[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 116 (Tuesday, July 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7102-H7135]
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}  1222


                     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. Burton in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Monday, 
July 17, 1995, title III was open for amendment at any point.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word, in order that I may address the House to explain the vote 
situation.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, there are two votes pending at this point 
that were rolled over from title II last night. The first will be a 
vote on the question of a sale of 7 million barrels of oil from Weeks 
Island in order to pay for the cost of moving the balance of the oil 
from Weeks Island to another location in SPR. Presently, Weeks Island 
is leaking and the oil has to be moved.
  There is an amendment pending that would eliminate the language that 
allows the sale of the 7 million barrels to provide the necessary funds 
to move the oil and make whatever repairs would be required on the 
balance of SPR.
  The second amendment, Mr. Chairman is an amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] that would eliminate the funding for 
the National Endowment for the Humanities. Those would be the two 
amendments that will be before us. The first will be the amendment of 
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] on the Weeks Island issue; 
the second will be on the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Chabot] to defund NEH.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I have a very short comment. These both 
were debated last night in full, and I recognize the work the chairman 
has put in on this particular piece of legislation. We just disagree on 
this point.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask, am I understanding this correctly, that 
both of these amendments will have recorded votes? May I ask if both of 
these amendments have recorded votes?
  The CHAIRMAN. The requests for recorded votes are pending from last 
night.
  Mr. REGULA. That is correct. The plan would be a recorded vote on 
both, probably 15 minutes on the first, and 5 minutes on the second. 
Would that be correct, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The votes have not yet been ordered, but the Chair will 
put that question shortly.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, there would then be a 15-minute vote on 

[[Page H 7103]]
  Weeks Island and a 5-minute vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
  The CHAIRMAN. That is the intention of the Chair.
  Mr. REGULA. If they are ordered, yes.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I intend to move that a quorum is not 
present, if indeed it is not ordered.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman explained, there are two 
votes pending on the Department of the Interior appropriation bill. The 
first, of course, is on the amendment by the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Schaefer] respecting Weeks Island; to strike the provision which 
allows the Secretary of Energy to sell on a one-time basis 7 million 
barrels of oil from storage at Weeks Island, LA.
  The amount to be sold is less than 1 day of oil imports. It is only a 
little more than 1 percent of the total reserve. If the oil is not 
sold, this bill will be over its 602(b) allocation, and in conference, 
$100 million more would have to be covered out of a bill that is 
already very, very tight. This would place Park Service in jeopardy, 
Indian health in jeopardy, and place revenue-producing programs in 
jeopardy.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, if the Department of Energy is unable to 
attend to the problems at Weeks Island, we are going to be faced with 
the distinct possibility of an oil spill of far greater magnitude than 
the Exxon Valdez.
  The second amendment we will be voting on is the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] to eliminate all funding for the 
National Endowment for the Humanities.

                              {time}  1230

  His amendment does not accord with either the authorizing committee 
or the appropriations committee.
  As I indicated last night, Mr. Chairman, the National Endowment for 
the Humanities is a unique organization. It is an organization that 
promotes the essence, the elements of democracy in our country. To my 
mind it is one of the must powerful educational forces we have in this 
country. The NEH helps teachers obtain the tools with which they can 
better transmit their subjects to more pupils.
  The National Endowment for the Humanities has already been cut much 
too much in my opinion. It has been cut from an appropriation of $172 
million to $99.5 million, 42 percent cut. I think that both amendments 
should be defeated.


         sequential votes postponed in communittee of the whole
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, 
in the following order: Amendment No. 41 offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer]; amendment No. 11 offered by the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                amendment no. 41 offered by mr. schaefer

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on amendment No. 41 offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Schaefer] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by division vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 41 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''.
                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 15-minute vote, to be followed by a possible 
5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157, 
noes 267, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 517]

                               AYES--157

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coburn
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Edwards
     Engel
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gordon
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Largent
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Mink
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Quinn
     Roberts
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Salmon
     Schaefer
     Scott
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--267

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunn
     Buyer
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kim
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Packard
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Studds
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Flake
     Johnson (SD)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     
[[Page H 7104]]


                              {time}  1256

  Mrs. CUBIN, Messrs. KIM, WISE, JOHNSTON of Florida, CHRYSLER, ZELIFF, 
COBLE, TATE, CRANE, PAYNE of New Jersey, GONZALEZ, SMITH of Texas, 
INGLIS of South Carolina, LaHOOD, and GUTIERREZ changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. MENENDEZ, GEJDENSON, KING, KLECZKA, CRAMER, SCOTT, HERGER, 
ENGEL, NADLER, SALMON, KENNEDY of Massachusetts, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Ms. 
SLAUGHTER 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. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the 
House that I inadvertently missed two votes, rollcall Nos. 516 and 517, 
earlier today due to a malfunction in the House electronic pager 
system. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' in each instance.
                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the next amendment eliminate all 
funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities, after the 
committee cut it by 40 percent?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has not stated a proper parliamentary 
inquiry.


                 amendment no. 11 offered by mr. chabot

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on amendment No. 11 offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Chabot] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
``noes'' prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Chabot:
       Page 73, strike line 16 and all that follows through page 
     74, line 15.


                             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 148, 
noes 277, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 518]

                               AYES--148

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     King
     Kingston
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--277

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Collins (MI)
     Dornan
     Flake
     Kennedy (RI)
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz

                              {time}  1305

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title III?


                     amendment offered by mr. olver

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 70.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Olver:

                            Amendment No. 70

       At the end of the bill add the following new section:
       ``Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Energy in implementing the Codes 
     and Standards Program to plan, propose, issue, or prescribe 
     any new or amended standard--
       ``(1) when it is made known to the Federal official having 
     authority to obligate or expend such funds that the Attorney 
     General, in accordance with section 325(o)(2)(B) of the 
     Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)), 
     determined that the standard is likely to cause significant 
     anti-competitive effects;
       ``(2) that the Secretary of Energy, in accordance with such 
     section 325(o)(2)(B), has determined that the benefits of the 
     standard do not exceed its burdens; or
       ``(3) that is for fluorescent lamps ballasts.''.


                             point of order

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. WALKER. At this point in the bill, the amendment is not raised 
timely. It has to come at the end of this title rather than in the 
middle of the title.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts wish to be heard 
on the point of order?

[[Page H 7105]]

  Mr. OLVER. I accept the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Until the Clerk reads the last two lines of the bill, 
limitation amendments are not in order where that point is raised.
  Are there amendments to title III?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purposes of entering into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of 
the committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Interior appropriations subcommittee for engaging in 
this colloquy with me. All of us in the Congress are faced, as we know, 
with tough fiscal choices this year. There is nobody who has faced that 
any more than the chairman of the Interior appropriations subcommittee, 
as he has tried to deal with the difficult decisions in this area.
  I rise, however, this afternoon to caution the chairman that some of 
the cuts that are being proposed may actually have negative 
consequences of costing us more than we intended to save. The bill 
before us does not specify exactly where the money cut from the 
National Biological Survey is to be taken. However, without specific 
guidance or direction as to where those cuts should be made, I fear 
that cuts will be based on some formula that focuses more heavily on 
meeting the internal agenda of the Department of the Interior rather 
than on focusing on more broadly what is best for our Nation as a 
whole.
  In fact, this is already illustrated by a recent decision by the 
Department of the Interior to issue a list outlining labs currently 
under the jurisdiction of the National Biological Survey that would be 
closed. One lab slated for closure is the national fisheries lab within 
the Upper Mississippi Science Center in LaCrosse, WI. I have a letter I 
would like to insert from Secretary Babbitt at this point in the Record 
that articulates this.
  The Upper Mississippi Science Center is a one-of-a-kind research 
facility. The work this facility performs is unique and essential to 
the Nation.
  Under a contract with 40 different States, the center conducts 
research which is necessary for registering chemicals and drugs used in 
aquaculture and marine fisheries. This center is the only research 
institute in the country with the facilities, personnel, experience, 
and laboratory practices for the development of information necessary 
to drug and chemical registration processes.
  I am convinced that without an adequate and diverse supply of these 
chemical and drug products, public safety would obviously be 
compromised, especially with consumption of seafood products, as that 
continues to increase. Currently, we inspect seafood products using a 
system that is both risk-based and science-based. Loss of the national 
fisheries lab would threaten the supply of products that helps to 
minimize these risks. Loss of this lab would undoubtedly force us to 
reinvest greater funding in seafood inspection activities, since a 
system that is risk-based increases the size and scope in direct 
proportion with the risk it attempts to curtail.
  I would assure the distinguished chairman that my subcommittee, the 
committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, 
will be proceeding with legislative reform of our Nation's meat, 
poultry, and seafood inspection systems.
  If we cut at this time funding to the National Biological Survey for 
this particular lab without providing specific guidance on where the 
money should be taken from, it would put this entire process in 
jeopardy and we would simply have to recreate that inspection and that 
scientific research process later on.
  Therefore, I would request that the chairman would take the necessary 
actions to ensure that we can reach our combined legislative objectives 
without forcing us to actually raise the budget deficit.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Livestock, 
Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee for his remarks. I especially 
appreciate his acknowledgement of and support for the deficit reduction 
activities that my subcommittee is engaged in.
  I do not envy the task ahead of the distinguished chairman as he 
takes up legislation to reform our Nation's systems of meat, poultry, 
and seafood inspection.
  I recognize the fact that any cuts to the Upper Mississippi Science 
Center put you in a precarious position of having to potentially 
develop a more intense and costly system of seafood inspection.
  Certainly, maintaining the safest, most abundant, highest quality, 
and most affordable food supply on the planet is in the best interest 
of all Americans.
  I would like to assure the gentleman that while this bill reduces 
funding by over $60 million for biological research programs, and 
transfers programs to a research arm within the U.S. Geological Survey, 
nothing in this bill specifically requires where specific cuts should 
be made. Those decisions will be made on a priority basis solely within 
the Department of the Interior.
  Towards that end, I would encourage the Secretary of the Interior to 
proceed cautiously in determining what the highest priority research 
needs are for lands administered by the Department of the Interior, 
making those decisions on the basis of national priorities.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and would hope 
that the Department of the Interior would recognize that the decisions 
we make here in the National Biological Survey in no way are meant to 
direct specific decisions regarding specific labs.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
                     amendment offered by mr. owens

  Mr. OWENS. 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. Owens: Page 94, after line 23, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 318. (a) Reservation of Royalty.--Production of all 
     locatable minerals from any mining claim located under the 
     general mining laws, or mineral concentrates or products 
     derived from locatable minerals from any mining claim located 
     under the general mining laws, as the case may be, shall be 
     subject to a royalty of 8 percent of the gross income from 
     such production. The claimholder and any operator to whom the 
     claimholder has assigned the obligation to make royalty 
     payments under the claim and any person who controls such 
     claimholder or operator shall be jointly and severally liable 
     for payment of such royalties.
       (b) Duties of Claim Holders, Operators, and Transporters.--
     (1) A person--
       (A) who is required to make any royalty payment under this 
     section shall make such payments to the United States at such 
     times and in such manner as the Secretary may by rule 
     prescribe; and
       (B) shall notify the Secretary, in the time and manner as 
     may be specified by the Secretary, of any assignment that 
     such person may have made of the obligation to make any 
     royalty or other payment under a mining claim.
       (2) Any person paying royalties under this section shall 
     file a written instrument, together with the first royalty 
     payment, affirming that such person is liable to the 
     Secretary for making proper payments for all amounts due for 
     all time periods for which such person as a payment 
     responsibility. Such liability for the period referred to in 
     the preceding sentence shall include any and all additional 
     amounts billed by the Secretary and determined to be due by 
     final agency or judicial action. Any person liable for 
     royalty payments under this section who assigns any payment 
     obligation shall remain jointly and severally liable for all 
     royalty payments due for the claim for the period.
       (3) A person conducting mineral activities shall--
       (A) develop and comply with the site security provisions in 
     operations permit designed to protect from theft the 
     locatable minerals, concentrates or products derived 
     therefrom which are produced or stored on a mining claim, and 
     such provisions shall conform with such minimum standards as 
     the Secretary may prescribe by rule, taking into account the 
     variety of circumstances on mining claims; and
       (B) not later than the 5th business day after production 
     begins anywhere on a mining claim, or production resumes 
     after more 

[[Page H 7106]]
     than 90 days after production was suspended, notify the Secretary, in 
     the manner prescribed by the Secretary, of the date on which 
     such production has begun or resumed.
       (4) The Secretary may by rule require any person engaged in 
     transporting a locatable mineral, concentrate, or product 
     dervied therefrom to carry on his or her person, in his or 
     her vehicle, or in his or her immediate control, 
     documentation showing, at a minimum, the amount, origin, and 
     intended destination of the locatable mineral, concentrate, 
     or product derived therefrom in such circumstances as the 
     Secretary determines is appropriate.
       (c) Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.--(1) A claim 
     holder, operator, or other person directly involved in 
     developing, producing, processing, transporting, purchasing, 
     or selling locatable minerals, concentrates, or products 
     derived therefrom, subject  to  this  Act,  through  the  
     point  of royalty  computation  shall  establish  
     and maintain  any  records,  make  any  reports, 
     and provide any information that the 
     Secretary may reasonably require for the purposes 
     of implementing this section or determining compliance with 
     rules or orders under this section. Such records shall 
     include, but not be limited to, periodic reports, records, 
     documents, and other data. Such reports may also include, but 
     not be limited to, pertinent technical and financial data 
     relating to the quantity, quality, composition volume, 
     weight, and assay of all minerals extracted from the mining 
     claim. Upon the request of any officer or employee duly 
     designated by the Secretary or any State conducting an audit 
     or investigation pursuant to this section, the appropriate 
     records, reports, or information which may be required by 
     this section shall be made available for inspection and 
     duplication by such officer or employee or State.
       (2) Records required by the Secretary under this section 
     shall be maintained for 6 years after cessation of all mining 
     activity at the claim concerned unless the Secretary notifies 
     the operator that he or she has initiated an audit or 
     investigation involving such records and that such records 
     must be maintained for a longer period. In any case when an 
     audit or investigation is underway, records shall be 
     maintained until the Secretary releases the operator of the 
     obligation to maintain such records.
       (d) Audits.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct such 
     audits of all claim holders, operators, transporters, 
     purchasers, processors, or other persons directly or 
     indirectly involved in the production or sales of minerals 
     covered by this title, as the Secretary deems necessary for 
     the purposes of ensuring compliance with the requirements of 
     this section. For purposes of performing such audits, the 
     Secretary shall, at reasonable times and upon request, have 
     access to, and may copy, all books, papers and other 
     documents that relate to compliance with any provision of 
     this section by any person.
       (e) Cooperative Agreements.--(1) The Secretary is 
     authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to share information concerning the 
     royalty management of locatable minerals, concentrates, or 
     products derived therefrom,
      to carry out inspection, auditing, investigation, or 
     enforcement (not including the collection of royalties, 
     civil or criminal penalties, or other payments) activities 
     under this section in cooperation with the Secretary, and 
     to carry out any other activity described in this section.
       (2) Except as provided in paragraph (4)(A) of this 
     subsection (relating to trade secrets), and pursuant to a 
     cooperative agreement, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, 
     upon request, have access to all royalty accounting 
     information in the possession of the Secretary respecting the 
     production, removal, or sale of locatable minerals, 
     concentrates, or products derived therefrom from claims on 
     lands open to location under the general mining laws.
       (3) Trade secrets, proprietary, and other confidential 
     information shall be made available by the Secretary pursuant 
     to a cooperative agreement under this subsection to the 
     Secretary of Agriculture upon request only if--
       (A) the Secretary of Agriculture consents in writing to 
     restrict the dissemination of the information to those who 
     are directly involved in an audit or investigation under this 
     section and who have a need to know;
       (B) the Secretary of Agriculture accepts liability for 
     wrongful disclosure; and
       (C) the Secretary of Agriculture demonstrates that such 
     information is essential to the conduct of an audit or 
     investigation under this subsection.
       (f) Interest and Substantial Underreporting Assessments.--
     (1) In the case of mining claims where royalty payments are 
     not received by the Secretary on the date that such payments 
     are due, the Secretary shall charge interest on such under 
     payments at the same interest rate as is applicable under 
     section 6621(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. In 
     the case of an underpayment, interest shall be computed and 
     charged only on the amount of the deficiency and not on the 
     total amount.
       (2) If there is any underreporting of royalty owed on 
     production from a claim for any production month by any 
     person liable for royalty payments under this section, the 
     Secretary may assess a penalty of 10 percent of the amount of 
     that underreporting.
       (3) If there is a substantial underreporting of royalty 
     owed on production from a claim for any production month by 
     any person responsible for paying the royalty, the Secretary 
     may assess an additional penalty of 10 percent of the amount 
     of that underreporting.
       (4) For the purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``underreporting'' means the difference between the royalty 
     on the value of the production which should have been 
     reported and the royalty on the value of the production which 
     was reported, if the value which should have been reported is 
     greater than the value which was reported. An underreporting 
     constitutes a ``substantial underreporting'' if such 
     difference exceeds 10 percent of the royalty on the value of 
     production which should have been reported.
       (5) The Secretary shall not impose the assessment provided 
     in paragraphs (2) or (3) of this subsection if the person 
     liable for royalty payments under this section corrects the 
     underreporting before the date such person receives notice 
     from the Secretary that an underreporting may have occurred, 
     or before 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     section, whichever is later.
       (6) The Secretary shall waive any portion of an assessment 
     under paragraph (2) or (3) of this subsection attributable to 
     that portion of the underreporting for which the person 
     responsible for paying the royalty demonstrates that--
       (A) such person had written authorization from the 
     Secretary to report royalty on the value of the production on 
     basis on which it was reported, or
       (B) such person had substantial authority for reporting 
     royalty on the value of the production on the basis on which 
     it was reported, or
       (C) such person previously had notified the Secretary, in 
     such manner as the Secretary may by rule prescribe, of 
     relevant reasons or facts affecting the royalty treatment of 
     specific production which led to the underreporting, or
       (D) such person meets any other exception which the 
     Secretary may, by rule, establish.
       (7) All penalties collected under this subsection shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury.
       (g) Expanded Royalty Obligations.--Each person liable for 
     royalty payments under this section shall be jointly and 
     severally liable for royalty on all locatable minerals, 
     concentrates, or products derived therefrom lost or wasted 
     from a mining claim located or converted under this section 
     when such loss or waste is due to negligence on the part of 
     any person or due to the failure to comply with any rule, 
     regulation, or order issued under this section.
       (h) Exception.--No royalty shall be payable under 
     subsection (a) with respect to minerals processed at a 
     facility by the same person or entity which extracted the 
     minerals if an urban development action grant has been made 
     under section 119 of the Housing and Community Development 
     Act of 1974 with respect to any portion of such facility.
       (i) Effective Date.--The royalty under this section shall 
     take effect with respect to the production of locatable 
     minerals after the enactment of this Act, but any royalty 
     payments attributable to production during the first 12 
     calendar months after the enactment of this Act shall be 
     payable at the expiration of such 12-month period.

                             point of order

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Owens] violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House. The amendment is clearly a legislative provision and, therefore, 
should not be added to the appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York desire to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. OWENS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The point of order which has been raised against this amendment 
represents gross hypocrisy.
  While my amendment does include authorizing language, that is, by 
proper observance of the rules, not permitted in an appropriations 
bill, by now it is crystal clear to all of us that this appropriation 
bill is riddled with scores of authorization provisions, and there are 
many more appropriations bills on their way through the subcommittee 
and the committee process which have even more examples of 
authorization provisions.
  This point of order represents an unbridled hypocrisy because both 
Democratic and Republican Members on the floor here are prevented from 
proposing the same types of substantive changes to bills that the 
authors of the appropriations bills clearly are being allowed to 
propose in subcommittee and in committee.
  I will just give you one example in this particular bill, page 478, 
line 14. 

[[Page H 7107]]
There is a $50 million earmark to remain available indefinitely for 
construction of forest roads by timber purchasers, $50 million. That is 
legislating. It is legislating in favor of corporate welfare, pure and 
simple, corporate welfare, but in the bill.
  Specifically, in this case, by possibly blocking a vote on my 
amendment, this point of order would rob the American people of the 
opportunity to reduce the deficit by almost $2 billion over 7 years, 
and we all want to reduce the deficit.
  Here is a creative way to reduce the deficit. Here is a creative way 
to get new revenue without taxes. We are all looking for new ways to 
get revenue without taxes, I am sure.
  It is a golden opportunity to also exhibit truth in budget balancing. 
If you really want to balance the budget, let us deal with some of the 
giveaways that we are always protecting. With all of the talk I hear 
about deficit reduction from the other side of the aisle, I am shocked 
some of my Republican colleagues prefer to continue to allow rich 
mining companies to continue to pocket the money of hard-working 
American taxpayers.
  This amendment would provide that the royalties would be charged, 8 
percent royalty would be charged on the value of minerals produced from 
hardrock mining by private companies on Federal lands. Currently, the 
Federal Government does not collect a single dollar in royalties from 
these companies.
  This is precisely the type of taxpayer swindle that the Republicans 
are not willing to talk about. It is a kind of corporate welfare that 
exists in the budget and in the appropriations process.
  Mr. POMBO. Point of order. I do not believe the gentleman is 
addressing the point of order which I raised. I believe he does feel 
very strongly about his amendment, which is out of order, but he is not 
addressing the point of order which I raised.

                              {time}  1315

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point is well taken. The gentleman will 
confine his remarks to the point of order.
  Mr. OWENS. The point of order relates to the fact that there is in 
this appropriation bill, and all the others, legislation of this kind. 
I just gave my colleagues one example, and this is proposing one that 
will be very beneficial for the American people in that it will reclaim 
a giveaway of gold----
  Mr. POMBO. Again point of order, Mr. Chairman. He is not addressing 
the point of order in which I raised.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point is well taken. The gentleman will 
confine his remarks to the point of order, whether or not this 
amendment legislates on an appropriations bill.
  Mr. OWENS. Well, I would like to know from the gentleman what is the 
difference between my amendment at page 47, line 14, of this particular 
bill which has a $50 million earmark to remain available indefinitely 
for the construction of forest roads----
  Mr. POMBO. Again, Mr. Chairman----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order is
   well taken. The gentleman will confine his remarks to the point of 
order at hand.

