[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H111-H120]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1996--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO.
104-147)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the further
consideration of the veto message of the President of the United States
on 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is recognized for 1 hour.
{time} 1200
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of debate on this subject. I have a
number of Members that would like to speak on it, so I will reserve my
remarks for the closing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Calvert].
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to urge my colleagues to
support the motion to override. For the sake of the American people we
need to reopen our national treasures. There is no good reason why the
parks are closed. There is no good reason why the monuments are closed.
There is no reason why our constituents here in Washington cannot go to
some of the great places around this District.
This bill is fair, balanced. It protects our natural resources while
ensuring a fair return to the American taxpayers. I urge all my
colleagues to support the motion to override.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
I also thank the chair of the committee who does outstanding work and
is an outstanding chair, but I must rise to urge that we not override
the veto.
The veto is there because the President found that there were things
in this bill that were broken, that need fixing, and we in Congress can
fix those things. The President rejected the clear-cutting of the
Tongass National Forest. The President rejected the jeopardizing of the
Columbia River Basin ecosystem management plan. The President
recognized that this bill kills the California Desert Protection Act
that Congress enacted last year.
This bill prohibits the protection of the habitat for endangered
species and further prohibits any further listing of endangered
species. This bill walks away from the commitment of the Indian Health
Service and Indian education. It walks away from the National Endowment
for the Arts and the Humanities. In particular let us talk about that
for a moment.
I think the shutdown of the Federal Government has drawn national
attention to the importance that the arts play particularly here in
Washington, DC. Indeed our country has said that these things are
important. This bill cuts funding for those important programs. This
bill was vetoed because Congress failed to hear the recommendations of
the White House conference on tourism which met here just a few months
ago, the private sector, at the invitation of the President, to
recommend to Congress and to the executive department of how we should
best support tourism in the United States. This bill undermines those
recommendations.
So my colleagues, this committee has worked hard. It has an
outstanding chair and outstanding members because it has recognized the
interest of special interests in this and is certainly a bill that
ought to be vetoed, as it was by the President. I ask my colleagues to
sustain that veto.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I happen to be a staunch environmentalist. I opposed
this bill in some earlier versions. In fact, Members may recall that
this is the third try which finally managed to get past the House. I
voted against it the first two times because I was concerned about
environmental issues. But I am satisfied that this bill in its present
form is the best bill we are going to get out of the House. I believe
that the environmentalist concerns are largely satisfied.
In regard to the National Endowment for the Humanities, I was also
one of those who worked to maintain funding for the National Endowment
for the Humanities. In fact, we managed to get
[[Page H112]]
it increased considerably over some of the earlier proposals.
Once again, I believe this is the best bill that we can get from this
House as it relates to funding for that organization. I read the veto
message from the President, and to me it seems like a rather thin veto
message. I suspect if this bill had hit his desk by itself and not in
the company of the other two bills he vetoed the same day, this bill
would have been signed and passed into law because the objections are
not that strong.
I believe it is very important that we vote to override the
President's veto on this bill. It is important that we open our
national parks, our wildlife refuges, our national forests, put 130,000
Federal employees back to work, open our museums and the Smithsonian in
particular do a good service to the American public by once again
allowing them to use and visit these national treasures which we have.
I urge my colleagues, particularly those on the other side of the
aisle, who are concerned about these issues to recognize that this bill
in its present form is a good bill, certainly the best we are likely to
get through this Congress, and I urge them to override the President's
veto and put this into effect.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to sustain President
Clinton's veto of the Interior appropriations bill. The legislative
riders in H.R. 1977 mandate extreme changes in national environmental
policy that cannot stand public scrutiny on their own. Otherwise, they
would not be hidden in this funding bill.
One of the riders in H.R. 1977 would end a hugely successful energy-
efficiency program that was enacted 8 years ago during the Reagan
administration. At that time, a broad industry coalition that included
all major appliance manufacturers agreed to efficiency standards to
make refrigerators, washing machines, air conditioners, dishwashers,
and gas furnaces more efficient. On average, these Federal efficiency
standards have brought savings of $1,300 per U.S. household--a total of
$130 billion in economic savings.
Why would Congress terminate a program that has brought such great
savings to our constituents and dramatically reduced emissions of
carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming? It is
not because global warming is not a problem. Today's New York Times
reports that last year was the warmest year since records were first
kept in 1856; and that the years 1991 through 1995 were warmer than any
similar 5-year period on record. Why would we raise the cost of energy
to our constituents to allow for greater pollution of their environment
and an increase in global warming?
Innovative companies like Whirlpool, Frigidaire, and Maytag support
the Federal efficiency standards and are developing new technologies
that lead to more efficient appliances. Unfortunately, other companies
have not stepped up to the challenge and now want Congress to reward
their poor performance.
This rider brushes aside consumer interests, technological
innovation, and environmental protection to please a select group of
companies who have lobbied for a special interest gift. The winners are
the whiners--the least efficient companies, the ones that pollute the
most. The losers, again, are our constituents who are being threatened
with policies they do not support that would deplete our natural
resources and bring great harm to our environment.
This is awful policy, and it should be deleted from this bill.
Support the President's veto.
[From the New York Times, Jan. 4, 1996]
'95 the Hottest Year on Record as the Global Trend Keeps Up
(By William K. Stevens)
The earth's average surface temperature climbed to a record
high last year, according to preliminary figures, bolstering
scientists' sense that the burning of fossil fuels is warming
the climate.
Spells of cold, snow and ice like the ones this winter in
the northeastern United States come and go in one region or
another, as do periods of unusual warmth. But the net result
globally made 1995 the warmest year since records first were
kept in 1856, says a provisional report issued by the British
Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia.
The average temperature was 58.72 degrees Fahrenheit,
according to the British data, seven-hundredths of a degree
higher than the previous record, established in 1990.
The British figures, based on land and sea measurements
around the world, are one of two sets of long-term data by
which surface temperature trends are being tracked.
The other, maintained by the NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies in New York, shows the average 1995 temperature
at 59.7 degrees, slightly ahead of 1990 as the warmest year
since record-keeping began in 1866. But the difference is
within the margin of sampling error, and the two years
essentially finished neck and neck.
The preliminary Goddard figures differ from the British
ones because they are based on a somewhat different
combination of surface temperature observations around the
world.
