana, New Mexico, California, New Jersey,
and elsewhere.
You are also killing work in Advanced Clean/Efficient Power Systems--
such as important work on Advanced Research & Environmental Technology
that is taking place in Texas, Illinois, Massachusetts, Colorado, Ohio,
and elsewhere.
Let me also point out how much these programs have already been cut.
The fossil R&D line in the bill represents a cut of over 100% from FY
1995 in a program that has been decimated over the last decade.
Just last month, the Yergin Commission, an independent task force on
strategic energy research and development, found that energy R&D is
essential to the U.S. Economy and that cutbacks in R&D could put our
Nation at risk. Task force Chairman Daniel Yergin, President of
Cambridge Energy Research Associates and a Pulitzer Prize-winning
author, stated that, ``the wholesale demolition of [DOE's R&D programs]
would not only hurt America's energy position but contribute to a
`brewing R&D crisis' in the United States.
In conclusion, I want to point out that Federal energy R&D is only
about one-half of one percent of the Nation's annual energy
expenditures. Since 1978, DOE R&D has been reduced by 75% in constant
dollars. Let's not be shortsighted about our long-term economic well-
being. Vote to maintain fossil R&D.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Mrs. Seastrand], a Member of the Committee on Science.
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I support the Tiahrt amendment. This
amendment would authorize appropriations of $22.95 million, which is
consistent with the level contained in H.R. 1816, the Civilian Energy
Research and Development Act of 1995, reported out of the Committee on
Science on June 22.
All of this was done with the thought of definitely giving dollars to
research, and balancing the budget. However, I am amazed to see what
has now come out of the Committee on Appropriations, which definitely
increases appropriations to such areas such as coal, up $11.3 million
above even what the Department of Energy requested, and up $76 million
above what the Committee on Science authorization of $49.9 million was.

{time} 1945

Oil appropriations were up $20.5 million above the Committee on
Science authorization of $63 million; gas appropriations, $113 million,
up $53.9 million above the Committee on Science authorization of $59.8
million.
I want to state that the Committee on Science, which I serve on,
adequately funded basic research. In addition, we have dollars now that
are funding institutes such as the Electric Power Research Institute
and the Gas Research Institute, provided they do this research with
surcharges on utility customers. This is being done.
Appropriations are funding far beyond what the Committee on Science
decided would be appropriate levels. Where are these dollars going? The
corporate giants.
Exxon in 1994 made sales of over $101 billion with profits of $5
billion. General Electric had 1994 sales of nearly $65 billion with
profits of $4.7 billion. Dupont, profits again of $2.7 billion in 1994.
We can go to Amoco, Westinghouse, and so on.
My point here is that this amendment, the Tiahrt amendment, is a
commitment to basic research and, most importantly, a balanced budget,
what the American people asked for in the last election.

[[Page H 7046]]

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member of the Committee on Science
with jurisdiction on this issue.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the Tiahrt amendment.
Mr. Chairman, coal research is extremely important. It may not be
the highest priority, but it ranks up amongst highest priority for
energy research and development in this country.
The chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations has already
described in great detail how we need to cut energy research as little
as possible in order to achieve energy independence and energy security
for this country.
Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to call attention to the assertion
made that this does not conform to the authorization. There is no
authorization for this bill.
A majority of the members of the Committee on Science have voted
under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] to
cut the amount authorized in a bill that we passed out, but the House
should know, and this has as a matter of fact been adopted by the
Republican Conference, that the Conference reaffirmed that only
authorization levels in public law can bind appropriation action and
such binding action assumes that points of order are not waived against
appropriation bills as they have been done in this case.
Please vote ``no'' on the Tiahrt amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tiahrt amendments
eliminating research and development funds at the Department of Energy.
While both of these amendments can, and should, be opposed simply on
their merits, I would like to briefly address the claim that these
amendments reduce spending levels to their allegedly authorized levels.
Mr. Chairman, I have long argued for the importance of the
authorization process. The authorizing committees are the expert
committees and certainly their views are entitled to some deference by
the members. But the single step of reporting a bill from a House
authorizing committee does not
constitute an authorization. An authorization bill must pass the House
and the Senate and be signed by the President. As we all know, this
sometimes untidy democratic process often wreaks significant changes in
what the original House committee reported. In the case of the Science
Committee's authorization of the Department of Energy's research and
development programs, we are barely through step one.

Simply put, the claim that Science Committee actions to date equate
in some way to an authorization is false. It is true that the Science
Committee has reported a bill with dramatically lower numbers for
fossil and conservation R&D that contained in the appropriations bill
before us today. However, the House as a whole has never considered the
Science Committee bill. Thus, the Science Committee bill does not meet
even the first test of being a--quote--``House-passed authorization
bill.'' If the Science Committee had truly wanted to affect the
process, it would have reported its authorization bills in May and
brought them to the floor before appropriations action began.
Even then there is an important legal difference between a House-
passed bill and one that is signed into law. This difference was
recognized in the Republican Conference on House Rules. The conference
reaffirmed that only authorization levels in public law can bind
appropriations actions. And, such binding action assumes that points of
order are not waived against appropriations bills, as was done for
consideration of H.R. 1977.
Certainly the decisions of a majority of the Committee on Science are
entitled to some respect and deference by the Members. At the same
time, Members have an obligation to exercise their own independent
judgment on the wisdom of those recommendations; certainly, the House
has never operated to rubber-stamp the product of any Committee.
But Members should not be confused by the argument that the
appropriations bill exceeds the authorization for these energy R&D
programs. They do exceed the recommendations of a majority of the
Science Committee members--nothing more and nothing less. The fact is
that this is the first vote of the full House to consider these issues.
There is nothing to bind Members actions in law--including nothing in
the budget resolution since report language is also not binding.
I urge Members to reject the Tiahrt amendment.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment with some sense of frustration. I certainly support energy
research, particularly coal research. That is not the issue here. I am
a member of the authorizing committee. We have developed a balanced
program.
My concern is where will the money go that is saved here? When we
violate the orderly authorization/appropriation process, we create
chaos. Thus, I support this amendment because it supports the process
we should be followed in this House.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that it was referred to here
earlier that this was not authorized. If that is the situation, then
apparently none of this bill has been authorized.
We have gone through the authorization process in the Committee on
Science. We have looked at the basic research and development. This was
done. We came in at the $220 million level. Now we are coming with an
additional $170 million.
We are even outspending the administration on the coal programs. We
are adding $24 million for special interests for the liquefaction
process, adding $36 million to General Electric for gas turbines, an
additional $8 million to the administration's request for molten
carbonate fuel development.
All of these are in a $1 billion industry, when I have to go back to
Kansas and talk to my little energy developers who get no help from the
Federal Government, out there trying to make a living pumping wells,
stripper wells. They get no help, yet we give millions of dollars to
these big energy corporations.
We heard about commitments to contracts. We have gone and reviewed
this. This is not beyond what was authorized by the Committee on
Science. Beyond that, we have a commitment to the American people.
Of course we care about energy. We do not want to have another energy
crisis, but we are not killing research and development that would go
to help supply more energy. What we are doing is, we are cutting out
the corporate pork. One hundred seventy million dollars additional in
research and development to billions of dollars in revenue that these
corporations have is not going to drive them into bankruptcy.
This is supported by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker],
the chairman. It is over the resolution of the Committee on the Budget,
it is over the resolution of the Committee on Science. It is supported
by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman, by the gentleman
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], the chairman of the subcommittee.
This is practical common sense to go back to the research and
development that was authorized by the Committee on Science and not add
in any additional pork.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
(Mr. WARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tiahrt
amendment and urge Members to vote ``no.'' Either we are going to have
the technology that this country deserves or we are going to transport
it overseas. This amendment would deny this country the opportunity to
create jobs to participate in the world environment with respect to
technology. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Tiahrt amendment.
A vote ``no'' is to preserve jobs in the United States. A vote ``no''
is to preserve research in a majority of the

[[Page H 7047]]
States of this Nation. A vote ``no'' is to maintain our energy
independence. A vote ``no'' is to prevent these jobs and this research
from going overseas.
I strongly urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Tiahrt
amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill.
The fossil fuel research accounts in this bill have been taking
continued and direct hits which the coal industry cannot survive. In
southern Illinois we have hundreds of people who once worked good jobs
that paid well in the coal mines which provided power to the economy of
this Nation. They've been laid off because we don't have the clean-coal
technology necessary to burn the tremendous resources of coal which are
available to meet the energy needs of this Nation.
I strongly urge a ``no'' vote to help the coal mining families of
this Nation and to provide for a thriving domestic energy industry.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tiahrt's amendment would
cut energy conservation R&D from $411.2 million to $230.1 million. The
fiscal year 1995 level was $468.5 million.
Large cuts have already been taken. Energy R&D has fallen 75 percent
since the late 1970's, in constant dollars. The committee's bill
already contains a 23 percent cut in energy R&D relative to the
President's request.
Total U.S. energy efficiency R&D costs each taxpayer about $5.50 per
year and saves them $65.
This amendment would cut critical programs assisting in the
development of new, clean transportation technologies including
electric vehicles.
It would cut the Federal Energy Management Program, which installs
money-saving equipment in Federal buildings, saving taxpayers $4 in
Federal operating expenses for every $1 spent.
These are just to mention a few of the programs which will help to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil in the future.
The bottom line is this cut would be penny wise and pound foolish.
I urge the committee to oppose the Tiahrt amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] will be
postponed.

sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the
following order:
Amendment No. 72 offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns];
amendment No. 47 offered by the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs.
Smith]; amendment No. 31 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Kleczka]; and amendment No. 65 offered by the gentleman from Kansas
[Mr. Tiahrt].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Stearns

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the request for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 72 offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am confused. Could the Chair remind us who
prevailed on this vote? Was it the ayes and the noes?
The CHAIRMAN. The noes prevailed.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179,
noes 227, not voting 28, as follows:

[Roll No. 512]

AYES--179

Allard
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wicker
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zimmer

NOES--227

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burr
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Manton
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Rivers
Roemer
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Spratt
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--28

Bachus
Becerra
Brown (FL)
Clinger
Collins (MI)
Condit
Ehlers
English
Ford
Green
Gutierrez
Harman
Jacobs
Jefferson
Jones
Maloney
Martinez
McInnis
Moakley
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Reynolds
Richardson
Stark
Taylor (MS)
Tucker
Waxman
Zeliff

[[Page H 7048]]

{time} 2013

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Jones for, with Mr. Richardson against.