  The Chair is prepared to respond to the point of order.
  Mr. OWENS. I am responding to the point of order in that there are 
under way numerous provisions of the same kind that I have here in 
appropriation bills. There are examples in this bill. I want to know 
what is the difference between the kind of amendment that I am 
proposing and the kind of provisions that are routinely based in the 
appropriations bills now. Mine would be of great benefit to the 
American people because it would stop allowing mining companies to rake 
in $1.2 million a year for mining hard-rock minerals on public lands 
that belong to----
  Mr. POMBO. Again, Mr. Chairman, I have to raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point is well taken.
  The Chair is prepared to rule on this point of order.
  For the reasons stated by the gentleman from California the point of 
order is sustained. This amendment legislates on an appropriation 
bill----
  Mr. OWENS. I appeal----
  The CHAIRMAN. The fact that the other language is in the bill against 
which points of order have been waived, is not relevant.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand 
as the judgment of the Committee?
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  So the decision of the Chair stood as the judgment of the Committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?


                   amendment offered by mr. gutknecht

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. 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. Gutknecht:
       Page 94, after line 24, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 318. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     made available for the Mississippi River Corridor Heritage 
     Commission.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Gutknecht] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself a minute and a half.
  (Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Jefferson once said that ``The will of the people is 
the only legitimate foundation of any government.'' I have heard the 
will of the people of my district loud and clear and this afternoon I 
am asking Congress to act upon that will.
  These 3 books contain over 12,000 names of constituents from 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa who strongly oppose designating the 
Mississippi River as a National Heritage Corridor. They believe that 
such a designation may be the Federal Government's first step towards 
increased Federal regulation in the 120 counties and parishes along the 
Mississippi.
  The amendment we are offering would eliminate funds for the 
Mississippi River Heritage Corridor Commission.
  Mark Twain once said that the closest thing to eternal life on earth 
is a government program. Congress created the Commission in 1990 for a 
3 year period. They were extended once, and now they're seeking an 
additional $142,000 for a fifth year. It is time to put an end to this 
Commission before it grows roots.
  There are basically two ways of looking at this Corridor Commission. 
Either it is, as 12,000 constituents believe, the early stages of a 
Federal takeover of the Mississippi corridor, or it is, as the 
Commission supporters have said, an innocuous group with no real power. 
If the latter is true, continuing to fund the Commission is a waste of 
taxpayer money. If the people are correct, we should do everything we 
can to make sure that the Father of Waters does not become the ``Mother 
of all Federal land grabs.''
  The Commission has had 5 years to get public input on the National 
Heritage Corridor. To say that it needs an additional $142,000 to 
conduct 10 meetings is outrageous. Only in Washington could $14,000 per 
public meeting be considered a bargain.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Gutknecht amendment and commend the gentleman's leadership in bringing 
this important matter for our action.
  For those of you who may not be familiar with this issue, the actual 
Mississippi River Corridor Study Commission Act of 1989 stated that the 
final report of the Commission must be submitted no later than 3 years 
after the date of the first meeting of the Commission. Proponents of 
this Commission believed this would be a sufficient amount of time and 
money to complete its work. Well, we are in the fifth year and the 
study has yet to be completed, and now they are asking for more money.

[[Page H 7108]]

  More alarming, however, is the direction taken by the Commission 
since its creation. The plan would allow the Federal Government to 
designate the 120 counties and parishes that border the Mississippi 
River as an environmental corridor along the river with restrictive 
zoning requirements. If allowed to take place, this plan would seek to 
control all land use in adjacent river areas and override all local 
land use plans in these river counties. It's nothing more than a 
Federal land grab.
  Furthermore, the Mississippi River Heritage Corridor would designate 
preserve areas to be controlled as the Federal Government sees fit. 
Even the National Park Service admits that while the general public 
believes the Heritage Corridor to be an economic revitalization 
program, it is in reality more preservation oriented. Likewise, I 
object to the cost of this project which would be seized from the 
pockets of Missouri taxpayers and I am staunchly opposed to giving 
Federal bureaucrats the say over the use of private property in these 
river areas.
  Property owners, farmers, ranchers, and true conservationists up and 
down the river are opposed to this unjust governmental takings and 
other such efforts, such as The Mississippi River Heritage Corridor, to 
snatch control of their property. Clearly, we cannot allow 
preservationist and radical environmental interest groups along with a 
faceless Washington bureaucracy to dictate the use of thousands of 
acres of farmland in my home State and throughout the Upper and Lower 
Mississippi River Valley.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard from hundreds of my constituents on this 
issue and they oppose it. The Mississippi River Valley produces many 
millions of dollars worth of agricultural products for both domestic 
use and export throughout the world. This Federal land use undertaking 
is misguided and ill-conceived. The Gutknecht amendment must be 
adopted, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Missouri has a point, when 
he talks about the fact that the hearings were to have been completed 
and a report was to have been issued. Nevertheless, I want to rise in 
opposition to the amendment because there is nothing in the Corridor 
Commission feasibility report that would in any way provide for the 
takeover by the Federal Government of Private lands. The authority of 
the Commission does not in any way allow them to affect private 
property rights. It does not threaten property rights at all. It does 
not impose any regulatory burden on businesses or farms. There is 
nothing in this report that even suggests big government control of the 
Mississippi River.
  I do not know why the Commission should not be allowed to complete 
its work. I think that there ought to be a deadline imposed on when the 
final report should be issued and that deadline should be strictly 
enforced so that any worries that private property owners along the 
river have can be allayed. Mr. Chairman, I see no basis for this 
amendment at all, and I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with this amendment. I 
think there have been long delays out there in getting anything 
accomplished, and adding another year of money does not do anything 
constructive. I have discussed it with the Members up and down the 
corridors that are involved, and they are very much in favor of the 
amendment.
  Therefore, at least on our side, we are perfectly willing to accept 
it.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this amendment is 
being supported by most of the Members who have property adjoining or 
have parts of their district that adjoin the Mississippi River.
  It is also supported by the Minnesota Farm Bureau, Americans for Tax 
Reform Foundation, the National Taxpayers Union, the National Hardwood 
Lumber Association, the Illinois Association of Drainage Districts, 
Private Landowners of Wisconsin, Ogle County Farm Bureau, Blackhawk 
Area Landowners Association, CRZLR, Inc., Minnesota Agri-Growth 
Council, Inc., and B.A. Mulligan Lumber & Manufacturing Co.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, ``I would appreciate your 
support.''
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would essentially 
eliminate funding for the Mississippi River Heritage Corridor Study 
Commission, a commission which, like so many study commissions 
established by Congress, would endure eternally if given the chance.
  The Commission was established in 1990 by Public Law 101-398. The 
purpose of the Commission was to study and determine the feasibility of 
designating the Mississippi River corridor a national heritage 
corridor. In addition, the Commission was directed to make 
recommendations to Congress for preserving and enhancing the unique 
natural, recreational, scenic and cultural resources of the river 
corridor.
  The law authorized the Commission for 3 years to complete the study, 
issue a final report and hold public hearings in each of the 10 States 
bordering the Mississippi River. The law authorized $500,000 a year for 
the Commission for a 3-year period beginning on the date the Commission 
initially met. Since July, 1991, when the Commission held its first 
meeting, Congress has appropriated to the Commission $200,000 for 
fiscal year 1991, $150,00 for fiscal year 1993, $149,000 for fiscal 
year 1994, and $149,000 for fiscal year 1995. The Commission has argued 
that it has been unable to meet its obligations under the law because 
it has not received the full funding authorized for the study. Given 
the current fiscal climate and the nature of the Commission, this was 
an unrealistic expectation.
  Authorization for the Commission expired last year. At that time, the 
Commission had failed to meet any of its obligations. While the 
Commission completed a draft final report in March 1995, it returned 
this year and asked that Congress provide another $149,000 so that it 
could print its final report and hold the required 10 hearings. 
Congressman Regula's subcommittee reduced that funding to $142,000, but 
I strongly urge that no funds appropriated in this bill be allocated to 
the Commission.
  I want to stress that this amendment is not necessarily anti-
Commission or anti-heritage area. I believe in preserving the valuable 
natural resources of the Mississippi River Corridor and feel Congress 
should be given the opportunity to consider every alternative for 
providing such protection. In fact, I have consistently supported the 
Commission, voting in favor of its appropriations every year since the 
Commission was formed. The Commission approached me last year during 
the appropriations process and asked for my support on further funding. 
While I had reservations about funding an unauthorized commission, I 
felt obligated to my constituents to ensure that Congress was presented 
with all the facts surrounding heritage area designation. I supported 
the $149,000 appropriation for the Commission based on Commission 
members' assurances that they would meet their obligations under the 
law and complete a final report by the end of 1995.
  Despite those assurances, the Commission has returned to this 
Congress looking for funds, yet there is no final report, and not one 
hearing has been held. While I don't necessarily think the Commission 
was a poor idea, the rules have changed this year. We have made a 
commitment to balance the budget over the next 7 years. An 
appropriation of $142,000 may not seem like a great sum of money, but 
if we are going to act responsibly and balance the budget, we cannot 
continue to provide funds for perpetual commissions and studies.
  The Chairman of the Commission has informed me that the Commission 
will be able to issue its final report regardless of whether Congress 
provides them these funds. I am glad that funding provided the 
Commission since 1991 has not gone to waste and that Congress will have 
the opportunity to review the Commission's recommendations. In 
addition, this amendment does not preclude any Member from offering a 
bill in the future to designate the Mississippi River a heritage 
corridor.
  Study commissions such as this have a history of continuing on 
interminably if provided the funding. This amendment will simply ensure 
that Congress does not provide funding for an unauthorized program that 
is failing to get its job done.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last 2 lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:


[[Page H 7109]]

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996''.


                    amendment offered by mr. parker

  Mr. PARKER. 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. Parker:
       Amendment No. 61:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.  . (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds 
     made available in this Act may be used by the Department of 
     Energy in implementing the Codes and Standards Program to 
     plan, propose, issue, or prescribe any new or amended 
     standard.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The aggregate amount 
     otherwise provided in this Act for ``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY--
     Energy Conservation'' is hereby reduced by $12,799,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Mississippi 
[Mr. Parker] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker].
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment will effectively block for 1 year new 
rulemakings under the Department of Energy's codes and standards 
program. DOE has long conducted research and information campaigns to 
develop and promote energy conservation and efficiency. I applaud those 
efforts, and my amendment allows continued funding for the DOE's 
testing and labeling programs, but my amendment will stop funding of 
standard setting rulemakings currently underway that actually steal 
away consumer choice. Such rules are supposed to promote energy 
efficiency and appliances. The problem is that when DOE wrote these 
rules, they set product standards so high that they end up banning 
whole types of products and make others uneconomic. If the DOE rules go 
into effect, jobs in my State will be eliminated, thousands of jobs 
across America will be destroyed, U.S. manufactured products will be 
banned, consumer choice will be limited, and whole factories in this 
country will close.
  This is not a proper function of government. the rule in question 
does not even make sense. For example, DOE's proposed standard will ban 
the common magnetic ballast last used in fluorescent lighting and 
permit only a newer electronic ballast. Aside from the fact that this 
outright eliminates the magnetic ballast industry, the use of 
electronic ballast has grown from 2 percent of the market in 1987 to 40 
percent today. Clearly the market is being driven towards energy 
efficiency without a new DOE rule. So why are we wasting tax resources 
on such rulemaking?
  Also consider that the electronic ballast that DOE is promoting is 
presently manufactured mostly in Asia. The band magnetic ballast is 
made in the United States. It is not our job to pick light bulbs, or 
dishwashers or washing machines. That job belongs to the consumer. U.S. 
manufacturers and workers should be able to produce and sell safe 
products that meet the needs of their customers. When we let DOE make 
that decision, our citizens loose their consumer choices, and thousands 
lose their jobs. We need to stop this.
  My amendment will save slightly over 12.7 million taxpayer dollars, 
will redirect DOE efforts to research and provide consumer information, 
will save tens of thousands of jobs and preserve billions in 
investments. This amendment provides a 1-year time out and sends a 
clear signal to the DOE that they have gone too far. To help the 
department reform this program, I intend to work with the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Schaefer] of the Committee on Commerce on authorizing legislation to 
fully remedy this situation, and I ask for my colleagues' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  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.
  This amendment is a very drastic measure to fix a problem regarding 
lamp ballast that no longer exists. The rulemaking programs for 
building codes and equipment standards is absolutely essential. 
Secretary of Energy O'Leary wrote to Chairman Regula on July 12 and 
said, ``I am aware that the proposed rule on lamp ballast has created 
considerable debate and may be the impetus for Mr. Parker's amendment, 
but I want to assure you as strongly as I can that we are listening to 
the National Electrical Manufacturer's Association, the Electronic 
Industry's Association, and companies like Magnetek and Philips, who 
fear that the rule could inherently favor electronic over 
electromagnetic ballasts. We are examining the economic impacts of 
standards on manufacturers and on competition, whether there are 
application differences which warrant separate classes, and we will 
consider issues such as timing and the stringency of standards.''
  So said the Secretary of Energy, Mrs. O'Leary, and I think that is 
reassurance that the evils and the wrongdoings suggested by my friend 
from Mississippi, Mr. Parker, have no basis.
  There are several other points worth noting about the appliance and 
building standards program, Mr. Chairman. This program will result in 
energy savings of 23 quads or 4 billion barrels of oil through the year 
2015. Consumers and businesses will receive savings of $1.7 billion 
annually. Federal standards have been supported by manufacturers and 
other interested parties because they replaced a patchwork of State 
standards which were unmanageable and burdensome to industry.
  This is a most destructive amendment, and I hope it will be defeated.
   Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Mississippi for this amendment. This amendment simply implements 
authorization language already adopted by the Committee on Science 
which I chair. That authorization was passed by a voice vote. In fact, 
an amendment designed to gut this particular approach was defeated 
overwhelmingly in the committee by a 27 to 9 vote.
  What this amendment does is just implements common sense. It says 
that the big brother, namely the Federal Government, should not tell 
the U.S. consumer what products they can and cannot buy. Without this 
amendment, what you have is DOE bureaucrats intending to impose new 
Federal regulations that deny consumers certain appliances like lights, 
televisions, washing machines, air conditioners and ovens. The 
Government wants to decree that certain appliances that use what it 
considers too much electricity are going to be illegal. That is right, 
you will not be able to buy them because they will be illegal in the 
marketplace. These tend to be the less expensive models that middle and 
working class families can afford. So what you are going to do is take 
the middle and working class families out of the market and in favor of 
high-priced appliances that only the wealthy will be able to buy.
  So what we are really doing with the Parker amendment is killing the 
regressive regulatory tax that is being imposed by DOE, unless we go 
this particular direction.
  Just think, with the heat wave that we had this last week, if you had 
low income Americans unable to buy low cost air conditioners, the fact 
is you would have even more people suffering. That is typical of what 
we get in command and control benevolence when the Federal Government 
comes in. They simply say to low income people, guess what, folks, we 
are going to price you out of the marketplace. The Parker amendment 
says let us not price them out of the marketplace.
  When I was asked what would be the practical effect of the new DOE 
rules, I was told I did not have to worry, because they would only 
raise the price for low income housing, because of the unavailability 
of lower priced appliances.
  That is exactly the point. What we are doing is taxing the poor 
through 

[[Page H 7110]]
higher prices, and giving them a lower quality of life, to please the 
idealists who want to keep in place this idea that the Federal 
Government knows all and can do all. I think this amendment is exactly 
the right approach. I would urge the adoption of it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure I understand. The 
gentleman has legislation that is moving through your committee that 
will actually then modify or repeal the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and 
the one of 1988, and so on down the list, because this present 
authority flows from these. I just want to be sure I understand there 
is a potential authorizing bill to repeal that.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, just to clarify, what 
we are attempting to repeal is some of the standards for the future. We 
do maintain the energy efficiency product standards, as does the Parker 
amendment, the State preemption provisions are retained, and it 
provides $3.8 million for DOE to continue to test products in order to 
enforce the current standards, grant waivers and ensure consistent, 
reliable and uniform product energy efficiency product labeling. We are 
going to keep the labeling in place; the information would stay in 
place. We are simply not going to allow the Federal Government to rule 
products illegal.
  Mr. REGULA. But you continue to preempt the States so manufacturers 
would have one uniform set of standards?
  Mr. WALKER. The State preemption standards remain in the Parker 
amendment, and that is our intention as well.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Parker amendment, and I 
join at the same time the strong disagreement with the fluorescent lamp 
ballast standard which the Department of Energy proposed last program 
for national energy efficiency standards.
  Now, since the rule that we are operating under prevents me from 
offering a substitute to the Parker amendment, I will have an 
alternative to this amendment, one which meets the concerns of 
fluorescent light ballast manufacturers and workers, as well as the 
environmental organizations, along the way.
  If you total the energy savings for all household appliances from 
efficiency standards which have been implemented over the last 5 years, 
each American family is saving $210 and every year. But efficiency 
helps businesses, too. Well-formulated standards would save industry 
enough money to create 160,000 additional jobs, and reduced demand for 
energy helps the environment.
  Further, the standard setting process does not have to be 
contentious. A new standard for refrigerators has been jointly proposed 
by States, environmental associations, electrical utilities, and the 
Association of Home Manufacturers. The amendment which has been offered 
by the gentleman from Mississippi would prevent that new standard from 
going into effect, even though it has the support of every affected 
group and would benefit everyone who ever has to buy a refrigerator.
  Let us fix the problem of the lamp ballast, which my alternative 
which I will offer in a few minutes does, by prohibiting any issuance 
of standards in the fluorescent lamp ballast case, but does not throw 
out all of our program, which allows us to save money for all 
Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge that we defeat the Parker amendment and 
then adopt the Olver amendment, which we will be debating shortly.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just point out the simple fact that the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver] is offering an amendment which 
separates fluorescent lights and ballast is an admission there is a 
problem with the new rulemaking. That is the reason why my amendment 
should pass.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman for Illinois [Mr. 
Gutierrez].
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker] on offering this amendment and 
ask all the Members to support the amendment.
  It is 350 jobs and two plants in my district alone. It is a 1-year 
moratorium. We can return after that year and after all of the 
discussions are settled, and then come back and see just what the new 
rules are. That way everybody can work on a level playing field. Three 
hundred fifty jobs is something, and thousands of jobs across the 
country, is something that we should consider before we vote on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Parker].
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, you know, this amendment is really the Luddite 
amendment of 1955 thus far. In this one amendment, we embody all of the 
lost lessons of the 1970's in our country. While the Japanese and 
Germans and others move to a much more energy efficient culture, we 
continue to pretend that we do not have to make our society more energy 
efficiency.
  In 1987 and 1988 and 1990 again, we passed laws to push the appliance 
industry, to push these other industries, toward making their 
appliances, which would in fact otherwise demand we import more oil 
from the Middle East, to a standard which could meet competition from 
overseas. We have saved and will continue to save 4 billion barrels of 
imported oil from the Middle East because of these standards, which 
have increased the efficiency of every light bulb and every stove and 
refrigerator in our country. That is all oil fired electricity is, is 
nothing more than every light bulb and air conditioner being turned on.
  If we want to roll back the clock, we can just ignore this morning's 
news that we have had a dramatic increase in crude oil imports this 
morning, which resulted in the largest trade imbalance number we have 
seen for a long time, and we can pretend we live on an island, we can 
pretend that we do not need to import oil, we can pretend that the 
Middle East is not in a huge crisis, and we can pretend somehow or 
another by denying the Federal Government the ability to do it and 
preempting the States simultaneously, we are not going to fall back 
into the same trap we had in the 1970's and early 1980's again.
  that is why this amendment goes right at the heart of the question of 
whether or not this Congress has learned the lessons of the crisis in 
the 1970's in our country. We save on imported oil 4 billion barrels. 
We in fact make these appliances much more environmentally benign, so 
we are not polluting as much, and we reduce costs and the need to deal 
with the Clean Air Act. We in fact create more jobs, which is why 
Honeywell, Whirlpool, Owens Corning, Firestone, and all the rest of the 
companies oppose the Parker amendment.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in enthusiastic support for the Parker 
amendment. It will save American jobs, jobs which are being threatened 
by regulatory maneuvering by the Department of Energy. This amendment 
would cut $12.8 million in regulatory fat from DOE's budget and 
preserve a competitive marketplace and promote sensible energy 
conservation. More specifically, it would prohibit further departmental 
action on a proposed rulemaking concerning energy efficient standards 
for certain products.
  It is no wonder the Department of Energy received over 8,000 comments 
on the 1994 proposals. We are talking about one absurd regulation after 
another. For example, were DOE's proposals to take effect, the size of 
ovens would have to be so drastically reduced they could not even 
accommodate a traditional 18-pound Thanksgiving turkey. Refrigerators 
would have to be made so large they would not be able to fit through 
standard size doors in 

[[Page H 7111]]
apartments and many homes. Consumers would be required to purchase 
larger air conditioners, even if the room size did not require it.
  The proposal for fluorescent lamp ballast, the devices used to start 
and operate fluorescent lamps, was so misdirected it would actually 
eliminate the primary ballast technology currently in use, known as 
electromagnetic ballast. DOE would simply wipe out this useful 
technology, made exclusively in the United States, in favor of another 
one, known as the electronic ballast manufactured in Mexico and Asia.
   Mr. Chairman, I support the Parker amendment.
   Mr. Chairman, electromagnetic ballasts are manufactured in my 
congressional district. And I can tell you first hand, that this 
proposed regulation would put some of my constituents out of work. Had 
the proposal gone into effect, literally thousands of American workers 
involved in the manufacture of electromagnetic ballasts would have 
faced unemployment, and estimates suggest that manufacturers of 
electromagnetic ballasts would have lost hundreds of millions of 
dollars in capital investment writeoffs. The companies that supply 
materials for ballasts, and their employees, would also have been 
severely impacted.
   Mr. Chairman, the proposals for ballasts and the other products I 
mentioned not only would cost American jobs but would severely chill 
free and open marketplace competition. The Department of Justice itself 
recognizes this. Let me just read an excerpt from a September 1994 
letter from the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust 
Division to the Energy Department:

       For television sets, fluorescent lamp ballasts and 
     professional-style or high-end kitchen ranges it is the 
     Department's judgment based on the available evidence that 
     significant anticompetitive effects are likely to occur.

