[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6537-H6607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H6537]]



  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 455 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3662.

                              {time}  1209


                     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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 
3662) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Burton of Indiana in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from 
Illinois and myself have worked closely on this bill along with the 
other members of our subcommittee. I think we bring to the Members 
today a very responsible bill given the fiscal constraints.
  I would point out the chart that is in the well demonstrates that we 
appropriate a total of about $12 billion and save the taxpayers, save 
future generations $500 million plus the interest that they would have 
to pay on that money. But at the same time we take care of the things 
that are vitally important and that people care about in this country, 
our public lands, in many instances, the parks, the forests, the fish 
and wildlife facilities, the grazing lands managed by the BLM. They are 
the jewels of this Nation and I think we have a great responsibility to 
manage these facilities and this resource well so that we can leave it 
as a legacy to future generations.
  I would like to start by giving some little known facts about this 
bill. Let me start with the Forest Service. The National Forest System 
covers 8 percent of all the land in America. Of all the land, 8 percent 
is in national forests. The national forests produce 55 percent of the 
water for 16 western States. I think that is a significant fact. Fifty-
five percent of the water that they use for irrigation, for municipal 
water supplies, for the many, many purposes, for industrial uses, 55 
percent of that in the 16 western States comes from our public lands. 
Three hundred million recreational visitors to the Forest Service lands 
every year, 300 million Americans enjoyed these lands. Half of the 
Nation's ski lift capacity is on forest land. For those that like to 
ski undoubtedly if you have gone out in the western States, you have 
been on public lands. Half of the Nation's big game and cold water fish 
habitat is on the national forest lands.

  With respect to timber harvest, I might say there has been a lot of 
concern about the fact that we have been excessively harvesting timber, 
recognizing the importance of it for multiple use, recognizing the 
importance of timber lands in providing water supply, that we might be 
doing too much. But let me point out that we are on a downward glide 
path. We harvested 11 billion board feet, in 1990. It this bill today 
it provides for 4.3 billion board feet, almost one-third of what we 
were allowing in 1990. I think it is a recognition that the national 
forests have far greater value in terms of multiple use and in terms of 
our watershed than perhaps just for timber harvest.
  Little known facts is the Department of Energy. Fossil energy 
research focuses on cleaning up the environment and reducing energy 
consumption. We hear a lot about clean air and clean water and how 
important these are to our Nation and to the people in our society. 
Well, the fossil energy program is directed right at that need and the 
importance of cleaning up the environment. Low emission boilers will 
reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 percent once 
we develop the technology. I mention these things because during the 
course of handling this bill, there will be an amendment to reduce--
maybe several--to reduce our fossil energy commitment in terms of 
research, but keep in mind, any vote to cut fossil research, and we 
have already reduced it considerably, a vote to do that is a vote 
against the environment, it is a vote against reducing energy 
consumption.
  Advanced turbine systems will dramatically reduce emissions and 
reduce energy consumption while supporting 100,000 high-paying U.S. 
jobs and the export of 3 billion dollars' worth of technology. We hear 
a lot about the balance of payments. Again, a vote to reduce the fossil 
budget and I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] addressed 
it well during the rule debate, is a vote against increasing exports, 
it is a vote against U.S. jobs, against cleaning up our environment.
  I would point out also in the Office of Surface Mining in the bill, 
we fund $4 million for a new Appalachian clean streams. Again, an 
effort to clean up the water to preserve this resource for the future.
  Public lands, Interior and the Forest Service, are about one-third of 
the Nation's land mass. We manage it for clean waters and for open 
space and we try to preserve as much as possible the pristine values of 
our wilderness lands,

[[Page H6538]]

the vast wetland and forests that naturally cleanse the water and the 
air and replenish the aquifers.

                              {time}  1215

  But at the same time, Mr. Chairman, as evident by the charts up here, 
we are also recognizing that part of our legacy to future generations 
should not only be clean air, clean water, a land mass that can be 
enjoyed in terms of parks and forests and fish and wildlife facilities 
and the BLM lands, but at the same time, we are reducing the amount of 
expenditures.
  It points out in the chart that we are recommending $12 billion. 
While expending $12 billion, we are reducing spending by $500 million 
under 1996 and $1.5 billion under 1995. At the same time, we will 
increase national park operations by $55 million; national wildlife 
refuge operations by $18 million; native American programs by $52 
million; forest health by $72 million; and Smithsonian and other 
cultural institutions by $16 million.
  While doing that, we cut $114 million from energy programs. We cut 
$25 million from Washington and regional bureaucracy. We are getting 
people out of Washington and into the field, and we are also moving the 
expenditure of administrative-type funds out to the field where the 
problems need to be solved.
  As can be noted from the chart, the $114 million cut in energy 
programs has already been taken. So let me again caution all of the 
Members, evaluate the amendments that will be proposed that would do 
harm to our energy programs. They are vitally important for the future 
of this Nation, both in terms of clean water, in terms of clean air, 
and in terms of reducing our dependency on other nations outside the 
United States for energy.
  I think if Members look at the numbers, they will realize that 
probably in terms of petroleum, we are importing over one-half of our 
usage and we need to become more energy independent. We have tried to 
maintain the programs that are vitally important to the Nation's 
future.
  I would mention the same thing in terms of being responsible to the 
native American programs. We have treaty obligations. We have rights 
that were generated in the historical development of Indian programs, 
so we have had to increase those by $52 million over 1996. We put the 
money in these areas: $10 million for tribal priority allocations, $10 
million for Indian school operations, $20 million for new hospital 
staffing, and $12 million for health care professionals.
  I would mention these things, Mr. Chairman, because under our treaty 
obligations, we have a responsibility for health, for education, and 
for the tribal priority needs. We have tried to address these in our 
bill.
  In terms of forest health, and I reemphasize a point I made earlier, 
and that is that in the western States, 55 percent of their water comes 
from forest lands. A healthy forest is important to their future in 
terms of having clean water, in terms of having adequate water 
supplies. To recognize those forest health problems, we have increased 
by $72 million the overall program, $16.5 in forest health management, 
$40 million in wildfire preparation and prescribed burns, and $10.5 
million for thinning and vegetation improvement. We have had $4 million 
for road maintenance and reconstruction and $1 million for Forest 
Service research. We recognize, as in the case with energy, that 
knowledge is very important, that knowledge in managing forests or 
parks or any of the public lands becomes an important element.
  We have maintained the United States Geologic Survey at last year's 
level because that is the science arm of the Department of the 
Interior. In terms of the Everglades, we added $13 million for 
scientific research because we recognize that we are going to embark on 
a major program to undo some of the great mistakes of the past; but to 
do that in a responsible way, we need to have good science. Therefore 
we, as a starter in restoring the Everglades, put a large increase in 
the funding for the Everglades research and science that will go with 
that.

  I think when we look at the total bill, it is a responsible, 
commonsense approach to challenges. We all treasure the public lands 
and what it means to the quality of life in this country, and we have 
tried to recognize that. We have avoided programs, starting new 
programs that have high downstream costs, because both sides of the 
aisle, starting with the President, are committed to getting the budget 
deficit under control; and to do that, we have to avoid programs, we 
have to avoid acquiring facilities that have big costs downstream 
because we need to continue this effort to manage the programs as well 
as possible.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I certainly say to all of my colleagues, I hope 
that they will give this bill their consideration. I hope they will 
take time to understand what we have tried to do here. It is a 
nonpartisan bill. When it came to doing projects, we have an even 
balance between Members on each side of the aisle. In the subcommittee, 
we had very little partisanship. We worked as a team to try to use the 
resources that were allocated to us to do the best possible job of 
managing this marvelous resource called forests and parks, and so on, 
in the way that is constructive for the American people and that we can 
be proud of as far as a legacy to future generations. I urge all the 
Members to give us the support that we need and deserve on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the table detailing the 
various accounts in the bill.
  The information referred to is as follows:

[[Page H6539]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN96.000



[[Page H6540]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN96.001



[[Page H6541]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN96.002



[[Page H6542]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN96.003



[[Page H6543]]

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I honor my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio, Ralph 
Regula, for this hard work and his very great diligence in formulating 
this bill.
  It could have been a much better bill, if we only had the money that 
is required to do the job properly. To properly care for the vast 
natural resources of the United States and the magnificent museums and 
galleries which are funded in this bill, money is needed, and that 
money has not been allocated to us in the 602(b) allocation. For some 
reason, Interior continues to be the stepchild of the 602(b) bosses.
  This bill has been saddled with many burdens. We have been forced to 
take a cut of $482 million in our 602(b) allocation, which comes on top 
of the $1.1 billion reduction this bill enjoyed in the previous fiscal 
year. To add insult to injury, this malnourished bill had two 
legislative riders foisted on it in the full Committee on 
Appropriations. One deals with native American taxation, the other 
deals with the endangered marbled murrelet.
  Mr. Chairman, the first rider added by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Istook], will effectively cripple the ability of many native 
American tribes to operate successful retail establishments, like gas 
stations or convenience stores, on their property by forcing native 
American tribes, who are sovereign under the decisions of the Supreme 
Court and under treaties established with the United States to charge 
State sales taxes at their establishment.