Mr. BARCIA and Mr. WHITFIELD changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. FRANKS of Connecticut, BONO, and BROWDER changed their vote
from ``no'' and ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 512, I was not present
because my flight was delayed 3\1/2\ hours by severe thunderstorms.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
personal explanation
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 512, I was inadvertently
detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
announcement by the chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the Chair announces that he will
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote
by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair
has postponed further proceedings.
Members should also be aware that the paging system in the Democratic
cloakroom is inoperative this evening, so Members should be very aware
that the votes will be taken and they may not be able to be notified by
the cloakroom. Members should please keep that in mind.
amendment no. 47 offered by mrs. smith of washington

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the request for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 47 offered by the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs.
Smith] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 286,
noes 124, not voting 24, as follows:

[Roll No. 513]

AYES--286

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zimmer

NOES--124

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Bateman
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hinchey
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lofgren
Lowey
Manton
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Spratt
Stokes
Studds
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Waters
Watt (NC)
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--24

Becerra
Clinger
Collins (MI)
Cox
Ehlers
English
Ford
Green
Harman
Jacobs
Jefferson
Jones
Maloney
Martinez
McInnis
Moakley
Reynolds
Richardson
Rush
Stark
Taylor (MS)
Tucker
Waxman
Zeliff

{time} 2023

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Mr. Jones for, with Mr. Richardson against.
Mr. Zeliff for, with Mr. Waxman against.

Mrs. LOWEY changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 513, I was not present
because my flight was delayed 3\1/2\ hours by severe thunderstorms.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

personal explanation

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 513, I was inadvertenly
detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, earlier this evening, July
17, 1995, I was unvoidably detained because of circumstances beyond my
control. Due to a malfunction with the air traffic control system at
the Cincinnati airport, my connecting flight to Washington was
postponed. Unfortunately, having arrived here just moments ago, I was
informed that I missed two roll call votes to the Fiscal Year 1996
Interior Appropriations Bill (H.R. 1977). Had I been present at the
time the votes were called, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote
512 and ``yea'' on rollcall 513.
amendment no. 31 offered by mr. kleczka

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 31 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Kleczka] on which further proceedings were

[[Page H 7049]]
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

AYES--251

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TX)
Burton
Canady
Cardin
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cremeans
Cunningham
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dornan
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hancock
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Manton
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weldon (PA)
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
Zimmer

NOES--160

Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Castle
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coburn
Coleman
Combest
Crapo
Cubin
Danner
Davis
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehrlich
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Franks (CT)
Gallegly
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kim
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Pombo
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Regula
Riggs
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Salmon
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stockman
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--23

Allard
Bateman
Becerra
Brown (OH)
Clinger
Collins (MI)
Ehlers
English
Ford
Green
Harman
Jefferson
Jones
Maloney
Martinez
McInnis
Moakley
Reynolds
Richardson
Stark
Tucker
Waxman
Zeliff

{time} 2031

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Waxman for, with Mr. Jones against.
Mr. Richardson for, with Mr. Zeliff against.

Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut and Mr. EHRLICH changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CREMEANS and Mr. LAZIO of New York changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
ppersonal explanation
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 514, I was not present
because my flight was delayed 3\1/2\ hours by severe thunderstorms. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``Yes.''
personal explanation
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 514, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes.''
amendment offered by mr. tiahrt

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the request for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 65 offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 144,
noes 267, not voting 23, as follows:

[Roll No. 515]

AYES--144

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Boehlert
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Burr
Burton
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ensign
Filner
Foley
Franks (NJ)
Funderburk
Ganske
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Inglis
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCarthy
McHugh
McIntosh
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Myrick
Nadler
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Ramstad
Reed
Riggs
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Scarborough
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waldholtz
Walker
White
Wyden
Zimmer

NOES--267

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Combest
Condit
Conyers

[[Page H 7050]]

Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cremeans
Cubin
Davis
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dornan
Doyle
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hobson
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
LaFalce
Lantos
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Livingston
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Mfume
Mica
Mineta
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--23

Armey
Becerra
Berman
Chambliss
Clinger
Collins (MI)
Ehlers
English
Ford
Green
Harman
Jefferson
Jones
Maloney
Martinez
McInnis
Moakley
Reynolds
Richardson
Stark
Tucker
Waxman
Zeliff

{time} 2041

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Mr. Jones for, with Mr. Moakley against.
Mr. Richardson for, with Mr. Zeliff against.

Mr. WELLER and Mr. DOGGETT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HINCHEY and Mr. VENTO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 515, I was inadvertently
detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
personal explanation
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 515, I was not present
because my flight was delayed 3\1/2\ hours by severe thunderstorms.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
personal explanation
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, due to inclement weather, my connecting
flight from Pittsburgh was delayed 4 hours. As a result, I missed four
rollcall votes earlier this evening. If I had been present, I would
have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 512, ``yea'' on rollcall vote
No. 513, ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 514, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote
No. 515.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
words.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Washington [Mr.
Dicks] is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior, if he could tell the Members,
we have some concern about what the plan into the evening is.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it is the plan at this juncture to go
forward and complete the bill tonight. We think that we can probably
get it done in about 3 hours. We will roll the votes on an hourly
basis. So essentially, give or take 10 minutes or so, when we get two
or three amendments in about an hour, we will vote on those, a 15-
minute vote and then five-minute votes to follow on however many
amendments. Then we will go on an hour and roll again until we get
finished.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?

amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment,
amendment No. 55.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: Page 45,
line 24, strike ``$1,276,688,000'' and insert
``$1,263,234,000''.
Page 47, line 5 strike ``$120,000,000'' and insert
``$114,980,000''.

point of order

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment because it seeks to amend a paragraph previously
amended.
In the procedures in the U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 27,
section 27.1 states the following: ``It is fundamental that it is not
in order to amend an amendment previously agreed to. Thus the text of a
bill perfected by amendment cannot thereafter be amended.''
{time} 2045

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to amend text previously amended,
and is therefore not in order. I respectfully ask the Chair to sustain
my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]
wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would.
The fact of the matter is this amendment was filed. It was previously
approved by the Parliamentarian. Everything was in order. The Committee
on Rules devised the rule which essentially, although it appears to
have made this amendment in order, on a technical basis, is being
objected to.
The reality is that all we are trying to do is knock out high-cost
timber sales. This is an attempt to continue to keep corporate welfare
in this bill, and to try to get by on a technical amendment to knock
this amendment out.
Mr. Chairman, I just cannot tell the Members how strongly I object to
those that are not going to allow this issue to even be debated on the
House floor. I paid attention to every single rule. The only thing that
has happened is because, on a voice vote earlier this evening, an
amendment was passed which knocked $10 million out of this bill, the
number that I have written into the bill has been changed, and
therefore, I am not allowed to offer the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is technocratic politics at its worst. It
essentially denies anybody the ability of having an open debate about a
critical issue before this country, and I would very much appeal that
the Parliamentarian would rule in my favor and against the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has discussed the merits of his
amendment, but he has not addressed the point of order. I think the
rules clearly state that this amendment is not in order at this time,
or during the balance of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]
wish to be heard further on the point of order?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would like to be heard further on the
point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point
out that I know that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is a fair-
minded individual. We have worked closely on a number of other issues
Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that this is really a technical
way

[[Page H 7051]]
of knocking out and closing off debate on an important issue.

The reality is that if we are interested in being able to reduce the
amount of money that this bill spends, because inadvertently there was
a vote that prior to this time took place which knocked out $10
million, we are not going to be allowed to again open this bill and
knock out further funds because of this technical rule, which dates
back prior to the establishment of a Committee on the Budget. Why not
allow this debate to go forward and have an up-or-down vote? I would
appeal to the gentleman from Ohio to withdraw his point of order and to
allow us to have the debate.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, let me say, and again I respectfully submit
that any Member can offer a point of order. If I were to withdraw,
there will be another Member offer a point of order. The gentleman well
knows this rule has been in place for along time. It was not
established just in this particular term. It was a rule that was put in
place by the gentleman's party. I think we have to respect the rules of
the House. Clearly, this is subject to a point of order. If I as
chairman of the committee were not to raise it, we have a lot of other
Members ready to do so.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] the
adoption of the Coburn amendment precludes the offering of the
amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] as printed
in the Record under the Chair's rulings of March 15 and 16 of this
year, so the point of order is sustained.
Are there further amendments to title II?