  So, this administration's own Justice Department told DOE that its 
regulatory proposal would likely cause significant anticompetitive 
effects. And these anticompetitive effects don't stop there. The DOJ 
review also said that such anticompetitive effects might also result, 
under certain circumstances, from the proposed rule for electric water 
heaters. For microwave ovens, oil-fired water heaters, room air 
conditioners, and direct heating equipment, the review found there was 
evidence indicating that anticompetitive effects could result.
  Mr. Chairman, not only is DOE attempting to restrain competition, but 
the evidence shows that competition, without additional regulation, can 
achieve the very objective DOE purports to seek. Take ballasts for 
example. The original fluorescent lamp ballast standards working in 
tandem with market forces are already achieving the program's energy 
saving objectives. The market penetration of electronic ballasts, the 
devices that would have been mandated by DOE's 1994 proposal, has 
increased from 2 percent in 1987 to almost 40 percent in 1994. 
Moreover, without the heavy hand of DOE it is expected that electronic 
ballasts will comprise over 50 percent of the market by 1998. A free 
market approach is resulting in expansion of electronic ballasts, and 
it is doing so without causing severe economic hardships, creating 
significant anticompetitive effects, or sacrificing existing energy 
saving opportunities.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would save the thousands of American 
jobs being threatened by these regulatory activities, result in greater 
energy conservation, and cut almost $13 million in fat from DOE's 
proposed budget. In addition, it is important to note that the 
amendment will not prevent implementation of certain useful aspects of 
the program, relating to establishing testing procedures for products, 
labeling, and enforcement.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this common sense 
amendment to save American jobs, cut more regulatory fat from the 
budget, preserve a competitive marketplace, and promote sensible energy 
conservation.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the distinguished former chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
                              {time}  1345

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Parker 
amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it in the knowledge 
that they will be able to vote for the Olver amendment which will very 
shortly afford Members of this body full opportunity to protect the 
ballast question in a manner which will be satisfactory. It is totally 
untrue that this is going, that the energy requirements now in place 
are going to impose burdens on oven manufacturers and on refrigerator 
manufacturers. That is totally without fact.
  My colleagues have forgotten the reason we have these energy 
efficiency standards. It was to save energy. We did that because of the 
massive impact on the American economy because of cutoff of oil from 
the Middle East. If you ever have that happen again, you will 
understand how Members of Congress react when we have this kind of 
situation.
  I want to observe to my colleagues one thing that is important: The 
standards-making authority which this amendment would do away with is 
something which is supported and sought by American industry in the 
full knowledge that it avoids the problem of standards being imposed by 
50 different States. You cannot run a nation when you have 50 different 
States imposing different standards at the borders. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this. Vote for the Olver amendment which is coming 
up next.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Cramer].
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Parker-Walker 
amendment. I hope our colleagues will pay attention to this. This 
amendment eliminates funding for unnecessary DOE energy efficiency 
rulemaking. The proposed rulemaking, if left as proposed, would 
eliminate thousands of American jobs. In my district alone, it would 
eliminate 1,000 jobs. This amendment solves this problem. The market 
competition is achieving the objectives sought by the proposed DOE 
rule. We do not need this kind of rulemaking. Support the Parker 
amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker].
  The energy efficiency standards which our committee so assiduously 
worked on and finally passed on a strong bipartisan basis is truly in 
danger if the Parker amendment passes. I want to give a lot of credit 
to the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, my friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], for sticking to his principles on 
this issue. We have set a strong record.
  This is the kind of case where the industry came in, as the gentleman 
from Michigan and the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about, into 
our committee and said, we need a national standard for these energy 
efficiency products. Virtually all of the industry that I am aware of 
signed off on this. Now when we have some industries that have had the 
foresight to actually follow the rules and regulations, they are going 
to be punished if the Parker amendment passes.
  That does not make a whole lot of sense. So my sense is, let us 
support the Committee on Appropriations who knew what they were doing 
when they passed this particular provision in the committee and 
certainly the Committee on Commerce that did such yeoman work in 
setting these standards.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, it is one thing for us to lose jobs 
because we cannot compete with foreign competitors. It is quite another 
thing for us to intentionally regulate jobs out of existence in this 
country, and that is exactly what this regulation will do.
  They talk about the fact that there are 8,000 comments that have come 
in. That ought to tell somebody something. But will the department go 
back and start over? No. What they have done is they have piecemealed 
this up into eight different sections so nobody knows where anybody is 
at. That is why we have no choice but to come here today and to try to 
do something like this.
  One of my colleagues on the other side suggested earlier that somehow 
or another the bipartisan commitment was in opposition to the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Parker]. Well, I would reject that. I would 
suggest if you look at those who support the Parker amendment, you will 
find the 

[[Page H 7112]]
National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the Electronic 
Industries Association, the International Brotherhood of Electrical 
Workers, the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO, the National 
Association of Home Builders, the Flint Glass Workers Union, the 
National Multi Housing Council, and the National Apartment Association.
  Support the Parker amendment.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just close by saying that a lot has been said about what this 
amendment will do. The Parker amendment will not affect existing energy 
efficiency standards and the benefits that they have provided. Its 
existing national energy efficiency standards will remain in effect. 
Label requirements to enable consumers to make informed choices among 
products will remain in effect. Testing procedures to ensure 
reliability of claims regarding energy efficiency will remain in 
effect.
  People keep talking about pretending. Let us pretend, for instance, 
that 90 percent of the jobs, 90 percent of the electronic ballasts are 
not made in Asia. Let us pretend that we are not going to lose all of 
these jobs.
  Please support the Parker amendment. It is the right thing to do, and 
it gives us a situation where we can correct what has been going on for 
some time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 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 rise in strong opposition to 
the Parker amendment. This amendment would effectively undermine what 
has been one of our most successful, cost-effective energy conservation 
programs.
  I can only note with bemusement that the sponsors of this effort are 
many of the staunchest advocates of risk-cost-benefit analysis. Over 
the past several months, these members have spared no effort to inform 
us of the costs to society of regulation, which some industry groups 
have estimated at $600 billion a year.
  Now here is a DOE regulatory program that actually has saved or will 
save American society a total of about $132 billion in energy costs. 
For some reason, the authors of this amendment have also seen fit to 
oppose this cost-saving program, and have made an effort in the Science 
Committee and now here to kill it.
  Now this House has, for better or worse, adopted the position that 
economic cost-benefit analyses should become the new gold standard for 
Government regulatory action. We should just sum the benefits, sum the 
costs, subtract, and then reach our decision with arithmetic certitude.
  Well, that calculation has in fact been done for the appliance 
efficiency program. It happens that the costs of the program to 
consumers are $59 billion, the benefits are $191 billion, and the 
benefits exceed the costs by a margin of 3.2 to one.
  Now the supporters of this amendment would apparently have us believe 
that we shouldn't really use a cost-benefit test--we should just trust 
them to make a subjective and political judgment about the value of 
this program.
  Let's look at the real facts concerning the efficiency program. There 
has been a great deal of controversy about fluorescent light ballasts, 
and there is a lot of misinformation on this subject. It is true that 
there are jobs in the magnetic ballast industry in Mississippi and 
elsewhere that are in jeopardy.
  It is also true, however, that other U.S. firms like Motorola in 
Buffalo Grove, IL, are producing electronic ballasts and reaping large 
profits. The electronic ballast business, in which several other U.S. 
firms participate, is a
 business of the future and it will grow at the expense of older 
industries regardless of what DOE does with efficiency standards.

  In fact, DOE has sufficient confidence in market forces that they 
have withdrawn the proposed ballast standard and are considering not 
issuing any standard in this area.
  Unfortunately, the controversy over ballasts and televisions, for 
which the proposed rule was also withdrawn, is being used as ammunition 
to eliminate the entire appliance efficiency program.
  Much of this program is not controversial at all. Last year, for 
example, the refrigeration industry sat down with the environmentalists 
and worked out an agreement on refrigeration efficiency standards for 
the next century. All the significant refrigerator manufacturers were 
party to this agreement, which will provide a net savings of about $13 
billion for U.S. consumers and reduce refrigerator energy consumption 
by 25 to 30 percent.
  DOE was only too happy to accept this universal and hard-won 
compromise. It seems to me that this process is exactly the kind of 
enterprise that this House, Republicans and Democrats, should rally 
around and support. No new bureaucracy--no litigation--just progress 
and benefits for the environment, for our balance of payments, and for 
the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans.
  Under Parker-Walker, even this refrigeration standard that has 
already been agreed could not be implemented. The Parker amendment will 
also prevent DOE from developing the energy efficiency measurement 
standards that are used for consumer appliance labeling.
  The consumer labeling program, although completely nonregulatory, 
relies upon accurate energy use determination based on DOE standards 
that promulgated by rule. These measurement standards need to be 
revised periodically as usage and design patterns change--the washing 
machine measurement method is already 15 years out of date and is 
growing older by the day.
  Under Parker, not only will there be no baseline efficiency 
requirements for appliances, but the information accessible to 
consumers for making their own marketplace decisions will be 
increasingly unreliable.
  Now before this national program was created in 1987, there was an 
emerging patchwork of State appliance efficiency standards. Industry 
finally wanted a national program to ensure consistent standards and 
greatly simplify business planning and manufacturing. The 1987 law does 
grant DOE the power to allow separate State standards by petition.
  If we gut the DOE program here today, it is highly likely that the 
Department will use its statutory power to grant a number of State 
requests for waivers. In fact, just in the past few days California has 
put such a process in motion, anticipating our action today.
  Returning to a patchwork system is not in the interests of anyone--
industrialists, environmentalists, or consumers.
  In summary, the Parker amendment would set a very unwise policy 
course for this Nation. Let's stop our reflexive environment bashing, 
regulation bashing, and bureaucrat bashing and take some sensible, 
moderate steps to save money for consumers and provide for a sound 
energy future for our children. Defeat the Parker amendment, support 
Mr. Olver's compromise, and I yield back any remaining time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], chairman of our subcommittee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is recognized for 
2 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I would point out to my colleagues that on October 5, 1992, by a vote 
of 363 to 60, we established in this body the following policy: It 
added commercial products to a standards program, setting initial 
standards for electric motors, central air conditioners, heat pumps, 
gas and oil furnaces, boilers, water heaters, plumbing equipment 
lamps--that is the subject of this amendment. It requires the DOE to 
maintain test procedures and establish a labeling program.
  We said, as a national policy, there should be a uniform set of 
standards established by the Department of Energy on energy efficiency. 
I think that what the gentleman from Mississippi is discussing should 
be the subject of an authorizing bill. This is not the proper place to 
deal with this matter. I would hope that the gentleman would take this 
issue to the authorizing committee, and, if they should recommend that 
we modify the action of this body, as I just outlined in the Energy 
Policy Act that is now the law and passed by an overwhelming majority, 
this should be discussed in that forum.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I have to say to the gentleman that is 
exactly what I want to do. That is the reason we need this time out. 
Because the Committee on Commerce will not be meeting until after the 
first of the year to discuss this issue.
  If we allow the rulemaking to go through, what we are going to wind 
up with is a situation where the jobs are already going to be 
destroyed, and we are not going to be getting them back. That is the 
reason we need a postponement of a year in order to get to the point 
where the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] can take this up in the 
committee, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] can take it up in 
the subcommittee and we can resolve these issues.

[[Page H 7113]]

  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand the 
gentleman, but I think he would agree that the Olver amendment would 
accomplish that objective.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it 
would accomplish the objective for my little part of it, as far as the 
jobs in my district. But I am more concerned about the total outlook of 
what we are doing with this rule.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to go to a total repeal. 
That would invite the states, in effect, to set different standards. I 
sympathize with the gentleman's problem, but I think the Olver 
amendment would solve it.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by Mr. 
Parker to limit funding for the Department of Energy to conduct 
rulemakings on energy efficiency standards.
  In the past, I have been very supportive of energy efficiency 
standards. Valuable energy resources, as well as money is saved by 
reducing our consumption of energy. In addition, by adopting national 
energy efficiency standards, appliance manufacturers and others have 
had only one standard to comply with rather than 50 conflicting 
standards.
  However, this year, industry representatives have come to us 
complaining about how DOE is implementing appliance efficiency 
standards. Complaints that DOE through its rulemaking, is interfering 
with the operation of free markets.
  Thus, I support this amendment. It will slow down the process at DOE 
and give the authorizing committee time to look at the merits of the 
issue. In fact my subcommittee will be holding hearings on this issue 
before the end of the year.
  Thus I support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 261, 
noes 165, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 519]

                               AYES--261

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--165

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moran
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Upton
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Browder
     Collins (MI)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1413

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia and Mr. WYNN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, HEFLEY, CLYBURN, BONO, FROST, 
COSTELLO, and BLUTE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          Personal Explanation
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I voted ``present'' on the Parker amendment 
to H.R. 1977, rollcall No. 519 because it almost singularly affects a 
firm in which I have major personal financial interests.
                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Olver

  Mr. OLVER. 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. Olver: Amendment No. 70: At the 
     end of the bill add the following new section:
       ``Sec.  . None of the funds made available in this act may 
     be used by the Department of Energy in implementing the Codes 
     and Standards Program to plan, propose, issue, or prescribe 
     any new or amended standard--
       ``(1) when it is made known to the Federal official having 
     authority to obligate or expend such funds that the Attorney 
     General, in accordance with section 325(o)(2)(B) of the 
     Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)), 
     determined that the standard is likely to cause significant 
     anti-competitive effects;
       ``(2) that the Secretary of Energy, in accordance with such 
     section 325(o)(2)(B), has determined that the benefits of the 
     Standard do not exceed its burdens; or
       ``(3) that is for fluorescent lamps ballasts.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Olver] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H 7114]]

  Mr. Chairman, let me say that my amendment meets the concerns of 
labor unions such as the IBEW in relation to the fluorescent light 
ballast issue, and of environmental organizations such as the League of 
Conservation Voters, and of businesses such as Honeywell and Whirlpool. 
My amendment specifically and explicitly prohibits the promulgation of 
the fluorescent lamp ballast standard without throwing national energy 
efficiency standards out the window.

                              {time}  1415
  My amendment prohibits the Department of Energy from promulgating an 
efficiency standard if the Attorney General has determined in the 
course of her review, which is required by law, that the standard is 
likely to be anticompetitive. Furthermore, all proposed standards would 
have to show benefits greater than costs in an analysis which considers 
economic impact of the proposed standard on manufacturers and 
consumers.
  By adopting this language, we prevent regulatory excess without 
killing off a valuable program that saves the average American family 
hundreds of dollars in hard cash each year. Furthermore, we do not kill 
off the possibility of new standards being established for things like 
the refrigerator standards which have been jointly proposed by States, 
the environmental organizations and electric utilities, and the 
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.
  Mr. Chairman, the Olver amendment helps consumers, businesses, the 
environment and the economy, and prohibits the anticompetitive effects 
of the fluorescent ballast standard. I would urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to speak in opposition to the 
amendment?
  If not, does the gentleman wish to speak further?
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my fellow scientist, Mr. Olver. Something that many of you may not 
be aware of is that I spent a considerable amount of my earlier 
scientific career dealing with subjects relating to energy 
conservation.
  I can assure my colleagues that there is no other source of energy 
available as cheaply and as readily as that which is obtained through 
conservation of energy. I believe it is very important for us to have 
appropriate energy standards which inform the public of the use of 
energy by the appliances they buy.
  I label the Olver amendment as a consumer information amendment. It 
is very important that the Federal Government serve as a neutral source 
of information that is available to the public so that they can buy 
appliances which are energy efficient.
  I can relate a simple experience I had when my wife and I first got 
married and we went shopping for a refrigerator. She decided on the 
refrigerators she liked because of the features it had, and narrowed it 
down to two models. One refrigerator cost $250, and one cost $500. 
Obviously, it seemed, the cheaper refrigerator would be the better buy.
  However, I did an energy consumption analysis of those refrigerators, 
because it was before the time of energy standards, and discovered that 
in fact the $500 refrigerator over its anticipated lifetime would cost 
considerably less than the $250 refrigerator. We bought the more 
expensive model and saved a lot of money.
  I hope we, as the Federal Government, can provide enough information 
so that everyone can make those kinds of decisions.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the gentleman a question 
here. If I read the gentleman's amendment correctly, there is a 
positive cost-benefit ratio, and if there is not an antitrust problem, 
can then the Secretary of Energy promulgate a new rule on fluorescent 
lamp ballasts? She has said here in her letter to us that she has 
withdrawn the original proposed rule because it was flawed, but could 
she now do a new rule on this subject, or is that completely barred by 
your amendment?
  Mr. OLVER. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for the 
question. It is not always possible in the art of drafting legislation 
to take care of every contingency.
  As a matter of fact, in the drafting whereby the Attorney General's 
determination under the law of anticom-petitiveness, that 
would have in fact precluded the fluorescent light ballast standard 
from going into effect even without the provision that eliminates the 
ballasts from this year's considerations for rules.
  But in fact the gentleman is correct that for this year, because of 
the controversy, in order to make absolutely certain that the 
controversy over fluorescent light ballasts was off the table for this 
year, there would not be, in my understanding, the opportunity for 
creating another----
  Mr. DICKS. I would have to rise, then, in very strong opposition to 
this amendment.
  What the Secretary of Energy is basically telling us in this: Here is 
the report to our committee. Fluorescent lamp ballasts, after reviewing 
the comments in the proposed rule, the Department determined the 
engineering analysis was flawed.
  On January 31, 1995, the Department announced its
   intention to perform a new analysis and prepare a proposed rule 
based on the new analysis. Since the January notice, the Department has 
been meeting with the NEMA, individual manufacturers, and 
representatives of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient 
Economy, to develop a new engineering analysis. Once the analysis is 
completed, the Department intends to prepare a new proposed rule.

  It seems to me that starting on the first of the fiscal year, we 
would then for the next 15 months be barring any opportunity to do a 
rule even if it was an appropriate rule that would save us energy.
  Mr. OLVER. If the gentleman would yield further, the fiscal year is 
only 12 months, but that is a small point.
  Mr. DICKS. We are still here, though.
  Mr. OLVER. I would point out, if the amendment becomes law that had 
been offered previously, there would be no rulemaking of any kind 
anywhere across the area of energy standards, not only the ballast 
issue but all other issues. This amendment preserves the possibility of 
allowing the national standards in areas other than the ballast issue 
to go forward under the constraints of nonanticompetitiveness.
  Mr. DICKS. Would the gentleman answer me this one question? If the 
Department has a good and appropriate rule, obviously the first rule 
was fatally flawed. If you were blocking the first rule from going into 
effect, I would have no problem with what the gentleman is attempting 
to do, but the gentleman has already won the battle. The Secretary of 
Energy withdrew that rule. She is now listening to all these people and 
trying to come up with a new rule. What you are doing here with this 
amendment is prohibiting for the next 15 months a rule to go into 
effect on that subject. I think that is wrong. I think the Secretary 
has already given you what you want, and this goes too far.
  Mr. OLVER. If the gentleman would yield further, I would merely point 
out again that we can have standards with this amendment in all other 
areas of energy efficiency if they are not anticompetitive, and if 
there is a positive cost-benefit ratio. But without this amendment, we 
can have no standards in any of these areas, including the one that you 
are concerned about. Either way, you do not have within the next 12 
months the standard issued in the fluorescent lamp ballast concern. But 
if we do not adopt this amendment, then we are not going to have any 
standards in any area.
  Mr. DICKS. Is the gentleman opposed to this rule, even if it were a 
positive rule?
  Mr. OLVER. Answering that question, in the two other provisions I 
would be happy to have a rule go into effect, if it were possible. It 
is not possible either by the previous amendment or by this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  
[[Page H 7115]]

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to advise the Members that we 
will on our side accept the amendment. It is not inconsistent with 
Parker. It does not reach as far, but we are willing to accept it.
  I hope the authorizing committee will then at the earliest possible 
moment address the entire situation. I can understand the difficulties 
both the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver] and the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Parker] are having.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this deals with the very specific issue that the 
gentleman from Mississippi was interested in. It avoids the trap of 
having the broader repeal of all of the other energy efficiency laws 
that affect every other appliance. I think that the chairman of the 
committee is wise in accepting this amendment. It is in fact a very 
fair compromise that deals with a very specific issue that had been 
raised by the gentleman from Mississippi. I would hope that the 
amendment would be accepted.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title III?


                 amendment no. 48 offered by mr. zimmer

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

       Amendment No. 48 offered by Mr. Zimmer: Page 94, after line 
     24, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 318. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used (1) to demolish the bridge between Jersey City, New 
     Jersey, and Ellis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian use of 
     such bridge, when it is made known to the Federal official 
     having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such 
     pedestrian use is consistent with generally accepted safety 
     standards.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Zimmer] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, 40 percent of Americans are descended from immigrants 
who came to this country by way of Ellis Island. Today Ellis Island is 
a magnificent museum and a national park. Unfortunately it is 
accessible to the general public only by ferry for a price of $7 per 
person. This price makes it prohibitive to many of the American 
citizens who in fact own Ellis Island.
  During the last session, there was a pitched battle on the issue of 
whether to build a new $15 million bridge from Jersey City to Ellis 
Island for pedestrian access. That bridge for all practical purposes is 
dead. It was approved in the last Congress, but the appropriation is 
slated to be rescinded by this Congress.
  My amendment provides a commonsense solution to the problem of access 
to Ellis Island by providing for the use of an existing bridge for 
public pedestrian access so long as it is consistent with generally 
accepted safety standards. I will repeat that.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ZIMMER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of all of us, how would the 
gentleman define ``generally accepted safety standards''? I just want 
to be sure that I am comfortable with the fact that safety is of 
primary concern here.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I tried to draft the language as neutrally 
as possible. Generally accepted safety standards seems like an 
objective criterion that can be defined by published standards.
  The initial definition would, of course, be made by the Park Service 
itself. Given that fact, the director of the Park Service, with the 
concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, has told me that he does 
not oppose this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman would yield further, then it would be 
the responsibility of the Park Service to enforce safety standards, and 
whatever the Department would establish would become the standard that 
would control access to the structure. Is that correct?
  Mr. ZIMMER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, conceivably someone 
could litigate that decision, but the initial decision would of course 
belong to the Park Service.
  Mr. Chairman, the bridge of which we speak is some 1,400 feet in 
length. It is sturdy. It has been in existence since 1986. It is used 
every day by Park Service personnel and by contractors who are working 
to renovate the buildings on Ellis Island, and it is being used by 
their vehicles as well. It has a pedestrian walkway. And the Park 
Service is planning to upgrade this bridge so it can be used for the 
several years remaining in the rehabilitation project that is ongoing 
at Ellis Island.