  The second troubling rider was added by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs], and deals with protection of the endangered marbled 
murrelet. The Riggs amendment was precipitated by a court ruling that 
ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to designate areas in California, 
Oregon, and Washington as critical habitat for the elusive seabird.
  What the Riggs provision seeks to do is to prevent the Fish and 
Wildlife Service from enforcing this designation on private lands in 
California. Not only does this ill-conceived provision set a dangerous 
precedent for suspending the Endangered Species Act, but it could very 
well lead to the extinction of the marbled murrelet in the Headwaters 
forest.
  Mr. Chairman, even our full committee chairman, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], recognizes that these riders could sink the 
Interior bill. That is why he voted against both of them in committee.
  Our good friend, the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Boelhert] has also 
been quoted as saying these riders present real problems for floor 
consideration. Inclusion of these riders is especially ironic in light 
of an article that ran in the Washington Post on Monday with the 
headline, ``GOP Buffs environmental Image''. If the Republican Party 
seeks to improve its environmental image, then they can join us in 
striking the marbled murrelet rider.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislative riders are not the only problem with 
this bill, and while the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] did his best 
to minimize the pain of our reduced allocation, there are major 
problems with the funding of this bill, critical problems which I cite.
  For example, funding for the National Park Service has been cut by 
$40,095,000. Funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service is down by 
$19,200,000. Funding for vital agency support from Interior 
Departmental management has been punitively cut by $3,221,000. Funding 
for the Forest Service has been reduced by $56,281,000. Funding for 
energy efficiency programs are cut by $37,519,000. Funding for low-
income weatherization is cut out by another $11,764,000. Funding for 
Indian health service facilities has been reduced by $11,257,000. 
Funding for the Smithsonian Institution has been decreased by 
$8,700,000. Funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities has 
been cut by $5,506,000.

  At the same time that important programs are being cut, other 
nonessential accounts have been increased, including an increase in 
corporate welfare for the timber industry in the form of an additional 
$14 million over the fiscal year 1996 amount for timber roads and 
timber sale management and $12 million over the administration request 
for the PILT program.
  Finally, I want to express my support for the funding contained in 
this bill for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities. 
The issue of funding the endowments has long been very controversial in 
this bill. The funding that is in this bill is the result of the 
agreement that was reached last year by the members of the Republican 
Party to continue the NEA for 2 years and the NEH for 3 years. Given 
these austere budgets, representing a cut of nearly 40 percent for each 
agency from fiscal year 1995, I hope my colleagues will oppose any 
amendment to cut or eliminate additional funding for the endowments.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to commend my chairman, my good 
friend, the gentleman from Ohio, Ralph Regula, for his hard work, for 
his friendship, for his warm association and for his cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, just a footnote. I concede that we have 
reduced some of these programs, but it was land acquisition, 
construction of things that have downstream costs, and the only way we 
can save money is to cut spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Kolbe], a very able member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to voice my support for the Interior 
appropriations bill which is before us today and add my thanks to both 
the chairman and the ranking minority member and their staffs for the 
work that they have done on this.
  Mr. Chairman, you are going to hear a lot of concerns expressed here 
today, some in support of this, some in adamant opposition to the bill. 
But, before we take too seriously some of the expressions of 
discontent, we should all be aware of the budget parameters under which 
our subcommittee was operating.

                              {time}  1230

  Our initial 602(b) allocation was $1.1 billion below fiscal year 1996 
funding levels. That is $1.1 billion below. Fortunately, when the House 
approved the budget resolution, we found there was an additional $3.9 
billion of discretionary funding which the Committee on Appropriations 
was able to reallocate among the subcommittees. Despite this infusion 
of money, the Interior Subcommittee's fiscal year 1997 budget is still 
$482 million less than last year. Is this fair and equitable? Perhaps 
it is not for those concerned about these particular programs. But what 
is important is not what we do not have. What is significant is what we 
have done with the money that we do have available to us.
  This Interior appropriations bill reflects increases for our national 
parks, for the Everglades restoration, for forest health, specifically 
fire management and research, for USGS earthquake research and 
cooperative water research, and we have $4 million for a clean streams 
initiative. We have also increased or at least maintained fiscal year 
1996 funding levels for native American programs, like the vital and 
multipurpose tribal priority allocations account, for Indian education, 
Indian health, and increased the funding levels of major cultural 
institutions, like the Smithsonian, the Holocaust Museum, the Kennedy 
Center, and the National Gallery of Art.
  We have attempted to ensure that sufficient funds are available to 
fulfill our responsibilities as stewards of the Nation's natural 
treasures. Did some agencies incur reductions or even terminations of 
programs? Absolutely. But this is necessary as a subcommittee, as a 
body for us to do this, to keep our commitment to the American people 
that we would exercise fiscal responsibility, that we would balance the 
Federal budget in 7 years. And, all told, we have saved nearly $500 
million in doing that.
  Let us not fool each other about what is going to happen. There are 
going to be a lot of amendments to increase funding levels for programs 
and agencies. Members will speak with great conviction about the merits 
of these programs, and in many cases they will be right about whether 
the program is good or not.

[[Page H6544]]

  But, what I have said before needs to be said again. The 
appropriations process is not about numbers. It is not about whether we 
spend $12.1 billion, as this bill recommends, or $13.1 billion. It is 
not even about whether we cut a particular program, whether we increase 
a program, or whether we terminate a program. This and the other 
appropriations bills that are working their way through the legislative 
process is an opportunity for Congress and our political parties to 
make a philosophical statement about the direction we believe this 
country should be going. It is an opportunity to say something about 
where we think our future is. It is an opportunity for each party in 
Congress to set forth its vision, its hopes and dreams for our future 
and our children's future. This bill does that. I urge support for this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to voice my strong support for the Interior 
appropriations bill before us. I know that you have heard many of my 
colleagues express their support for or adamant opposition to this 
bill. But before the opposition continues their litany of discontent, 
I'd like to make you aware of the budgetary parameters under which the 
subcommittee was operating.
  Our initial 602(b) allocation was $1.1 billion below fiscal year 1996 
funding levels. That's $1.1 billion. Fortunately, when the House 
approved the budget resolution there was an additional $3.9 billion in 
discretionary funding which the Appropriations Committee was able to 
reallocate among the subcommittees. Despite this infusion of money, the 
Interior Subcommittee's fiscal year 1997 budget authority is still $482 
million less than last year. Is this fair and equitable? Probably not. 
But what's important is not what we don't have. What is significant is 
what we did with the money we were provided.
  The fiscal year 1997 Interior appropriations bill reflects increases 
for our national parks, for Everglades restoration, for forest health--
specifically, fire management and research, for USGS earthquake 
research and cooperative water research, and we provide $4 million for 
a clean streams initiative. We have also increased or maintained fiscal 
year 1996 funding levels for native American programs like the vital 
and multipurpose tribal priority allocations account, Indian education, 
Indian health, and increased the funding levels of major cultural 
institutions like the Smithsonian, the Holocaust Museum, the Kennedy 
Center, and the National Gallery of Art. We have attempted to ensure 
that sufficient funds are available to fulfill our responsibilities as 
stewards of this Nation's natural treasures. Did some agencies incur 
funding reductions or program terminations? Absolutely. But this was 
necessary for us to keep our commitment to the American people that we 
would exercise fiscal responsibility and balance the Federal budget in 
7 years. All told, this bill saves the American taxpayers almost $500 
million.