One year does not a trend make, but the British figures
show the years 1991 through 1995 to be warmer than any
similar five-year period, including the two half-decades of
the 1980's, the warmest decade on record.
This is so even though a sun-reflecting haze cast aloft by
the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled
the earth substantially for about two years. Despite the
post-Pinatubo cooling, the Goddard data show the early 1990's
to have been nearly as warm as the late 1980's, which Goddard
says was the warmest half-decade on record.
Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of the Goddard center,
predicted last year that a new global record would be reached
before 2000, and yesterday he said he now expected that ``we
will still get at least a couple more'' by then.
Dr. Hansen has been one of only a few scientists to
maintain steadfastly that a century-long global warming trend
is being caused by mostly by human influence, a belief he
reiterated yesterday.
Other experts would go no further than the recent findings
of a United Nations panel of scientists in attributing the
continuing and accelerating warming trend to human activity--
specifically the emission of heat-trapping gases like carbon
dioxide, which is released by the burning of coal, petroleum
products and wood.
The United Nations panel concluded, for the first time,
that the observed warming is ``unlikely to be entirely
natural in origin'' and that the evidence ``suggests a
discernible human influence on climate.''
Previously, few scientists apart from Dr. Hansen had been
willing to go even that far, contending that the relatively
small warming so far could easily be a result of natural
climate variability. Even now, most experts say it is unclear
whether human activity is responsible for a little of the
warming or a lot.
``I think we're beginning to see it,'' Dr. Phil Jones of
the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia said of the human
influence on climate, adding that he agreed with the United
Nations report.
``I don't think you can say much from one year's values,''
he said, ``but this figure from '91 to '95 is quite
illuminating.'' He said it was nearly half a degree above the
1961-90 benchmark average of 58 degrees.
Both the 1995 record high temperature and the strikingly
warm half-decade of the early 1990's are ``consistent with
the sort of expectation we have of the interplay between
natural and manmade influences.'' said Dr. Tom M.L. Wigley of
the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder,
Colo. If things had not turned out that way, he said, ``we
would have been pretty surprised and maybe a little
concerned'' about the United Nations panel's conclusion.
Nevertheless, he said, ``it's not the sort of thing you want
to overinterpret or overemphasize.''
Dr. Wigley was a member of a subcommittee of the United
Nations panel that dealt specifically with the question of
detecting a human role in climate change.
The panel predicted that the heat-trapping gas emissions
would cause the average global temperature, now approaching
60 degrees Fahrenheit, to rise by a further 1.8 to 6.3
degrees, with a best estimate of 3.6 degrees, by 2100.
By comparison the world is 5 to 9 degrees warmer now than
in the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago. The predicted
warming, if it materializes, would likely cause widespread
climatic disruption, the United Nations panel said.
The margin of seven-hundredths of a degree by which the
1995 global average exceeds that of 1990, according to the
new British data, sounds small. But it represents an increase
of nearly half a degree from the post Pinatubo low, in 1992.
As scientists had previously predicted, the recovery from the
Pinatubo cooling became obvious last year, though no record
was set.
The 1995 figure is all the more remarkable, Dr. Hansen
said, because it was established at a time when two natural
warming influences were neutralized. The solar energy cycle
was at a low ebb, and the warming effect of El Nino, the pool
of warm Pacific water that appeared in early 1995, was offset
by a turn to cooler-than-normal conditions in the tropical
Pacific later in the year.
A different picture emerges from an analysis of satellite
measurements of global temperature by Dr. John R. Christy of
the University of Alabama and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA's
Marshall Space Flight Center in Hunstville, Ala. While their
data show temperature fluctuations roughly paralleling
[[Page H113]]
those in the surface measurements, the values are lower: 1995 was only
an ordinary year compared with the data set's 1982-91
average.
But that was a warm period to start with, said Dr. Christy.
And, Dr. Jones said, the satellite measurements combine
temperature readings for the entire lower atmosphere, rather
than measuring just at the surface, while the most prominent
warming--over the Northern Hemisphere continents--does not
extend very far upward. That explanation of the difference in
the data sets ``makes sense,'' Dr. Christy said, adding, ``Of
course we only live in the bottom'' of the atmosphere.
In the past, skeptics about global warming have cited the
satellite data. But Dr. Christy said that even the rate of
warming measured from the satellites has begun to move into
the range scientists expect to result from human-caused
warming.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman for this, his
observation. There are many things, all these riders do not belong in a
spending bill. This is not just about spending. It is about bad policy
and it is about bad priorities in this bill.
In fact, the veto of this bill was not even a close call, I would not
think, of the President. What has happened here is we have had
Republicans in the House and Senate, after 14 months, agreeing with
themselves and not making any effort or not a substantial enough of an
effort to in fact come to resolution on these issues which have been 30
years of environmental policy by both Democrats and Republicans,
Presidents and Congresses.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], an excellent member of our subcommittee.
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, earlier I spoke about the importance of overriding the
President's veto of the Interior appropriations bill. I want to take a
couple of minutes to talk about some of the negotiations that went on
with this administration, because I think it is an important
illustration of the problem we are facing on the entire budget.
Back in September, before these bills had finished their work in the
House and the Senate, there was a discussion between staff and between
the chairmen with the administration about some of their key funding
priorities. Here is what they said about some of them. Here is what the
conference did.
On the Bureau of Indian Affairs, something that affects my State
tremendously, the administration said they needed a minimum of $110
million more, and we ended up giving $135 million more, $111 to the
Senate level for the BIA and we added $25 million to the Indian Health
Service. So we added more than the administration said was necessary in
order to meet their objections to that.
In the Department of Energy, this is a department where the
administration's idea of conservation is chartering jets for Hazel
O'Leary to fly to South Africa, in the Department of Energy they said
the Energy Information Administration needed to be much closer to the
House funding level. We added $7.5 million. We split the difference
between the Senate and the House. It is a compromise which all
appropriation bills represent, as they have in the past, as they do
this year.
In the Forest Service they said they needed to increase the
stewardship incentive program to double the Senate level. We did not
double the Senate level. But we provided $4.5 million, whereas the
House had not originally provided that.