                              {time}  1430

  The Park Service is also planning to extend the permits that are 
scheduled to expire so this bridge can continue in use.
  Safety concerns have been raised by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula] and they have been raised by Roger Kennedy, the director of the 
Park Service, and that is why I have included the language that we 
discussed in the colloquy in this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I personally believe the bridge is quite safe at this 
point and needs little or no upgrading to be suitable for the public. 
But if I am wrong, and the bridge is unsafe according to generally 
accepted safety standards, then this legislation would keep the public 
from using it until it is upgraded.
  I do not believe that the Park Service would allow its own employees, 
on a daily basis, to use a bridge that is unsafe. But in any event, for 
purposes of this amendment, the issue is moot, because of the language 
of the legislation. That is why the Park Service and that is why the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] have agreed that they would accept 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Regula], chairman of the committee.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the representations of the 
Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the Park Service that 
they have no objection to this, we, therefore, would accept it. I do 
have a concern on the safety standards and I certainly would respond to 
any requests for additional funds to ensure that it is totally safe.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, it is limited to 
pedestrians; is that correct?
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, yes, my 
amendment would not open it to vehicular traffic, other than the 
traffic that already traverses it and the occasional vehicle or garbage 
truck that services the island.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman would continue to yield, the 
Superintendent of the Statue of Liberty has outlined some concerns and 
I think they will try to address these to ensure that it does meet all 
accepted safety standards. On that basis, on the Secretary of the 
Interior's representations, we have no objection.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I want the attention not only of the 
proponent of this amendment, but the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], 
my chairman, as well. In conversations that I had with the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] before this amendment was offered, he 
showed me the letter from the Director of the Park Service saying that 
he no longer had any objection to it. I understand also that the 
Secretary of the Interior has no objection to it.
  And I have some difficulty, concerned as I am, with possible safety 
questions that were raised by the chairman of the subcommittee. I have 
a letter here, a copy of a letter here, dated July 11, 1995, which 
gives me pause and makes me wonder why the Director of the Park Service 
and the Secretary of the Interior waived whatever objections they had.

[[Page H 7116]]

  This is a copy of a letter dated July 11, to the Director of the 
National Park Service from the Superintendent of the Statue of Liberty 
National Museum on Ellis Island. ``Subject: Ellis Island Bridge--Unsafe 
for Public Pedestrian Use,'' and he gives the reasons under that:

       Decking is perforated steel which is difficult to walk on 
     and by Building Official Code and
      Administrative International definition is a tripping 
     hazard.
       Side rails are not in compliance with Building Official 
     Code and Administrative International or ADA because of 
     spacing of intermediate rails. Children would be particularly 
     at risk of falling.
       Ellis side of the bridge is currently a construction 
     staging area and a site maintenance yard.
       The bridge landing area will continue to be a construction 
     staging area if rehabilitation of historic structures on 
     Ellis Island continues.
       Bridge does not meet New York and New Jersey building codes 
     for public pedestrian bridge.
       Surface material is designed for traction during ice and 
     snow, therefore, if a person falls, they could receive 
     serious cuts.
       There is no protection to separate pedestrians from 
     vehicles.

  It is signed by M. Ann Belkov.
  I know the gentleman has sought to condition the committee's approval 
with language, but it seems to me to be somewhat inadequate in view of 
the criticisms raised by Ms. Belkov. And so, Mr. Chairman, I know that 
I cannot accept the amendment and of course will do as the House wants 
to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YATES. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York.
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. There is no good reason for the expenditure of these funds, 
expecially at a time when we face the possibility of actually closing 
down national parks.
  I want to remind my colleagues that there had been an ongoing effort 
over the past few years by New Jersey to build a permanent bridge 
between New Jersey and the island. I strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gateway for more than 12 million immigrants 
between 1982 and 1954, Ellis Island holds a unique position in our 
Nation's history. While I certainly share the desire to promote visitor 
access in the Island, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the 
gentleman from New Jersey.
  The temporary construction bridge that was erected in 1986 between 
Jersey City and Ellis Island was built for trucks--not pedestrians. It 
does not meet applicable safety codes for pedestrian use and, according 
to the National Park Service, it would cost at least $1 million to make 
the necessary structural safety improvements to the bridge.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the problems don't stop there. If pedestrians were 
to be allowed on the bridge, the landings on both the island and the 
mainland--which are presently routed through service and maintenance 
yards--would have to be relocated. This would require the abatement of 
asbestos and fuel-soaked soils and extensive landscaping, at a cost of 
at least another million dollars.
  There is no good reason for the expenditure of these funds, 
especially at a time when we face the possibility of actually closing 
down national parks.
  Let me remind my colleagues that there has been an ongoing effort 
over the past few years by New Jersey to build a permanent bridge 
between New Jersey and the island. Earlier this year this body voted to 
stop funding for this project, which would cost as much as $25 million
 and which--in the words of a Park Service report--would have an 
unmitigateable, adverse impact on the island's historic and cultural 
resources.

  The supporters of this amendment would like you to believe that 
pedestrian access is critically needed because the ferry is too 
expensive or inconvenient. The reality is that a family can spend the 
entire day at Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty for less than the 
cost of going to a movie. Is it worth asking the taxpayers to spend 
millions of dollars to provide another means of access, particularly 
when the vast majority of visitors to the island say they prefer to 
take the ferry anyway?
  Every year, more than a million and a half visitors from around the 
world tour the island. Like their predecessors, visitors travel to the 
island by boat. Not surprisingly, most tourists to the island say they 
consider the ferry ride to Ellis Island an essential part of their 
visit.
  The Park Service's use of scarce Federal dollars at Ellis Island 
would be better spent on the island's historic buildings that are in 
desperate need of repair. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
which would prohibit us from tearing down this bridge which is half in 
my district. This bridge was constructed with the specific intent of 
being taken down. It is an Army-designed, temporary Bailey bridge.
  The only reason it exists is to allow construction vehicles to travel 
to and from Ellis Island for an ongoing construction project. It is 
normally used by an advancing military. It is designed to be laid 
quickly and efficiently and is meant to be used only as a temporary 
crossing.
  Mr. Chairman, an amendment to make it permanent, to prevent us from 
tearing it down, is an amendment to circumvent the will of this House 
which voted not to have a permanent bridge here.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The bridge my colleague is asking to be turned into a pedestrian foot 
bridge is an Army-designed Bailey Bridge. This bridge was constructed 
with the specific intent of being taken down. The only reason it exists 
is to allow construction vehicles to travel to and from Ellis Island 
for an ongoing restoration project. This type of bridge is normally 
used by an advancing military and is designed to be laid quickly and 
efficiently and is meant to be used only as a temporary crossing. A 
Bailey Bridge is designed for vehicles and troops wearing combat boots. 
It is made of perforated metal, an extremely unsafe surface for normal 
pedestrian use.
  In fact, the bridge is far from meeting basic safety standards for 
pedestrian use. The railings and curbs are inadequate. there is no way 
to separate vehicle from pedestrian traffic further endangering those 
that would use the bridge. To make this bridge a stable and long 
lasting structure would also require additional pilings and 
reinforcement of its frame. The estimated cost to add the railings, 
curbs, pilings and other safety features necessary for pedestrian 
traffic is $5 million. This amendment does not provide the funds for 
the construction of these safety standards, yet it will not allow the 
bridge to be taken down. So, when the restoration project is over it 
will sit, useless, nothing more than a potential navigational hazard to 
industrial and recreational ships alike. As such, in addition to being 
an unsafe crossing for families visiting Ellis Island, if the bridge is 
left in place beyond its useful life it could threaten vessels calling 
at port facilities in Port Newark--Elizabeth, the Military Ocean 
Terminal in Bayonne, the Howland Hook marine terminal, South Brooklyn 
Marine Terminal, Red Hook Container Terminal as well as other marine 
traffic in the Nations greatest port.
  This bridge is not designed for heavy pedestrian use and is not 
designed to stand the test of time. It is a temporary bridge that will 
be nothing more then a disaster waiting to happen. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
committee for 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment brings the art form in 
the Congress of looking to appear to do something, but in fact doing 
nothing, to a new height.
  This amendment, as offered, would save a bridge which has already 
been determined to be unsafe and yet undermine previous efforts of the 
Congress to provide a new access to the island.
  We are telling the American people that, in fact, we are going to 
avoid this problem of a $7 ferry ride. New access. Well, in the 103d 
Congress we just did that. We said we were going to build a new bridge 
and give new access.
  And now, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] comes to the 
floor offering to save a bridge which for safety reasons no one could 
walk across, and yet there is no appropriation to fix it or repair it.
  There is perhaps no reason to oppose the amendment. It will not do 
any harm. But there is also no reason to vote for it. We have managed 
simply to convince people that it looked like we were doing something, 
while we did nothing.
  Now, it may be the impression of some as well, because the gentleman 

[[Page H 7117]]
  from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] has brought this amendment to the floor 
that, in fact, he represents this district. In fact, he does not. The 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] has jurisdiction over parts of the 
island and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] on the 
remainder.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me briefly say I would have liked to 
have joined the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] in the ranks of 
those who have been fighting for a pedestrian bridge to give affordable 
access, but that time was when we had the rescissions vote. That vote, 
unfortunately, took away the possibility for a pedestrian bridge to go 
ahead and make sure that lower-income Americans do not have to pay 
Circle Line, with its exclusive opportunity to bring passengers to the 
island.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this unfortunately, does not do the job that I 
hoped it would, but the National Park Service has said simply that it 
will not.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome Mr. Zimmer to the ranks of 
those fighting to establish a pedestrian bridge from Liberty State Park 
in Jersey City to Ellis Island.
  I say that I'm welcoming him, because there have been precious few of 
us who have been out front about making access to one of our most 
important national historic treasures easy and  affordable,  and  who  
have  worked  for legislation that would make that possible. 
In fact, aside from myself, Senators Bradley and Lautenberg, 
and Congressman Frelinghuysen, nobody has really shown much interest at 
all in helping the millions of families who visit this historic 
landmark get there easily and safely. As the Representative of the 
district in which the bridge lies, I'm pleased Mr. Zimmer has finally 
joined the effort. We have done all we can to get Governor Whitman to 
join us, but she still shows no interest in doing so.
  This amendment would prevent funds in the bill from being used to 
demolish an existing bridge to Ellis Island, or being used to prevent 
pedestrians from using that bridge if it is deemed safe for such use. 
The bridge is currently used by construction and maintenance vehicles 
for access to the island.
  When I saw Mr. Zimmer was offering this amendment, I asked people at 
the Park Service what they thought about it. Their response was most 
interesting. They told me that they have no intention whatsoever of 
demolishing the bridge. In fact, they would like to keep the bridge 
permanently in use for their vehicles, since without it, the cost of 
transportation for Park Service employees, equipment, trash, and so 
forth would approach $700,000 annually. It clearly makes little sense 
to demolish the bridge, and therefore even less sense to bother 
amending an appropriations bill to prevent a demolition which no one 
seeks.
  Because the Park Service intends to keep the bridge indefinitely for 
vehicular traffic, there is no hope of its being converted for 
pedestrian use. This renders the amendment almost entirely moot.
  I say almost, because there is still some value to the amendment. 
Despite its glaring weaknesses, it is one of the best arguments I have 
seen yet for the construction of a new bridge, exclusively for 
pedestrian use, which I have been fighting for since my arrival here 
nearly 3 years ago. Originally, we had wanted to build a pedestrian 
bridge nearby, because families visiting the island currently must wait 
in line, sometimes for hours under the summer sun, and then buy tickets 
from the Circle Line ferry, which has a commercial monopoly on visitor 
access to the island. During their long wait in the ticket line, these 
families can all see clearly that there is a bridge linking the island 
to the shore. Still, they are forced to pay $7 apiece, $20 for a family 
with two children, for a ferry ride to an island less than a quarter 
mile off shore. For many of my constituents, who ironically live so 
close to Ellis Island, the price is a luxury they cannot afford. But, 
Mr. Chairman, should visiting a treasure of our national heritage be 
considered a luxury? Certainly it should not.
  Unfortunately, the Zimmer amendment provides no funding for the 
improvements necessary to make the bridge safe for pedestrians, nor for 
the construction of a new one. Without funds to upgrade the bridge, it 
will remain permanently unsafe. Permanently, because not only is there 
no money to improve it, but the amendment prevents us from demolishing 
it, too. So we are to be eternally stuck with an unusable bridge. That 
is one effect of the amendment.
  The original purpose of the bridge, to provide access for 
construction vehicles involved in the restoration of the remaining 
historic buildings on the island, is further defeated by the bill 
itself. Language appearing on page 18 prohibits the use of Park Service 
funds to implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the southern 
end of Ellis Island. The adoption of this amendment and the passage of 
the bill would leave us with a construction bridge, but no 
construction. A bridge which we will then maintain for pedestrians, but 
which is unfit for pedestrian use. A bridge which some argue supposedly 
damages the historical integrity of an island, an island full of 
collapsing historic buildings, but which we can neither improve, 
replace, nor tear down.
  There are funds available for the construction of a footbridge, but 
the project will be killed in the Republican rescissions bill, if it 
passes the Senate. In fact, if the new version of the bill isn't 
passed, I understand that it is the intention of Chairman Wolf to kill 
the project in the Transportation appropriations bill, even though the 
Park Service's draft environmental impact statement shows that a new 
bridge is the most preferable method of providing affordable access. 
The real battle to provide affordable access to Ellis Island was fought 
months ago. My colleague from New Jersey could have been much more 
effective if he had joined us in supporting the bridge during the 
rescissions process.
  With the passage of this amendment and the Interior Appropriations 
bill, however, it will only be a matter of time before even the most 
casual observer will see plainly the absurdity of what we will have 
done here today, and be compelled to seek a real solution such as the 
one we have advocated for years, but which has been consistently 
frustrated by political gamesmanship.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 
additional minute to respond.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman who 
represent the vicinity of the bridge that the mayor of Jersey City 
endorses this amendment. Jersey City is the New Jersey terminus of the 
bridge.
  Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the statement that this bridge is 
unsafe for pedestrian use, because it is being used as we speak by 
pedestrians in the employ of the Park Service. We do not have to spend 
$15 million for a brand-new bridge. If it is necessary to upgrade this 
bridge, it would be at minimal cost; certainly far less than $15 
million.
  I believe we have the best of both worlds here. We can provide for 
public access without having to spend money which is in fact being 
rescinded by this Congress, and without giving the Circle Line a 
monopoly service at $7 a person for access to this national museum.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 196, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 520]

                               AYES--230

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur

[[Page H 7118]]

     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Ward
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Latham
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Crane
     Kennedy (RI)
     Mineta
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Richardson

                              {time}  1502

  Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska, WAMP, QUILLEN, QUINN, and MASCARA changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Messrs. FORBES, THOMAS of 
California, CHAPMAN, and WHITE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?


                     amendment offered by mr. klug

  Mr. KLUG. 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. Klug: On page 44, after line 19, 
     insert the following:
       ``Sec. 115. No funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act in fiscal year 1996 shall be 
     obligated or expended to accept or process applications for a 
     patent for any mining or mill site claim located under the 
     general mining laws or to issue a patent for any such 
     claim.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] 
and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes of 
my time in support of my amendment to the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Rahall], and that he be permitted to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Klug] yielding me 5 minutes to join him in strong support of this 
amendment, and, before proceeding with my remarks, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie]. I rise in strong support 
of the amendment.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, the House has supported a patent 
moratorium for several years now as an interim step to achieving 
comprehensive mining reform. And, the House, at least, has addressed 
the overriding need to reform the 1872 mining law by passing 
comprehensive legislation during the last Congress. Legislation which 
the House overwhelming supported on a 3 to 1 margin. Fundamental to any 
discussion of hardrock mining in this country is the need to end the 
archaic practice of patenting--or practically giving away--public 
mineral lands.
  As you will recall, the old and out-dated mining law of 1872, 
actually encourages the give-away of billions of dollars of gold, 
silver and other hard rock minerals that belong to the American 
taxpayer.
  Under the 1872 law, which governs mining for precious metals, like 
gold, silver and platinum of Federal lands, miners who discover one of 
these minerals are entitled to a patent--or fee-simple title to the 
land. Since 1872, the United States has transferred over $231 billion 
worth of mineral assets to mining companies, charging minimal 
administrative cost for the land transfer and no royalty whatsoever.
  As many of you know, it is the patenting system which legally forced 
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to transfer ownership of nearly 2,000 
acres of public land in Nevada--land containing an estimated $10 
billion in gold--to a Canadian-owned mining company for the appalling 
sum of just $9,765. If we do not stop patenting, through mining reform 
or through a patenting moratorium pending achievement of mining reform, 
we will see more and more such cases in the years to come.
  We should move block mining conglomerates from pirating valuable 
public minerals just because they are able to tie up reform in the 
Congress.
  That is where the provision on a patent moratorium in the Interior 
appropriations bill comes in.
  This patent moratorium would prevent the transfer of 133,000 acres of 
public land containing an estimated $15.5 billion worth of valuable 
minerals to international mining conglomerates for practically nothing. 
This is what we mean by the slogan: ``They get the gold, we get the 
shaft''.
  That is why we need your vote to maintain the patenting moratorium in 
this bill.
  Unless Congress acts now by enacting this patent moratorium, title to 
an additional $15.5 billion worth of mineral reserves--which rightfully 
belong to the American taxpayer--will be signed over to international 
mining conglomerates for the paltry sum of less than $1 million. These 
companies will win the golden ring simply by paying $5.00 an acre--and 
what do the taxpayers get in return? Nothing, an empty pocket.
  I understand they dug up Jesse James yesterday. Robbing trains and 
holding up banks, was just a nickle and dime operation compared to 
mining public land. Jesse was in the wrong end of the stealing 
business.
  The patent moratorium is not comprehensive mining reform: but it is a 
very important interim step that will save $15.5 billion worth of 
minerals from being given away to international corporations.
  So, I urge a vote for the Klug-Rahall amendment. I urge an aye vote 
to put some hard dollar reality into the rhetoric on reducing the 
deficit. I urge an aye vote to give a break to the American taxpayer 
instead of a monster giveaway to marauding corporate interests.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 


[[Page H 7119]]
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] .
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to some earlier 
amendments on the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, inclusion of the patent 
moratorium is more important this year than at any other time in the 
past. As Members will recall, the House voted by a 3 to 1 margin in 
1993 to reform the mining law of 1872, a Civil War era law that 
encourages the giveaway of billions of dollars of gold, silver and 
other minerals that belong to the American taxpayer. With the support 
of Members like Newt Gingrich, we passed a good bill, a tough bill, but 
unfortunately the conference committee with the Senate was unable to 
produce a final bill. And now the Senate, under Republican leadership, 
is considering a weak bill that will make minor changes that leave the 
taxpayer and the environment the losers while the mining conglomerates 
make off with the gold. The Craig bill, if enacted, will result in no 
royalties, no environmental clean-up, and no reform, which is exactly 
how the industry lobbyists wrote it.
  One of the key issues in the mining reform debate is that of patents. 
Under the 1872 law, which governs mining for precious metals, like 
gold, silver and platinum on Federal lands, miners who discover one of 
these metals are entitled to a patent--or fee-simple title to the land 
from American citizens and the mineral wealth it contains. Since 1872, 
the United States has let over 231 billion dollars' worth of mineral 
assets slip through our fingers in this manner, charging minimal costs 
for the land transfer and no royalty whatsoever.
  We should not give away permanent ownership of the public lands. We 
don't do that in oil and gas or coal leasing. The states don't do it in 
hard rock mining. I don't think that many private individuals do it.
  Although the mining industry claims patenting is critical to its 
ability to function, no State gives private companies title to its 
resources, and yet the companies mine on State land. I know of no 
private citizens who give mining companies title to their land for 
mineral exploration and production, and yet they mine on private lands.
  And while we are discussing the States, I should point out that 
mining companies pay royalties to States and private landowners, too, 
unlike on Federal lands.
  The mining industry spent a small fortune last year to prevent reform 
of the 123-year-old mining law of 1872. It was cheaper for them to pay 
the lobbyists and make the campaign contributions than to see real 
reform enacted to safeguard the taxpayers who own this gold. As a 
result, we can look forward to many more giveaways like the ones 
Secretary Babbitt signed earlier this year--trading a fortune in public 
gold for a pauper's ransom.
  If we do not stop patenting, through mining reform or through a 
patenting moratorium pending achievement of mining reform, we will see 
more and more such cases in the years to come.
  The House Appropriations Committee unwisely has not included a 
moratorium this year. In fact, the committee report includes language 
which foolishly advocates the rapid transfer of patents presumably to 
assuage the mining industry which would prefer to continue freeloading 
off the public lands. If the Department complies with the report 
language and expedites approval of the 233 patent applications in the 
pipeline, we will in effect give away 15.5 billion dollars' worth of 
gold and silver to mining conglomerates. Talk about corporate welfare. 
I urge Secretary Babbitt to ignore the report language and to continue 
the careful and cautious route he has pursued in the past.
  We cannot be party to the continued looting of the Treasury by 
foreign gold companies and others. So we should include a patent 
moratorium because as a practical matter, we should not leave the 1872 
law, and particularly the patenting process, on the books should no 
action be taken on comprehensive reform. If we must again defer until 
next year--or the year after--comprehensive reform, we should hold the 
program in abeyance. For while we may not have agreed on the precise 
design of reform at the point, virtually everyone agrees drastic reform 
of the mining program is necessary.
  So, I urge a vote for the amendment. If we cannot achieve real 
reform, we will at a minimum stop the giveaway of 15.5 billion dollars' 
worth of public resources until such time as we do achieve reform.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, how to get rich at the taxpayers' expense under the 
patent feature of the mining law of 1872; that is the question here 
today, and let me count for my colleagues the number of ways:
  In Nevada a company that is 70 percent owned by the Anglo-American 
conglomerate, those wonderful folks from South Africa, is seeking title 
to Federal lands, Federal lands. All of our names are on the deed with 
an estimated 1.1 billion dollars' of gold. In return, the American 
taxpayers would receive a measly $5,080.
  Meanwhile, in Montana mining claims have been staked on Federal lands 
with an estimated 3.4 billion dollars' worth of platinum minerals, and 
under the mining law of 1872 the Government will have to sell that land 
to this company for a mere $12,660.
  Wow, wow, over 3 billion dollars' worth of valuable minerals owned by 
the Federal Government in exchange for just over $12,000.
  And then, my colleagues, there is my all-time favorite, the amazing 
and true story of that little old mining claim that grew up into a huge 
Hilton Hotel. My colleagues, there is this man in Arizona that stakes a 
mining claim, 61 acres to be exact, and under the mining law he bought 
them from the Government for just $155. I say to my colleagues, Now, 
under the mining law, once you receive title to your mining claims, 
which is called a patent, there is nothing that says you have to 
actually, well, mine the land. Oh, no. Far from it. Instead, today 
these mining claims are the site of a huge Hilton Hotel overlooking 
Phoenix.
  Mr. Chairman, for $190 a night guests stay in spacious two-room 
suites complete with fully stocked refrigerators and wet bars. They are 
invited to enjoy 18-hole golf courses, desert jeep tours, and sea-salt 
pedicures, but for their 61 acres, all the taxpayers received was $155, 
and for the $155 the so-called miner paid the Government for these 
claims, he estimates that his share of the Hilton Hotel is now worth 
about $6 billion.
  Some of my colleagues may be wondering just how could this be? This 
is too incredible to be true. Well, it is true.
  The bottom line, my colleagues, is that, if we do not pass this Klug-
Rahall amendment, the United States may be forced to sell off 133,000 
acres of Federal lands, lands owned by all of us as American taxpayers, 
containing approximately 15 billion dollars' worth of gold, silver, and 
other hardrock minerals, for either $2.50 or $5 an acre.
  That is what is at risk today. That is what is in the patent 
application pipeline.
  This patent moratorium was passed in the previous Congress as part of 
this same appropriation bill, and I urge my colleagues today to 
continue this patent moratorium in place until this Congress can enact 
comprehensive mining law reform. We came close in the last session of 
Congress. We were not able to finally deliver and see it into law, but 
this session of Congress I am hopeful we can move with comprehensive 
mining reform legislation, and, until we do, let us keep this patent 
moratorium in place.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on Resources.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I have heard this 
argument over and over again about what a great giveaway. This 
amendment, very frankly, would drive the mining industry, as I have 
said again and again, off our shores. We would stop what little 
industry we have left today.
  The one bright spot in this industry is the gold mining. Across the 
United States it employs people, it makes new jobs. This money is not 
going anywhere. The Federal Government does not make any money, and to 
say this is a ripoff is the same old litany I have heard time and time 
again written by the Sierra Club, written by the environmental 
community, trying to drive 