  Let's not fool each other about what is going to happen. Several 
amendments will be offered to increase the funding levels for various 
programs and agencies. Members will speak with great conviction about 
the merits of these programs, and in many instances they'll be right. 
But I've said it before, and it needs to be said again. The 
appropriations process is not about numbers. It's not about whether we 
spend $12.1 billion--as this bill recommends--or $13.1 billion. It's 
not even about whether we cut a program, whether we increase a program, 
or whether we eliminate a program.
  This bill and the other appropriations bills working their way 
through the legislative process is an opportunity for Congress, and our 
political parties, to make a philosophical statement about the 
direction we believe this country should be going. It is an opportunity 
for us to say something about where we think our future is. It's an 
opportunity for each party in Congress to set forth its vision for 
America; its hopes, its dreams for our future, and for our children's 
future.
  Mr. Chairman, in its entirety, this appropriations bill reflects this 
vision. When you dissect and place the funding level of each program, 
each agency and each line item under a microscope you won't get a true 
indication of the overall picture. But if you step back and look at 
this bill in its entirely, keeping in mind that these numbers reflect a 
promise we made to our children--the promise that we would no longer 
burden them with our fiscally irresponsible actions--then you get a 
clearer perspective.
  This appropriations bill is not perfect. But I believe it reflects a 
thoughtful and balanced approach given this Nation's $5 trillion debt. 
I urge all of my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to start out by paying tribute to 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman of the subcommittee, 
who has been a joy to work with throughout the process of shaping this 
bill. He is invariably willing to listen and try his best to 
accommodate in a bipartisan fashion the interests of other members of 
the subcommittee, and I am proud to serve on his subcommittee.
  I wish that I could transfer all of the enthusiasm that I feel about 
Mr. Regula personally to the legislative product that we have before us 
this afternoon. I am afraid that probably the best thing I can do is to 
say it is better than last year's bill. But last year's bill, as we all 
recall, had some problems.
  Just to get what I think is the appropriate framework, this Interior 
appropriations bill is the primary way that this Congress and this 
country makes a statement about the precious responsibility we have as 
stewards of the country's natural and cultural resources. So it really 
is a very important indication of what is important to us as a people.
  In that context, I am afraid that this bill does not meet the 
fundamental responsibilities we in Congress have to protect and 
preserve those very vital natural and cultural resources which we all 
are proud to claim as citizens of this country.
  There is an increase in many of the accounts, as the gentleman's 
opening comments indicated, over last year's levels, but we are still 
falling behind. Even with, for instance, the increase for the Park 
Service, we are not keeping up with the increasing backlog of deferred 
maintenance which is showing itself, whether in my home area at Rocky 
Mountain National Park, with trails being closed and visitor services 
being curtailed, or as is being repeated elsewhere around the country.
  One of the bill's more serious shortcomings has to do with the energy 
conservation and efficiency efforts. If we are so shortsighted as to 
fail to appreciate the threat to this country's national security and 
its economic security by continuing our profligate ways on energy, we 
are going to be in very, very sad shape. I will have an amendment later 
on that addresses this point to a modest degree, far from curing what I 
think are real shortcomings in that part of the bill.
  I wish as well that we could find the wherewithal to do the honor 
that we should as a Nation to our work in the humanities and the arts. 
The funding levels for both of those endowments are way below what 
American civilization ought to dedicate to the furtherance of the 
humanities and the arts and I regret that very much.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen], the distinguished 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. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this appropriations bill 
and recognize the great work that the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman 
Regula, has done and the many of us who have spend hours talking to him 
about this.
  I notice that people talk about an increase in payment in lieu of 
taxes. I hope that Members realize what this is. Out in the West, many 
of us are owned by the Federal Government. In the little county of 
Garfield, you take, for example, 93 percent is owned by the Federal 
Government.
  All these folks from around the world and especially the East come 
out there and they want to play, and they want to look at things and 
fish, hunt, camp, et cetera. So we are saying, pay your share, if you 
will. They are the ones that put the debris down that has to be picked 
up. They are the ones that start the fires. They are the ones that find 
themselves breaking a leg and you have to go out and take care of them. 
All we are saying is pay your share. So I commend the gentleman for 
adding money to payment in lieu of taxes.
  They also tell us where to put it in wilderness, how to use it for 
grazing, what we can mine and cut. We are saying if you are going to 
tell us how to run it, at least pay a little bit.
  I also hope the Members realized over the past year there has been 
sensational news stories about closure of

[[Page H6545]]

park facilities, resulting from dramatically increased visitation to 
national parks and cuts in park budgets. Actually, this is a result of 
disinformation, Mr. Chairman, on the part of the Secretary of Interior. 
Contrary to what you have heard, and I could name the cities and towns 
that this has been said, including the President of the United States, 
including the Secretary of Interior, that the Republicans are going to 
close parks, that there is a list of 312 parks somewhere.
  Let me tell you, as chairman of that committee, there is no list. 
H.R. 260 has no place in it, absolutely no place, where it closes one 
single park. I stand in the well and would eat the bill if someone 
could tell me where it closed one park. It does not do anything like 
that.
  However, that does not stop the Secretary of Interior from engaging 
in this partisan politics, going on fishing trips on Government time 
and running partisan things when he should be running his department.

  There are two indisputable facts: First, is visitation to parks have 
been flat for nearly a decade. Second, funding for parks has 
dramatically increased in recent years. The fact is increased funding 
for parks has been supported by both Democratic and Republican 
administrations in Congress. As a direct result of the effort of 
Chairman Regula, and before him Chairman Yates, annual base funding for 
parks has risen from $394 to $666 million in the last 7 years, an 
increase of 69 percent. As GAO has testified before my subcommittee 
last year, these increases have far outpaced inflation.
  Meanwhile, total visitation to parks has remained flat for a decade. 
In fact, total park visitation last year was, do you know, about 5 
percent from its peak year of 1988.
  Using two parks as illustrations, Zion in Utah and Yosemite in 
California, funding increases have far outpaced both of these. These 
facts have not stopped Secretary Babbitt from saying we are shutting 
those down.
  The park newspaper at Yellowstone Park declares the park facilities 
were closed due to budget shortfalls. Last winter during the lapse in 
appropriations, Secretary Babbitt shut down all the parks and 
concession facilities, even though the parks reported they actually had 
more rangers on duty during the shutdowns than before. Meanwhile, the 
Forest Service, also without a budget, did not shut down a single ski 
area, outfitter, or any other concessionaire on Forest Service lands. 
They continued to welcome the public, and for that I salute Secretary 
Glickman.
  Overall budget cuts at the Forest Service have been much higher, but 
that agency has sought out innovative ways to continue to serve the 
public. Rather than shut down its campgrounds, the Forest Service 
contracted them out to the private sector. Secretary Glickman has 
contracted out 70 percent of Forest Service campgrounds to the private 
sector this year. That provides for a vivid contrast with Secretary 
Babbitt, who runs around the country complaining about budget 
shortfalls.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we need a Secretary who puts protecting and 
managing our parks above politics.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge support of this good piece of legislation.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, as we consider this very 
important bill, I think it is important that we revisit the issue of 
the timber salvage rider that was part of the rescissions bill last 
year. While I felt at the time that it was important to address the 
problem of dead and dying trees, and the issue of forest health in 
general, in hindsight it was clear we dealt with it in too much haste.
  I did not vote on the Yates amendment when it was considered on the 
floor last year because I was with my wife at the hospital while she 
had minor surgery. I did vote for the bill on final passage, however, 
both because it helped to provide disaster relief to California and 
because it had the administration's support. At the time I think few 
Members of Congress were aware that the salvage timber rider allowed 
section 318 timber sales to be reinstated as well. If they had been 
aware of the deficiency, I do not think this rider would have gotten 
through.
  The 1990 section 318 sales were intended to allow the development of 
a compromise in the Northwest but they did not succeed and were halted 
due to environmental concerns. These sales only affect old growth 
timber. The issue of salvage timber--or the attempt to glean the forest 
of dead or dying trees particularly after drought periods like the one 
recently in California--is a different concern altogether.
  To my knowledge, these two issues were never intended to be 
intermingled. Fortunately, the Appeals Court has stepped in to stop the 
expedited 318 sales of old growth trees so we will have a chance to 
deal with option 9 in a responsible manner.
  Given the vagueness of the definition of salvage timber, it was not 
unexpected that this provision could be ill used to harvest healthy 
trees. We should not have gone forward with the salvage timber rider 
without tightening up how the Forest Service implemented the program in 
the first place. In practice, the program allowed for more than dead 
and dying trees to be cut.
  For those of us in this Congress who see a real threat to forest 
health and who have a strong desire to find the appropriate solution, 
the salvage timber rider simply went too far. Instead of merely 
allowing the timber companies some flexibility in helping to prevent 
future wildfires, those pursuing a different agenda took advantage of 
the opportunity and sought to cut health trees and old growth timber as 
well.
  I would like to cite an example of how such sales can be extremely 
detrimental. Recently in my district the Forest Service sought to 
reinstate the Barkley timber sale in the Lassen National Forest. I 
personally appealed to the Department of Agriculture to stop the sale 
because it would have seriously unraveled the cooperative local efforts 
among landowners, conservationists, and government officials to produce 
a collaborative strategy for resource management.
  In particular, the Quincy Library Group is a broad-based organization 
which worked hard to come to an agreement on timber harvests in the 
Sierra Nevadas. The Barkley timber sale would have jeopardized that 
carefully balanced effort. In response to my concern, the sale was 
stopped.
  We must seek an appropriate balance in identifying solutions that 
will work overtime. I support the amendment before us to restore 
environmental review to the timber salvage process. We need to provide 
a check to the extreme actions being undertaken under the guise of 
harvesting dead and dying trees.
  We need to come up with a definition of salvage similar to those that 
have been introduced by Members of both bodies, but which have yet to 
become law.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important issue that hopefully can be not 
only debated clearly today, but resolved once and for all, so the 
Congress can send a clear message about how it wants to deal with the 
issue of forest health.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman recognize that it is the 
Secretary of Agriculture that has to approve these sales that he is 
discussing in his remarks? I think that is an important point. It is 
the administration's Secretary that is doing it.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, typically 
they are really approved at the forest level. I think typically these 
decisions are made by Forest Service personnel at the regional level. 
They of course come from many different perspectives on these issues.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, in 
drafting the regulation, we did not spell out that the Secretary in 
effect has approval responsibility. So I think that is an important 
element that we should just bring to the attention of our colleagues in 
discussing this question.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think 
the key is to come up with a definition of dead and dying trees that 
would warrant a salvage operation. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Condit] had proposed, for example, 70 percent. If we had that kind of 
clarity in the law, then we would not have the problem of green trees 
being cut in some areas and the program working perhaps more 
appropriately in other areas.