Then some of the key legislative appropriation items, they said they
needed to have the House mining patent moratorium. Yes, we went back
and forth on that and twice in this House took this issue to the floor
here. But it is in there. So it is an item that the President said that
he needed to have in there. Tongass, I will not discuss that. It has
been discussed enough here on the floor. It is a compromise between the
two positions.
The California Desert, the administration said they needed to have
the National Park Service in charge, that the House language would not
work. We modified the language so that the park service can use
planning and use of seasonal employees. The Bureau of Land Management
will operate it in its coming fiscal year while they are developing the
plan for management of it.
The administration said they needed Senate language on AmeriCorps,
and it has the Senate language on AmeriCorps. The administration said
it needed to have the grazing reform moratorium for a maximum of 90
days and it retains the moratorium for a maximum of 90 days.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is one that we can support. It is one that
represents a compromise between the interests. It is one that
represents an opportunity to fund the vital agencies of this
Government, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes, to put Federal
employees back to work, to open the national parks.
Let me take my remaining time to say one word about the issue that
has been raised about Mount Graham because there too is a good example
of the kind of back and forth that this administration has done over
the last 6 years. For last 6 years the Justice Department of three
administrations has defended the position of this Congress and of the
administration to build those telescopes on Mount Graham in a way that
protected the red squirrel and allowed science to go forward. To say no
now to that after we had passed it and made it very clear that that is
what we intended to do is to say no simultaneously to protecting the
squirrel, to protecting the environment, to the endangered species and
to say no to good science. That is the kind of thing that we have seen
here today, the kind of hypocrisy that we have heard about.
I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Coleman].
(Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans just do not get it. They do
not get it. They do not understand. Some of us served in the majority
under Republican Presidents and when a bill was vetoed because the
President, by the way, has that authority in the Constitution of the
United States, they are not the President, the majority is not the
President, the majority does not run the whole country, believe it or
not, I know that is hard to accept, especially by their freshman
Republicans, but I have got to tell them something. When the President
vetoes a bill, what we try to do is work out what it is that we need to
do in order to see to it that the President can sign the bill. We
negotiate.
Instead what they have taken the position of doing is saying, it is
our way or no way. So let us not do this hype business about the reason
that parks are closed is because the President vetoes a bill. Some of
us have served in the majority under Republican Presidents who have had
to deal with vetoed legislation. We did not shut the Government down
for 3 weeks like Republicans are about to do. Is it not about 21 days?
I think so, 19 or 20. So I just say to my colleagues, try to understand
the process. It is called the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Radanovich]
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I am a Republican freshman and I am very
proud of it. I made a decision recently to not pass continuing
resolutions until we got the President to deal realistically about a
balanced budget scored in 7 years.
However, upon that decision, that led to the closure of Yosemite
National Park in my district. Not only do my Federal employees suffer,
but also the communities of Mariposa, Oakhurst, Coarsegold, Three
Rivers, and Auberry. Private property owners, private businessmen who
are not being, who will not be repaid, one motel owner Jerry Fisher has
lost a quarter of a million dollars so far.
I am proud of what I am doing and what I stand for. My community is
suffering. I ask my colleagues to override this veto. This is a
reasonable bill. It is a fair compromise. It should not be used as a
pawn in this game. I want this bill overridden.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
[[Page H114]]
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, there are policy reasons why this bill
should be rejected, serious and substantial policy reasons. There are
three basic broad reasons.
First, this is a bill that is unacceptable because it would unduly
restrict our ability to protect our natural resources and our cultural
heritage. The second reason this bill does not promote the technology
that we need for long-term energy conservation and economic growth.
Third, the one perhaps most important to me and many others that have
native American populations in their States, is that this bill
seriously undermines our commitment to provide adequate health,
educational and other services to native Americans.
Let me also talk about the Tongass. I have been to the Tongass. Just
because you may represent that area does not mean that you have all the
wisdom of that area. In the Tongass, this bill would allow harmful
clear-cutting, require the sale of timber at unsustainable levels. And
it would dictate the need for an outdated forest plan for the next
fiscal year.
In the Columbia River basin, the bill would impede implementation of
a comprehensive plan. The result, gridlock, court challenges on timber
harvesting, grazing, mining and other important activities.
In the California Desert, the bill undermines our designation of the
Mojave National Preserve by cutting funding for the preserve and
shifting responsibility for its management from the Park Service to the
BLM. The bill would also put a misguided moratorium on future listings
and critical habitat designations under the Endangered Species Act. The
bill slashes funding for DOE's energy conservation program so our
commitment to energy conservation and renewable energy once again is
suspect.
Native Americans perhaps are hit the worst than anybody. If you look
at the effect of the shutdown, it is native Americans that are
suffering the most. This bill would make it worse. Funding for Indian
Health Service totally inadequate, Indian education programs, cuts at
BIA programs that are important for child welfare, adult vocational
training, law enforcement, detention services, community fire
protection and general assistance to low income Indian individuals and
families.
{time} 1215
Moreover, the bill would unfairly single out certain self-governance
tribes in Washington State for punitive treatment. Specifically, it
would penalize these tribes financially for using legal remedies in
disputes with non-tribal owners of land within reservations.
Finally, the bill represents a dramatic departure from our commitment
to support for the arts and humanities. It cuts funding of the National
Endowments for the Arts and Humanities so deeply as to jeopardize their
capacity to keep providing the cultural, educational, and artistic
programs that enrich America's communities large and small.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen poll after poll say that the American
people care about the environment, and hopefully there are moderate
forces on that side, on the majority side, that will see that and are
seeing that, and I acknowledge several Members from midwestern, from
eastern States that recognize that there is no reason why we should not
keep our commitments to the environment.
There is no reason to sign bad bills. The President constitutionally
can veto bad policy bills, and the argument just does not wash that, if
we just sign this bill, everyone will go back to work at the national
parks or the BLM. There are no good reasons to sign this bill.
I come from a Western State, and I realize many of my colleagues on
that side will disagree. This is a bad bill for Western States that
want quality of life, that want to have balance on timber harvesting
and mining and grazing.
I urge rejection of this bill.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Regula] for yielding this time to me.