amendment offered by mr. schaefer

Mr. SCHAEFER. 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. Schaefer: Page 57, line 7, strike
``$287,000,000'' and all that follows through ``Reserve'' on
line 21, and insert the following: $187,000,000, to remain
available until expended, which shall be derived by transfer
of unobligated balances from the ``SPR petroleum account''.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and I ask unanimous consent that he may use that
time as he so wishes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment today to protect a
valuable asset of this country, and that is the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. This reserve has been in operation since the 1970s, and this
in one case here, we are, in essence, cutting $100,000,000 in order to
save the reserve, because in its wisdom, the committee decided they
wanted to sell 7 million barrels of this particular oil in order to try
and gain $100 million for the operation of the SPR.
Mr. Chairman, I think if we look at some of the past situations we
have had with the Middle East oil situation where prices escalated, by
dipping into the reserve we were able to hold that amount down, and the
second thing is if we sell that oil, we have about $33 in it. If we
sell it we may get $16 or $17. That does not make a lot of sense to me
as far as this whole situation is. I just do not think economically we
are thinking right, that this is the way to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, but I would like to withhold the use of my time so the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] can speak.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will be recognized
in opposition to the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment before the House today is to strike from
the bill the provisions that would allow the Government to sell 7
million barrels of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Why on earth would
we want to sell 7 million barrels of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,
especially when we are going to sell it at one-half the price we
acquired it for? Why would we want to sell one drop of that oil when we
know how critical it is, how critical it was during the Persian Gulf
conflict, in maintaining the price of oil for Americans, so that Saddam
Hussein could not beat us at home economically when he could not beat
us in the field of battle.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment needs to be adopted. We are more
dependent on foreign oil today than ever in our history. DOE has
recently confirmed it to the President, and said maintenance of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve is essential to national security. This is
a bad move. This amendment corrects it. Members ought to vote for it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a budget-buster. Let me say it loud and clear,
this is a budget-buster. We have in Weeks Island 70 million barrels of
oil. Weeks Island leaks, so this is an environmental vote. A vote for
this amendment is against the environment, because this leaking causes
water to go into the oil. It allows seepage, and everybody agrees, we
have to move the 70 million barrels.
It is going to cost approximately $100 million to move it into
another SPR location. The only place we could find $100 million was to
sell 7 million barrels. Instead of losing $100 million, we will move 63
million and sell 7 million first. This is a last-in-first-out. What
went in the last, the last 7 million that went in was $17.50 a barrel,
not $33. The market today is close to that amount. Therefore,
logically, for environmental reasons, for practical reasons, we have no
choice. We do not have another $100 million.
The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] mentioned national
security. Let me tell the Members, we have SPR because of national
security. However, if we do not take care of the SPR facilities, and I
am talking about the hardware that is there to pump out the other 520
million barrels. We have 590 million barrels total. We want to sell
only 7 million barrels out of a total of 590. The Secretary of Energy
strongly endorses the sale, because if we do not sell this oil, the
Secretary will have to take $100 million out of the rest of her budget
which is designed to take care of the SPR facilities.
Some of this equipment is almost 20 years old. It has to be replaced.
If we do not, in a period of national security crisis, it very possibly
will not work.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman, is he saying if we
do not sell the oil then we are going to be over our 602(b) allocation,
and therefore we are going to have to cut back a whole series of other
programs that are funded under this budget, whether it is the Forest
Service or the Park Service, or heaven forbid, individual Member
projects that have been funded in this bill?
Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is
absolutely correct. We have no extra money. We are right to the
allocation, which is, of course, about 11 percent less than last year.
If we do not sell the 7 million barrels to pay for taking care of SPR
the other money in the budget is going back into maintaining the SPR
facilities in top-notch condition. Therefore if there is an energy
crisis, if there is a threat to national security, we can get the oil
out of the ground. If we fail to have the sale, as provided in the
bill, we do not know where the $100 million will come from.
I know where it will come from, it will come from letting the rest of
the SPR facilities deteriorate. We have no extra money to do it so it
is clearly a budget-buster. If Members are maintaining our reductions
in the budget, if we are for maintaining an environmentally safe SPR we
have to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from

[[Page H 7052]]
Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman of the Committee on Commerce.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] is recognized
for 2 minutes.
(Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] and the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
Mr. Chairman, we are all aware of the difficulties in balancing the
budget. Sometimes in balancing the budget, we have to look for creative
solutions to make ends meet. Today we are seeing a budget-balancing act
that is just about as creative as we can get. We are balancing the
budget by buying high and selling low. H.R. 1977 allows the sale of 7
million barrels low in order to raise $100 million to close a Strategic
Petroleum Reserve facility and to pay for some of the operations of the
remaining facilities.
The average cost of acquiring and storing oil in the reserve is
$33.50 a barrel. Because of current oil prices, we will probably get
about $15 per barrel. This is foolishness. It is just plain common
sense that buying high and selling low will never balance the budget.
During the Persian Gulf crisis, this oil was vital. If we have another
crisis, it will be vital again. If we do this today, we will be doing
it forever.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLILEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, where does he
suggest we get the $100 million to take care of the balance of the SPR
facilities, the 583 million barrels that will be left?
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the distinguished chairman
of the subcommittee, who has long experience on this committee, knows
exactly where to get it if he needs to get it.
The fact of the matter is if we sell this today for this case, next
year when we have an even more difficult time to balance the budget, we
will be back selling more, and pretty soon there will be nothing in the
SPR, and when we have a crisis, as we surely will in the future, with
oil disruptions, and we need this SPR, it will not be there. I thank
the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking minority member of
the Committee on Commerce.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, he who does not learn from history is
doomed to repeat it. This House has debated time after time the energy
crisis which we had in the 1970's and 1980's. To deal with that, one of
the principal weapons we achieved was to set aside the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, which was supposed to constitute 1 billion barrels.
We have 592, less than half of what it is.
This bill, in an improper procedure which had to be sanctified by an
immunity bath given by the Committee on Rules, which waived points of
order against this particular proposal, which would be subject to a
point of order as legislation in an appropriation bill, has presented
us a device which will encourage this country to buy oil at $33.50 a
barrel and sell it for $15. The net cost of this kind of folly is two-
fold. One, it is going to cost this country $106 billion that we are
going to lose. The total cost of what we are going to sell is going to
be double that. The loss is $106,500,000.
However, the real loss is if this country gets into some kind of a
crunch, because when this country produces less than half the oil that
it uses, the one mechanism we have to protect our industry, to protect
our military, to enable us to protect the force that is necessary to
defend ourselves, and to address the problem of stabilizing the
petroleum market, is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Adopt the
amendment, reject the language of the bill, and let us get down to the
business of legislating wisely.
{time} 2100

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let me make it clear again, the last 7 million barrels
cost us $17.50, not $33. That is a straw man. That is just put out
there to confuse the issue. The real cost is $17.50.
But the real cost in terms of national security will be a diminution
of the ability to use the balance of the 583 million barrels of oil if
we do not take care of the SPR facilities. The facilities are wearing
out, and they need to be replaced. This is information I get from the
Secretary of Energy. The SPR facilities, when called upon to respond to
a national crisis, will not be able to do so.
Because we do not have $100 million without the sale, therefore we
have no choice but to take that $100 million out of the money designed
to maintain SPR in top quality condition. It will have an enormous
impact on the ability to use SPR in the future.
I know this sounds easy to vote to not sell the oil and let somebody
else worry about the $100 million. Somebody, I do not know exactly who,
but I know what the Secretary of Energy will do. She will not be able
to take care of SPR. Therefore, I think it would be a very poor
judgment.
I have no objection to the Committee on Rules bringing this out, even
though it is subject to a point of order in protecting it. I think it
is a very important policy issue. I think 435 Members ought to vote on
it. If you want to let SPR deteriorate, vote for the amendment. If you
want to maintain the facilities in first-class condition and not bust
the budget, vote against the amendment.
If you care about the environment, vote against the amendment, but
these facilities are leaking at Weeks Island. There is agreement that
we have to move the 70 million barrels to another location. It costs
money to move that oil.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is aptly named.
Strategic comes from its military importance to our country. The reason
that we need the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is that it calms our
economic, our financial and our energy marketplaces during military
crisis, during crises in the Middle East. It gives the United States
time to think. It allows our financial markets the time to be able to
absorb the shock which is coming out of the Middle East.
More important than the B-2 bomber, more important than the Strategic
Defense Initiative, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a modern world,
where most of the risks are going to come from places that we can
identify that send shocks throughout our system, it is needed in order
to give us the time to think. It tells our enemies that they cannot
panic our economy the way in the 1970's we were panicked.
Let us vote not to reduce it. If we need to spend the money, let us
find it from the other defense items which are less important than the
role which the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has played over the last 20
years in telling our enemies they cannot spook us.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, this is a common sense issue. It is about
economics and it is about common sense. First of all, this debate about
being an environmental issue, that is ridiculous. You pump water into
this well to raise the oil to pump it out in the first place. There is
not one drop of oil that has gone out of this reserve into any natural
environment, so let us not talk about that.
The second point is we have to have a billion barrels of oil to
protect our military, to protect our economy against what could happen,
our trust in the Middle East. We do not know what those people are
going to do. We do not know what is going to happen to us in the Middle
East.
But if we give it away, we do not have the billion barrels of oil. We
have 591 million barrels. What happens is, sure, the last 7 million
cost $17.50 a