[[Page H 7120]]
our industry off our shores, and all the other countries of the world 
today, they are trying to get the mining industries to come in, and 
they are doing it because they delete royalties, they encourage by tax 
incentives, they give the land away free to get the jobs on their 
shores.
  The 1872 mining law has worked, and I may suggest to the gentleman 
who just spoke previously he ought to know about the condos, because he 
has spent many a time in those places.
  May I suggest respectfully, if I can, that this amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from West Virginia was 
offered last year, was adopted by the majority of them on that side, 
opposed by our side, and to have our side offering this amendment is 
wrong. I say to my colleagues, If you want to keep our jobs on our 
shores, employing people not flipping hamburgers, but doing real jobs 
that develop a resource and resources on these lands, then you ought to 
take and turn down this amendment. It is a bad amendment on this 
legislation, but more than that it is, and sadly the Parliamentarian 
would not rule in my favor, it is legislation on an appropriation.
  And now I remind my leadership we were not going to do that with our 
side. We are doing it by this amendment today. I do not agree with it. 
I think it is wrong, it is inappropriate. It is wrong for this Nation, 
it is wrong for this industry. We must continue to work for America.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Calvert], who is the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Mineral Resources.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment which limits the use of funds for the acceptance and 
processing of mineral patent applications or the issuance of such 
patents by the Secretary of the Interior.
  Mr. Chairman, I am the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee of 
jurisdiction over the mining law of 1872, as amended. I am also the 
lead cosponsor of H.R. 1580, the Mining Law Reform Act of 1995. If the 
amendment to the appropriations bill before us now is adopted, we will 
have repeated the mistake of the 103d Congress in its attempt to change 
the mining law.
  The real objective of this amendment is to derail attempts to bring 
about reasonable changes to the 1872 act. The deadlocked end to the 
conference committee on mining law reform last September 28 followed 
just 2 days after Congress adopted the fiscal year 1995 conference 
report which included a mineral patent moratorium for the first time. 
Was this mere happenstance? Absolutely not.
  H.R. 1580 retains the right to receive a patent, after demonstration 
that a valuable mineral deposit has been discovered, but only upon 
payment of the appraised fair market value of the land within the 
claim. The sponsors of this amendment would eliminate patenting 
altogether without substituting any other provision for making secure 
the opportunity to mine one's claims. If you want a real solution, vote 
against this misguided amendment.

                              {time}  1515

  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], a member of the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin to limit the use of funds for the acceptance 
and processing of mineral patent applications or the issuance of such 
patents by the Secretary of the Interior. The amendment before us does 
not merely continue the mineral patent moratorium in the fiscal year 
1995, as we have been led to believe.
  The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently opined that a valid mining 
claim is ``private property in the highest sense of the word.'' The 
action of the Secretary to grant title to a mining claim which is 
supported by a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit and for which 
all other requirements of law have been met is not discretionary. 
Rather, it is ministerial. I oppose the present patent moratorium, but 
at least the present moratorium recognized the prevalent court rulings.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] is clearly 
an infringement on these private property rights. The amendment of my 
friend from Wisconsin invites a flood of takings litigation by those 
applicants recognized in last year's bill to have met last year's 
requirements and for which the Secretary was not barred from spending 
funds to process or issue mineral patents. The Department's records as 
of last fall indicated some 388 applications for mineral patents were 
so vested. This amendment could subject our Government to expensive 
litigation and a staggering takings liability.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, this will have a chilling effect on mining 
companies and on folks who have claims and are filing for the patents. 
It in essence is a job killer. What we are doing here today is working 
to create jobs in the private sector, because these jobs are not 
Republican jobs or Democrat jobs or liberal jobs or conservatives jobs; 
they are jobs for the people of this country. I stand up and say yes to 
jobs, and no to the amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some points with my colleagues on 
the other side of this amendment fight and simply say this is not an 
amendment about whether or not there should be mining. The bottom line 
in all of this is the fiduciary responsibility of Members of Congress 
and whether or not we get the proper return for the mining claims that 
are before us.
  Now, there I think, frankly, some problems in this amendment, and it 
is a creation of the rule which did not allow us to put in language 
grandfathering in some of the operations in place.
  My colleague from Arizona raises a good point. Let me make it very 
clear that it is my intention that if this amendment passes, I would be 
willing to work with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and other 
members of the Committee on Appropriations to put in language much 
similar to last year's amendment, which we again were prohibited from 
doing this time, which would say if mining reform legislation passes 
then this amendment falls by the wayside.
  Second, this amendment, as it said last year, further provides that 
the Secretary of the Interior shall continue to process patent 
applications that were filed prior to the date of the enactment of this 
act if the applicant had fully complied with all the requirements under 
the general mining laws for such patent.
  So I am willing to work with the Committee on Appropriations to get 
language in place that allows patents in the pipeline to move forward. 
But the bottom line in all of this, Mr. Chairman, is money. For 
example, the State of Arizona requires its mining companies to pay 
anywhere from 2 to 5 percent on current leases; California, 5 percent; 
Alaska, 3 percent.
  If we can get comprehensive mining reform in place which allows the 
Federal Government to collect the royalties that are due it, I will be 
glad to work with the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] on 
passing his legislation. But at the present time, if this moratorium 
expires on September of 1995, there are three applications pending in 
front of the Federal Government now worth $5.5 billion: One patent in 
Nevada on a gold mine worth $1.113 billion, and the taxpayers get from 
the patent price $5,080; another patent, the McCoy Cove Mine, pending 
in Nevada, worth $1.4 billion, and the taxpayers get $3,305; the Mount 
Edmonds Mine in Colorado, recoverable mine value $2.99 billion, and the 
patent price of $5 an acre, one thousand bucks. So more than $5.4 
billion and the taxpayers get $10,000 out of this.
  I would be glad to work with my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, because I do not think this is, in my case, whether or not there 
should be mining in the United States; the bottom line is whether or 
not we get a fair price for the mining that should and I hope will, 
take place in the future.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would like to cosponsor 
my bill, as he knows, we resolve the issues of a fair royalty on 
Federal land. This is an improper way to amend this at 

[[Page H 7121]]
this time. So I would think the gentleman would like to get on our bill 
and do it the right way.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman and I have 
had conversation about this, as he knows. It is not my intention to 
drive the U.S. mining industry out of the country, but it is my 
intention to get a fair price for this. I would be willing to work with 
the gentleman. I said that in the past, and I would be willing to work 
with him today to get that bill out in the near future or put an 
incentive in place today to get it done even faster, and that is my 
intention.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a member of the committee.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this moratorium 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a temporary solution that in my 
judgment is detrimental to the mining industry in America. We can agree 
that mining reform is overdue. We can agree with that. And as the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] mentioned earlier, we have H.R. 
1518 that is in the process of being prepared which will address the 
objections sought to be imposed by this amendment.
  I believe this amendment will discourage mining in America. We can 
have all the anecdotal information or examples in the world of 
egregious overreaching, but in fact this mining law has worked over the 
years, and it is very important, I think, that we keep something in 
place to make sure that we do not discourage mining and send it to 
foreign shores.
  I was one who opposed the elimination of the Bureau of Mines in my 
own subcommittee. We lost that battle, but we have cut back in mining 
throughout this country to the point where there is a disincentive, I 
think, to even get involved in the mining industry, to provide some 
jobs and assistance to America.
  Interim steps have a way of becoming permanent, and I fear that this 
particular moratorium amendment will do just that. What we do not want 
to do is discourage mining in this country. We do not want to send 
mining operations overseas and be dependent on foreign companies for 
the production of minerals that we use in this country. This amendment 
will result in such foreign dependence, and it should be opposed and 
overridden.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, one important fact that we should not overlook in this 
debate is that the ability to obtain a patent has nothing whatsoever to 
do with the ability to mine. Ever since we started, since I started the 
effort to reform the Mining Law of 1872 in the mid 1980's, hundreds of 
thousands of applications have gone into the Bureau of Land Management, 
everybody trying to seek a patent. Yet the Bureau can only approve less 
than 10 a year. It takes 4 years now before you can have a patent go 
through the process, and yet mining still goes on these patent 
applications. So the ability to mine is not affected whatsoever by the 
ability to obtain a patent. The patent process is obsolete.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me just again make four points, if I can. First of all, the 
General Accounting Office, a survey of 20 patents examined at random, 
found that the Government had been paid $4,500 for claims worth 
somewhere between $14 and $48 million. This is an amendment above and 
fundamentally about money.
  Second, as I have already indicated to my colleagues on the other 
side, I would support language in the appropriations bill during 
conferences that would put a grandfather clause in for mining patents 
that are currently in the pipeline, and also firm language that says if 
mining reform law passes this amendment is null and void.
  Finally, when this moves again in September, I will remind my 
colleagues, $5.4 billion at stake in three claims and we get 1 thousand 
bucks.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The issue of 
hardrock mining on Federal lands is one that is properly within the 
purview of the appropriate House and Senate authorizing committees. It 
is the role of those committees, working with the administration, to 
determine the parameters of mining on public lands.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that the amendment before us is not 
the same as last year's. This amendment would put a blanket moratorium 
on the processing of all mineral patent applications. In last year's 
bill, we exempted certain patents that had reached a certain point in 
the patenting process.
  One reason for the exemption in last year's bill, Mr. Chairman, was 
because of a possible ``takings'' problem. The U.S. Supreme Court has 
held that mining claims that have reached a certain point in the 
patenting process are, in every sense of the phrase, private property. 
If we pass this amendment we could be looking at substantial liability 
from a ``takings'' perspective.
  The National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce oppose this amendment. Likewise, I strongly oppose this 
amendment and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  I would like to point out, as this chart shows, that the Bureau of 
Land Management's own study of the true costs to miners for patenting 
of their claims shows the cost of proving discovery, surveying the 
claims, preparing the application and other legal requirements to be a 
minimum of $37,900 per 20-acre lode claim, not $5 an acre by any means. 
In many cases, millions of dollars have been spent on a property in 
order to achieve patent.
  Mr. Chairman, we should ensure a fair return to taxpayers. 
Comprehensive mining law reform legislation offers the best chance for 
that. This amendment would derail such legislation while devastating 
the mining industry at the same time. I oppose the amendment and urge 
my colleagues to do likewise.
                              {time}  1515
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the amendment to extend 
the moratorium on mining claim patents. I am also a cosponsor of 
Congressman Rahall's legislation to reform the mining patent process 
because I believe it is time that Congress stop giving away public 
lands at a fraction of their value at an enormous expense to American 
taxpayers.
  I understand that the patent process played an important role in 
developing the Western United States. In 1872, there was a legitimate 
role for the Federal Government to play in providing incentives for 
Americans to move west and develop that great region of our country.
  But today, things have changed and Government policy must likewise 
change.
  Today, we are nearly $4.9 trillion dollars in debt--it is time to 
establish priorities, identify critical roles for the Government and 
cut the rest. Whatever national interest our country may once have had 
in being a provider of cheap land, it is simply not a critical role for 
the Federal Government to play in 1995. Today American taxpayers do not 
want their resources turned over to private interests while their 
national debt continues to rise.
  Last November the voters in Minnesota and across the country asked 
that we change the way Washington operates. When a program has lost its 
usefulness, we should eliminate it, no matter what the special 
interests might say. This moratorium amendment is an excellent 
opportunity for Congress to demonstrate that we can change how 
Washington operates.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for an end to the giveaway of public 
lands--by voting for the Rahall-Klug amendment.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by Mr. Rahall and Mr. Klug to restore the moratorium 
on the issuance of patents for mining claims. I want to thank the 
gentleman from West Virginia for his tireless efforts over the last 
several years to fundamentally reform the anachronistic 1872 mining 
law.
  I can think of no reason why my colleagues would not support this 
commonsense amendment. Patenting, whereby miners get title to public 
land, is a thing of the past which should have been done away with long 
ago. In these times of fiscal crisis, the Federal Government can ill 
afford to continue to ``give away'' taxpayers' land for $2.50 or $5 an 
acre. It boggles my mind that we are still selling our resources for 
the price established in 1872. According to a 1993 General Accounting 
Office [GAO] study of other major mining nations, the United States is 
the only country which allows public lands to be sold to mining 
companies. The survey of South Africa, Canada, and Australia, the 
third, fourth, and fifth largest mining 

[[Page H 7122]]
nations that year, found that these nations retained title to public 
lands and provided access to miners through leases. If mining continues 
to be robust in Canada and South Africa without patenting, why do we 
need to continue this practice here? The answer is we don't.
  The examples of the costs of patenting are legendary. Last year, 
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt was forced to approve a patent 
which transferred 1,038 acres of public land containing minerals valued 
at $10 billion to the Barrick Gold Corp., a Canadian company, for 
$5,190. This occurred because the moratorium exempted hundreds of 
patent applications which had progressed to a certain point in the 
review process. This case demonstrates that even with the moratorium, 
the American taxpayers continue to get the ``shaft.''
  In spite of the flaws in the moratorium, it is preferable to allowing 
all patent applications to move forward. Without the moratorium, the 
Department of the Interior will be forced to approve hundreds of 
applications to transfer billions worth of gold, silver, and other 
valuable minerals to private companies without fair compensation to the 
taxpayers. According to an analysis by the Mineral Policy Center, if 
the moratorium is not renewed, more than 230 patents involving nearly 
140,000 acres of public lands will move through the system and likely 
be approved. These lands contain in excess of 15 billion dollars' worth 
of minerals. Without the moratorium, this acreage will be ``sold'' to 
mining companies for no more than $700,000. Moreover, because we impose 
no royalty on hard rock minerals, the American people stand to lose 
hundreds of millions in lost revenue by transferring these lands out of 
public ownership.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support comprehensive mining reform. 
However, in the absence of that, we are forced to take a piecemeal 
approach to protect the interests of the American taxpayer. Patenting 
is a giveaway to private companies, which are often foreign owned. No 
other major mining nation in the world turns over public land to 
miners. Most importantly, patenting undermines the principle that the 
American people should get a fair return on the use of their resources. 
I urge my colleagues to support the Rahall-Klug amendment.
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I must wholeheartedly oppose 
the elimination of the current moratorium on ``Patenting'' Federal 
lands subject to hardrock mining claims, and challenge the Republicans 
to justify this absurd course of action. The General Mining Law of 
1872, signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant, govern the mining 
of hardrock mineral on about 270 million acres of Federal lands. It 
allows anyone to buy an acre of land for $5!
  Put simply, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government is selling taxpayer-
owned land which contains over $15.5 billion worth of gold, silver and 
other minerals for $5 an acre!
  This country has already let over $231 billion worth of mineral 
assets slip through the taxpayer's fingers by granting ownership rights 
to public lands to mining interests at little charge and with no 
royalty payment. Not only is this robbery, but this is corporate 
welfare, plain and simple, Mr. Chairman. The only question is, how can 
the Republicans justify this kind of corporate giveaway program to some 
of the already wealthiest interests in the United States?
  How can they justify this while they continue to complain that we, as 
Democrats, want to feed starving American children, or educate inner-
city youth, or improve the water supply for millions of native 
Americans? I am appalled, Mr. Chairman. Mostly, I am appalled because I 
know that Republicans would rather spend crucial tax dollars for their 
wealthy business friends, like the powerful mining interests that are 
responsible for the elimination of this moratorium. I am appalled, Mr. 
Chairman, on behalf of the millions of Americans who still may not 
realize the extent to which they are being robbed!
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 271, 
noes 153, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 521]

                               AYES--271

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walker
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--153

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clinger
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jones
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     Durbin
     Geren
     Kennedy (RI)
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Stark
     Stearns

                              {time}  1548

  Mrs. ROUKEMA and Messrs. MOORHEAD, BISHOP, EHRLICH, WELLER, CAMP, 
CLINGER, and Mrs. 

[[Page H 7123]]
SEASTRAND changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
  Messrs. GOODLATTE, CASTLE, QUINN, KIM, WHITFIELD, GRAHAM, and Ms. 
MOLINARI changed their vote to ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, earlier today the House voted by a voice 
vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Gutknecht] which would have and did, because it was adopted on a voice 
vote in the House, remove the funds available for the Mississippi River 
Corridor Heritage Commission. Had I been here, and I was not able to be 
here because of, believe it or not, a very good reason, but had I been 
here, I would have strongly opposed that amendment and explained the 
good that that Commission is trying to do. I was not able to be here, 
and if I had, again, I would have asked for a rollcall vote on it. That 
has been passed.
  I do think the House should hear the other side of this story. This 
Commission was set up by this Congress in law enacted in 1990. The 
Commission was to study the corridor of the Mississippi River, which is 
so dear to many of us from the Midwest, to try not only to bring 
together the 10 States that border along that Mississippi River, but 
also the communities and the agencies within those States together to 
have a better partnership within that corridor, basically, to bring 
about more strength and economic development along that corridor.
  Mr. Speaker, the proponents of the amendment said the law provided 
that they were supposed to have this study done within the 3 years, and 
I agree with that, that it was to be done within the 3 years, but the 
law also provided that they were to hold Commission hearings within 
each State of those 10 States, and they were to be funded at an amount 
of $500,000 a year in order to do so.
  The problem is, Mr. Chairman, and I think many of the public today 
questions the wisdom of many of us in Congress, the problem was that 
the Congress did not fund it adequately to hold those hearings in the 
first 2 years. Thereafter, the funding started and they had the 
hearings. They now have a draft report that is being prepared, it is 
available if Members would like to read it, and I think it is very 
worthwhile. With the money that was provided in the bill, they would 
have been able to finish up and make their recommendations working with 
the Park Service.
  By the vote of the House, they are not able to do so. What I find 
very ironic, though, about his whole thing is the Congress first asks 
citizens of this great country of ours to participate in the 
governmental process through this type of a commission. These people 
that are on this Commission are volunteering their time in order to 
perform this function of Government. Yet it is the same Congress, maybe 
a later one, but the same institution that says ``We are not going to 
give you any money to do it, folks. If you want to participate in the 
governmental process, you are good tax-paying citizens, if you want to 
make recommendations to make the Midwest a better place to live for 
everybody, we do not want to give you $142,000.''
  Mr. Chairman, I wonder sometimes about some of the things that we do 
up here in Congress. I do not wonder, however, about why many of the 
general public does not think very much of the Congress. In the first 
place, if Members do not think the Commission should do the study or 
anything, then repeal the law that set it up. What we have now done is 
defunded it. The Commission is still out there, still required by law 
to make the study, to make the recommendations, and we have not given 
them any money to do it with.
  If you were a private citizen out there, as the one from Missouri who 
is a good friend of mine, who is a very conscientious person, who 
believes in this Government of ours and likes to participate, and I 
have talked to him about this amendment, it makes you wonder why a 
person would ever accept this type of responsibility when this Congress 
or the next Congress may decide we are not going to let you do it, we 
do not want you to participate in this system of government of ours.
  At first I had thought that we would have possibly a revote when we 
get in the House. I know the House has taken a lot of time on this 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio has been so 
gracious as to permit me to take this time in order to explain the 
position of how I would have strongly objected to the amendment, and 
therefore, when we get into the House, I will not ask for a revote on 
the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman of the Committee for 
giving me this time, and I thank the House for being patient with me.