[[Page H6546]]

                              {time}  1245

  And, of course, the 318 inclusion, which occurred in the Senate 
during the conference, was very much a troubling aspect for people 
across the spectrum who were interested in the forest health issue.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], a very fine member of our 
subcommittee.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the staff of the committee, and the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], and the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Yates], for the bill that has been put together. I think it is an 
outstanding bill, as has been said on the floor.
  So far, it does recognize many areas in forest health and it 
recognizes areas of park maintenance. It is probably the largest effort 
that has been made toward maintenance that we have had in a long time, 
and that is especially important in a time when there is so much 
pressure on reducing the budget.
  I would like, though, as a member of the committee and a sponsor of 
the timber salvage bill, to correct some misstatements. A lot of the 
organizations outside that have never understood this legislation, 
never really cared about forest health, have been trying to promote its 
demise.
  First of all, the 318 legislation that was put in by the Senate, as 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] indicated earlier, will 
expire September 30 of this year, so it is pretty much a moot question. 
As he mentioned a moment ago, the sales that people in that region felt 
were a problem, they have appealed. The court has spoken in this area 
and that is going to be pretty well handled, and there is no reason to 
address it on this floor at all.

  As it deals with salvage, to say that this language ought to be 
changed or we should have used this language is to fail to understand 
that the salvage language used in the timber salvage bill was the 
identical salvage language that has been used for years in the Forest 
Service's procedure in salvaging timber.
  It was only a few years ago that environmental organizations decided 
they needed to move another step forward and stop cutting in the 
national forest, as they have openly now said they want to do, and they 
put in a provision against salvage timber at the time. We simply 
removed that provision with the salvage amendment. The language is the 
same, that has never been contested over the years, as was used by the 
Forest Service.
  Second, to talk about its being used abusively, there is not one 
single case, and I challenge anyone to come with me, an it is hard to 
do on the floor, but I challenge anyone to come with me and prove there 
is a single case where that has been abused.
  And the final point is that green trees, when we are trying to wipe 
out disease and insects, for instance, with insects, the green tree is 
the host tree of the insect; it is a peripheral area just around the 
dead trees. If all we were cutting were the dead trees when we try to 
wipe out insects, we would never cut that out because the insect has 
already moved on to a living tree.
  So we have to come around to a peripheral area to get rid of the 
insects. And if we do not get rid of the insect, it will take the 
entire forest. And that was the reason for the salvage bill; it was for 
forest health.
  So I think the legislation has been misunderstood. We will address it 
more specifically in the debate, but it is a good piece of legislation 
that has worked well.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle].
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the efforts of the 
gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Regula, and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Yates, for the bill they bring before us 
today. They have done their best to protect a wide variety of important 
programs in a difficult budgetary climate.
  While there are many parts of this legislation I support, there is 
one in particular that I want to highlight, and that is the Department 
of Energy's fossil energy R&D. During the debate today many Members 
will come to floor and seek to plus up other accounts at the expense of 
fossil energy. While I do not necessarily disagree with the programs 
they seek to plus up, I believe that their efforts to cut fossil energy 
are misguided at best.
  As you can see from this chart, the Energy Information Agency has 
predicted that 20 years from now, we will still be dependent on fossil 
energy for 89 percent of our energy needs. Since this will still be the 
primary source of our energy supply, it make sense to pursue 
technological advancements that will allow us to make better use of 
these fuels.
  There is one area which I wish had received greater funding than is 
in the bill, and that is energy conservation R&D. For the same reasons 
that I support fossil R&D, I think it is important that we maintain a 
strong commitment to conservation R&D, as they deal with improving 
combustion-based energy.
  However, I will oppose efforts to raise the conservation line at the 
expense of fossil.
  I believe that such efforts are based on a fundamental 
misunderstanding of these two programs. Those who propose to increase 
conservation by reducing fossil are proposing no net gain for meeting 
our energy needs, they only move funds from one good program to 
another. The only difference is the name ``conservation'' sounds more 
politically-correct than fossil.
  I realize that because fossil fuels have been around for awhile, that 
there is a tendency to think that the utilization technologies have 
been improved to their maximum. If this logic was applied to nuclear 
R&D, you would come to the conclusion that since atoms haven't changed 
since the beginning of time, that there is no more work to be done in 
this area. Or in the case of renewables, since wind has been around 
since the formation of the planet, we shouldn't fund wind energy 
research.
  While these arguments make no sense, neither does the argument that 
we should cut fossil R&D, because they are currently in use. We are not 
talking about the fuel, but the way in which it is used.
  The Department of Energy, should be praised for the way in which they 
have managed to live within the confines of last years Interior 
Appropriations bill, which calls for a 10 percent reduction per year 
for the next 4 years. This is allowing for a gradual phase-out of the 
fossil energy program, without throwing away tax dollars already 
invested in research projects that yet to be completed.
  The amendments being offered to reduce fossil are being offered by 
those who either don't understand or don't care about the way their 
proposals will impact our energy security. I urge Members to oppose 
them all, as fossil energy should not be penalized with further 
reductions for adhering to its downsizing plan.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs], a member of the full Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman 
Regula, for yielding me this time, and I look forward to the debate 
coming up.
  Colleagues, first of all, in this very brief 2 minutes, I want to 
address something the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] said during 
debate on the rule. He said that my amendment in the full Committee on 
Appropriations last week to prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service from 
enforcing the critical habitat designation for the marbled murrelet on 
private lands, privately owned property, would render the marbeled 
murrelet extinct in northern California.
  The question I have for Mr. Dicks is, when was the last time he 
visited us in northwest California? Because that critical habitat 
designation in my district alone, and this goes to the gentleman's 
staffer, too, who wrote his remarks, in my district alone this critical 
habitat designation applies to 693,000 acres in Humboldt, Del Norte, 
and Mendocino Counties, and that breaks down as follows: 477,300 acres 
in Six Rivers National Forest, Federal property; Redwood National Park; 
the King Range National Conservation Area; and some parcels of Bureau 
of Land Management land. That is all federally owned property.
  And, in addition to that, the critical habitat designation applies to 
the 175,000 acres of State land, including State redwood parks, the 
Sinkyone

[[Page H6547]]