[[Page H 7053]]
barrel. But there are 591 million barrels that cost us $33 a barrel, so
the average cost of that barrel of oil is about $32.27.
If we want to sell something for $15 that we bought for $32, I have
got a lot of good deals for you. But in order to keep the integrity of
our economy, the integrity of our defense and the integrity of the
whole SPR system, we have to defeat what is there. We have to pass the
Schaefer amendment. I ask for an expedient effort to do so.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pallone], ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on
Energy of the Committee on Commerce.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman, but I have to say from
listening to the debate today, it is very obvious to me that it is
inappropriate for us to move this Strategic Petroleum Reserve without
having a hearing, without having action by the authorizing committee.
We have not had a single hearing on this issue in our subcommittee.
The talk about the environmental impact, we do not really know what
the environmental impact is. Just listening to the debate in the last
few minutes here, you can see there is great variation in terms of how
people feel the environmental impact is going to be or what it is going
to mean to move this reserve component.
In addition to that, we are talking about a situation now where
something like 50 percent of our oil that we use in this country is
imported oil. We know this is a major problem.
I listened to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman,
before when he talked about a previous amendment and he talked about
how we do not want to go back to the long lines that existed in the
1970's during the oil crisis. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is
designed to prevent that from happening again.
It makes no sense, at this hour when we really have not looked at the
issue, when the authorizing committee has not had a hearing, to move on
such an important issue on an appropriations bill. I ask that this
amendment by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] be supported.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, in my last 1 minute, I just want to make
one point that has not been made at this point in time. That is, of
that $100 million that we have been talking about from the sale of the
7 million barrels of oil, which by the way is in the district of the
gentleman from Louisiana, only $60 million is going to be going for
closing down Weeks Island. The rest of it is for general operations.
So we are not talking about something that we are going to get into
immediately, and no new money has been appropriated to reserve this
year. I fully expect next year when a $250 million bill comes up, you
know we are going to jump into that giant piggy bank in Louisiana and
find some more dollars somewhere.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHAEFER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the amount of the sale is $200-plus
million. The amount which is wasted in selling at half the cost the
government paid for it is over $100 million. That is the economy we are
practicing here tonight.
Mr. SCHAEFER. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has the right to
close.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you a quick story. I was
privileged to join senior members of the Congress in a visit to the
Persian Gulf right before the outbreak of hostilities there.
When we returned, the President asked us to the White House to seek
our advice on anything we had noticed, anything we had seen that he
ought to know about before we entered that period of crisis. He called
upon me for a word of advice.
When you are called upon by your President in a period of crisis, you
think long and hard. The one advice I gave the President then was, ``If
and when hostilities break out and the price of oil begins to ratchet
up rapidly as the oil traders take advantage of us, be prepared to
announce in that severe crisis that the strategic petroleum oil is
available to our marketplace.''
The President, whether he took my advice or others, did exactly that.
The oil traders, when the outbreak of hostilities occurred, immediately
began to ratchet the price up. The price of oil began going up rapidly
every day as that crisis accelerated. The President announced that the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be available in the American
marketplace if it went any higher and immediately the price dropped.
That is how critical this reserve is. Do not sell a drop of it. Vote
for the Schaefer-Tauzin amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I feel like the Lone Ranger on this one. You notice
there has been overwhelming support for it. I think I am the only one
that has spoken, but as chairman of the committee, I am saying you have
to make responsible judgments when you mark up a bill.
This is what the Secretary of Energy said in the hearing. I said,
``What are the budget implications for the SPR program?'' I believe in
SPR. I have been working for years in that committee to put oil in SPR,
but what are the implications if you do not get authority to sell Weeks
Island oil and use the proceeds?
Answer, Secretary of Energy: If the Department does not obtain
authority to sell 7 million barrels of Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil
and use the proceeds, the Department would necessarily reduce Strategic
Petroleum Reserve site security, reduce the guards, reduce the
security, draw down readiness of delivery systems, machinery will be in
disrepair, curtail maintenance and life extension activities and defer
some Weeks Island decommissioning requirements.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, in essence what the gentleman is saying is
one of the biggest problems has been getting the oil out of the ground,
and we are going to undermine the ability to do that. So this reserve
that we think is going to be there to help us in the crisis, as a
result of striking out your amendment, will make it less plausible that
the oil will be there because we will not be able to maintain the
strategic petroleum oil reserve.
I want to associate myself with the gentleman. I think he is doing
the right thing here. I think if we cut $100 million out of this bill,
we will make a very serious mistake, because it is going to undermine
the bill and put us in a situation where we are over our 602(b)
allocations.
Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, just let me say again, the gentleman
mentioned that there was no problem environmentally. There is a
problem. This oil is stored in a salt cavern. The soil is leaching into
the aquifer, so there is a problem.
In the absence of being able to sell any of the oil, the Secretary
may not be able to decommission Weeks Island. We may lose 70 million
barrels instead of 7 to contamination. I have to say to you again,
after the hearing, listening to the testimony, it was my judgment in
putting together the chairman's mark that this was responsible
management of SPR. I am an advocate of SPR.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I were in charge of
providing the initial appropriations for the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve.
Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. YATES. If the gentleman will yield further, we have reviewed the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve from its beginning. We have followed it
thoroughly. We have had oversight hearings. We know just about
everything

[[Page H 7054]]
that one should know about it. In this case the gentleman from Ohio is
exactly right, and I hope the House sustains him.
Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his
comments.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, we are
saying now we have got 590 million barrels in this reserve.
Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. DICKS. And we are talking about 7 million to deal with this
emergency situation, and we are still going to have a very large and
significant reserve. This is less than 1 day's imports.
Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield further, I think this is a
pragmatic decision on the part of the chairman. I think we ought to
support him.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge Members to vote against
this amendment. It is good management and the only alternative we have.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
The question was taken; and the Chairman being in doubt, the
committee divided, and there were--ayes 8; noes 19.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that
I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] are
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
{time} 2115

amendment offered by mr. sanders

Mr. SANDERS. 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. Sanders: Page 55, line 5, strike
``$384,504,000'' and insert ``$284,504,000''.
Page 56, line 3, strike ``$552,871,000'' and insert
``$652,871,000''.
Page 56, line 10, strike ``$133,946,000'' and insert
``$233,946,000''.
Page 56, line 17, strike ``$107,446,000'' and insert
``$207,446,000''.

point of order

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment because it seeks to amend a paragraph previously
amended.
In the procedures in the U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 27,
section 27.1, it states as follows:

It is fundamental that it is not in order to amend an
amendment previously agreed to. Thus, the text of a bill
perfected by amendment cannot, thereafter, be amended.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to amend a text previously amended
and is, therefore, not in order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] wish to
be heard on this point of order?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to withdraw this
amendment and announce my support for another amendment to follow. I
would respectfully request unanimous consent to have 5 minutes to
explain my position.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman reserve his point of order?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, yes, I reserve my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, what I, and in a few moments the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], are attempting to do is something that is
extremely important and that is to transfer $50 million into the low-
income weatherization assistance program.
I have proposed taking money from the Fossil Energy Research Fund.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] has another fund. But what is
most important is that we replenish the fund that has been severely
cut.
Without this amendment, the bill provides for only half of the
weatherization funds that were provided for last year. That is a cut of
more than $100 million.
What I am attempting to do, and what the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Fox] is attempting to do, is to restore $50 million to that fund.
Mr. Chairman, the low-income weatherization assistance program is an
enormously sensible and cost-effective partnership between the Federal
Government and local and State governments. What weatherization does in
Vermont, and in every state in America, is prevent the waste of energy,
whether that energy is oil, gas, electric, or whatever.
It is enormously inefficient for low-income people all over this
country to waste fuel because their homes or apartments lack adequate
insulation, windows, or efficient heating or cooling systems.
The Department of Energy reports that this program has a favorable
benefit-cost ratio of 1 to 1.61. That is, for every $1 we invest in
weatherization, we get $1.61 in energy savings and economic benefits.
Clearly, if we are interested in saving money, that is not the
program to cut.
Mr. Chairman, we should be clear that this is a program that works
well, not only in northern States but in every State in America. It is
a national program that provides for the cold weather States and the
warm weather States as well.
Weatherization assistance is a prime example of a successful Federal-
State-community partnership. Each year, State and local resources
leverage an additional $200 million for weatherization, doubling the
core Federal funds.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the fact is we do have an
amendment before the desk that we would like to present which would be
an amendment for weatherization.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, my point of order is pending here. I do not
think we can go to another amendment. And I renew my point of order
against it.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] wish to
be heard on the gentleman's point of order?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, all over this country we have elderly
people who must in their homes, in order to survive, prevent their
homes from becoming very, very cold or in fact very, very warm. The
Chairman is aware that today on the front page of the Washington Post
was an article about the suffering of so many people whose homes have
overheated and, in fact, 200 deaths have occurred.
Mr. Chairman, I will ask for support of the Fox amendment, which will
follow. This is a humane amendment and a cost-effective amendment. It
makes no sense to waste energy and to increase human suffering.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I renew my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Vermont want to be heard
further on this point of order?
Mr. SANDERS. No, Mr. Chairman, I am finished.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the
adoption of the Kleczka amendment precludes the offering of the
amendment of the gentleman from Vermont as printed in the Record under
the Chair's rulings of March 15 and 16 of this year.
The point of order is sustained.
amendment offered by mr. skaggs

Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 64.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Skaggs: On page 56, line 3, strike
``$552,871,000,'' and in lieu thereof insert
``$567,871,000''; page 56, line 10, strike ``$133,946,000''
and in lieu thereof insert ``$148,946,000''; on page 56, line
17, strike ``$107,446,000'' and in lieu thereof
``$120,446,000''; and on page 56, line 18, strike
``$26,500,000'' and in lieu thereof insert ``$28,500,000''.

modification to amendment offered by mr. skaggs

Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment and offer the amendment that I have at the desk in its
revised form.