                   AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CREMEANS

  Mr. CREMEANS. 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. Cremeans: Page 94, after line 24, 
     add the following:
       Sec. 318. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for the purposes of 
     acquiring land in the counties of Lawrence, Monroe, or 
     Washington, Ohio, for the Wayne National Forest.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Cremeans] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chain recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cremeans].
  Mr. CREMEANS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to save school districts, fire 
departments, and small businesses in southern Ohio.
  Let me first say, this amendment only effects two districts, both of 
which are in southern Ohio. We are asking that money from this 
appropriation not be spent in these two districts. I know it is rare to 
see a Member of this body ask that money not be spent in his or her 
district, but the Federal Government has bought enough land in my 
district. Let the Forest Service go buy land somewhere else or spend it 
on the schools and the communities effected by the Federal forests. 
They need the money a heck of a lot more than we need more Government 
owned trees in Southern Ohio.
  Mr. Chairman, the Wayne National Forest has been buying up land in my 
district for years. The Wayne owns nearly 40 percent of one school 
district, the Frontier Local School District.
  The Federal Government has not met its obligation in PILT payments on 
the land they already own--let alone what they would like to buy. The 
Federal Government pays Washington County, OH, about 27 cents an acre 
each year. The average property tax is about $3.34 an acre in 
Washington County. How in the world is a school system or a fire 
department supposed to operate when the Federal Government owns half 
the land but pays less than 10 percent of its share of the tax 
duplicate?
  These schools are going under and I want to send a message to them 
that the Federal Government is not going to buy up any more land or 
steal any more tax dollars from them. This amendment is a commitment to 
them and does not affect anyone outside southern Ohio. I hope that 
everyone would join with me and let the people of southern Ohio know 
that we are listening and the Federal Government is going to leave them 
alone--which is all they ask.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to offer this amendment. 
The students of the Frontier Local School District appreciate your 
help.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney].
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud my colleague, whose 
congressional district borders mine, on this very important issue. 
Members also have to understand that when we look at the Appalachian 
region, this potential forest goes all the way down from 

[[Page H 7124]]
the area of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cremeans], all the way up 
through my area in Monroe County, OH, and it would be like a 4-hour 
drive. If we looked at a map of it, it looks like somebody took a 
shotgun and just shot the map, because it is just pieces of property 
bought here and there, small parcels.
  I encouraged the Wayne National Forest to have a contiguous area, but 
really, what they have done in the area of Mr. Cremeans and in this 
area, for which I want to thank the gentlemen from Ohio, Mr. Regula and 
Mr. Cremeans, it is really going to help us quite a lot. It is also 
going to protect Monroe County. Additionally, Senator Monroe, and also 
representative Metzger and many others are worried about development. 
The area has been hard hit in Monroe County, so we need some help. I 
really applaud the gentleman's amendment, and thank him for including 
this.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We are going to accept this amendment. This bill has a moratorium on 
land acquisition. We have no money in the bill to acquire lands in the 
three counties in question. Therefore, there is no problem whatsoever 
in accepting the amendment. I understand the gentleman's concern, and 
we are pleased to put it in as part of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cremeans].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Skaggs

  Mr. SKAGGS. 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. Skaggs: At the end of the bill, 
     add a new section, as follows:
       Sec.  . None of the funds appropriated to implement the Act 
     of October 20, 1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-07) shall be 
     used for payments with respect to entitlement lands (as 
     defined in such Act) regarding which it has been made known 
     to the officer or official responsible for such payments that 
     a state or political subdivision of a state has by formal 
     action asserted a claim of ownership.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me explain what is involved in this amendment. 
Under the PILT program, which is an acronym standing for ``payment in 
lieu of taxes,'' the Federal Government makes cash payments to counties 
to help cover services like fire protection, law enforcement and so 
forth that these counties provide on Federal land. We do this because 
the counties obviously do not get tax revenue from these lands but are 
expected to provide some services.
  Recently some of these counties are claiming that these lands are not 
Federal lands, after all, even though they all became part of the 
United States through Federal purchase or acquisition and have never 
been transferred.
  Mr. Chairman, get this: Even though these counties assert that these 
are not Federal lands for ultimate purposes of title or control, these 
same counties would still like the U.S. Federal taxpayers to make PILT 
payments to them as if the lands were Federal lands. If there were ever 
a case of trying to have it both ways, this is it.
  It is all the more offensive because some of these counties are 
effectively using Federal taxpayer moneys to pay their officials and 
lawyers to try to perfect their legal claim to the very lands on which 
they are basing their entitlement to PILT payments.
  Give me a break. Or, as our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant] might say, ``Beam me up.''
  My amendment simply calls a halt to this absurd practice. If these 
counties want to claim Federal lands as their own, fine, go ahead, 
pursue them if you think you have any legal theory to stand on. But do 
not at the same time be so brash as to claim PILT payments to boot on 
the very same Federal lands at the very same time.
  Let us not permit these jurisdictions to insult our intelligence at 
the same time that they are tapping the Treasury, especially in these 
difficult budget times.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand why the gentleman might propose this, but 
this changes the PILT formula. This is a situation that the authorizing 
committee should address. We have an obligation to make the PILT 
payments under the law.
  Of course these issues are in the courts. The courts need to make a 
decision. But in the meantime, States have a right to pursue their 
legitimate claims, but they also have a right to their PILT payments. 
Their obligations to schools, to the local government, will not stop 
just because they file a suit in the court.
  Let the courts work their will, but in the meantime I think the U.S. 
Government should honor its obligation as provided in the law. There is 
nothing in the law that says if there is a lawsuit filed, they do not 
get the PILT payments. Therefore, we should not interfere with the 
action by the courts.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's point of view on 
this, but does he really stand for the proposition that these counties, 
who are pursuing a legal theory that has been repudiated by the Supreme 
Court, should nonetheless continue to get Federal money even though it 
can be used to pay for asserting these specious claims?
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is making an assumption 
as to how they use their PILT money. I am assuming they use it for 
their schools. If they use their general budget to pursue their 
legitimate claims in court, that is perfectly their right. But in the 
meantime, under the law, we have an obligation to make the PILT 
payments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. 
Vucanovich], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Counties depend 
on payment in lieu of taxes, or PILT, to make them whole. In a State 
such as my own, Nevada, where 87 percent of the land is federally 
managed, making up for the loss of taxes due to Federal management of 
the land is only fair.
  This amendment is directly aimed at Nye County, NV. Currently Nye 
County is involved in a Department of Justice-filed lawsuit about who 
owns the land. If the gentleman would work with me to see the Federal 
Government relinquish control of the land in question, then I think the 
county would willingly forgo PILT payments. But until the court renders 
its decision, the county continues to lose tax revenue. This amendment 
is an unfunded mandate, and I oppose it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Hansen], chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests 
and Lands of the Committee on Resources.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope the people in this Chamber realize this is 
really a very tough amendment on people. These little counties are out 
there, 93 percent, some of them, owned by the Federal Government. 
People from the East come in, they cause fires, we have to put them 
out. They get hurt, we have to take care of them. They put debris all 
over, we have to clean it up.
  There are 1,500 of these counties out there in the West and over half 
of them have a claim against the Federal Government.
  If we are going to take these 750 counties and say, ``Fine, guys, 
you're out of business,'' why are we doing 

[[Page H 7125]]
this? You look at the situation of people who have 2,477 roads, half of 
them in my State have claims against the Federal Government on 2,477 
roads. Mineral royalties they have claims against, timber royalties, 
grazing fees, questions over title.
  I think it is an outrageous amendment that would gut the whole 
program and is designed to hurt some people who are trying to maintain 
what they think is right and courageous.
  Remember years ago we had the sagebrush rebellion. I am glad to see 
that is gone. Now we are seeing the war on the West. This is the kind 
of amendment that is devastating to the people in the West. I urge that 
we oppose this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.
  I think it is outrageous to do this to our counties in view of all 
that is happening throughout the States. We have got whole communities 
that have been devastated by the various restrictions on the spotted 
owl and other so-called surrogate species. About the only major 
activity that can go on is related to public lands.
  These communities have substantial expenses in building roads, in 
providing schools, in providing the services the gentleman from Utah 
mentioned. Then to put forth an amendment like this that basically will 
cut off this money that these communities are entitled to receive 
because of the services they are providing to the Government.
  We do not cut off anybody else's money for any reason because they 
are pursuing a legitimate claim against some branch of the Federal 
Government. Only here are we seeking to do that. I think that is wrong. 
I think it comes at a horrible time when our counties are under so much 
pressure economically right now. I strongly urge Members to defeat this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has 30 seconds 
remaining, and he has the right to close.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Cooley].
  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Skaggs 
amendment. This would be a punitive action against countless rural 
communities in the West and would devastate their already fragile 
economies.
  Stopping PILT payments would close roads and schools, stop public 
services, and cut hundreds of rural counties off at the knees. This 
will be a reality unless we defeat this amendment.
  It is understandable that some of my colleagues don't understand what 
PILT payments are or how they came to be, for our situation in the 
rural West is very unique. When the Federal Government owns anywhere 
from 50 to 80 percent of the land like it does in the West, these areas 
don't have a tax base source like everywhere else in the country. The 
fact that the Government owns all of this land in the West is 
historical circumstance, and as a result the Bureau of Land Management 
makes payments to these counties for lost revenues that would otherwise 
result if the land were able to derive operational tax revenues like 
everywhere else in the country.
  Stopping these PILT payments would be counterproductive for the 
Federal Government, and would deliver a harsh blow to many districts 
like mine. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment. It is simply not fair. Every county has the right, or State, 
to pursue their claim in court without being penalized. This would be 
an unfair thing to put a penalty on them for exercising their 
legitimate rights in the courts.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, let me just respond to some of the 
characteristics that have been offered up in the comments in opposition 
to this amendment.
  There is nothing punitive about it. It merely puts counties to the 
choice whether they want to assert that they own land outright that 
they are also claiming is Federal lands for purposes of PILT payments. 
You cannot have it both ways.
  The punishment, if there is any, is to the Federal taxpayers who are 
being expected to pay for something twice. I do not believe that that 
is fair. This has nothing to do with RS-2477 claims or legitimate 
boundary disputes or rights of way. Any of those sorts of things are 
really de minimis, since the effect of this amendment would be to have 
impact on a prorated basis, not ruling out, not invalidating any PILT 
payment for a county that may have a 2477 right-of-way issue pending.
  The final point is that we are not talking about legitimate claims. 
That is the whole point. The Supreme Court has ruled on this whole 
question of the county supremacy movement. It has invalidated the legal 
underpinnings of the movement. These are not valid claims, and we 
should not be taken to the cleaners for PILT payments at the same time 
we are having to incur legal expenses to establish continued Federal 
title to these lands.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I am reading from the gentleman's amendment here. It says asserting a 
claim. That seems to be the pivotal point of this amendment, a county 
asserting a claim.
  I could name a lot of counties that are asserting a claim on RS-2477 
roads. It that not a claim, debating whether or not it belongs to the 
county or whether it belongs to the Federal Government?
  Mr. SKAGGS. The amendment speaks in terms of a formal action, meaning 
a county ordinance or other action of the political subdivision. Again, 
in most of these situations, if I can reclaim my time, the acreage 
involved, and these RS-2477 issues compared to the total acreage on 
which PILT payment is based, is really de minimis.
  This is not the problem. The problem is the broadside assertions of 
county title over all Forest Service lands, over all BLM lands, over 
all Fish and Wildlife lands, that some 58 counties in our part of the 
country have asserted. I am just saying they cannot have it both ways. 
You cannot both get a PILT payment and say, ``But it is my land, 
anyway.''
  Mr. HANSEN. If the gentleman will yield further, between Alaska and 
Utah there are over 1,000 of these counties asserting a claim on RS-
2477, regardless of size.
  Mr. SKAGGS. As I say, those are really de minimis in the context of 
what this amendment would accomplish.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?


           amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

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

       Amendment No. 56 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: 
     Page 94, after line 24, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 318. None of the funds made available to the Forest 
     Service by this Act may be used for the construction of 
     roads, nor the preparation of timber sales, in roadless areas 
     of 3,000 or more acres in size.


                             point of order

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the amendment 
of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI of the rules of the House by requiring substantial new duties 
on the part of the Secretary of Agriculture to determine roadless areas 
on national forest lands; therefore creating legislation on an 
appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
care to respond to the point of order?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply a limitations amendment that 
states that none of the funds made available to the Forest Service may 
be used for timber roads construction or timber sales preparation in 
roadless areas. It seeks to reduce the taxpayers' 

[[Page H 7126]]
liability only in roadless areas, the most high-cost areas and most 
likely to result in below-cost timber sales.
  The amendment was filed in accordance with the rules and preprinted 
in the Congressional Record and reviewed by the parliamentarian's 
office. The parliamentarian and I have been in discussions for many, 
many hours, until late last night and throughout the day today over 
this issue. I have some extensive remarks that I would like to make 
with regard to the objections that have been raised.
  First the National Forest Management Act of 1976 directs the Forest 
Service to inventory all lands and resources that they manage. The 
Forest Service must devise forest plans that include specific land use 
designations.
  According to the National Forest Management Act, title XVI, the 
Renewable Resource Assessment, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
prepare a Renewable Resource Assessment, analyze the present 
anticipated uses, create an inventory based on the information 
developed by the Forest Service and other Federal agencies, provide a 
description of the Federal service program, and provide for a 
discussion of important policy considerations.
  The statute also requires the land management plans to comply with 
the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which means that 
everything in the forest must be inventoried for an environmental 
assessment or possible full-blown environmental impact statement.
                              {time}  1615

  I would make the Chair aware of the National Forest Management Act, 
which specifies procedures to ensure that land management plans are 
prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969.
  They second specify guidelines which require the identification and 
suitability of lands for resource management, provide for the obtaining 
of inventory data on the various renewable resources in soil and water, 
including the pertinent maps, graphic material, and explanatory aids. 
On and on it goes.
  Second, according to the Forest Service regulations, to implement 
Congress' laws they must conduct an inventory of all roadless land in 
each of the national forests and I would like to cite for the Record 
section 219.17, the evaluation of roadless areas.
  ``Unless otherwise provided by law, the roadless areas within the 
National Forest System shall be evaluated and considered for 
recommendation as potential roadless areas, including those previously 
inventoried must be taken into consideration; areas contiguous to 
existing wilderness, primitive areas, or administratively proposed 
wildernesses; areas that are contiguous to roadless and undeveloped 
areas; and areas designated by the Congress for wilderness study, 
administrative proposals pending before the Congress,'' and on and on 
she goes.
  Further, the Forest Service Management Act regulations require that 
all timber sales must be in compliance with the forest plan, including 
the requirements of 36 CFR, section 219-14, which require detailed 
analysis of timber volumes, costs, and other matters.
  If I would cite that particular code, that directs the Forest Service 
to conduct benefit analysis as expressed through gross receipts of the 
Government. Such receipts shall be based on the expected stumpage 
prices, the payments in kind from timber harvest, considering the 
future supply and demand. It takes into account the costs, including 
the anticipated investments maintenance and operating management and 
planning costs.
  In addition, it takes into account the long-term yield. You do not 
have to just count the acreage; you have to count the trees to do this. 
So, the notion that somehow this amendment is out of order because we 
call for an indication of 3,000 acres, versus 5,000 acres, is 
ridiculous.
  The fact of the matter is that the 5,000-acre designation is for 
wilderness areas. In order to comply with this, you have got to get 
down to the actual number of trees that are counted in the specific 
area.
  Most importantly, continuing on the regulations in section 223.83, 
specifically requires that timber sales prospectus to include data on 
acreage, road standards for specified roads to be constructed, and the 
estimated construction costs.
  I would cite in that law, a timber sale prospectus shall specify at a 
minimum, and it goes through a number of different points, but the 
location and the area of sale, including harvest acreage. A timber sale 
prospectus shall also include the road standards and the roads to be 
constructed, the estimated road construction costs and the purchaser 
credit limit.
  The fact of the matter is that the amendment simply limits the Forest 
Service discretion to build roads or conduct timber sales in roadless 
areas which they have already identified as part of their inventory and 
which are 3,000 acres or greater in size.
  Fourth, to show that this information is currently available, the 
Forest Service produced an analysis of the roads that the Forest 
Service planned to build into roadless areas in last year's Interior 
appropriations bill.
  Those of you who argue that the Forest Service does not already know 
its roadless areas ignore the mandate placed upon the Forest Service by 
this committee. As you can see, the current laws provide substantial 
evidence that the Forest Service is already mandated to know the extent 
and character of roadless areas in their forests. If they do not know, 
they just simply have not followed the law.
  I would cite again for the Record the 1995 Interior appropriations 
that required the Forest Service to include in its 1996 budget a 
specific breakdown of all roadless areas planned for entry in the 1996 
program with the justification for each planned entry.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this amendment does not require a new 
duty on the Forest Service. It simply requires them to carry out the 
current law and to continue to fulfill the requirements placed upon the 
Appropriations Committee.
  I urge the consideration of the amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, in defense of my point of order, let me 
point out the issue that we have raised to the point of order, and not 
to the amendment, goes to this: In fact, are we asking the Forest 
Service to create a new duty? Are we asking them to do something? If 
so, that should come from the authorizing committee, which I maintain 
is what we are talking about here.
  The Forest Service has no duty to collect infinite amounts of 
information. They already have collected information on roadless areas 
more than 5,000 acres, not on areas of more than 3,000 acres.
  The Forest Service was asked by the Appropriations Committee to 
respond to this. Here is what they said. ``We do not have a good 
estimate of how many ongoing or planned projects involve roadless areas 
of 3,000 acres or more. There has not been a need to collect this 
information.''
  ``This amendment,'' the Kennedy amendment, ``would require the Forest 
Service to make a determination of the size of every area for which 
timber sale or a road construction project is planned to assure that it 
is not an unroaded area of 3,000 acres or more. We do not have the 
information necessary to make a reasonable estimate of the cost of this 
requirement.''
  Now, if that is not asking for a new duty, I do not know what is and 
new duties come out of the authorizing committee, not out of the 
appropriation committee and I would urge that the Chair rule 
accordingly.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the 
point of order. In my view, the Kennedy amendment is an appropriate 
limitation and does not violate clause 2 of rule XXI which prohibits 
legislation on a general appropriation bill.
  As set forth in book 8 of Deschler's Precedents, a limitation 
amendment is in order if it restricts criteria which are within the 
range of choices given to an official by the authorizing law. To quote, 
``A limitation may, in fact, amount to a change of policy, but if the 
limitation is merely a negative restriction on the use of funds, it 
normally will be allowed.''
  The Kennedy amendment restricts the discretion that Forest Service 
officials have in the exercise of their duties to conduct road building 
and hold timber sales in roadless areas of 3,000 acres or greater in 
the national forests.

[[Page H 7127]]

  The Kennedy amendment does not impose any new or additional data-
gathering duty on the Forest Service beyond existing law.
  As a general matter, the Forest Service is obligated to develop land 
and resource management plans for the National Forest System as 
required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Planning Act of 1974, as 
amended by the National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. section 160, 
et. seq.
  Purusant to the authorizing act, forest plans determine the 
availability and suitability of forestlands for resource management. 
While forest plans are normally revised on 10- to 15-year cycles, 
section 219.12(D) of the Code of Federal Regulations provides that 
``[E]ach forest supervisor shall obtain and keep current inventory data 
appropriate for managing the resources under his or her administrative 
jurisdiction * * * Data shall be stored for ready retrieval.'' The 
forest plans are used as the benchmark for further review and planning 
of each of the individual sales in compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
  As a specific matter, CFR section 219.17 directs the Forest Service 
to evaluate and consider roadless areas as part of their land planning 
process. The inventory and the evaluation of these roadless areas is to 
be developed with public participation. The definition of roadless 
areas are lands which ``remain essentially roadless and undeveloped, 
and which have not yet been designated as wilderness or for 
nonwilderness uses by law.''
  It is important to note, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] has, that there is no acreage limitation in the CFR section on 
roadless areas as there is with wilderness.
  Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service has a sophisticated land planning 
system which now includes the use of GIS technology for mapping. No 
duties to gather information are required by the Kennedy amendment 
beyond the existing law. The notion that they are unaware and incapable 
of determining where 3,000 acre or more blocks of roadless areas exist 
is an insult to the agency. I would point out to my colleagues that 
3,000 acres is 5 square miles of land.
  The Forest Service is capable of producing this data on a ready basis 
for roadless areas on a national scale. For example, in response to the 
directive for the fiscal year 1995 House Interior appropriations 
report, they submitted data in their 1996 budget request which itemizes 
94.9 miles of construction planned for roadless areas, including 70 
miles in the National Forest of Alaska.
  The fact that they have not presented data to the Congress on the 
amount of roadless lands in excess of 3,000 acres is simply off the 
mark. What is relevant to the amendment is that the Forest Service has 
the existing capability of providing such data and does so on a regular 
and current basis on a national scale.
  What is even more important is that they have the data which can be 
applied to the individual timber sales in compliance with the Kennedy 
amendment.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me submit on behalf of the argument 
against the point of order that this data is readily available and this 
is nothing more than a ministerial act, and that is 36 CFR, chapter 2, 
which deals with the contents of the advertisement and the contents of 
the prospective of the sales.
  There are some 35, almost 40, requirements that go into this, which 
include the location and the estimated qualities of timber and the 
forest products offered for sale. For each sale outside the State of 
Alaska, which includes a provision the purchaser the credit for 
construction of permanent roads with total estimated construction costs 
exceeding $20,000, a timber sale shall include: One, the total 
estimated construction costs of all permanent roads. When submitting 
the bids, they have to say exactly how much it is going to cost to have 
the Forest Service construct those roads.
  Under the contents of the prospective, the Forest Service must 
provide the location and area of sale, including the harvest acreage; 
the estimated volumes, including the quality of the volume, the size of 
the trees, the age of the trees, and the class of the trees. Very 
specific, on-the-ground determinations they must make now on an ongoing 
basis.
  They must include the road standards for specified roads to be 
constructed; the estimated road construction costs and the purchaser 
credit limit. If small businesses are involved, the road standards 
applicable to the construction of the permanent roads and the reference 
of source of such information; the date of final completion of all 
permanent roads, where they will go, and when they will be finished; a 
statement explaining how the Forest Service intends to plan for road 
construction by forest account or contract and whether or not the 
higher bidder shall make that determination.
  What, in fact, we have is a very detailed process of counting the 
trees and taking the inventory. What we have is the overlay of a number 
of Federal laws that require this inventory, require that the inventory 
be kept current, that the land base be kept current, that the timber 
base be kept current so that they can, in fact, comply on an annual and 
regular basis with the National Environmental Policy Act as they let 
lands for sale for timber sales.
  Mr. Chairman, all of this is done on an ongoing basis. The Kennedy 
amendment is simply a limitation on those functions and tracts of land 
of 3,000 acres or more.
  What we have here is a simple ministerial task to be carried out by 
the Forest Service; a task and function which is no additional burden 
to them because it is part of their ongoing requirements under existing 
authorization and legislation by the Congress and I think the point of 
order should be overruled.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. DICKS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of 
order.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is a lot more straightforward 
than we are trying to make it with these long orations about the 
technicalities. But let us get to the bottom line. We are changing, and 
the Forest Service has already said in their letter here, that they 
have been operating on a 5,000 acre basis. We are now going to restrict 
that to 3,000 acres. That is going to be a major new responsibility, 
ministerial duty, on the Department of Agriculture and the Forest 
Service.
  They apparently do not have these areas at that small a size. 
Therefore, it is going to be an additional burden. I think, therefore, 
it is legislation and is subject to a point of order.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, in responding to the 
gentleman's point on the point of order, I would point out the fact is 
what we have shown, and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] may 
not like the long recitations, but they happen to be the law of the 
land, is that the Forest Service has this information for every acre of 
land; for every parcel of land; for every sale they promote.
  So to suggest that they do not have it for 3,000 acres, when in fact 
they have it for every acre, is simply ludicrous on its face.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor 
of the point of order offered by the gentleman from Utah.
  It is not as simple as the gentleman from California would present 
it. We are trying to open a broad road here to run through a herd of 
buffalo instead of just some technical amendment. First of all, under 
the Wilderness Act, the Secretary of Agriculture has surveyed National 
Forest lands of at least 5,000 acres which are roadless and meet 
certain other wilderness criteria, such as first, affected primarily by 
the forces of nature; second, has outstanding opportunities for 
solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; and third, 
contains ecological, geological, or other features of scenic, or 
historic value.
  If a forest area of any size is roadless but does not meet these 
other criteria, the Secretary can harvest timber, build roads, or 
engage in other types of multiple use activities.
  The Secretary of Agriculture may not have made determinations of 
roadlessness in nonwilderness forest lands because the lands did not 
meet other wilderness criteria. This would be a new test.
  For forest areas between 3,000 and 5,000 acres, the Secretary has 
never been required to make a determination 