I would like to respond to the last couple of speakers. One a couple
a speakers ago said Republicans do not get it. I would hope that we,
and, as my colleagues know, this place is inherently political, so we
are going to talk about politics here, and politics enters into the
veins of what goes on in this House, but I do not see this Interior
bill as a political issue. I see this Interior bill as an issue to get
the Nation back to work, to open up the Park Service, to talk about
legitimate policy differences, and it is my understanding that
basically we worked out the policy differences before the bill left the
House floor. There was a great deal of discussion on this for a period
of many weeks, so I think we solved those problems, and, as a
representative of the State of Maryland, I think the Interior bill is
not a perfect bill, it is not an excellent bill. It is a moderate
approach to solve the problems of the Federal lands, and I think it
should be voted on, and I think we should override the Presidential
veto.
On a couple of the policy differences, restricting our natural
resources with this bill I do not think is correct. I think this bill
goes a long way in enhancing the policies to improve the natural
resources of the United States. It is not perfect, but there is no
utopia.
Let us move in the right direction. This did not take a huge step in
the right direction, but it did take a couple of steps in the right
direction. We continue to work on this to promote technology for
conservation. I think we have shifted in the right direction.
One of the things this country can do, this Government can do, to
enhance conservation is to enhance the environment conducive in the
private sector to look for the technology to do that. We cannot do
everything here in Government.
Native Americans. We increased the amount of money from what the
President wanted. Now, if we look at native Americans and we look at
reservations today, I think we are improving the quality of life for
native Americans.
I want to say something quick about Tongass. The President did not
like the fact that there could not be legal challenges. We changed
that. We moderated that.
The President did not like the fact that we were not going to protect
goshawks, we did not have conservation areas. We changed that. We now
have those changes.
There is a lot of discussion about how is there going to be clear-
cutting. There is nothing in the bill that states there is going to be
clear-cutting, and the Forest Service manages the way the trees are
going to be cut, and I trust this Interior Department so that there
will not be clear-cutting.
I think we ought to override the President's veto.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest]. I know that he is a reasonable person and
that he goes into these issues very carefully. I think he has come to
the wrong conclusion if he believes that the environmental deficits of
this bill have been settled. If it were true, that there were no
environmental flaws and big environmental flaws in this bill, why then
would the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, the
Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife all be opposed to this bill?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr.
Abercrombie].
(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding
this time to me, and the reason that I asked for the time was to reply
to the rather astounding claim for preferential treatment by the
gentleman from California representing the area around Yosemite
National Park, Mariposa County, and adjoining counties. I fail to
understand how the gentleman can come to the well of the House and say
that he is proud to be a Republican freshman who is going to impose or
try to impose his ideology over the welfare of the general citizenry
and at the same time ask us now to override the President's veto
because people in his district are hurting, because business in his
district is hurting.
I think I can speak about tourism at least as well as the gentleman
from California, having represented the No. 1 tourist destination area
in the world for more time in more legislative
[[Page H115]]
venues than anybody in this Congress. When we cannot issue visas, we
cannot get people to come to this country, let alone to Hawaii to be
able to help with our balance of trade deficit. Tourism is the positive
force in that area, and yet someone can come here to the floor and say,
``Your people stay out or work, but put my people back to work,'' and
then claim some kind of moral high ground in a political debate about
being proud to shut the country down, standing up for the principle of
I want mine, but my colleagues do not get theirs?
Some people have come into this Congress happy that they have never
had any legislative experience, citing that as some kind of virtue. I
think that kind of claim is so blatantly exposed with that kind of
rhetoric to come here on the floor and say, ``I want mine. I don't want
to take responsibility for what I'm doing to the rest of the people of
this country, but help me out because I have got a political problem.''
I say to my colleagues, ``Shame on you, grow up, learn what a
legislature is all about.''
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], an excellent member of our subcommittee.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to strongly support
overriding this Presidential veto that the President has signed
recently on this particular bill that affects so many people in the
Department of Interior.
As my colleagues know, we have heard a lot of talk about putting
Federal workers back to work, Mr. Speaker, in the Department of
Interior and agencies that come under the Department of Interior, and I
am all for that. I think it is time that we do that, but I think we
have to understand that the President of the United States, in the
stroke of his veto pen, sealed the fate of Federal workers, but he also
sealed the fate of non-Federal workers who rely on the forests for
their livelihood.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and a lot of Democrats and
Republicans worked very heard to present a bill to the President that
would be acceptable, and I heard the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]
say earlier today that the goalpost had moved, and they consistently
moved during the negotiation period. That is true. We made a special
effort to talk to the President, talk to the Interior Department and
get a bill that would be acceptable to everybody, and we sent it down
to the White House, and the President, as I say, as my colleagues know,
boldly strokes his veto pen and seals the fate of people in the
Department of Interior and people out of the Department of Interior,
and, so I say, he sealed the fate of non-Federal workers in our
Nation's forests who have been devastated by the no-harvest policy of
this administration, and that is the crime here, is that the President
in vetoing this bill not only hurts people who are Federal workers, but
he hurts people who are non-Federal workers who rely on the forest for
jobs.
In addition I have to ask the question of my friends on the other
side, ``Who is thinking about the jobs of the people who are non-
Federal employees?'' Anyone who votes to override this veto will think
about and will support jobs in the private sector that would come about
by this signing, overriding this bill, and also the people in the
public sector, and I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the President was wise in vetoing this bill.
This is terrible energy policy, terrible environmental policy. It is an
all-out assault upon the environment in our country. We can go down the
litany from Tongass to California Desert, through all of the parks
decisions which are made under the guise of an appropriations bill, but
there is a 50 percent cut in money for low income weatherization,
thousands, thousands of poor and elderly across this country dependent
upon this money--cut 50 percent for the poor in this appropriations
bill. The energy efficiency standards that were put on the books in
1987, 1989, 1991, which have improved the efficiency of stoves, of
refrigerators, and people say, ``Who cares?'' I will tell my colleagues
who cares. Because of those laws we have saved 4 billion barrels of oil
from having to be imported in the United States from Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait, 4 billion in the last 8 years. We saved the need for us to
build 50 500-megawatt nuclear power plants in this country. We saved
consumers in this country $132 billion in electricity costs, untold
billions of dollars in nuclear power plants that would have had to have
been constructed, and they say, well, this is just a small compromise.
No new energy standards for any refrigerator, or stove, or light bulb,
when we know the gains that are made by working smarter and not harder
in environment, in energy efficiency in energy.