[[Page H 7055]]

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read the modification, as follows:

Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Skaggs:
Amendment No. 64

On page 56, line 3, strike ``$552,871,000'', and in lieu
thereof insert ``$556,371,000''; page 56, line 10, strike
``$133,946,000'' and in lieu thereof insert ``$148,946,000'';
on page 56, line 17, strike ``$107,446,000'' and in lieu
thereof insert ``$110,946,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add into the
weatherization program the available monies now existing underneath our
602(b) allocation budget authority of about $3.5 million that has been
freed up by virtue of earlier amendments adopted this evening.
Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with the arguments made by the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], and I anticipate being made by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. I would like to do much more
to increase weatherization. I think this modest increase is all that is
practicable, given the restraints on the bill. I would urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I respect the effort by a member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], and we have no
objection to the amendment. We think it is logical. Under the
circumstances, it does not have any impact on our 602(b) allocation.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, on our side, we accept the amendment as
well.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. chabot

Mr. CHABOT. 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. Chabot: Page 73, strike line 16
and all that follows through page 74, line 15.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we face a lot of hard budget choices, but
we have still got some pretty easy decisions to make as well, like
ending the National Endowment for the Humanities, the NEH. My amendment
would do just that.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will save the taxpayers of this country
nearly $100 million and that is why groups like the National Taxpayers
Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy,
and Americans for Tax Reform have all weighed in and strongly support
this amendment.
We will have to make some sacrifices, sacrifices like the
Conversation Kit that the NEH has produced to teach folks how to talk
to one another. It is true, the National Endowment for the Humanities
spent $1.7 million to teach the American public how to talk to each
other.
They also, in that same kit, suggested that there are conversation
starters from obscure movies like ``Casablanca'' that we ought to watch
and then we all can talk about the movie, and they have spent tax
dollars in order to educate the American public so we can all talk to
each other. I think that is absurd.
I, for one, do not really think that we need the Federal Government
spending our money to tell us that we should watch ``Casablanca.'' But
I am here to tell you that the NEH folks, they have not backed off one
bit from their view that the Conversation Kit represents the best use
of the NEH dollars.
Consider some of the other ways that the NEH has spent our tax
dollars. They spent $114,000 to Catholic University to support the
preparation of a database for indexes for Gregorian chants. They spent
$135,000 for 24 college teachers to travel to a summer institute to
chat about sex and gender in the Middle Ages.
They spent $201,000 for Laurie Conlevit of Filmmakers Collaborative
for a feature length documentary of the life and world of the 18th
century midwife, Martha Ballard. They gave $400,000 to Doran H. Ross at
UCLA for something called the ``Art of Being Cuna,'' which is an
expressive culture of some islands in Panama.
Now, many of these projects I am sure, are nice to do if we have got
the money to do it. I would argue that at a time when we are serious
about finally balancing the Federal budget, that we should not be
spending hard-earned taxpayers' dollars on the NEH at this point. These
types of programs, if they are going to be funded, should be funded
privately through philanthropy, not Federal tax dollars.
But the problem is not just that the NEH wastes tax dollars; it also
breeds arrogance in the culture bureaucrats who sneer at the citizens
who pay the freight. I recently received a letter from the chief NEH
functionary in Ohio who asserted, and this is his exact language, ``If
there were no NEH, the public intellectual life of Ohio would shrink
considerably.''
I have little doubt that he actually believes that and, perhaps, in
his limited circle the intellectual climate is indeed that errant. But
the intellectual life of Ohio is strong, it is vibrant and, I might
add, that it predates 1965, when the NEH was formed. We got along just
fine before Federal tax dollars started being spent for this back in
1965.
{time} 2130

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I know a very good way that we can save the
$9.5 million in the next fiscal year, and that is to defund the NEH.
Even the most distinguished former chairman of the NEH, Lynn Cheney,
has concluded that the NEH does more harm than good and should be
eliminated. I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, again, I want to emphasize something very strongly, and
that is that I am not against the arts, and neither are any of my
colleagues who are in favor of defunding the NEH. What we are in favor
of is finally balancing the Federal budget.
I have people in my district, mothers and fathers who work two jobs
to pay their taxes, and they are willing to make some sacrifices. I
would argue very strongly that if we are serious about balancing the
budget, things like the NEA and the NEH should be supported by private
dollars, not by our Federal tax dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] is recognized
for 10 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, NEH and the National Endowment for the Humanities is a
unique organization. It fosters democracy in this country; it fosters
all of the elements of democracy in this country. Every year the
National Endowment for the Humanities enables over 3,200 teachers from
all over the country to participate in teacher institutes and summer
seminars that help them improve their teaching. What do they teach?
These are the teachers who teach history, languages, philosophy,
ethics, religion, literature, arts. In other words, the very foundation
of a democracy.
This organization as well is currently engaged in preserving all of
the old books that are disintegrating with time. The NEH's Brittle
Books Program has already preserved almost three-quarters of a million
volumes.
NEH is an outstanding organization of approximately 100,000 grants
that have been made since 1965 when the organization was created
without a breath of scandal.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I see some of my old and dear friends
discussing an issue that I discussed, which was this issue as well as
the National Endowment for the Arts, shortly after I first came to
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Chabot's amendment.
The Appropriations Committee has done a good thing in this bill by
reducing the appropriation for the National Endowment for the
Humanities with

[[Page H 7056]]
the intention of completely eliminating funding in 3 years. However, I
believe that this Congress should go further.
The citizens of this country sent a strong message to this body last
November to cut both the size and scope of the Federal Government. If
we are truly serious about reducing the dangerously high level of
deficit spending, we must have the courage to cut from the Federal
budget anything that is not absolutely necessary for the Federal
Government to do.
When I first ran for Congress in 1988, I campaigned in support of
eliminating unnecessary Federal programs such as the National Endowment
for the Humanities, the National Endowment of the Arts and the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The National Endowment for the
Humanities, which was begun 30 years ago with a $5.5 million
appropriation, has exploded into an agency which consumed $177 million
of Federal money in fiscal year 1995. At a time when our Government has
piled up trillions of dollars of debt and is struggling to fund
critical programs such as Medicare, housing and education, Congress
should not continue to appropriate precious taxpayer dollars to
subsidize this program.
I urge my colleagues to support the Chabot amendment to zero out
funding for the NEH. We need to show the American people we mean
business by getting the Federal debt under control. We can't leave
taxpayer-funded arts and humanities in place when we find it necessary
in the name of balancing the budget to cut programs that are much more
vital to the lives and health of needy American citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I would congratulate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Chabot] for the amendment that he has offered, his courage, his
responsibility, and sense of responsibility for offering this very
positive amendment.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, do not kill the NEH. Reflection
matters; the Nation's memory matters; publications, translations,
research, education matters; identity matters; conversation counts;
distinctions matter; history matters; the National Endowment for the
Humanities matters. It is this Nation's singular effort to expand and
foster the development and availability of these things that matter.
There are a lot of things in America that matter. You cannot see
them, but they matter, and they matter more than bridges and highways
and B-1's, as important as those are. The humanities and those things
that it expands and protects and preserves and fosters matter. Please
do not cut or eliminate the National Endowment for the Humanities. The
humanities matter.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the gentleman that many of these
programs do matter. My argument is very simple. Despite the fact they
matter. My argument is very simple. Despite the fact they matter, they
should be paid for with private dollars, basically through
philanthropy, not through Federal tax dollars. If we are serious about
balancing this budget, these are the types of programs that we are
going to have to take a very close look at. The Federal Government just
cannot afford to go on paying for these types of programs, however nice
they might be. If we are going to balance the budget, these are the
types of programs that we have to cut
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time to explain to the Members what the
program will be for the balance of the evening. The leadership on both
sides have reached an agreement to continue to debate all amendments to
Title II and close out Title II, but the votes on Title II, there is
one pending and this one I am sure will be pending and any others,
votes on Title II amendments will all be rolled over to tomorrow. So
for the Members that are interested, there will be no more votes
tonight.
The House meets on Tuesday at 10 a.m., and the order will be 1
minute; then we are going to do the rule on Treasury-Post Office, and
Treasury general debate tomorrow, and then we will return to Interior.
We will do the votes that have been rolled over from tonight. There are
approximately four or five amendments left for title II. Then we will,
of course, finish title III and complete the bill tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, this is an agreement that has been reached by
leadership on both sides, and I will say at this point two things. Any
Members who have colloquies, it would be helpful if we could do those
tonight to save time tomorrow.
Second, I would ask unanimous consent, and this is just for
information only, for myself and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Yates] to each have 5 minutes before we do the roll-over votes to just
refresh the information of all of the Members as to what votes will be
coming up, because it will be a 15-minute plus the fives.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. I think the gentleman from Montana put the case very well
regarding the fundamental need for any civilization, and certainly our
American civilization, to make some modest investment in understanding
its history, where this country has been, where our roots are, so we
can better understand where we would take the Nation in the future, as
a people, and especially the leadership here in Congress.
That is a broad abstraction. Some specifics: without the Endowment,
we will lose the record of so much of this country's past, in the form
of the Endowment's program to preserve the newspapers of America.
Without the Endowment, that program vanishes. Without the Endowment, we
will not through the private sector have the program, now funded
through the Endowment, to collect and integrate and explain the papers
of the great figures in American history. We are now in the middle of
the papers, for instance, of Benjamin Franklin.
These are critical elements in the American people's understanding of
our roots and therefore their ability to understand our potential, our
future, to guide us in making intelligent judgments about where this
country should be headed.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the distinguished chairman of the
Education and Labor Committee.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As
the authorizing committee, we did the proper thing. We orderly phased
out the program over a 3-year period so that the private sector could
pick up the very useful things that are done in this program. I might
also say that the committee's funding is below our authorized phaseout
figures.
Mr. Chairman, let me very quickly talk about some of the good things.
Ken Burns' Civil War series, Ken Burns' Baseball series, Historian
David Brion Davis' Pulitzer Prize-winning ``Slavery and Human
Progress,'' publication of the journals of Henry David Thoreau,
``Archaeological Treasures from the People's Republic of China,'' the
seven-part television series ``Columbus and the Age of Discovery,''
preservation of important Presidential papers, preservation of brittle
books, preservation of historic newspapers. All of these things are
things that are done. I think the phaseout that we have proposed from
our committee is the way to do this.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say, people got upset, as all of us did,
over some of the things that came out on history standards. It was not
the standards themselves, if you look at the standards carefully. What
came out was the booklet that went to the teachers for the teaching of
the standards. The chairman of this committee, myself, called the
chairman of that committee that wrote those teacher benefit programs
and called him on the carpet, told him to scrub them, told him that no
one asked him to write curriculum, and then we took the money away from
him to do anything else.
Mr. Chairman, I would say the phaseout that our authorizing committee
has done is the way we should go.