[[Page H 7128]]
of roadlessness. This is a new requirement imposed on the Secretary by 
the Kennedy amendment.
  Determinations of roadlessness cannot be made solely from maps but 
requires on-site inspections. The Secretary must also conduct legal and 
historical research to determine if States and counties have pre-
existing RS 2477 rights of way for the construction of highways, which 
by operation of law can be converted into roads and therefore not 
subject to the prohibition on road construction and timber sales in the 
Kennedy amendment.
  The last time the Secretary of Agriculture had to survey forest lands 
for road determinations under RARE II, it took 10 years. And in the 10 
years since RARE II, more roads have no doubt been built, requiring new 
surveys to see if these lands are subject to the Kennedy amendment ban.
  The Kennedy amendment cannot execute without substantial new 
determinations of facts based on physical surveys of 191 million acres 
of National Forest lands, plus legal and historical research conducted 
by the Secretary of Agriculture.
  The Kennedy amendment creates a new class of de facto wilderness by 
barring timber sales and road construction without meeting all of the 
Wilderness Act requirements.
  The Kennedy amendment creates a new 3,000-acre wilderness requirement 
in contradiction of the wilderness release language--language which 
says that multiple use activities are allowed on nonwilderness 
designated areas--contained in each State's wilderness bill that passed 
the Congress.
  And the Kennedy road amendment deals with timber primarily and does 
not consider the fact that many of the roads in the national forest are 
multiple-use roads.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Can we be heard on the point raised by the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on this.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I know you are. I want to make sure you 
have all the evidence.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has heard enough evidence.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The Chair sounds like Judge Ito.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair appreciates the gentleman's sense of humor.
  The gentleman from Utah makes a point of order that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is not in 
order as a violation of clause 2 of rule XXI because it imposes new 
duties not required by law. The amendment limits Forest Service funds 
in the bill for the construction of roads or for the preparation of 
timber sales in roadless areas of 3,000 or more acres in size. The 
Chair notes that, as shown in volume 8 of ``Deschler's Precedents,'' 
chapter 26, section 22.26, the proponent of an amendment has the burden 
of showing that the amendment does not change existing law. Under law 
codified in section 1603 of title 16, United States Code, the Secretary 
of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, is 
required to ``develop and maintain on a continuing basis a 
comprehensive and appropriately detailed inventory of all National 
Forest System land and renewable resources.'' The same law, at section 
1602 of title 16, requires the Secretary to prepare a recommended 
renewable resource program providing in appropriate detail for 
protection, management, and development of the National Forest System 
including forest development roads and trails. Regulations require the 
Forest Service to make determinations for the suitability of timber 
resources to a level of detail that includes direct benefits based on 
expected stumpage prices to payments in kind from timber harvest 
considering future supply to vegetation management practices chosen for 
each type of vegetation. For example, in relation to the timber sale 
portion of the amendment, the minimum specification for a timber sale 
prospectus under title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 223.83 
requires an announcement of harvest acreage for each sale as well as 
road standards specified for roads to be constructed. Given this level 
of detail already required of the Secretary, the Chair believes that 
determinations as to an area's roadlessness by a particular number of 
acres does not impose new duties on the executive branch. The Chair 
cites volume 8, section 66.6 of ``Deschler's Precedents,'' where an 
exception from a limitation that did not prohibit the use of funds for 
designated Federal activities which were already required by law in 
more general terms was held in order. In that case the law required a 
continuing evaluation of the matter as does the law in the case at 
hand. Therefore the Chair finds the amendment does not legislate and 
overrules the point of order.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and a Member opposed 
will each be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  (Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I 
admire the Chair's logic and his brilliance, and I certainly did not 
agree with my friend from California who suggested that you were 
anything like Judge Ito. If that be the case, it would be a good day 
for O.J. Simpson.
  In any event, Mr. Chairman, I rise in order to offer this amendment, 
No. 56, with my colleagues, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes a targeted limitation on the 
prohibiting of the Forest Service from conducting the most egregious 
sales, building roads in our so-called roadless areas of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, even this amendment provides for a very small reduction 
of just $18 million to stop building roads into the highest mountain 
areas and into the areas of our country that provide the greatest 
wilderness, that provide the greatest opportunities for backpacking, 
which do the greatest amount of environmental damage and provide the 
highest cost per board foot of any lumber in this country. Those costs 
end up being paid for by the American people.
  It is an egregious form of the kind of corporate welfare that all of 
the people in this Chamber have vowed to fight against. We do not need 
taxpayers writing checks to the lumber companies for excessive cost to 
build roads to areas that they would never on their own consider 
building themselves. The only reason why these trees get cut down is 
because the American taxpayer is willing to foot the bill. If we put 
this bill on a cost-analysis basis, the lumber companies will not cut 
these trees down, and we will preserve the finest and most beautiful 
parts of our land and stop the kind of environmental havoc that is 
taking place as a result of this egregious program.
  I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert].
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I proudly identify with this amendment. I 
think it makes an awful lot of sense.
  The Federal Government has lost $5.6 billion on its timber program, 
due to timber sales that bring in less than the Forest Service's 
initial investment and because of subsidies issued for the construction 
of logging roads.
  In fact, timber subsidies are currently several times the Forest 
Service's annual timber returns.
  We are always told that we should operate Government more like a 
business, and let me tell you, in the private sector this would spell 
disaster. It would be bankruptcy. They would not do it.
  And the problem gets worse when the Government offers subsidies for 
timber road construction in roadless areas. These areas are usually 
remote and wild. They are made up of rocky, unmanageable terrain, and 
the difficulty and cost of building roads in these unmanageable roads 
and lands is great and nearly impossible for the Forest Service to 
recoup expenses.
  I wish I had a lot of time, but our time is severely limited. I am 
cooperating as fully as I can, trying to move this along. I proudly 
identify with this amendment. Let us pass it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

[[Page H 7129]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let us see what is going 
on here. What we have done to our natural resource policy in this 
country is like the cat eating the grindstone, just a little bit at a 
time. We take a few acres here, a few acres there.
  What have we done to 191 million acres of U.S. forestlands that were 
heretofore reserved for timber, one of the prime, part of the multiple-
use purpose? We have reduced that to about 25 percent. We already have 
100 million acres of that 191 million acres in roadless or wilderness 
areas--25 percent, less than 50 million acres, of the 191 can even be 
considered for harvest.
  This amendment will cost us another 45,000 jobs. It will cost the 
taxpayer millions of dollars. It will cost the local taxpayer who gets 
this money--primarily for education--millions of dollars, and these 
gentlemen know this.
  This is another way of saying we do not want any trees cut in the 
U.S. forests, and we know that is certainly not the policy of the great 
portion of the people. We voted almost two-thirds in this House to have 
a timber salvage bill in order to see that we could start saving tens 
of thousands of jobs we are losing all over this country.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington, [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. The point I want to make is we are now reinventing 
government. What that means is the Forest Service has been reduced in 
personnel by 3,000 people. Timber sales have come down dramatically.
  If we change the standard from 5,000 acres to 3,000 acres, they are 
going to have to redo all of their forest plans throughout this 
country. That will be a disaster that will mean less timber harvesting.
  Timber harvesting nationally has come down by 60 percent. So I have 
supported wildernesses. I voted for my wilderness bill in my State.
  But to come in now after this dramatic reduction in timber harvesting 
and to come in now and say we have got to reduce this standard and 
change it, is a mistake.
  By the way, this is the Clinton administration. There is Jim Lyons 
and Albert Gore and Jack Ward Thomas. They are not going to go out and 
tear apart the roadless areas in this country, and I think it is an 
affront. I think it is an affront to this administration to change this 
standard after what they have done for ecosystem management and 
improving our environment, and I am shocked the gentleman from 
Massachusetts would do such a thing.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 
seconds.
  Last week I saw the gentleman from Washington throw a yellow flag on 
the gentleman from Oklahoma because he used a technicality. Another 
fine football player. I cannot believe the gentleman from Washington 
State would dare to try to use a technicality to rule us out of order 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kennedy 
amendment in terms of the Clinton administration's programs in terms of 
timber. The fact is that the question is do you want to spend this 
money on harvesting trees or building roads? That is what this is all 
about.
  Time and again there is no reduction in terms of the money in terms 
of this bill in terms of timber harvest or preparation. The thing is, 
where are we going to do it? Time and again our colleagues have assured 
us when they had the salvage sales up here and all their discussion 
about forest health, that they were not going to go into these roadless 
areas, all of a sudden when you have an amendment on the floor dealing 
with areas that are roadless, all of a sudden we are going to go in 
there and we are going to have to construct roads.
  So this really belies the type of representations that were made on 
the floor here with regard to forest health. This bill has less money 
in it for forest health than the administration asked. This bill has 
more money for road building.
  The fact is you do not produce jobs by building roads unless you are 
in the roadbuilding business because they cost money. They cost money 
in terms of credit, which is not represented in this bill, and they 
cost money in terms of reconstruction. That means closing roads once 
they are there so the soil is not moving into the streams and 
destroying the salmon fisheries across the Pacific Northwest and across 
this country.
  Support the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in strong opposition to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. In addition 
to preserving the health of our forests, the timber sale program at the 
Forest Service is a net revenue generator for the Federal Government 
and our local communities.
  Last year, the agency produced net revenues of $214 million and 
returned over $280 million to the local counties where our national 
forests are located. This occurred while funding levels for timber 
sales have fallen almost 30 percent over the past 5 years.
  Similarly, road construction funding has been cut by 38 percent over 
the last 5 years. The condition of Forest Service roads have severely 
declined over the last decade. Reduced funding has and will continue to 
allow roads to deteriorate beyond what can be repaired by routine 
maintenance. Major reconstruction is the only way to restore these 
roads to safe conditions. The Forest Service currently has a $440 
million backlog in road construction needs. The funds appropriated by 
the subcommittee are essential for allowing the agency to meet 
watershed protection and analysis requirements. For the sake of our 
economy and our rural communities, the time has come to reverse the 
trend of reduced funding for roads and timber sales.
                              {time}  1645

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young], the chairman of the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Kennedy amendment. I say to the gentleman, ``Shame on you, Mr. 
Kennedy.''
  Mr. Chairman, this would cause a loss of $250 million of receipts to 
the Treasury, and these figures are the Treasury figures, a loss of $60 
million in revenue for sharing of counties and schools around these 
areas, a loss of 15 jobs for every 1 million board feet not harvested, 
and, if we reduce it by 1 billion board feet, think how many jobs will 
be lost there, 25-percent reduction to the timber program which is 
already four times slower than it was 5 years ago.
  Let us not kid ourselves. My friends, this amendment is to stop the 
total timber industry in the United States, especially in the States of 
Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California. This is what this is about.
  I ask, ``Where else do you have 3,000 acres that don't have roads in 
it already?'' This is an attempt to stop all logging so we no longer 
have the opportunity to reduce a renewable resource.
  That is why I say, ``Shame on you.'' This is a renewable source. This 
is not something that will not grow back. This is something that has to 
be done, and managed, and should be, and we are not cutting the timber 
we were 5 years ago, so I suggest respectfully this is a bad amendment, 
and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 40 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], our cleanup hitter.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Nethercutt] made the point that there is a huge backlog in road 
construction in the Forest Service. This is about new roads. This is 
about continuing a program that lost the taxpayers $330 million in 
fiscal year 1994. This is about the taxpayer, and this is about staying 
out of the roadless areas because those are the most expensive sales. 
That is where the litigation is.
  Mr. Chairman, we are cutting back on visitor centers, we are cutting 
back on recreation in this bill. We ought to 

[[Page H 7130]]
take that money, and use it, and put it where the people can enjoy it, 
prosper from it, and the local communities can do the same. We should 
not be engaging in building new roads and to roadless areas. This 
amendment itself will save about $18 to $20 million off the current 
program. That is a huge whopper of a loss. What the Forest Service 
seeks to do is like if McDonald's said they wanted to build a hamburger 
stand on the Moon, and they had to use a space shuttle to get its 
customers there.
  This is outrageous. Private enterprise ought to be building these 
roads, they should not be coming. It is $300 million subsidies. They 
have been against subsidies all the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment to preclude 
the Forest Service budget from building roads and conducting timber 
sales in roadless areas of our national forests.
  Mr. Chairman, many popular Forest Service programs take significant 
hits in the bill before us. The budget for land acquisition drops from 
$65.3 million in fiscal year 1995 to $14.6 million, a 78-percent 
reduction. The budget for construction of recreational roads, trails, 
and visitor facilities is $72 million less than the administration's 
request. Construction of Forest Service visitor facilities is down 63 
percent and trail construction is cut by 85 percent from the current 
fiscal year.
  But in the midst of these draconian cuts, the committee has somehow 
found it desirable to pile on taxpayer subsidies to provide corporate 
welfare for some of their friends in the timber business. The bill 
provides $57 million in direct subsidies for construction of timber 
roads and $50 million more in indirect subsidies through the purchaser 
credit program where we trade national forest trees for roads to the 
clearcuts.
  The bill also provides $189 million for timber sales management which 
is about $31 million or 20 percent more than the administration's 
budget request.
  Simply put, Mr. Chairman, this bill devastates the budget for 
campgrounds, visitor facilities, and trails for people to enjoy and use 
our national forests. Instead, what the people get is what they don't 
want--more clearcuts and bigger subsidies for those in the timber 
industry who become dependent upon taxpayer handouts.
  As the Congressional Budget Office has explained, in seven of the 
nine National Forest System regions, annual cash receipts from Federal 
timber sales have consistently failed to cover the Forest Service's 
annual cash expenditures. In other words, the Forest Service Timber 
Program is below-cost, which means that the Forest Service spends more 
money annually for roads and administrative expenditures than the 
Treasury receives in revenues. No private business could stay in 
business managing its assets in such a cavalier manner.
  Why should Members care? According to CBO, we should care because 
below-cost timber sales lead to an increase in the Federal deficit, 
wasteful depletion of Federal resources through uneconomic harvest, 
unwarranted destruction of roadless forests valued by many recreational 
visitors, and Government interference with private timber markets.
  Mr. Chairman, the Kennedy amendment reduces, but does not entirely 
eliminate, below-cost sales. It is a modest amendment intended to put 
the brakes on the most expensive, money losing sales by preventing new 
roads and timber sales in major roadless areas.
  Mr. Chairman, in a bill where the majority is demanding significant 
sacrifice in the name of deficit reduction, it is indefensible to heap 
more money than even the Forest Service says is necessary on taxpayer 
subsidies for timber sales and road building. To increase 
environmentally destructive corporate welfare at the same time the bill 
is cutting the budget for people to use and enjoy our national forests 
should be a serious embarrassment to the majority.
  I urge Members to vote for the Kennedy amendment that will save the 
taxpayers money and preserve the increasingly rare roadless areas in 
our National Forest System.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Bunn].
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, what is outrageous is that we have 
an amendment on the floor that proposes locking up 60.2 million acres. 
That is more than the State of Massachusetts and most of the six States 
surrounding. It is outrageous that we have had mill closure after mill 
closure, 10 mills in the State of Oregon, 800 jobs lost last year; 
since 1989, 111 mills, 16,700 jobs. And then we are told that this is a 
losing proposition.
  We made a net; that is net, not gross, net, $213 million last year 
when we were told we lost 330 million. We made 800 million a few years 
ago, but we are barely surviving.
  I say to my colleagues, ``Don't shut us down.''
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment. The roads provide access to harvest the timber crop so that 
young people can build homes at a reasonable cost. This timber goes 
into the homes of America, but also it opens up these beautiful forests 
so the millions of our fellow citizens have an opportunity to fish, to 
hunt, to camp, to enjoy the forests. We forget that twice the visitor 
days of the Park Service are in the Forest Service, and these roads 
provide the necessary access. These forests belong to all Americans, 
and the people, therefore, should have the right to use them, to use 
the products of the forest and to enjoy the beauties of the forest for 
recreational purposes.
  I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment to prevent the use 
of funds for timber roads and timber sale preparation in roadless 
areas. I support it because it makes sound economic sense and will save 
tax payer over $18 million.
  Given the fact that our national debt is approaching $5 trillion, I 
believe the Federal Government should not bear the responsibility for 
timber companies to construct logging roads in areas currently without 
roads. While there may be a case for a logging program, this is an 
example of where the return to the taxpayer does not justify the cost.
  The U.S. Forest Service has already constructed 360,000 miles of 
logging roads, or 8 times the total number of miles in our interstate 
highway system. Even with this existing infrastructure, the Forest 
Service loses money on many timber sales, in part, because of the cost 
of constructing new roads. And the most, expensive roads to construct 
are those in roadless areas.
  By prohibiting the construction of these roads, we can increase the 
return on taxpayers' investment in the U.S. Forest Service timber 
program. This is an example of the type of common sense that voters in 
Minnesota and across the country are looking for in their elected 
leaders. It is fiscally responsible.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this common sense amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy-Boehlert-
Vento amendment to stop the construction of new Forest Service roads in 
roadless areas.
  There is a good reason why these areas have remained roadless in the 
past. It is costly and environmentally unsound to harvest timber from 
these areas. Most of the roadless areas are extremely remote, 
mountainous, and generally not well-suited to timber harvesting. The 
cost of harvesting and removing timber from these areas is tremendous, 
and because of the difficulty of constructing good roads on steep 
slopes, timber sales in roadless areas almost always lose money.
  Last year, the Wilderness Society reports that 109 of the 120 
National Forests lost money. This is $337 million of the taxpayers 
money which could be used for more productive programs.
  Logging and road building in these areas carries enormous 
environmental costs as well. Roads contribute to soil erosion and 
sedimentation of rivers that harm fish and other aquatic organisms.
  Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service has claimed that it is moving toward 
``ecosystem management.'' If this is true--and we certainly take them 
at their word--it should not be building roads on remote and untouched 
tracts of forest lands.
  Mr. Chairman, why would we knowingly build roads and harvest timber 
in areas where it is uneconomical and environmentally damaging to do 
so? The forests belong to the American people, and I believe that they 
want to put an end to below-cost timber sales. The first sales to be 
eliminated ought to be those that have the greatest financial and 
environmental costs--timber in previously roadless areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment 
and protect our wilderness areas and the taxpayers dollars.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the amendment by Mr. Kennedy to the Interior appropriations bill. This 
amendment is designed to reduce funds to the Forest Service for the 
construction of roads for the preparation of timber sales, in roadless 
areas. The amendment is also designed to reduce funds to the Forest 
Service for timber sales in roadless areas.
  If enacted, this amendment would shrink the amount of timber acreage 
suitable for harvesting by roughly one-third. One-third. The Kennedy 
amendment would have the effect of taking more than 60 million acres 
and essentially designating them as ``wilderness'' areas. Sixty 

[[Page H 7131]]
million acres, an area nearly the size of New England.
  The proposed road construction budget for fiscal year 1996 will 
provide a total of less than 100 miles of roads in our forests, 100 
miles for a total area of nearly two-thirds of a million acres. This 
averages out to roughly one mile of road for every 1,000 square miles, 
an area almost the size of the State of Rhode Island, or one-half the 
size of Delaware.
  Most of all, the Kennedy amendment will have a definite impact on 
small communities, rural communities already hit hard by the decline in 
funding of roughly one-third in the Federal timber sales program over 
the past 5 years. Federal timber sales have declined by 60 percent 
during this same period, a decline that has brought about closures of 
hundreds of mills and the unemployment of tens of thousands of 
Americans. This has been the unfortunate reality for many of my 
constituents, and I believe my colleague from Massachusetts would agree 
with this Member from Michigan that the last thing we need in America 
are more jobless, more closed businesses, and more communities 
struggling to survive.
  I ask my colleagues to help these workers, to help these companies, 
and to help the many communities that will be impacted by this 
amendment. I ask my colleagues to oppose the Kennedy amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 255, not voting 13, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 522]

                               AYES--166

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--255

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Coburn
     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     Goodling
     Istook
     Kennedy (RI)
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Sisisky
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman

                              {time}  1711

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Richardson for, with Mr. Stearns against.

  Mr. GILCHREST and Mr. KASICH changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. BALDACCI, Ms. HARMAN, and Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned with reports about high ranking Forest 
Service officials telling my constituents and Forest Service employees 
that direction from the Congress provided in bill language on eco-
region management would not really matter. I am alarmed that the Forest 
Service still wants to go forward with implementation of so-called 
ecosystem management and eco-region studies.
  I do not believe that eecosystem activities have ever been authorized 
by the Congress, and I was glad to learn that the Nethercutt amendment 
on this subject would also prevent ecosystem studies in Idaho. I was 
also glad to learn that the committee report accompanying this bill 
requires that the Forest Service report by December 1, 1996, on the 
purposes, the scope, and benefits, as well as the costs associated with 
ecosystem planning.
  I would like to see the report sooner, so that the Committee on 
Appropriations and the authorizing committees can fully act on and 
authorize and fund this expensive ecosystem project now under way.
  I ask the subcommittee chairman if there is any way to get these 
reports any sooner?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we will make every attempt to get the 
ecosystem report before the next appropriations cycle. If the reports 
that the gentlewoman heard are true, then we can raise the ecosystem 
issue with the Senate and address the problem in conference. I do, 
however, think that the authorizing committee should be involved.