Wilderness State Park, and some Mendocino State parks.
  I am talking about protecting the property rights of 10 private 
property owners, 10 private property owners who own 32,000 acres in 
Humboldt County, the largest county in my congressional district. Some 
of those property owners are here today. They are not just timber 
companies, by the way. Some of them are longtime ranching and farming 
families, properties that have been in the hands of these families for 
generations, such as the Gift family, 501 acres designated critical 
habitat, taken without just compensation to the Gift family; the Bowers 
family, 156 acres taken without just compensation to the Bowers family; 
Harold Crabtree, his entire 254-acre ranch taken without just 
compensation from the Federal Government.
  So I conclude, 99 percent of this critical habitat designation is on 
public lands. We are talking about the final 1 percent, the remaining 1 
percent, that is privately owned property.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  I would say to my distinguished friend from California that I, too, 
represent an area that has been as affected as any in the country by 
listings under the Endangered Species Act, and my approach has been to 
try to work with the private companies and the State of Washington in 
order to get them to enter into a multispecies habitat conservation 
plan, an agreement between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
private company to protect the species on the private property lands 
and to help in the conservation effort. For that, they get 100 years of 
certainty.
  Now, I checked yesterday with the Fish and Wildlife Service and asked 
them about the company involved here, and whether they had seriously 
attempted to negotiate a multispecies HCP, and the answer was a 
resounding no.
  Now, that is the way for the gentleman to solve his problem, to sit 
down with his company and with the Fish and Wildlife Service and try to 
get them to work out on a voluntary basis a multispecies HCP. That is 
how the Endangered Species Act allows one to get the incidental take 
permit that is necessary.
  Let me just also say to my friend from California, even with a 
critical habitat listing, the company still can log. All it cannot do 
is have a taking of a species that is either threatened or endangered, 
and so they can use this private property. I just want to make that 
point.
  If he is going to have a taking, the only way he can get around a 
taking is to have an incidental take permit. And the way one gets an 
incidental take permit, a large private landowner, is to do it by 
negotiating a multispecies HCP. I have worked with the Murray Pacific 
Co., Plum Creek, Weyerhaeuser, the major timber companies in the 
Northwest, to get them to do that.
  What the gentleman is doing today by walking into the full committee 
and offering an exemption for one large lumber company in his district 
is not only undermining the Endangered Species Act, but he is 
undermining my efforts and the efforts of other Members of Congress who 
are trying to work with their private timber companies to get them to 
do these multispecies HCP's. I am sure the gentleman has a different 
interpretation of his intent, but the bottom line is, this is what is 
occurring.
  So I am urging my colleagues today to join with me in striking out 
the Riggs amendment, and I urge the gentleman to go back and do it the 
old-fashioned way, to sit down and get a multispecies HCP through the 
Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding, and I want to give him an opportunity to respond to the point 
I made that we are talking about 10 property owners.
  Mr. DICKS. But the gentleman would admit that the predominant 
landowner here is the Pacific Lumber Co.; is that not right?
  Mr. RIGGS. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I would not 
stipulate to that. We are talking about nine other private property 
owners, some of which are----
  Mr. DICKS. But the Pacific Lumber Co. has 33,000 acres.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would give me an 
opportunity to finish, there are nine property owners who own 
collectively 8,000 acres. And I am going to introduce in the debate to 
come, on the gentleman's motion to strike, letters from these property 
owners that say they have never had a single contact from the Fish and 
Wildlife Service. Not once. The properties have not been inspected.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I take back my time. The gentleman knows 
fully if they have a species on their property, it is their 
responsibility. They do not have to do it, but if they do not do it, 
they do not get an incidental take permit. If they want to risk taking 
a species without an incidental take permit, then they will violate the 
Endangered Species Act.
  The way to do it is to go in and enter into an agreement. Now, in 
many cases, small landowners are given, as a matter of course, an 
incidental take permit. It is the large landowner that is asked to do 
the multispecies HCP.

                              {time}  1300

  In this case, the company involved did not negotiate in good faith to 
get a multispecies HCP. If they had done that and they were willing to 
do that on all the lands that they own in this area that the 
gentleman's amendment affects, I am told by the Fish and Wildlife 
Service that they would have bent over backwards to try to enter into 
such an agreement.
  The facts are that they came in and made it very clear from the very 
first instant that what they wanted to do was to file a lawsuit that 
would raise the issue of a constitutional taking. That is, in fact, 
what they did. And in fact the Federal judge, Judge Rothstein, is the 
one who directed the Fish and Wildlife Service to designate critical 
habitat. In this instance, 78 percent of the critical habitat was on 
Federal lands, and only 1 percent was on the private lands.
  In my judgment, the only reason it is on the private land is because 
the area involved is crucial to the survival of the spotted owl in that 
area. So I would just say to the gentleman from California, not only in 
this amendment is he undermining the Endangered Species Act, he is also 
threatening the survival of the marbled murrelet.
  There are a lot of fishermen who have written me saying, please 
oppose the Riggs amendment. They are fearful that, if we do not protect 
the marbled murrelet and it becomes endangered rather than threatened 
under the Federal law, even more onerous restrictions will be put on 
the fishermen in my colleague's area as well.
  Now, I sympathize with the gentleman from California. He and I have 
worked on things together in the past, but what I do not like here is 
what he is doing. By coming in here and getting a specific exemption, 
it is undermining all of the rest of us who are trying to get our 
private companies to do the right thing by entering into a multispecies 
HCP. That is what the gentleman should be doing, not coming here and 
undermining the Endangered Species Act, threatening the marbled 
murrelet and threatening the old growth in this particular area which 
is crucial to the survival of the marbled murrelet.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I want to thank him for his hard work in bringing this bill to 
the floor.
  These are very difficult issues. As we have heard by the previous 
speakers, the chairman has had to deal with situations where there are 
very meritorious but competing interests. I think he has done an 
admirable job here. But I rise today to revise and extend my remarks 
with respect to an issue that is of paramount importance here to us in 
the State of New Jersey.
  Included in this legislation is the Sterling Forest issue, which is 
located in my district. It is being put in this legislation as one of 
the Nation's top two priorities for land acquisitions. This legislation 
recommends that Sterling Forest receive $9 million as a downpayment on 
the Federal Government's purchase price.

[[Page H6548]]