This is terrible policy. It is a direct assault upon the environment
of this country. This bill must be vetoed, the veto must be sustained,
if we are to have an environment in this country that is worth
respecting.
Please, instead of having the EPA turn into every polluter's ally,
support the President and sustain the veto.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]
for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to override the
President's veto. While it is true that the fiscal year 1996 Interior
appropriation bill does not provide for the same level of funding we
have seen in previous years, it does provide funding for such important
functions as management of our Nation's parks and refuges which, I
think, is very, very important. The American people want a balanced
budget, and all areas of the Government must contribute toward this
goal, and they want their parks and refuges open. As long as the
President's veto is able to stand, our Nation's treasured 369 parks and
504 refuges will remain closed, and the people who we hire to manage
them will be out of work.
{time} 1230
These parks and refuges are funded by millions of American taxpayers'
dollars who paid for them with entrance fees, excise taxes, duck stamps
and income tax payments. It is unfair for the American people to
continue to be shut out of these lands.
No bill is perfect. Would I write this one differently? Yes, I would.
But it does achieve two primary goals: It provides funding to maintain
the park and refuge system, and it moves us toward the all-important
goal of a balanced budget.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' so Americans can once again have
access to the parks and refuges for which they have paid.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
override the President's veto. The fact is that this, as I said
earlier, is not a close call. I understand, and I think most Members
understand, there is a new majority in this House. We understand there
is not enough money in the Park Service or the BLM or the Forest
Service, and some of that I guess I do not like. They are not my
priorities, if that was all that this bill did in terms of changing
funding, if it did not target things like the Low-Income Energy
Assistance Program for the poor.
I, as a Representative, feel a special obligation to defend and
represent the powerless in our society, not the powerful, the special
interests. But this bill goes way beyond that.
We have heard a litany of suggestions about the fact that if we do
not pass an appropriations bill, the parks cannot open up, the refuges
cannot function, the Smithsonian remains closed. That is because, of
course, the majority in this body will not take up the Dole resolution
which, in fact, would provide a CR, which is the normal course of what
has been done year in and year out with few exceptions. This is
unprecedented, to be in the 20th day of a shutdown without
appropriations.
The fact of the matter is that this is a sham, the suggestion you
could pass this and the parks would be open, because we know that at
the end of this month, the debt ceiling is going to have to be
addressed, that issue is
[[Page H116]]
going to have to be addressed, and then not just the Park Service, but
everything, the advocacy here; and make no mistake about it, I
understand it and you understand it.
You know what the scheme has been since last year when the Speaker
announced that he would bring the Government to a halt to get what he
wants in terms of issues.
Now, I do not think that there is anything wrong with a balanced
budget. I commend you for the emphasis and effort and impetus that has
been brought to that particular issue. I commend Ross Perot for the
impetus that has been brought to that. But the fact is that a balanced
budget and the good things here with parks and others that you want to
hold up as a shield to deflect the bad policy that lies behind it is
where the concern comes.
You have to compromise. You have to address those issues. You cannot
step back and suggest that we want a balanced budget; everyone wants
that. I would just like to mention to my friends, you are not the first
that have been here with a plan for a balanced budget in 4 years or 5
years or make it 7 years. Intuition? I think not. I think, more,
political motivation to justify getting reelected. But it is a tough
goal to accomplish.
You cannot justify a balanced budget with bad policy. Good
environmental policy will, in fact, lend itself to achieving that
particular balanced budget. But you cannot pour more money into the
southeast part of Alaska for building roads and losing money on timber
and all of the other natural resources that you have in here; in other
words, in the Pacific Northwest, reneging on the Columbia Basin.
Mr. Speaker, science to this group seems to be very selective.
Everybody wants to have more science, but science seems to this new
majority to be what the Inquisition was to religion. You just cannot
selectively use that. If you wore this bill out in public, you would be
arrested for indecent exposure.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this vote
override. We need to reopen our national parks, wildlife refuges,
museums, and monuments.
The fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill for the Department of the
Interior was vetoed by the President on December 18. Had it been signed
into law--along with the many other appropriations bills that the
President has chosen to veto--our precious national parks would be open
today. Park guides and wildlife managers would be at work as we speak.
Children would be touring our national museums on class trips and
history would be relived for the many visitors to our national
monuments.
Instead, these national treasures remain closed--not because of our
inability to pass an appropriations bill, but because the President has
refused to open them.
In my district, this means that the Timucuan National Preserve is
closed to the countless visitors it enjoys on a daily basis. The
Timucuan Preserve includes wetlands, forests, prehistoric
archaeological sites, and historic sites. This veto means that the Fort
Caroline National Memorial and Fort Matanzas National Park are unable
to accommodate visitors and school children wishing to learn about the
area's rich 16th century history. Further, the President's veto means
that visitors to the Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, a
historic fort in St. Augustine, are unable to actually enter that
historic fort.
I urge my colleagues to support the override to open our national
parks and send these Federal workers back to work.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that any of us can tolerate
the misrepresentation of why the parks are closed down. The parks are
closed down for one very simple reason. The Republicans have yet to
receive their crown jewel in the Contract With America, which is a $245
billion tax break for the rich in America. You guys are holding up the
whole Federal government in order to get that. Whether it be the parks
or Medicare or student loans, you are going to hold your breath until
you get that $245 billion to fulfill your contract with the country
club in America.
Do not lay off the closing of the Federal parks on Bill Clinton. All
he is saying is, open the parks, but do not expect me to cut Medicare
and student loans and give a big tax break to the wealthy as the price
for doing it. You can open the parks this afternoon if you want to, but
you do not want to because you cannot as a result stop the Federal
Government from operating in order to give your huge tax break for the
corporate officials and country clubs across this country.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Skeen], a distinguished member of our subcommittee.
(Mr. SKEEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the louder the voice, the weaker the
argument, and we have heard a lot of loud voices. But the basic thing
that is wrong with this whole exercise is inconsistency. We are lobbing
grenades at one another time after time over every minute issue in
every bill, and this is another veto override that I think should
happen.
There is nothing wrong with this bill, the Interior bill from an
environmental standpoint, from a practicality standpoint; and just to
illustrate to you that you should not cave in, Carlsbad Caverns was
kept open because the local communities dug up the money with the State
to keep it open.