[[Page H 7057]]

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Tate].
Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to commend the
gentleman from Ohio for bringing this amendment forward. We have heard
a lot of talk tonight about the importance of different programs. What
it really comes down to, it might be 100 million here, 100 million
there. It adds up.
What we are really talking about is burdening our children with more
debt. There might be some great programs good ideas, things we really
need. But does my daughter have to pay for this huge debt that is
coming her way? That is what it really comes down to, the future of our
children. These may be important programs. But is it that important
that we want to fund another $100 million to put more of a debt and
more of a burden on our children. Let us do it tonight and let us end
it.
Mr. Chairman, I urge your support of the Chabot amendment.

{time} 2145

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I rise in opposition to this amendment. I am so pleased that the
House earlier defeated the Stearns amendment because I put both of
these amendments in the same category. They ignore the central fact
that the arts and humanities are important to our very existence as a
country.
The poet Shelley once wrote that the greatest force for moral good is
imagination. So when we talk about the arts and humanities, we are not
only talking about those disciplines, we are talking about what they do
to and for people, the confidence they build in our young students.
Mr. Chairman, when I go into their neighborhoods, some of the poor
neighborhoods in my district, the parents there will say, I know they
are concerned about jobs and crime, et cetera, in their neighborhoods,
but they will say, Please do not cut funding from the arts and
humanities. This gives our children hope.
They build confidence in themselves by engaging in the higher ideals
of life that they learn through the arts and the humanities. So I hope
that our colleagues will defeat this amendment, with all due respect
that I have for the author of the amendment.
I urge a no vote on this amendment.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I agree with the gentlewoman that the arts and the humanities are
very important. I agree that they certainly have a place. The argument
here, the real question is, should it be Federal tax dollars, $100
million in 1 year of Federal tax dollars to go to the National
Endowment for the Humanities? I think not. The National Taxpayers
Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound
Economy and Americans for Tax Reform, all strongly support this
amendment to defund the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment by the gentleman from Ohio.
The committee's bill provides for a 40 percent cut and the
elimination of the NEH over 3 years. This allows for an orderly end to
Federal funding while providing the State humanities councils an
opportunity to finish existing ongoing projects, to find alternative
funding sources, or to achieve the necessary reprogramming of State
funds.
As a former chairman of the Florida Humanities Council, I know that
the NEH provides important programs in many of our districts. The NEH
is critical in providing funding and seed money for museums, libraries,
language programs and historical programs.
In Florida, the NEH was responsible for helping to replace the
library resources, books, maps and other documents ruined by hurricane
Andrew.
In spite of its laudable work, I support phasing out Federal funding
for the NEH. Like many other useful federally funded projects, the NEH
must learn to do more with less and must learn to survive without our
scarce Federal tax dollars.
I support the committee's recommendation to eliminate funding for the
NEH over a 3-year time frame. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].
(Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Chabot amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
opposition to the proposed amendment. The gentleman from Ohio asks, why
should these be federal tax dollars? The answer is that there are
projects that NEH funds that no private sector group, no corporation,
no individual could possibly fund.
The brittle books program is a good example. NEH will save 12 million
unique items, books, maps, music scores from literally crumbling. How
can a great nation shape its future if it does not have the information
through which it must understand its past?
NEH is also developing a project through which it will put the
Founding Father's papers on the computer system so that children in
public schools and libraries all over America can read George
Washington's letters and Thomas Jefferson's notebooks in their school
libraries.
This has been a privilege reserved only to those in the most elite
institutions. That is the kind of thing that NEH does. That is why it
is nationally funded, because it serves a national purpose that
addresses the needs of all of our children and adults, to understand
who we are, how we got here and to help in the great mission of shaping
America's future.
I urge opposition to the amendment.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen from Ohio has stated
over and over again, this is not a question about the humanities. It is
a question of who is going to finance the very work that we have heard
about. I hope some of you have noticed that there is something in this
country besides the government and the taxpayers. We have got
foundations. We have got universities. We have not-for-profit and for-
profit people who do things like this. Ted Turner, for example, just
worked and restored so much film that has preserved this part of our
history, not one cent of government money. But if the government as
going it, I can tell you, it would have cost a lot more money, and it
would have cost the taxpayers more.
Let us leave this up to the private sector where it can be done
without fleecing the taxpayer.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
(Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose this amendment.
We spend less than any other country in the world on the humanities. We
should continue to fund it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to vigorously oppose this
amendment, undermining the NEH which helps to spread the word of our
culture and this nation, as I did oppose the undermining of the NEA,
because that, together with the NEH, is the basis of our nation.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition in strong opposition
to

[[Page H 7058]]
this amendment that would eliminate the National Endowment for the
Humanities. As has been mentioned, we have teachers throughout the
country that have been undergoing courses to help to teach. We have had
films of the Civil War, baseball, that we have viewed that have been
funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities. It is something we
cannot afford to eliminate. It has been phased out. Let us not
terminate it now.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by Mr. Chabot to
eliminate the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH].
The NEH budget is $99.49 million. It is less than one one-hundreths
of the Federal budget and it spends 70 cents per person on the
humanities--on history, English literature, foreign languages,
sociology, anthropology, comparative religion, and other disciplines.
Remember the ``Civil War'' series by Ken Burns on public television?
I watched it after I read an editorial by noted columnist George Will,
who praised this series as one of the best productions in the history
of television. NEH's work preserved the photographs which Ken Burns
used in his award-winning series. Without this NEH support, the film
would not have been possible, because there would be no known corpus of
photographs on the Civil War.
I know that each of us in Congress can point to worthwhile projects
in our districts that are aided by NEH. In my district, the NEH funds
numerous educational projects by the Montgomery County school system.
The NEH is the primary source for study programs that help teachers
learn more about what they teach and pass it on to their students. More
than a million teachers have participated in the writing project, an
NEH-funded project that brings together teachers at the elementary and
secondary levels to develop successful approaches to teaching writing.
It is estimated that the 1,000 teachers who participate each summer in
NEH-funded summer institutes directly impact 85,000 students each year.
The National Endowment for the Humanities has already absorbed its
fair share of budget cuts. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Chabot
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] has 1 minute
remaining, and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Doolittle].
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the
gentleman's amendment. Regardless of what one thinks about the record
of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the controversial
programs, the fact of the matter is, with a $4.7 trillion national
debt, we cannot afford as a country to be borrowing money for the
purpose of entertainment. It is totally inappropriate. It is time to
balance the budget. Let the cutting start here. Vote for the Chabot
amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
(Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
notwithstanding my deep respect for the author of the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. Some critics think the National Endowment for the Humanities
only presents one point of view. Clearly, that is not accurate. The NEH
has expanded educational opportunities in many traditional and
nontraditional ways. As one speaker alluded to, sometimes that
education does take the form of entertainment, such as when the Civil
War series was on television, people enjoyed it as entertainment. They
also enjoyed it as education. The NEH also does something that the
private sector cannot do, and that is present our history and our
culture through the brittle books program.
Try to imagine that the private sector could microfilm hundreds of
thousands of volumes. There is just not an incentive in it. Yet if
these books are destroyed through time we are going to lose that part
of our history, that part of our culture.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. Support responsible
funding for the humanities.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] is recognized for
30 seconds.
Mr. CHABOT. I think what the gentleman from California said is the
bottom line. We have got almost a $5 trillion debt. These dollars that
are going to go to the National Endowment for the Humanities are being
borrowed. They are being borrowed from American taxpayers all across
this country, and we just do not have the money.
If we are serious about balancing the budget, these are the types of
cuts that have to be made. This is the type of vote where we determine
who is really serious about balancing the budget and who is not. That
is the type of vote that this particular amendment says.
I strongly support this amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to thank all the Members who spoke tonight. This has been a
very bipartisan debate. Our committee operates on a very bipartisan
way. We have cut back the National Endowment for the Humanities much
deeper than I would like to see by about $40 million.
This amendment would eliminate it. The agreement here, as the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] pointed
out, is to phase these things out over several years.
To come in here tonight and offer this meat-ax approach to end this
thing abruptly like this is unfair to the scholars all over this
country who do so much for the humanities.
This is an important program. It has been able to leverage all kinds
of private investment in projects where scholars come from the public
sector and work with people in the private sector.
I urge Members to be almost unanimous, I hope, tonight in opposition
to this ill-considered amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment being
offered by the gentleman from Ohio, to strike all funding in the bill
for the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH]. I believe that
this is a highly irresponsible amendment which goes against the
national interest.
The National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] is one of our most
significant cultural institutions, and I believe has the strong support
of the American people. Grants provided by the NEH greatly enhance
scholarly research, education, and public programs in the Humanities.
The NEH supports literature, history, preservation of the works of
classic scholars, archaeology, philosophy, comparative religion,
linguistics, and aspects of the social sciences with humanistic
content. The Endowment helps ensure that we pass the cultural torch
from generation to generation.
In fiscal year 1994 alone, the NEH: Supported 70 hours of radio and
television, reaching an audience of 244 million people; enabled 3,273
teachers from all over the country to participate in teacher
institutes, summer seminars, and study grants, offering these teachers
access to the best experts in their discipline;
500 scholars received scholarships or stipends to conduct research as
a result of NEH efforts.