[[Page H 7132]]

  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. As a member of 
both authorizing committees, I am working closely with the Committee on 
Appropriations, and I intend to follow up in our next set of hearings 
on the reports that the Forest Service plans to proceed with ecosystem 
assessments. Although your bill recommended $130 million for ecosystem 
planning, I am troubled by what I heard, and I hope that the 
subcommittee helps us address this and requests an explanation.
                              {time}  1715

  What I heard was reported from three congressional districts in the 
northwest, and I look forward to addressing this issue in the 
conference with the Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, I will work on making sure that the authorizing 
committees deal with these issues.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to emphasize how important I think 
it is for the greatest country in the world to support the arts.
  I believe very strongly that there should be a Federal role in arts 
funding.
  Civilizations are remembered for their great battles and their 
cultural contributions.
  The United States spends more on defense than any other country in 
the world--and next year we're giving the Pentagon $8 billion more than 
they have requested.
  Yet, this Congress wants to slash the Arts and Humanities Endowments 
with funding set to end entirely in 2 years.
  What does this say about our Nation's priorities?
  We invest in that which destroys and destroy that which creates.
  All developed countries in the world support their visual artists, 
musicians, performing artists, and cultural institutions.
  The amount the United States gives to the three Federal arts 
agencies, the NEA, the NEH and the IMS, is minuscule compared to what 
Britain, Canada, The
 Netherlands, France, Germany and Sweden allocate to the arts.

  This year in Germany, Berlin alone will devote 1.1 billion marks, or 
730 million dollars, to art and culture.
  This amounts to $225 per citizen of Berlin.
  In comparison, our National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities 
will each spend less than a quarter of that amount for the entire 
United States, or a mere 64 cents per U.S. citizen, the cost of 2 
postage stamps.
  We should be celebrating the contributions of the arts endowments to 
our country today, rather than trying to destroy them.
  Let me remind my friends on the other side that the agencies on the 
chopping block today were created by President Richard Nixon and 
defended by President Ronald Reagan.
  These Republicans believed in the importance of a vibrant American 
culture that could be passed on to future generations.
  Yes we need to reduce the size of the Federal Government.
  Yes we must cut the budget and reduce the deficit.
  But we must also keep our priorities straight.
  The leading countries of the world support the arts, often ten times 
as much as we do.
  Why should the wealthiest nation in the world choose to slash and 
destroy its arts and humanities endowments rather than nurture and 
encourage them?
  Assuring a rich American heritage should be one of the primary 
responsibilities of this and every Congress.
  Public arts and humanities funding, along with public education, is 
an obligation a government has to its people and to history.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong 
opposition to the amendment offered cutting funds for the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  At home over this weekend, numerous constituents expressed to me 
their views that cuts for arts programs in public schools and cultural 
displays at numerous museums and community facilities will deny our 
kids the chance to develop creativity and to learn about their cultural 
heritage.
  For example, the city of Venice has hosted numerous performing arts 
events, art displays, and multi-media activities that have been 
enormously popular. A terrific display of one museum's collection of 
Navajo and Pueblo textiles was funded with an NEA grant. Several 
travelling performing arts and theater groups have staged programs for 
the benefit of the citizens of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. The 
cities of San Pedro, Venice, Torrance, Playa del Ray, Hermosa Beach, 
Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach have enjoyed special education 
operatic performances. And students attending the elementary, middle 
and high schools of many of these same cities have participated in 
improvisational theater sponsored by a touring performing arts and 
musical company.
  Mr. Chairman, private funds will not take up the slack to continue 
these activities if the Congress cuts the National Endowment for the 
Arts. While fair revisions may be appropriate in times of budgetary 
streamlining, wiping out NEA is not reform.
  In fact, cutting funding for NEA is short-sighted. NEA is the Federal 
Government's vehicle for funnelling funds to local and State arts and 
humanities councils and organizations. Cutting, if not eliminating, NEA 
is tantamount to cutting locally-controlled resources. Such an action 
will have long-term repercussions that could lead to the destruction of 
community-based arts activities and programs. If this amendment had 
been successful, the greatest losers would have been our children and 
grandchildren--those for whom arts education is most important.
  While I was unavoidably absent last night during consideration of the 
Stearns amendment that sought to reduce NEA funding, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no''. But my vote against the Interior 
Appropriations bill on final passage is based, in part, on my concern 
over the level of funding for NEA and the majority's intention to 
eliminate all of its funding over the next several years.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
strong opposition to an amendment offered by Representative Crane which 
would eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. As 
presented, the Interior appropriations bill cuts the NEA budget nearly 
in half; a cut which I believe will devastate many existing educational 
arts 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 bring the benefit of theater, music, 
dance, and visual art to the people of my rural State.
  While many opponents of Federal funding for the arts expound on the 
monopoly on arts funding that more urban States supposedly enjoy, the 
invaluable benefits that NEA funding brings to rural States like South 
Dakota continually go unnoticed. Almost 50 percent of the grant 
applications to the NEA from South Dakota are approved and funded by 
the NEA, compared to roughly 20 percent of applications from New York 
and California. NEA programs exemplify the type of public-private 
partnerships that have traditionally fostered a collective dedication 
to arts education and cultural enrichment. The NEA gives State and 
local arts councils the necessary freedoms to meet local arts and 
educational needs.
  In fiscal year 1994, the NEA provided organizations like the South 
Dakota Arts Council and American Indian Services, Inc. with $779,500 
dollars to develop theater, dance, and other visual arts programs. With 
these funds, children's theater companies from Minneapolis, MN and 
Richmond, VA toured several of South Dakota's smaller cities. While 
larger urban areas have the benefit of multiple theaters and art 
museums, many South Dakotan's only exposure to theater and dance is 
through touring groups funded by NEA grants.
  In addition to fulfilling its mission of expanding the cultural and 
artistic horizon for every American, the NEA serves as an impetus for 
local economies and contributes to the Nation's fiscal well being. The 
nonprofit arts industry alone contributes $36.8 billion to the U.S. 
economy and provides over 1.3 million jobs to Americans nationwide. 
Business, tourism, restaurants, and hotels thrive on the arts. 
Nonprofit theaters serve annually an audience that has grown from 5 
million in 1965 to over 20 million in 1992. In South Dakota alone the 
economic impact of the arts can be seen both locally and statewide. In 
Aberdeen, a town of 27,000, the arts provide an average of $8,867 in 
local revenues annually. Additionally, 18 full time jobs were supported 
by the nonprofit arts industries in Aberdeen between 1990 and 1992.
  As belts are tightened at the Federal, State, and local levels, we 
cannot stand by and allow the complete elimination of the seed money 
for programs vital to cultural enrichment and education funded through 
the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment which 
would devastate the arts in this country.
  You know, the average taxpayer invests about 68 cents a year in the 
NEA; 68 cents.
  For that 68 cents, they get a lot back in return.
  For 68 cents, their local arts groups are supported.
  For 68 cents, their schools and communities are enriched.
  For 68 cents, jobs are created in their towns and cities.
  That is why, for the life of me, I can not understand why some 
Members want to bring the curtain down on our threatres and symphonies, 
especially when these same Members refuse to even look at cutting 
Pentagon pork.
  Mr. Chairman, investing in the arts reaps longterm benefits for our 
communities and our Nation.

[[Page H 7133]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote against this shortsighted amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I believe the humanities agencies are 
important to the cultural life and diversity of our country--to people 
of all ages, to people in our inner cities, in our suburbs, and in our 
rural communities.
  There are many, many positive effects of these dollars and what they 
help fund--for example:
  In Delaware, we are fortunate to have tremendously well-run and 
highly effective division of the arts, State Arts Council, and Delaware 
Humanities Forum. These organizations, which receive a combined total 
of about 75 percent of their funds from the national organizations, 
help fund such diverse exhibitions and events as:
  The Delaware Symphony Orchestra, that provides concerts in all three 
of our counties.
  Operadelaware which provides musical education programs statewide;
  The visiting scholars program, that brings University of Delaware 
professors into 137 Delaware classrooms to talk to 60,000 school 
children about American Presidents, and many other topics;
  The beautiful and historic Winterthur Museum and Gardens;
  Exhibitions, lectures, films about World War II and its impact on 
Delaware, which are offered throughout the State;
  The Georgetown Possum Point Players, a local theatre group;
  The Mid-Altantic Chamber Music Society;
  The Nanticoke Powwow in Millsboro, DE;
  Second Street Players, a community theatre group in Milford;
  The Dover Art League; and,
  The Southern Delaware Chorale.
  This is only a sampling of the many positive, quality programs or 
exhibits these organizations, fostered by the NEA and the NEH, help 
provide throughout the State of Delaware.
  I support a Federal role in funding the arts and humanities, but I do 
not believe that in a time of tremendous budget deficits and an 
enormous Federal debt, that virtually any program should be spared from 
budget cuts or restructuring.
  Having said that, the arts and humanities have not been spared. In 
fact, they have felt the edge of a heavy axe.
  Consequently, I urge my colleagues to support the Appropriations 
Committee actions by voting against any efforts to eliminate or cut 
further these organizations. They have fared far enough.
  Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment. Cutting the budget of the National Endowment for the 
Humanities by 40 percent next year is bad enough. This amendment, 
however, defies all sense of reasonableness. In a nation of such wealth 
and cultural diversity, this amendment is a tragic commentary on our 
priorities.
  The total budget for the NEH costs each American less than the price 
of a can of soda, and it leverages funds many times over that in 
private dollars.
  At a time when we are funding B-2 bombers that we don't even need, 
why must we slash one of the most modest and cost-effective investments 
that our Government makes in society?
  The National Endowment for the Humanities provides funding for 
student essay contests, teacher seminars, museum exhibitions, 
documentary films, research grants, public conferences and speakers, 
and library-based reading and discussions programs. Throughout all of 
these programs, the NEH helps to provide a greater understanding of our 
Nation's history and culture.
  Before you cast your vote, I urge my colleagues to heed the words of 
Ken Burns, producer of the highly acclaimed Civil War and Baseball 
series on PBS. Testifying before the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee earlier this year, Ken Burns declared emphatically that 
his Civil War series would not have been possible without the 
Endowment's support. I dare say the majority of my constituents would 
be willing to sacrifice the price of a can of Pepsi every year to pay 
for programs like the Civil War, not to mention all the other programs 
the NEH supports.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will harm our Nation's schools and 
damage our cultural heritage. It must be defeated.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1977, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. This 
short-sighted and extreme bill makes drastic cuts in some of America's 
most successful and important Federal programs. We have heard a lot of 
Members these past days talking about how responsible this bill is and 
how important these cuts are to the future of our country. If only this 
were true!
  In reality, the Gingrich Republicans have promised major tax cuts to 
those that least need it, have hiked up spending for the military and 
are now looking to cut hundreds of Federal programs for needy people to 
pay for their skewed priorities. Moreover, the Gingrich Republicans are 
so entirely committed to protecting their wealthy friends that they are 
only targeting certain programs for cuts, not the ones that benefit 
wealthy mining companies, and so forth. This is neither responsible nor 
in the best interest of this country's future.
  Let's look at some of the programs that will be eliminated to give 
tax cuts for the financially privileged and more money for the peace-
time military and compare them to what is protected in this bill. The 
Department of Energy's Low-Income Weatherization [WAP] Program is cut 
by 50 percent in H.R. 1977. Fifty percent! Since 1977, WAP has served 
over 4 million low- and fixed-income households in the Nation. It 
protects Americans throughout the country, especially in districts like 
mine where the winter season is long and bitterly cold, from having to 
choose between feeding themselves and their families or heating their 
homes.
  At the same time, this bill lifts the moratorium on mining claim 
patents, which allows mining companies to extract mineral wealth from 
taxpayer-owned Federal land for as little as $5 an acre. Last year, 
these big mining companies made $1.2 billion from the minerals they 
extracted from taxpayer-owned land and paid almost nothing back into 
the U.S. Treasury. Why should these rich corporations receive corporate 
welfare while the GOP is slashing the programs that help weatherize the 
homes of senior citizens and poor Americans and lower their winter 
heating bills? It is unconscionable and irresponsible.
  H.R. 1977 also cuts the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA] and the 
National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] by 40 percent this year and 
will completely eliminate them within 3 years. When you compare how 
much the NEA and NEH cost taxpayers each year to how much they provide, 
the argument that eliminating these programs is necessary just does not 
hold up. Since the NEA was created in 1965, the number of professional 
theaters, orchestras, dance and opera companies have multiplied greatly 
at a cost of less than a dollar a year per taxpayer.
  In my congressional district in Illinois, recent NEA and NEH grants 
have enabled the Black Ensemble Theatre Corp. to support their theater 
season and the People's Music School to continue its professional music 
training program for inner city youth and adults. Other NEA grants have 
given students from Maywood, Bellwood, Westchester, Oak Park, Berkeley, 
and River Forest the opportunity to attend special Chicago Symphony 
Orchestra concerts and gave the director, Roger Quinn, the chance to 
make the moving and highly acclaimed movie Hoop Dreams. I strongly 
oppose these cuts and urge my colleagues to oppose any amendments that 
reduce spending even more radically for these important programs.
  H.R. 1977 also eliminates the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation which advises the President and Congress on relevant 
issues and terminates all funding for the Department of Interior's pre-
listing and listing activities of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] 
until this law is reauthorized. More specifically, it eliminates $4.5 
million from the Fish and Wildlife Services budget for prelisting 
activities. This is exactly the type of short-sighted and extreme 
provisions that are rampant in H.R. 1977. The ESA's prelisting 
activities are designed to stabilize and protect species that would 
otherwise likely end up on the ESA's protection list. This saves 
funding and resources down the road before bald eagles, and so forth 
become dangerously close to extinction and extraordinary measures must 
be taken to ensure their preservation.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is clearly just another move by the Gingrich 
Republicans to cut programs that Americans care about and depend on so 
that they can give billion dollar bonuses and give aways to the rich. I 
am voting against this skewed bill and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 1996 Interior 
appropriations bill does a great disservice to the American Indian and 
Alaska Native tribes of our country. While we were able to restore 
funding for the education of Indian children in public schools, the 
bill still eliminates funding under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act for adult Indian education, services to children with 
disabilities, remedial instruction, gifted and talented student grants, 
and scholarships for Indian students.
  Under this bill, the Bureau of Indian Affairs' budget is $101 million 
below the President's request and the Indian Health Service's budget is 
$96 million below the President's budget. The IHS budget does not take 
into account any growth in population or cover inflationary costs. The 
BIA budget significantly restricts funding for Self-Governance and 
Self-Determination contracts, water rights negotiations and 
settlements, new school and hospital facilities, tribal courts, and 
community and economic development.
  In addition, the report accompanying the bill penalizes tribal self-
determination and economic growth by directing the Secretary of the 

[[Page H 7134]]
Interior to prepare a means-testing report for Indian tribes with 
gaming revenues. Further, the report directs the Secretary to ignore 
the law and halt the distribution to Self-Governance tribes of their 
rightful share of administrative funding.
  These actions demonstrate the attitude of the new Republican-
controlled Congress toward Indian country--that it's all right to 
forget the fact that our Nation signed treaties with Indian tribes 
promising the delivery of these very services; that it's all right to 
ignore the fact that our Nation has a legal trust responsibility to 
protect the well-being of the Indian tribes. We should never forget 
that these tribes have already borne more than their fair share of 
budget cuts in the past 200 years and we owe more to them than this 
bill provides.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend Chairman Regula 
and his staff for putting this bill together under difficult 
circumstances. Not only did the chairman have to deal with a tight 
602(b) allocation, but--between NBS, the timber program, NEA, NEH, and 
other programs included in this bill--it has attracted more than its 
fair share of controversy. I appreciate the chairman's efforts, 
patience, and perseverance.
  The fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill is consistent with 
the balanced budget resolution Congress recently adopted. It is nearly 
$1.6 billion below the fiscal year 1995 appropriations--that's a real 
cut of 11.5 percent.
  Nevertheless, I'm confident that the bill responsibly protects and 
enhances our Nation's priceless natural resources. And as the Member 
whose district includes the Allegheny National Forest, this is 
extremely important to me and my constituents.
  The bill, I believe, also upholds the multiple-use philosophy of the 
National Forest System by reversing a 5-year decline in the timber sale 
budget. Since the late 1980's timber harvest levels on national forests 
have plummeted over 60 percent. This year's timber sale management 
appropriation of $188 million represents a modest increase above last 
year's funding and will allow for a nationwide timber harvest of 
roughly 4.3 billion board feet.
  Some of my colleagues--who supported the piecemeal dismantling of the 
timber sale program--oppose this funding because, I believe, they want 
to prevent any timber harvesting on Federal lands. However, I want to 
point out several points to my colleagues: First, the U.S. Forest 
Service, by statute, is governed by multiple-use policies. Second, one 
of the missions of the Forest Service is to help provide the Nation 
with an adequate supply of timber. And third, timber harvesting is a 
legitimate and vital forest management tool.
  National forests are not national parks, wilderness areas, or 
wildlife refuges and their management plans must and do reflect this 
fact.
  Having said that, I am proud to say that the Allegheny National 
Forest is one of the Nation's most environmentally and fiscally well-
managed forests. It is a model of how multiple-use policies can work as 
it balances--with relatively little conflict--the interests of 12 
million annual recreational users, the owners of gas and oil rights 
beneath the forest, and timber harvesters.
  Its timber program is above-cost--returning millions of dollars in 
net receipts to the U.S. Treasury--and, to a large degree, sustains the 
Allegheny region's economy. In fact, one study from the University of 
Pittsburgh at Bradford estimated that 42 percent of the jobs in the 
region, to some extent, rely on harvesting timber in the ANF.
  So again, I thank the committee for rejecting the President's 
inadequate timber program request and for pulling the program back from 
the brink of extinction and urge my colleagues to defeat any amendment 
cutting funding from the timber sale program.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support for the 
Appropriations Committee's actions on the National Endowment for the 
Arts and the Endowment for the Humanities.
  As a member of the authorizing committee for the arts and humanities, 
I'm pleased that the Appropriations Committee has followed our lead. 
H.R. 1977 represents the first installment on the gradual phase out of 
federal support for the arts and humanities programs--which is 
consistent with legislation (H.R. 1557) approved by the Opportunities 
Committee.
  In the past, I've given my support to maintaining federal funding for 
the arts and humanities because the state councils have provided my 
rural constituents with access to enriching art and cultural programs. 
Without these programs, I doubt that my constituents and communities 
would ever experience the types of programs that our urban neighbors 
can enjoy daily. But, we have to change our mind set and stop expecting 
the Federal Government to fund all that we find useful.
  And its also time that we recognize that the private sector, which 
gave $9.6 billion in 1993 for the arts, is already providing the heavy 
lifting for the arts. Private contributions represented 98 percent of 
all funds that were spent in 1993 on the arts.
  So, if we are ever to get a handle on the deficit and balance our 
budget, painful but necessary priorities need to be established. And, 
when I look at the billions being generated by the private sector for 
the arts, and our own pressing budget problems, then perhaps it is now 
time for us to cycleout federal funding.
  This will not be an easy transition period for our state councils. 
Many I'm sure will have difficulties in raising the funds from state or 
private sources to maintain or develop new programs. But I'm ready to 
lend my private and public support for the state councils. When the 
House passes H.R. 1557, I'll be giving a donation to Nebraska's arts 
and humanities councils, and I'll actively encourage my colleagues to 
also donate funds to their state councils.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1997 represents a reasoned and prudent policy that 
will end immediately the endowments' national grant programs, which 
have been the subject of so much controversy, and for ending federal 
support for state arts and humanities councils. The bill cuts arts 
funding by 39 percent, or $63 million, and cuts humanities funding by 
42 percent, or $73 million, from that spend during this past fiscal 
year. These are sizable cuts and necessary if we are to achieve a 
balanced budget by 2002.
  I encourage my colleague to support the Committee's position and 
oppose amendments that would either eliminate all funding for the arts 
and humanities immediately or add monies back to these programs.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, during this past weekend 
while I was back in my Congressional District, the heat rose to record 
high temperatures. Tragically, 179 residents of Cook County, and 
perhaps as many as 300, died from the heat. I wish to take this 
opportunity to extend my condolences to the families and friends of 
these victims and to urge residents across the Chicago Metropolitan 
Area to check on their elderly neighbors and family members to help 
ensure that the heat does not claim any more victims.
  I also want to urge my colleagues to accommodate any requests by 
Mayor Richard Daley and Governor Jim Edgar for Federal disaster aid to 
quickly address this tragic situation.
  More than 440,000 Americans over the age of 60 live in the City of 
Chicago. Many of them live in my Congressional District in Chicago and 
its western suburbs. Extreme temperatures can have a terrifying impact 
on these seniors and we need to make sure that every step possible is 
taken to protect them from severe heat and cold. Programs like the 
Department of Energy's low-income weatherization program and the Low-
Income Housing Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP) are specifically 
designed to prevent such tragedies from occurring. In fact, for many 
low-income seniors, these programs can literally mean the difference 
between life or death.
  The Department of Energy's low-income weatherization program provides 
funding for states to make improvements to the homes of poor Americans 
so that they are better prepared for extreme weather conditions and to 
lower their heating and cooling bills. Specifically, this program 
enables states to install ceiling fans, attic fans, and awnings and to 
tune-up or replace air conditioners. Why do the Republicans want to cut 
fifty percent of the funds for this program, knowing that lives are at 
risk? I am waiting for an answer to this question, Mr. Chairman.
  Rest assured that I am not in any way suggesting that the Republicans 
are responsible for the deaths in Chicago. What I am suggesting, Mr. 
Chairman, is that it is sadly ironic that this week, before the heat 
wave has even moved from the Midwest, we are debating and voting on 
H.R. 1977, the FY96 Interior Appropriations Act, which cuts the low-
income weatherization program by fifty percent. It is important that we 
remember that these are not vague, anti-big government cuts that the 
Republicans are making. Instead, they are devastating reductions to 
critically important programs that provide life-or-death services to 
many of our constituents.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hefley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1977) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for 
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 187, he reported the bill 
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.

[[Page H 7135]]

  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
                motion to recommit offered by mr. yates

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. YATES. In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Yates moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1977, to the 
     Committee on Appropriations.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 181, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 523]

                               YEAS--244

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     Kennedy (RI)
     McKeon
     Moakley
     Myers
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Stearns

                              {time}  1736

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Stearns for, with Mr. Richardson against.
       Mr. Myers of Indiana for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Ms. McCARTHY and Mr. SALMON changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________