If you want these people to go back to work in the Federal sector,
override these vetoes and put them back to work.
As an illustration, and as an example, the Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee bill passed. The Department of Agriculture is operating
today. Every bureau, every system that has anything to do with
agriculture is working today. If you also want to see an inconsistency,
here is the IRS, one of our greatest examples of bureaucracy thievery,
extracting from people who are on half-time withholding on income tax
during this period of time. Another inconsistency.
Folks, I think it is about time we quit beating ourselves over the
head and get down to the business of actually doing something definite
about providing these bills and this legislation by overriding the
foolish kind of a veto, to stop proposing foolish kinds of rhetoric and
keep our voices down a little bit and have respect for one another.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I have the utmost respect for my good friend from New Mexico, but I
insist that his was not a foolish veto by the President of the United
States. There is a difference between a good bill and bad bill, and the
President recognized that this was a bad bill. His veto was entirely
justified, and in spite of all of the suggestions that the President
ought to sign this bill and put people back to work, it still remains a
bad bill, and his act in rejecting it was totally justified.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Foglietta].
(Mr. FOGLIETTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
resolution. The majority leader and the front-running candidate for the
Republican nomination for President right: Enough is enough. It is time
to put the government back in business again.
This override attempt is just public relations. This debate we have
been having over the last month is, what is the Government supposed to
do and who is it supposed to help?
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], my friend
and the chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, gave away
just how the Republicans view this debate and how they view our
government. That happened right after the President signed the Defense
appropriations bill.
My dear friend, Mr. Livingston, said that the President has lost his
negotiating edge because he and the Democrats were the only ones who
had an interest in the constituencies involved in
[[Page H117]]
the remaining appropriations bills. But that is so wrong.
The veterans who need health care are not Democrats; they are
Americans who need our Government. The pregnant women and the mothers
who need help getting a decent meal for their babies are not Democrats;
they are Americans who need our Government. The people who count on the
government to keep the environment clean are not Democrats; they are
Americans. And the people who yearn to visit our historic sites, our
national museums and national parks are not Democrats; they are
Americans.
The President was right to veto this bill. It cuts too much and would
hurt our environment. Let us bring the bill back and do it right.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity before us today
to send 133,000 Federal employees back to work and at the same time
reopen all of the national parks and museums of which we have heard so
much about in recent weeks. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to vote for this override.
A vote ``yes'' on the override will also provide welfare assistance
to Indian children, keep Indian schools open and ensure essential
services on Indian reservations. A vote ``yes'' will continue the
mining patent moratorium and stop the giveaway of Federal lands.
The problem that we have is that this was indeed a carefully crafted
piece of legislation that met demands from liberals and conservatives,
Republicans and Democrats, on both sides of the Capitol; and despite
the fact that it was returned to conference on many occasions, when it
went to the President, he vetoed it.
Let me underscore that. He vetoed this bill, and the parks, the
museums and all of the other good effects of this bill were shut down
for the Christmas holidays. He kept 133,000 Federal employees from
returning to work before Christmas. He has shut down the parks and the
Smithsonian and the National Gallery which now I am glad to see has
reopened. He is the one that told the native Americans that they cannot
get welfare assistance for Indian children, funding for Indian schools.
So what we are trying to do is simply fix the problem.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric on both sides. The time has come to
put aside the rhetoric. The time has come to accept a good, a carefully
crafted bill.
Understand, this is the best we can do. Override the President's
veto. Send it back to him. Let us put these people back to work. Let us
open the parks, be done with politics. We have already overridden his
veto last week on a bill that was far less significant than this issue.
This is a good bill.
I invite my friends on both sides of the aisle to override the
President's veto and put these people back to work.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I think the point is that you can blame
whomever you want. You can blame the House, you can blame the Senate or
the President in terms of this measure. It has been around, and the
fact that communication has not gone forward to resolve the differences
is clear when we get a veto from the President.
{time} 1245
So whatever the good intentions of my colleagues in trying to iron
out the differences, they did not achieve it.
Nobody consulted me on this particular bill. I have worked on this.
What is wrong with this is, this is a spending bill but nevertheless it
has in it many, many policy provisions that should not be in a spending
bill.
And some of the priorities of course in terms of spending, I
understand my colleagues' difficulty, but there is no reason to suspend
the reform efforts in terms of the roaded or unroaded areas in the West
which are in this bill, to suspend the grazing reforms which are
present in this bill. There is no reason to undo the Columbia Basin
study areas and to put that science to use so it can serve us in these
needs. There is no reason to address the policy issues.
These are measures that do not belong in a spending bill. These are
the riders that are being put in here at the insistence of extreme
individuals in the House and the Senate that do not belong in these
particular bills and, often supported by various interest groups, they
do not belong in here.
So you brought into this the fact that you do not want to bring these
issues up on the floor and debate them in the normal process that is
afforded the House and the Senate to consider these issues, so they are
being jammed into this particular proposal. As I said, even if this
bill were to pass and we could open it up, we would be right back to
the same problem because of the debt ceiling, and you know that that
debt ceiling is going to be used for the same purposes with the same
goal.
You can wrap yourself in a balanced budget mantra all you want in
terms of no matter how often you repeat it, but it is not going to
happen. You cannot do that with bad policy. You cannot have a balanced
budget, you cannot deal with the deficit if you are going to create an
environmental deficit, and that is what is going on here.
Much of what has passed as legislative process this past year has
been a direct assault, a covert assault, I might say, on the
environment, but nevertheless having a devastating effect. That is why
we need to reject this effort to override.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Bunn], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate with
interest, and I have listened as we have been told that the parks are
closed because of tax cuts, the parks are closed because of Medicare
changes, the parks are closed because of veterans' issues.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought this was the Interior
appropriations bill that we were talking about. I served on that
committee and I worked, as we looked at an account-by-account basis,
trying to make the changes, to set the priorities. We did save $1.4
billion in this as we moved toward balancing the budget.
I heard speaker after speaker talk about wanting to balance the
budget on the other side. But we do not balance the budget unless we
take action, and this budget does take action. It does preserve
priorities, and it will get 133,000 people back to work if we will just
vote to override.