  I want to point out, by the way, I thank the chairman. He and I have 
worked for a number of years on this together. I do appreciate his 
cooperation and his commitment to this particular project. I also want 
to point out that the Speaker this last March visited our State and 
Sterling Forest and has made a commitment that he would see to it this 
year that this would be accomplished.
  However, although this is an important step, it is a significant 
step. It strictly undermines the contention that I have had from the 
beginning, which is that time is of the essence and that Sterling 
Forest owners cannot be expected to wait forever, even though they are 
willing in a willing compromise, a negotiated compromise to deal with 
the Federal Government. But I must point out here that, even though 
this is set as a priority under this authorization, not only is time of 
the essence but we must not lose sight of the fact that we need 
authorization for this to be effective. This Sterling Forest is not yet 
authorized. I will be pressing ahead with every fiber of my being to 
see to it that it gets authorized in the very near future.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], an excellent member of our subcommittee.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3662, the 
fiscal year 1997 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. 
This bill is $482 million below last year's funding and within our 
budget allocation.
  Given the need to reduce Federal spending, and the resulting lower 
funding allocation the subcommittee and full Appropriations Committee 
is working under this year, this is a good bill, and I commend Chairman 
Regula and his staff for putting this measure together.
  H.R, 3662 represents the tough choices that have to be made if we are 
going to get spending under control. So while I call it a good bill and 
urge all of my colleagues to support the bill, I also recognize that 
there is something in here for everyone to dislike. It is impossible to 
both cut spending and to fund everything that all of us would like to 
fund.
  On the other hand, compared to last year, H.R. 3662 increases funding 
for operating our National Park System by $55 million; it increases 
forest health initiatives like pest suppression and wildfire management 
by $72 million; and it allows $52 million more for Native American 
programs than last year.
  Mr. Chairman, on balance, this bill represents a tremendous effort to 
balance spending cuts with stewardship of our natural resources. I urge 
a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, this is a very good bill. I hope the 
Members will take a good look at it, especially the amendments, as we 
go along. We will accept some, but we will have to resist a number of 
them. We want to finish the bill today, and we want to move along as 
quickly as possible.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the numerous 
amendments, notably the Farr, Walker, and Richardson amendments, in the 
Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997 that cut valuable 
funding of up to $138 million for the Department of Energy's Fossil 
Energy Research and Development Program. We hear a great deal today 
about how the United States has become overly dependent on foreign 
sources of oil. A main reason for this is because over the past decade 
strict limitations have been put on the burning of certain types of 
coal. These moneys address such crucial energy issues by enabling 
research into vital clean coal technology, as well as ways to increase 
domestic oil and gas production. In addition, programs such as the 
Petroleum Technology Transfer Council that provide for the transfer of 
technology between independent producers would be eliminated.
  Rural economies have been especially hard hit by the limitations on 
coal, and the decreased production of oil and natural gas. In my 
district alone, thousands of people employed in these industries have 
been affected, whether they are displaced coal miners or small oil 
companies that can no longer afford to operate. These citizens 
represent the backbone of our domestic energy production, and stand 
ready to provide alternative energy options to foreign petroleum. In 
Illinois, the Fossil Energy Research and Development Program will 
account for almost 30,000 jobs in the first decade of the next century. 
Moreover, the budget for fossil energy programs has already been cut 
10.5 percent from last year's levels, and 30 percent from fiscal year 
1995. Hence, these amendments would seriously endanger the future of 
energy development in this country, as well as many local economies. I 
urge all of my colleagues to retain funding for this important 
research.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to revise and extend my 
remarks.
  I rise today in support of the funding in this bill for California 
Natural Communities Conservation Planning [NCCP] program. The fiscal 
year 1997 Interior appropriations bill, which will be considered by the 
subcommittee this afternoon, contains $5 million for the program.
  I would also like to support the amendment offered by my California 
colleague Rep. Ken Calvert. His amendment will shift $1 million from 
the Forest Service General Administration Account to the Cooperative 
Endangered Species Conservation Fund. By cutting bureaucracy, the 
Calvert amendment will further our goals for protecting and preserving 
sensitive species in southern California.
  The NCCP pilot program in southern California is the Nation's most 
advanced cooperative approach. The program was initiated 5 years ago as 
an attempt to create a multispecies approach to preserving species. By 
increasing funding in the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation 
Fund, Rep. Calvert's amendment will help us to fund the NCCP at the 
administration's requested level.
  Even in a time of unprecedented fiscal constraints, I would like to 
commend Interior Subcommittee Chairman Ralph Regula for recognizing the 
merit of this process and supporting the program. The NCCP represents 
the future of conservation, and it is a giant leap forward over the 
historical project-by-project, command and control methods of most 
environmental strategies. The system we have in place now sets us up 
for confrontation, conflict, and gridlock. The NCCP will replace that 
system and create a framework for comprehensive conservation planning 
to protect natural resources and sensitive species in southern 
California while allowing for reasonable growth.
  The NCCP is part of a collaborative effort between Federal, State, 
and local officials, as well as land owners and environmental groups. 
The planning process' goal is to protect a variety of species and 
sensitive natural habitats, to prevent the need to list other species 
in the future as endangered, and allow growth and economic development 
to occur in balance with sound resource conservation.
  The NCCP includes conservation and development plans for nine 
separate areas within the southern California planning region.
  Again, I urge support of the Calvert amendment, and final passage of 
this bill.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that Chairman Regula and 
the Appropriations Committee has included in the fiscal year 1997 
Interior appropriations bill $4.58 million in reimbursement to Guam for 
the costs incurred as a result of the Compacts of Free Association.
  These compacts with the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic 
of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau, allow open and free 
migration to the United States. Of course, Guam receives the greatest 
share of this migration which puts a tremendous strain on our local 
resources and this impact continues to grow. Guam is geographically 
located closest to these new nations. Their economies are less 
developed than Guam's, and for many of their citizens, the economic 
draw and unlimited access are powerful incentives leading to widespread 
migration to Guam. The Federal commitment to Guam is a statutory 
commitment made to Guam in Public Law 99-239, section 104(e), which 
authorizes the appropriation of funds to cover the costs incurred as a 
result of increased demands placed on educational and social services.
  Let me underscore that this $4.58 million is only minimum 
reimbursement for the costs incurred by the Government of Guam. I am 
pleased that the Committee included report language which recognizes 
the need to augment this funding. I am also encouraged that in a letter 
to me on May 15, 1996, the Department of Interior has agreed to submit 
a report to Congress on the impact of the compact also required by 
Public Law 99-239. This information will assist Congress in continuing 
to address this important issue. We are hopeful that the Interior 
report will detail and document the full financial impact of the 
compact on Guam.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 1997 
Interior appropriations bill. This legislation further cuts the already 
lean budgets of the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and other Federal land use agencies, even 
though demands by the public on these agencies is increasing.
  We in the Congress are charged to act as stewards of America's 
natural and cultural resources. We have a sworn duty to protect

[[Page H6549]]

wildlife, our air and water, and our National Parks. We have the 
responsibility to ensure that our children and grandchildren will be 
able to use and enjoy our public lands. This appropriations bill 
represents an abdication of our responsibility to the American people.
  Although this bill does not contain the sweeping anti-environmental 
riders the Republican leadership included last year, the appropriations 
measure we are considering includes a number of provisions that 
threaten our natural resources. This bill prohibits the Bureau of Land 
Management from resolving longstanding rights of way disputes under 
RS2477 and waives certain environmental laws to expedite the 
construction of a telescope on Mt. Graham, a sacred site for Native 
American people. It also prohibits the Fish and Wildlife Service from 
enforcing designation of critical habitat to protect the marbled 
murrelet on 37,000 acres of private property in California, which 
amounts to an exemption from the Endangered Species Act for a select 
few. Finally, the bill undermines the sovereignty of Indian tribes by 
prohibiting the use of Federal funds to take lands into trust by a 
tribe unless the tribe has a binding agreement in place to provide for 
the collection of State and local sales and excise taxes on sales to 
non-members of the tribe.
  I also question the spending priorities set by Congressional 
Republicans in the 1997 Interior appropriations bill. For instance, 
despite increasing numbers of visits to our National Parks and a 
considerable backlog of Park maintenance, the total funding for 
National Parks is reduced by $40 million from the fiscal year 1996 
total. Funding for National Park operations and maintenance totals $24 
million less than the President's request. At the same time, subsidies 
for timber road construction and road maintenance, and ``green'' timber 
sales are increased by $14 million over last year's levels. I do not 
believe this allocation represents the values of the public, who have 
overwhelmingly supported our National Parks and opposed corporate 
welfare.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican Majority has tried to talk the talk on 
environmental issues, but this Interior appropriations bill 
demonstrates more loudly than words that the GOP aren't yet ready to 
``walk the walk.'' I urge Members to defeat this bill.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 
3662, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997.
  This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman of the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates], the ranking member of the subcommittee for their exceptional 
work in bringing this bill to the floor. Extremely tight budgetary 
constraints made the job of the subcommittee much more difficult.
  This Member is pleased that the report includes language directing 
the National Park Service to develop a general management plan for 
Homestead National Monument of America near Beatrice, NE.
  Homestead National Monument of America commemorates the lives and 
accomplishments of all pioneers and the changes to the land and the 
people as a result of the Homestead Act of 1862. This monument was 
authorized by legislation enacted in 1936. However, a general 
management plan is needed to help ensure that Homestead is able to 
reach its full potential as a place where Americans can more 
effectively appreciate the Homestead Act and its effects upon the 
Nation.
  A general management plan is the first step in assessing and planning 
for new park development. The plan is used to identify the park's 
purposes, assess current situations, and plan new development and 
management directions. A general management plan also contains 
environmental and historical assessments. Public comment on the plan 
and proposed alternatives are required by the National Environmental 
Policy Act and other laws and policies. Before Homestead could embark 
upon any future projects, the general management plan process would 
have to be completed to ensure that mission-based objectives and public 
comment were properly considered. This process normally takes several 
years and it is this Member's understanding that it can be accomplished 
with base-funded staff with available funds.

  Homestead National Monument of America is truly a unique treasure 
among the National Park Service jewels. The authorizing legislation 
makes it clear that Homestead was intended to have a special place 
among Park Service units. According to the original legislation:

       It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to 
     lay out said land in a suitable and enduring manner so that 
     the same may be maintained as an appropriate monument to 
     retain for posterity a proper memorial emblematic of the 
     hardships and the pioneer life through which the early 
     settlers passed in the settlement, cultivation, and 
     civilization of the great West. It shall be his duty to erect 
     suitable buildings to be used as a museum in which shall be 
     preserved literature applying to such settlement and 
     agricultural implements used in bringing the western plains 
     to its present state of high civilization, and to use the 
     said tract of land for such other objects and purposes as in 
     his judgment may perpetuate the history of this country 
     mainly developed by the homestead law.