In the course of its existence, the NEH has put forward a brittle
books project, which has enabled over 628,000 volumes to be microfilmed
so that their content was not forever lost, and its national heritage
program has stabilized and preserved over 26 million archaeological,
ethnographic, and historical objects of importance to our cultural
heritage.
The NEH is a strong investment in preserving our national heritage.
By supporting such projects as the papers of George Washington,
Frederick Douglass, and Mark Twain, the NEH helps keep our historical
record intact for new generations of Americans. NEH is the primary
funding source for these complex research undertakings, which often
require a team of scholars.
The NEH strengthens our communities. A strong community requires a
sense of its history and traditions. The NEH and State humanities
councils make grants that engage Americans where they live and work. In
1992, more than 6 million Americans participated in reading-and-
discussion groups and other local educational programs through State
councils alone.
The evidence demonstrates that the NEH is a good economic investment.
The cost for the

[[Page H 7059]]
endowment to each citizen is only 68 cents a year. It is one one-
hundredth of 1 percent of the Federal budget. The NEH also leverages
private giving. Many NEH grants require from $1 to $4 in non-Federal
money for every NEH dollar. Since the Agency's inception, these grants
have attracted $1 billion in private funds in challenge grants alone,
and $400 million in other matching programs.
I believe that it is also important to point out that the National
Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] also stimulates local economies. In
the home State of the gentleman offering this amendment, ``The Age of
Rubens'' exhibition in Toledo, OH, broke attendance records during 1994
and was credited with pumping $22.8 million into the local economy.
Visits to Virginia's Civil War attractions jumped from 7,000 to 45,000
in the month following the airing of ``The Civil War.''
Let us continue the National Endowment for the Humanities. I urge my
colleagues to reject the amendment.
Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge opposition to the
Chabot amendment that will eliminate all funding for the National
Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
Unlike many Federal Government programs, NEH serves as one of
America's sound investments. Only careful attention to the various
cultures and religions that form this wondrous melting pot can ensure
our Nation's future success. NEH embodies Government's commitment to
the preservation of America's diverse, beautiful, and often fragile
culture.
Do not misunderstand, I supported the budget proposal to phase out
funding for NEH and I support the principles of privatization; however,
when dealing with matters of such importance, time and careful planning
are necessities. Passage of this amendment would amount to a hurried
mistake.
As a representative of a Congressional District rich in diversity, I
have utmost appreciation for the education made possible through the
existence of NEH. Few institutions provide the means by which tolerance
can be achieved.
Through NEH, we have also preserved history--both good and bad. Some
Members of Congress oppose the NEH because of this. Those Members
believe that painful history is best forgotten. I do not agree with
this philosophy. It has been said time and time again, and I hesitate
to repeat it--but history does repeat itself and societies can learn
from their mistakes.
Many also believe that the discussion of the humanities is one that
only effects the elite of this country. Again, I disagree. In fact, the
NEH is what ensures us that all Americans can have access to the vast
knowledge found in the humanities. By eliminating NEH immediately,
Congress would risk depriving citizens of exemplary education programs
and literary works of art, where we have already provided for a
reasonable transition.
Since our Founding Fathers, the United States Government has been
involved in promoting the knowledge of all that is included in the
Humanities. I must believe that Thomas Jefferson, if he could speak to
us today, would defend that the pursuit of happiness lies not only in
the marketplace, but more importantly in education--namely the arts,
philosophy, literature and history.
I truly believe that our purpose here in the House of Representatives
is one of careful deliberation--not one of rash decision making. We
have already taken well intentioned steps towards the privatization of
NEH, steps which I applaud. We are moving towards a balanced budget and
are rethinking and addressing problems previously ignored. Must we dare
to push our limits and risk responsibility?
Please ask yourselves, are we willing to jeopardize past brilliance
and future intellectual progress? Are we willing to stifle all that
makes America rich? Are we willing to distort the purpose of our
Founders? I am not.
And because I am not, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment
and to allow the NEH the time in which to plan an orderly transition to
privatization. Some investments are simply too grand.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my
strong opposition to an amendment offered by Representative Chabot
which would eliminate funding for the National Endowment for
Humanities. As presented, the Interior Appropriations Bill cuts the NEH
budget nearly in half; a cut which I believe will devastate many
existing educational programs nationwide. As the only voice for South
Dakota in the House of Representatives, I must speak out against the
outright elimination of programs which help the people of my State
preserve the rich and unique cultural heritage of South Dakota and the
surrounding great plains States.
NEH programs exemplify the types of public-private partnerships that
have traditionally fostered a collective dedication to cultural and
historical education. The NEH gives State humanities councils the
necessary freedoms to meet local educational needs. In the last 5
years, institutions in South Dakota have received $2.7 million from the
NEH and the South Dakota Humanities Council for library programs and
exhibits, literary publications, and cultural heritage visitor centers.
In one example, more than 49,000 visitors have seen Proving Up: The
History of South Dakota, a long-term exhibition sponsored by the South
Dakota State Heritage Fund, and a recipient of more than $200,000 in
support funds from the NEH. In just the first 3 months of the
exhibition, attendance at the Cultural Heritage Center in Pierre
increased by 49 percent.
Additionally, because of money provided by the NEH, A Literary
History of the American West, considered the standard reference work in
the field since its publication in 1987, will be updated through a
$71,000 grant to Augustana College in Sioux Falls. The supplement will
include such authors as Tony Hillerman, Willa Cather, and John
Steinbeck. These and countless other worthy public education programs
will disappear in my rural state, and the creativity behind this type
of education programming will be thwarted if the Chabot amendment
becomes law.
In the face of severe cuts to the Institute for Museum Services, the
only other Federal funding mechanism specifically chartered to work
with States in recording, preserving and educating our children on the
American experience, we cannot stand by and allow the complete
elimination of the programs vital to public education that are funded
through the National Endowment for Humanities.
Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to
the Chabot amendment to eliminate the National Endowment for the
Humanities. Mr. Chabot's amendment is an unwarranted attack on an
institution that has done nothing more than effectively promote the
progress of the humanities in the United States.
The National Endowment for the Humanities is the single largest
source of support for the humanities. While humanities activities in
our Nation would still exist without the NEH, they would no longer be
accessible to the entire country. They would in all likelihood be
reserved only for the rich who could afford them. What would the
constituents of our districts say when there is no NEH to support
museums or libraries or to preserve historical documents; when there is
no longer an NEH to teach generations to come about history, literature
and philosophy, about who we are as Americans? Because of the NEH, in
fiscal year 1994, 3,273 teachers from all over the country were able to
participate in teacher institutions, summer seminars, and study grants,
offering these teachers access to the best experts in their discipline.
Roughly 500,000 students benefited from these teacher programs.
We must not neglect the value of the NEH to our Nation's children.
Children who are exposed to the humanities learn to foster a dialog
between themselves and the voices of writers, the visions of artists,
and the thoughts of historians and philosophers. It is an argument that
should begin in school and continue throughout life.
If Mr. Chabot's amendment were to pass, thousands of valuable
programs across the country would be destroyed. Yet Mr. Chabot is
assaulting the NEH based on a project that was designed to bring all
Americans together--left, right, center; black, white, Hispanic--to
evaluate what they share as Americans. To realize that despite their
differences, what they have in common is America. ``National
Conversation,'' which is just one of the thousands of the NEH's
valuable programs, was formed out of Chairman Hackney's concern that we
in this country spend too much time focussing on what divides us rather
than what we have in common.
A major portion of the NEH's funding for the humanities each year is
awarded to projects that document and illuminate the American
experience--this is of course the great experiment in democracy and
freedom that is our Nation's history and legacy. I urge my colleagues
to do a service to the children in their districts by saving this
irreplaceable cultural institution. Vote no on this devastating
amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. You'd think that the
opponents of the arts and humanities would be satisfied with a 40-
percent cut next year and a 2-year phase-out of the National Endowment
for the Arts--but it is very clear that their vendetta against these
programs knows no bounds.
All over America, artists, musicians, orchestras, dance companies,
theaters, and public schools rely on the National Endowment for the
Arts for essential support. Their work has enriched our communities and
our quality of life. But this amendment will pull the rug out from
under many of these organizations and damage our cultural heritage.
The argument that the programs supported by the NEA would survive--or
even flourish--in the marketplace is dubious. According to the
president of the J. Paul Getty Trust, foundations would have to raise
an $8 billion endowment in order to generate a reliable

[[Page H 7060]]
stream of money to replace Federal funding for the NEA, NEH, and the
Institute of Museum Services. And, given the massive cuts in education
and social services my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
pushing, foundation giving will be under even greater stress than
usual.
The total budget for the NEA costs each of us about the same price of
a candy bar. In fact, the total cost of the National Endowment for the
Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting is still less than the cost of one B-1 bomber.
Eliminating the NEA is a classic case of being penny-wise and pound-
foolish. For every $1 the NEA spends, it generates more than 11 times
that in private donations and economic activity. This has a huge
economic and cultural impact on our society.
We did not abolish the Department of Defense because of $400 toilet
seats, we did not abolish the U.S. Navy because of the Tailhook
scandal, and we certainly should not abolish the NEA because a small
fraction of projects a few years ago were controversial. It's simply
absurd.
Defeat this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on this
motion will be postponed.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Interior, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
I understand that the committee's allocation made it impossible to
provide full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
acquisition request received by the committee. I also understand the
committee has recommended $14.6 million for the Forest Service budget
to be allocated by the Forest Service for emergency and hardship
acquisitions.
As you know, the Los Padres National Forest has worked extensively
with private land owners and others to protect the land along the
world-renowned Big Sur coast through Federal acquisitions from willing
sellers. This has been an ongoing effort and has saved thousands of
acres of the Big Sur landscape from development.
Mr. Chairman, would the committee's instructions to the Forest
Service regarding its emergency and hardship use of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund appropriations in FY 1995 allow the continuation of
the Big Sur project?