We have the opportunity today to open the parks, to open the
monuments, to open the museums, and stay on track to balancing the
budget. It will not happen with talk. It will happen with action. This
bill takes the action necessary.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, once again, the Government for 200 years
stayed open when a President vetoed a bill. The Congress could sustain
the veto, the Congress could override the veto, but the Government
continued to work.
The only reason the Government is shut down is the Republicans have
decided, after 200 years, they are going to use as a technique laying
off hundreds of thousands of employees and the services that they
provide for Americans, including their ability to walk into national
parks across this country.
Why are we going to suspend that constitutional, historical, and
successful way of governing this country? Because there is an emergency
in this country, and the emergency is that the one thing the
Republicans cannot do is get this $245 billion tax break for the
wealthy in America. That is what the whole debate is over.
The bills which they are insisting upon the President passing include
other parts of the Contract With America which include gutting of
environmental laws. The historical mechanism by which we change
environmental laws was through the appropriations process, by which you
brought the EPA, Superfund, and the national parks laws out here
separately. They do not want to do it that way. We are in emergency,
martial law, to get that tax break for the wealthy. We will hold every
ordinary Federal employee hostage. America held hostage to this tax
[[Page H118]]
break for the wealthy. That is what it is all about.
We are going to gut environmental laws, we are going to cut Medicare,
but we cannot keep the Government going. For 200 years, and, by the
way, there are a lot of things that can be said about the Democratic
Party, but for the 60 years we ran this place, the Government did not
shut down. Once the Republicans get in charge, the whole thing comes
down around their ears.
That is why we should sustain the President's veto and ensure that
regular constitutional process is continued.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my friend from
Massachusetts, this Government closed down nine times under the Reagan
and Bush administrations when Congress did not come up with the
appropriate resolutions and there was a veto and an impasse. The
difference was in those days that it never lasted longer than 3 days or
a weekend because the President would be up here after a veto trying to
work out the differences. We have not seen that in this case.
I think our side is equally responsible. We ought to bring a
continuing resolution and move it through, but I do not think you are
blameless in this. Frankly, the President can end this right here by
signing this bill.
The issues that you claim are policy issues are not enough money for
weatherization, not enough money for the National Endowment for the
Humanities, not enough for native Americans, but what is in this bill
is a lot more than what you have got on the table right now, which is a
Government shutdown altogether.
This bill will put 133,000 Federal workers back to work. It will open
up our national parks. It will open up the U.S. Geological Survey,
which is doing a lot of research on earthquakes, on health and safety,
water quality assessment, that is not being done right now. We have to
balance the good this bill does against a few of what I think are
ideologically driven objections on the other side.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great
interest over the course of the last several months to the passion with
which the Republicans have attacked the welfare system of this country,
talking time and time again about a system of dependency, a system
which instead of breaking a cycle of poverty in fact maintains a cycle
of poverty.
But it is interesting to me that when we talk about a different form
of welfare, a welfare where taxpayers are robbed of their paychecks in
order to pay huge subsidies to our mining companies, in order to pay
huge subsidies to our timber companies, all of a sudden there is quiet
on the Republican flank for that kind of welfare, that kind of
dependency, that kind of denial of free market tactics. Why do we not
stand and ask our lumber companies to really determine whether or not
on their own, without taxpayer subsidies, they go into the Tongass?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I will yield in one brief moment.
Why do we not ask whether foreign mineral companies would come and
mine on our lands if in fact they had to pay the below-surface value of
those mines rather than just the surface value of those mines?
What we have here is the denial of a real corporate kind of equity in
America. We have a situation where we have welfare for the rich and
free enterprise for the poor. That is the kind of system that the
Republicans want to put upon the people of this country. It is time
that we are consistent with what we expect the poor standards to be as
well as what we expect the corporate standards to be in this country.
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Is the gentleman aware there is a moratorium on issuing
mining patents which is included in this bill?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I am also aware that the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Regula] was very much involved in trying to get a better law,
which he was not successful in convincing his fellow Republicans to do.
What you have essentially done is given them the keys to Fort Knox,
you have given them the rights of Fort Knox, but you have not asked
anybody to pay for the gold.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. Ganske].
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, let us put into perspective what seems to be
one of the most contentious parts of the Interior appropriations bill,
harvesting part of the Alaska Tongass Forest.
If this table represented Alaska, the Tongass Forest would represent
a postage stamp. The area that we are talking about for harvesting
would represent the size of a pinhead. Is this what the President and
the Democratic Members of this body are willing to close down the
Government about?
I lived in the Pacific Northwest for a number of years. There should
be balance in weighing the benefits of logging versus the environment.
This bill makes reasonable compromises in the use of this forest, and I
respect Members such as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], who are strong
environmentalists and who support this bill. We should vote to override
this veto.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to some of the rhetoric that has been
on the floor this morning. The President's veto has more to do with
politics than with the substance of this bill.
Now in the 20th day of current partial Government shutdown, the
reason the national parks are closed is the direct result of bad faith
bargaining by President Clinton. This ought to be crystal clear to all
of the furloughed Government workers who are affected by this bill. If
the President had not vetoed this appropriations bill, they would be
back to work and citizens who want to visit their national parks would
be having a good time.
The citizens in this country should take notice. Those who vote
against this veto override are as responsible for this stalemate as the
President.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we are being given an
extraordinary constitutional argument, namely that when the President
of the United States exercises his constitutional right to veto, he is
then to be held responsible for a shutdown of the Government. That is
of course nonsense but it is confirmation of what we have here: people
who want to make very drastic changes in public policy, who lack the
two-thirds that the Constitution says you need to override a veto, who
in the absence of the two-thirds want to hold the Government hostage.
But even on its own terms the arguments fail, because the problem is
that the appropriations bills, this one included, were not passed by
this congressional majority until months after they were supposed to.
We are in a crisis in part because of the absolute incompetence of the
majority, which kept them from passing the great majority of
appropriations bills for months, did not get any passed on time, or
maybe one. That is why we are in this crisis.
The Constitution allows the President to veto a bill, and then we
have time for him to have the veto override considered, and then
negotiations. When you wait 2\1/2\ months after the deadline and pass
the bill, you have lost your right to complain about a veto.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
(Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, we are in this crisis on this bill I think
for one reason. It probably was summarized in a letter the President
sent to the Senate committee considering the bill on property rights.