  Clearly, this authorizing legislation sets some lofty goals. This 
Member believes that a general management plan would begin the process 
of realizing these goals.
   Mr. Chairman, this Member is also gratified that H.R. 3662 maintains 
last year's funding level of $250,000 from State and private forestry 
funds for the National Agroforestry Center at Lincoln, NE.
  The National Agroforestry Center--formerly the Center for Semiarid 
Agroforestry--was authorized by the 1990 Farm Bill, the Food, 
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act [FACTA]. Section 1243 of the 
FACTA authorized an annual appropriation of up to $5 million for the 
center. The National Agroforestry Center is a partnership of the 
Research, State, and Private Forestry, and International Forestry 
branches of the USDA Forest Service. The center conducts research on 
developing tree varieties, especially adapted to the Great Plains, that 
will enhance crop and livestock production, protect surface and 
groundwater quality, create wildlife habitat, and promote environmental 
goals. The center is nationally and internationally renowned as the 
U.S. flagship for agroforestry due to its leadership in agroforestry 
research, development, and applications.
  The center, located in Lincoln, Nebraska is a key element of 
agroforestry research and technology transfer for the Forest Service. 
The center's mission is to accelerate the development and application 
of agroforestry technologies to attain more economically, 
environmentally, and socially sustainable ecosystems. To accomplish its 
mission, the center conducts agroforestry research and interacts with a 
national network of cooperators to conduct research, develop 
technologies and tools, establish demonstrations, and provide useful 
information to natural resource professionals nationwide and globally.
  The National Agroforestry Center is developing key partnerships with 
other agencies and institutions and catalyzing interdisciplinary 
teamwork. Since agroforestry bridges critical productivity, 
biodiversity, sustainability, and socio-economic issues, the National 
Agroforestry Center has become a focal point for interagency 
cooperation. The multi-agency initiative being developed includes the 
Agricultural Research Service [ARS], the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service [CSREES] and the Environmental 
Protection Agency [EPA].
  The center seeks to increase the use of agroforestry in order to 
fulfill the following purposes: Make agriculture more sustainable; 
mitigate the adverse environmental side effects of agriculture; convert 
marginal farmlands to high-value tree crops and wildlife habitat; and 
enhance human environments
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member supports H.R. 3662 and urges 
his colleagues to approve it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. An amendment striking the last proviso under 
the heading ``Strategic Petroleum Reserve'' is adopted.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5 
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device 
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by 
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be 
less than 15 minutes.
  After the reading of the final lines of the bill, a motion that the 
Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted shall, if offered by the majority 
leader or a designee, have precedence over a motion to amend.
       The Clerk will read:
       The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3662

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in

[[Page H6550]]

     Congress assembled, That the following sums are appropriated, 
     out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
     for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                        Bureau of Land Management


                   management of lands and resources

       For expenses necessary for protection, use, improvement, 
     development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification, 
     acquisition of easements and other interests in lands, and 
     performance of other functions, including maintenance of 
     facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of lands 
     and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, including the general administration of the 
     Bureau, and assessment of mineral potential of public lands 
     pursuant to Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150(a)), 
     $566,514,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $2,000,000 shall be available for assessment of the mineral 
     potential of public lands in Alaska pursuant to section 1010 
     of Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150); and of which 
     $3,000,000 shall be derived from the special receipt account 
     established by the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, 
     as amended (16 U.S.C. 4601-6a(i)); and of which $1,000,000 
     shall be available in fiscal year 1997 subject to a match by 
     at least an equal amount by the National Fish and Wildlife 
     Foundation, to such Foundation for challenge cost share 
     projects supporting fish and wildlife conservation affecting 
     Bureau lands; in addition, $27,300,000 for Mining 
     Law Administration program operations, to remain available 
     until expended, to be reduced by amounts collected by the 
     Bureau and credited to this appropriation from annual 
     mining claim fees so as to result in a final appropriation 
     estimated at not more than $566,514,000; and in addition, 
     not to exceed $5,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, from annual mining claim fees; which shall be 
     credited to this account for the costs of administering 
     the mining claim fee program, and $2,000,000 from 
     communication site rental fees established by the Bureau 
     for the cost of administering communication site 
     activities: Provided, That appropriations herein made 
     shall not be available for the destruction of healthy, 
     unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the 
     Bureau or its contractors: Provided further, That in 
     fiscal year 1997 and thereafter, all fees, excluding 
     mining claim fees, in excess of the fiscal year 1996 
     collections established by the Secretary of the Interior 
     under the authority of 43 U.S.C. 1734 for processing, 
     recording, or documenting authorizations to use public 
     lands or public land natural resources (including 
     cultural, historical, and mineral) and for providing 
     specific services to public land users, and which are not 
     presently being covered into any Bureau of Land Management 
     appropriation accounts, and not otherwise dedicated by law 
     for a specific distribution, shall be made immediately 
     available for program operations in this account and 
     remain available until expended.


                        wildland fire management

       For necessary expenses for fire use and management, fire 
     preparedness, suppression operations, and emergency 
     rehabilitation by the Department of the Interior, 
     $247,924,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not to exceed $5,025,000 shall be for the renovation or 
     construction of fire facilities: Provided, That such funds 
     are also available for repayment of advances to other 
     appropriation accounts from which funds were previously 
     transferred for such purposes: Provided further, That persons 
     hired pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1469 may be furnished subsistence 
     and lodging without costs from funds available from this 
     appropriation: Provided further, That unobligated balances of 
     amounts previously appropriated to the ``Fire Protection'' 
     and ``Emergency Department of the Interior Firefighting 
     Fund'' may be transferred to this appropriation.


                    central hazardous materials fund

       For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior 
     and any of its component offices and bureaus for the remedial 
     action, including associated activities, of hazardous waste 
     substances, pollutants, or contaminants pursuant to the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
     Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C 9601 et seq.), 
     $12,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, sums recovered from or 
     paid by a party in advance of or as reimbursement for 
     remedical action or response activities conducted by the 
     Department purusant to sections 107 or 113(f) of such Act, 
     shall be credited to this account to be available until 
     expended without further appropration: Provided further, That 
     such sums recovered from or paid by any party are not limited 
     to monetary payments and may include stocks, bounds or other 
     personal or real property, which may be retained, liquidated, 
     or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary and which shall be 
     credited to this account.


                              construction

       For construction of buildings, recreaton facilities, roads, 
     trails, and appurtenant facilities, $3,103,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                       payments in lieu of taxes

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20, 
     1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-07), $113,500,000, of which 
     not to exceed $400,000 shall be available for administrative 
     expenses.


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out section 205, 206, and 
     318(d) of Public Law 94-579 including administrative expenses 
     and acquisition of lands or waters, or interests therein, 
     $10,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended.


              amendment offered by mr. farr of california

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Farr of California: In the item 
     relating to the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR--Bureau of Land 
     Management--Land Acquisition, insert ``(increased by 
     $4,750,000)'' after the dollar amount.
       In the item relating to the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR--
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service--Land Acquisition, 
     insert ``(increased by $37,300,000)'' after the dollar 
     amount.
       In the item relating to the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR--
     National Park Service--Land Acquisition and State 
     Assistance--
       (1) insert ``(increased by $57,790,000)'' after the first 
     dollar amount; and
       (2) insert ``(increased by $2,240,000)'' after the second 
     dollar amount.
       In the item relating to RELATED AGENCIES--Department of 
     Agriculture--Forest Service--Land Acquisition, insert 
     ``(increased by $35,310,000)'' after the dollar amount.
       In the item relating to DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY--Fossil Energy 
     research Development, insert ``(reduced by $135,150,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order since we have 
not yet seen the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Chair would note that the amendment is printed in the Record as 
amendment No. 7.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, my amendment directly benefits 
every American and every Member who supports our parks, our public 
spaces. There is a big pot of money in the Federal budget to pay for 
new parklands and for other open space acquisition. That money can 
benefit every American who enjoys the beauty of our national parks, the 
serenity of the wilderness, the exhilaration of an early morning duck 
hunt of the surge of pride in exploring the great historical places of 
this Nation.
  That pot of money is called the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It 
is supposed to take some of the money raised from the sale of publicly 
owned fossil energy resources to build a legacy of parks and open space 
resources for future generations.
  In 1964, Congress created the Land and Water Conservation Fund to use 
some of the Federal royalties from offshore oil drilling to buy 
parklands. Even though the offshore oil drilling only comes from 
coastal States, the money was to be used in all of the States. It was 
an ideal environmental business plan, reinvest the profits from the 
exploration of publicly owned natural resources into the infrastructure 
of our Nation's parks and other public spaces. Money would come into 
the fund and Congress and the President would allocate it between State 
parks programs and Federal public land priorities.
  The fund currently takes in $900 million a year. It will continue to 
take in such money until the program's authority expires in the year 
2015. But the plan is broken. Only a trickle of that money reaches the 
parks and other land conservation needs.
  By the early 1980's, the President and Congress began using more and 
more of the fund each year to mask the size of the deficit. Less and 
less went into land acquisition. In 1991, only $321 million of the 
fund's $900 million income went into the environment; only $100 million 
of that is appropriated today for fiscal year 1997, a $12 billion 
surplus, which frees up other moneys to be spent for other purposes, 
including fossil fuel energy research.
  My amendment would restore the funding to the 1995 appropriated 
levels by increasing the bill's Land and Water Conservation Fund 
appropriation levels by $134,904,000 over the committee's appropriated 
level, reported level of about $100 million.
  My amendment allocate this increase among the land management agency

[[Page H6551]]

accounts according to the fiscal year 1995 allocations. The Bureau of 
Land Management would get about $14 million; Fish and Wildlife, $67 
million; National Parks Service, $87 million; and Forest Service, $65 
million; for a total of $235 million.
  It is my intention that $2 million of the Park Service increase be 
allocated for State grants through the National Park Service States 
assistance programs.
  This is assisting our States which have long asked for help with this 
fund. My amendment preserves the committee's decision not to earmark 
individual projects and to leave it to the discretion of the agencies 
which projects to pursue.
  I offset the $135 million cut in the Department of Energy fossil 
research account. This account has a total amount of $359 million 
remaining in the bill.