2200

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that certain funds
will be available in this bill for emergency land acquisitions, and I
have to emphasize ``emergency.'' These acquisitions could possibly
include the area mentioned in the gentleman's opening statement that
involves Big Sur. The determination would have to be made by the Forest
Service as to whether this truly constituted an emergency. The Forest
Service then would have to submit a request to the committee, the
Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations in both the
Senate and the House for approval as provided in the emergency land
acquisition legislation in the bill.
Mr. FARR. In response to the question, then, Mr. Chairman, it may be
eligible for those funds?
Mr. REGULA. Certainly if it is a high priority, as I understand it,
in the Forest Service, then it is very possible that they would feel
that the circumstances surrounding this purchase qualified as an
emergency, and it is possible they could bring that to the appropriate
subcommittees for approval. However, as I said earlier, the budget has
a moratorium on land acquisition. We did not provide any earmarks on
land acquisition, recognizing that these are not imperative, but we
also recognize there will be emergency opportunities that should be
exercised in land acquisition for a variety of reasons. I think each
project will have to stand on its own merits as to whether it qualifies
under the emergency conditions.
Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman. I understand that continuing for
emergency and hardship use that these lands may qualify.
amendment offered by Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. 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. Fox of Pennsylvania: Page 56, line
3, strike ``$552,871,600'' and insert ``$602,871,000''.
Page 56, line 10, strike ``$133,946,000'' and insert
``$183,946,000''.
Page 56, line 17, strike ``$107,466,000'' and insert
``$157,446,000''.
Page 58, line 12, strike ``$79,766,000'' and insert
``$29,766,000''.

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment be modified.
The CHAIRMAN. Has the gentleman submitted a modification?
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Only orally at this time, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must have it in writing. Would the
gentleman care to withdraw his amendment at this time so he can prepare
it?
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment
in order to prepare a written amendment in conformance with the change
which was effectuated because of the Skaggs amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The modification has to be in writing at the desk. Has
the gentleman withdrawn his amendment?
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk which is subject to the rule, because the gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. Skaggs], had a $3.5 million increase in weatherization. We are
trying to have a $50 million increase. Now I am trying to make an
amendment which would be $50 million from EIA, but would go to the
State energy conservation program.

point of order

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the
amendment.
However, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will withdraw his amendment,
I will withdraw the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. At this point the gentleman's amendment is at the desk,
but the modification has to be in writing. That is why the Chair asks
if the gentleman wishes to withdraw it.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment, and I
will file a corrected amendment in writing.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

amendment offered by mr. tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT. 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. Tiahrt: Page 56, line 3, strike
``$552,871,000'' and insert ``$364,066,000''.

point of order

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order because the
amendment seeks to amend a paragraph previously amended. In the
procedures of the U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 27, section
27.1, it states the following:

It is fundamental that it is not in order to amend an
amendment previously agreed to * * *. Thus the text of a bill
perfected by amendment cannot thereafter be amended.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to amend text previously amended,
and therefore is not in order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] wish to be
heard on this point of order?
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kansas?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have to object to that.

[[Page H 7061]]

The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Does the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] wish to comment on the
point of order?
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I was merely trying to present an
opportunity for us to discuss an issue regarding the Committee on
Science's level of authorization in the area of energy conservation.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks]
the adoption of the Skaggs amendment precludes the offering of this
amendment printed in the Record under the Chair's rulings of March 15
and March 16 of this year and earlier rulings today. The point of order
is sustained.
Are there further amendments to title II?
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word to proceed to a colloquy with the chairman of the Committee on
Science.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman of the
subcommittee a question about section 315 of the bill, which provides
for a pilot user fee program to demonstrate the feasibility of user
fees to recover some of the costs of proper management of public lands.
I support this, especially in connection with the Mt. Evans area in
Colorado. There the State has been working with the forest Service to
try to reach an agreement for sharing some of the management
responsibilities there, including fee collection. The Forest Service
has identified this area as one where a fee would be appropriate, but
they were uncertain whether they could move forward with the State for
a couple of reasons; first because the facilities there have been
constructed with HUTF money; and second, because the Forest Service was
no sure that it had the authority.
As I read section 315 of this bill, both of these points would be
resolved,because that section provides that the forest Service in fact
could implement such a pilot program on lands under their jurisdiction,
and could contract with any public or private entity to provide visitor
services, such as the State of Colorado.
Mr. Chairman, would the chairman of the committee agree with me that
enactment of section 315 should resolve these matters so the Forest
Service could designate an area such as the Mt. Evans area in Colorado
as one of the sites for one of these fee demonstration projects, and
could contract with the State for the provision of visitor services?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Colorado,
a member of the committee, this is exactly the type of situation or
provision that we put in which the subcommittee bill is intended to
address. The Forest Service could, if they chose, designate Mt. Evans
as one of the sites for collection of fees, and could contract with the
State of Colorado, or any other private or public entity, for the
provision of visitor services. I would hope that this will happen many
places. That is the goal of this provision in the bill, is to allow
flexibility in the services to contract, privatize, to provide in the
most efficient way services to the visitors.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and
thank him also for including this provision in the bill, which I think
will make a great deal of difference as we especially deal with some of
these difficult budget constraints.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Regula] agreeing to take a few questions regarding the fate of the
coast of eastern North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding
that there are really two separate groups of leases off the coast of
North Carolina. One is called the Manteo Unit, the large natural gas
prospect covering 21 leases in a contiguous area, while the remaining
leases are a series of 32 individual leases which are widely scattered.
Is that correct?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, the Manteo Unit is the only prospect in
which industry has expressed any interest, is that the gentleman's
understanding?
Mr. REGULA. That is correct, that is my understanding.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, does the repeal of the Outer Banks
Protection Act have any effect on the status of the Manteo Unit?
Mr. REGULA. No, the Manteo Unit is no longer protected under that
provision of law.
Mr. JONES. Therefore, the repeal of the Outer Banks Protection Act
does nothing to change the status of the area most likely to be
drilled?
Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is absolutely correct. This is merely a
housekeeping provision which corrects a technicality which
inadvertently has kept these other leases under suspension.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, the repeal of the Outer Banks Protection Act
will allow the remaining leases, which are extremely unlikely to be
drilled, to expire over the next couple of years, I would ask the
gentleman?
Mr. REGULA. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. JONES. Unless this provision is repealed, these leases will
remain under suspension indefinitely, and at some point could be open
for exploration and drilling?
Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, he is correct.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, therefore it is clearly in the interests of
the coasts of eastern North Carolina to allow these leases to be
removed from suspension so they can be allowed to run their course?
Mr. REGULA. I believe that to be the case, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, can he assure me
that a vote for this bill will in no way undermine the position of
those who are opposed to the exploration of the so-called Manteo Unit?
Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, let me
emphasize that this bill in no way affects the disposition of the
Manteo Unit.
Mr. JONES. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.

amendment offered by mr. fox of pennsylvania

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment,
amendment No. 5.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania:
Page 56, line 3, strike ``$552,871,000'' and insert
``$602,871,000''.
Page 56, line 10, strike ``$133,946,000'' and insert
``$183,946,000''.
Page 56, line 17, strike ``$107,466,000'' and insert
``$157,446,000''.
Page 58, line 12, strike ``$79,766,000'' and insert
``$29,766,000.
point of order

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment, because it seeks to amend a paragraph previously
amended.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] wish to
be heard on the point of order?
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as amended, in fact does add $50
million under technical and financial assistance to the State energy
conservation programs which are so vital to each of our States, and it
takes the $50 million from the Energy Information Administration.
Previously, Mr. Chairman, we may recall there was an amendment offered
by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] which added $3.5 million to
the weatherization program, but this is not the weatherization program.
Therefore, I believe it is in order, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page H 7062]]

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reserving my point of order, I renew it,
because in the procedures of the United States House of
Representatives, chapter 27, section 27.1, it states the following:
``It is fundamental that it is not in order to amend an amendment
previously agreed to. Thus, the text of a bill perfected by amendment
cannot thereafter be amended.''
Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to amend text previously amended,
and is therefore not in order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the point of order offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for the following reason. Originally
what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] had intended to do was
to put the money into the weatherization program. That is what we all
wanted to do. However, in fact, because the gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. Skaggs] placed $3.5 million more into that program, the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Regula] made a point of order that any more money going
into that program would be out of order.
What the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is doing is attempting
to put $50 million into a fund for the State Energy Conservation
Program, which has not been amended. So I would argue very strongly
that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is incorrect that this is a
fund that has not been amended, and that the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is in fact in order.
parliamentary inquiry

Mr. DICKS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. DICKS. Is it not true that under the rule, Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman would have to ask unanimous consent in order to change the
amendment that he had printed in the Record?
The CHAIRMAN. Once the printed amendment is pending, the gentleman is
correct.
Mr. DICKS. Therefore, in order to do this, he would have to ask for
unanimous consent?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. DICKS. I do not think he has yet asked for unanimous consent.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the modification be accepted.
Mr. REGULA. I object, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] may only
offer an amendment as printed in the Record. Once it is pending, but
only then, he may ask unanimous consent to modify the printed
amendment. For the reason stated by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Regula], the adoption of the Skaggs amendment precludes the offering of
this amendment as printed in the Record under the Chair's rulings of
March 15, and 16 of this year and the previous rulings of today. The
point of order is sustained.
parliamentary inquiry

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the amendment
which I had asked for through unanimous consent, did not alter, as we
know, originally I was trying to add $50 million to weatherization,
which, because the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] was successful
in having a prior amendment, which I could not have known would be
adopted, I could not have it preprinted, not knowing the flow of events
in the House this evening.
Therefore, I did all which was reasonably calculated to a reasonable
man, Mr. Chairman, to have made an amendment on the floor, along with
the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. Chairman, I was hoping maybe the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Regula], the esteemed chairman, would in a bright moment think how
wonderful it would be to at least hear this amendment and not have an
objection in order.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am very aware of what the amendment was
going to do, without hearing any further conversation. I might add that
even with the modification, which I objected to, but even with it, it
would still have been subject to a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has ruled.
Are there other amendments to title II?

____________________