His letter said, ``I don't care how you modify the bill, I don't care
how you modify the environmental reform that the House passed, I will
veto that bill. I will stand in the schoolhouse door and veto any
environmental reform because I don't want to see any changes in the
status quo.'' We see it reflected here. The President of the United
States has said, ``I don't like the environmental reforms, I don't want
any more trees cut in the Tongass Forest, so I will put 133,000 workers
at risk of
[[Page H119]]
not going to work because I am going to veto this bill.''
This President is not about to negotiate these changes. He is simply
against them. He has promised his environmental friends he will stand
in the schoolhouse door and veto bill after bill after bill that makes
any attempt to modestly restrain the environmental extremists who have
written some of these laws and regulations into existence. He will veto
risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, he will veto property rights, he
will veto reforms in environmental legislation. He will veto them even
if it means putting 133,000 workers out of business and the parks
closed.
That is what this is all about. We ought to override that veto. We
ought to put those workers back to work. We ought to make these modest
reforms. It is a bill that has been approved by this House and by the
Senate, by numbers sufficient to represent the majority will of the
people of the United States. This President will not negotiate with us.
We ought to override the veto.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman takes some poetic
license here. I would like to see a copy of that letter where the
President says, I will put 133,000 workers out and I will veto this
bill because I do not want any reforms. The gentleman is taking some
poetic license with this in quoting the President of the United States.
I would like to see a copy of the letter.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the letter I referred to is a letter he sent
to the Senate committee on property rights.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the quote in the letter
that says, I will put 133,000 people out of work. The gentleman may
produce that.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the letter I referred to, I will tell my
friend, is a letter the President sent to the committee considering
property rights legislation, one of the environmental reforms we have
been fighting for on this House floor.
The letter I referred to is a letter from the President telling the
chairman of that committee: I do not care how you change this bill, I
will veto any bill on this subject matter that hits my desk regardless
of how you change it. That is the upshot of his letter.
I will send the gentleman a copy of it. What I said is that that
letter reflects the attitude of the White House. They will not
negotiate with us on the environmental reforms. They will simply veto
legislation.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, but the point I am making, the gentleman
stood in the well and he said the President said, I will put 133,000
people out of work. I do not believe he has that in print from the
President of the United States. I do not care what rhetoric he uses
about a letter that he sent to the other body. Show me in print where
the President of the United States said, I will put 133,000 people out
of work.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the President said that when he vetoed this
bill. When he vetoed this bill, he said I would rather have 133,000 out
of work than sign legislation that has modest environmental reforms.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, that is a conclusion; that is not a fact.
And the gentleman knows it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Hinchey].
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is quite clear what is
happening here. The Government is shut down for one reason. That is
because we have not passed a bill which passed the Senate. All we have
to do is get that bill out on the floor here. With regard to the
provisions of this bill before us now, what is happening simply is
this: The Republicans want to override a veto.
The President vetoed that bill for a host of very good reasons. Among
them is the fact that this bill would provide for the expedited
application of mining patents, mining patents that are worth literally
billions of dollars. Under the provisions of this bill, which the
President vetoed, those applications would have to be processed in an
unprecedented short period of time, in effect giving away to mining
companies, many of whom are foreign mining companies, billions of
dollars of American resources at bargain basement prices. That is what
is at stake here.
These people tell us that they want to balance the budget. If they
really wanted to balance the budget in a responsible and appropriate
way, they would allow us to treat the resources of this country in
accordance with their true value. If we believe in the free market, let
that free market principle apply to public resources as well as private
resources. Stop giving away the treasury of the country. Stop giving
away the resources which will be passed on to future generations. You
are allowing those resources to be exploited at bargain basement
prices. Stop it. That is what this veto is all about.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. No amount of rhetoric about men out
of work or Federal workers out of employment can change that fact. That
it is a bad bill was recognized on two occasions by the House in voting
to recommit the bill. The President was right in vetoing this bill. It
is a bad bill, and his veto should not be overridden.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Regula] is recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, this bill deserves to be supported, and we
should override the President's veto.
I wanted to just get some facts out here in the little time I have
left. Indian education is above 1995. Indian health is above 1995. The
native Americans get one-fourth, 25 percent of this bill, about $3
billion goes to native American programs.
I want to point out that we negotiated with the White House people,
but they kept moving the goal posts. To show you how reluctant they
were, they vetoed the bill, and then it took them 6 hours to decide
what should be in a veto message. Normally you decide why to veto a
bill and then veto it, but they were uncertain about what was wrong
because they recognized that it basically was a good bill.
This is not about the EPA, that is not in this bill. It is not about
welfare, that is not in this bill. It is not about Medicare. I have
heard all these things from my colleagues on the minority side. It is
about a mining moratorium. We just heard a speaker say we are going to
give away our mineral resources. The moratorium in this bill stops
that, but the President vetoed it. He wants to go ahead and give out
all these patents and give away our mining lands because without this
bill there is no moratorium.
My colleagues, we have an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to open the
parks. We have an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to put 133,000 people
back to work. We have an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to open up 500
national wildlife refuges. We have an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to
open up 155 national forests. We have an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to
support the Indian schools, an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to welfare
assistance to Indian children, an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to the
opening of the Smithsonian, the National Gallery of Art, the Holocaust
Museum, an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to retain the patent moratorium,
an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to collect $8 billion in revenues that
are generated by the Federal lands.
I would say to the 89 Members that voted ``yes'' to override the
President to help securities litigation lawyers, I would think that, at
a minimum, you would vote ``yes'' to open up all of the resources to
the 260 million Americans that this bill represents. I urge all of my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' to override the President's veto and open up
[[Page H120]]
these facilities that belong to all Americans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill,
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
Under the Constitution, the vote must be determined by the yeas and
nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays, 177, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 5]
YEAS--239
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
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
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--177
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stokes
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--17
Brewster
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
DeFazio
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Hoke
Lightfoot
Mfume
Norwood
Quillen
Stark
Stockman
Studds
Visclosky
Wilson
Wyden
{time} 1328
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Quillen and Mr. Lightfoot for, with Mr. DeFazio
against.
So, two thirds not having voted in favor thereof, the veto of the
President was sustained and the bill was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The message and the bill are
referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.
____________________