                              {time}  1315

  The point is that we do not need to allocate as much as the 
appropriators have done for the programs for research which really 
benefit our large multinational corporations like Chevron, Exxon, 
Conoco and such.
  We have spent over $2\1/2\ billion for fossil fuel research since 
fiscal year 1992, just over a billion of that for, just a billion of 
that for, the land and water conservation fund for acquisition in the 
same period of time. Yet, for example, in my home State of California 
this program, which the committee has appropriated, would help fund 
Chevron's research into enhanced oil recovery technology, Arco's 
research into new horizontal drilling techniques, Pacific Operators' 
offshore research in Santa Barbara on lateral drilling technology to 
extract more oil offshore. One may argue these are appropriate areas of 
research, but why rely totally on this fund?
  We also have money coming from drilling on State lands and from 
drilling on private lands, and none of that money is being earmarked 
for this research purpose.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Farr of California was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask that we reverse the 
priorities here and put two-thirds of this appropriation into 
acquisition of land and one-third into fossil fuel research. That would 
still leave a surplus in the fund for fossil fuel research of about 
$224 million, and I suggest that that is an appropriate balance of 
funds and would urge this House to support my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio withdraw his point of 
order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. Let me point out to our colleagues that fossil energy 
research is vitally important.
  Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the fossil energy research 
program is vitally important to this Nation. We are dependent of fossil 
energy for 85 percent of our needs and will be far into the foreseeable 
future. Fossil energy research is important in reducing emissions. We 
all talk about clean air, and here is a key element in the clean air 
program. It is important in reducing emissions into the environment of 
this Nation; it is important to having energy independence.
  As we well know, thinking back to Desert Storm, we paid a heavy price 
to maintain access to energy offshore. We have cut 23 percent since 
1995 in fossil energy research. Most of these programs, if not all, are 
contractual relationships with the private sector, where they are being 
matched. Federal dollars are being matched by at least 50 percent 
private dollars. These programs are not to implement the use of energy, 
but rather to find better ways to use our energy resources. These 
dollars increase energy technology at the domestic level, and I think 
it is vitally important that we maintain our commitment to those 
private sector partners that have helped us in these programs and have 
committed their own dollars.
  Most of us depend on gasoline powered automobiles, and we cannot at 
this point give up that source of energy for the vast number of 
domestic automobiles, but we can find ways to burn energy in a more 
environmentally friendly way. Coal supplies are vital to the generation 
of electricity. We only need to look at the industrial consumption of 
electricity that produces jobs to realize how important coal is as a 
part of our energy resources in this Nation.
  For all of these reasons, and given the fact that we have reduced 
funding by 23 percent, it becomes extremely important that we maintain 
this fossil energy research. We will have a number of amendments trying 
to take out the funding that we have in for these programs, and we 
recognize we are scaling back 10 percent each year.
  But recognizing that we are going to depend on fossil energy for the 
foreseeable future, I think it is vitally important that we continue 
these partnership research programs to ensure that we burn this energy, 
use this energy in the most efficient way, that we protect our air, 
that we protect our water resources, that we protect the 
competitiveness of our industry, and I think to vote for this amendment 
is a vote against jobs, it is a vote against clean air, it is a vote 
against energy independence, it is a vote against the environment, and 
I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman in opposing this 
amendment. This amendment is another form of the amendment that will be 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] later on. For 
the same reasons as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] so eloquently 
outlined, I think the Farr amendment should be defeated.
  Sure, it would be great if we had enough money to buy land for the 
Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and the Forest Service. The Land and Water Conservation Fund 
needs that money. We just do not have it under the 602(b) allocation 
that we received, and it is very important that the fossil energy 
research and development continue with the money that we have 
allocated.
  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very much in favor of this amendment, and I want 
to take the opportunity to say a few words on its behalf.
  I think that it makes very good sense for us to take this relatively 
small amount of money, $359 million, out of the fund for fossil fuel 
research and put it where it is most needed at this particular moment, 
and that is in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund, first of all, is funded 
presently at the lowest level it has ever been funded at since its 
beginning, so it is not a case that there is too much money in the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund. The fact of the matter is there is far too 
little.
  Furthermore, it makes good sense now at this particular moment to 
take this $359 million out of fossil fuel research and put it into the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund. Why? This $359 million in research 
for fossil fuels ought to be being paid for the fossil fuel companies 
themselves. The oil companies today are making once again record 
profits. Let me give my colleagues an example.
  Since January of this year the price that we are paying for regular 
gasoline at the pump in New York has gone up by more than 30 cents a 
gallon. Now that the spot market price for gasoline has come down, and 
it has come down now more than 16 cents a gallon since the end of 
April, the oil companies have dropped their prices by only 2 to 3 cents 
a gallon. So they are pocketing 13 to 14 cents a gallon on every gallon 
of gasoline that is sold in New York, and it is even higher than that 
in California and other places across the country. They are the ones 
who ought to be paying for this fossil fuel research.
  Furthermore, this Congress has failed since its beginning to continue 
a tax on the oil companies which was designed to pay for the cost of 
the cleanup of old toxic and hazardous waste dump sites and also is to 
pay for the cost of leaking underground petroleum

[[Page H6552]]

storage tanks. That failure of this Congress to extend that tax which 
had been in existence for those purposes means that every year the oil 
companies are pocketing an additional $1 billion.
  Now we are never going to recoup that money. We are never, even if we 
pass these taxes, put them back in existence so we have the funds to 
pay for the cost of cleaning up toxic and hazardous waste dump sites 
and the cost of underground petroleum spills, we are never going to 
make it retroactive. So they have gotten away now with more than a 
billion dollars a year by not having to pay that tax, and they are 
getting away with additional billions in dollars in excess profits 
because of the fact they are changing more at the pump by orders of 
magnitude than they have to pay on the spot market for the petroleum 
products that they buy.

  The oil companies are getting away with murder. They have their hands 
in the pockets of the motoring American public, and they are pulling 
out fistfuls of dollars day in and day out and stuffing it into their 
own pockets. CEO's making salaries of a million and a half dollars 
while the guy who is struggling to go to work every day has to pay an 
additional 30 cents a gallon, 25 cents a gallon, for every gallon of 
gasoline he buys at the pump. It is wrong, it is unfair, it is 
unreasonable, and this Congress ought to put a stop to it.
  So this is the time to take that money, that $359 million, put it in 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, where it is desperately needed; 
the fund has never been this low; and make the oil companies pay for 
this fossil fuel research. Why should the American public be 
subsidizing that fossil fuel research when the benefits are going to go 
to the oil companies in the end in any case? This is just another 
example of the kind of corporate welfare that has been perpetuated here 
over and over again.
  Let us make the oil companies pay for their own research, let us put 
a little money into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and let us go 
to a system that is a little bit fairer for the American public, 
particularly those in rural districts like mine and other rural 
districts across the country where the people are totally dependent 
upon the automobile for transportation. Every time they go from home to 
work, from home to school, from home to the supermarket, they are 
putting additional money into the hands of the oil companies, and it is 
coming out of their pockets.
  So this amendment makes good sense. Let us pass this amendment and 
tell the oil companies it is time for them to pay for their own 
research, put a little more money in the Land Water Conservation Fund, 
and stop exploiting the American people.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I rise in strong support of 
this amendment, and I would hope that the committee would look upon 
this as a friendly amendment because clearly this committee, the 
chairman of the committee and the ranking minority member struggled 
long and hard to try and meet the priorities of this Nation, of the 
Members of this Congress in dealing with the status and the quality of 
our national parks, our wildlife refuges and the forests of this 
Nation.
  In 1964, when we passed the Land and Water Conservation Act, we kind 
of make a bargain with the Congress and within this country that we 
would trade the exploration and the development of our offshore energy 
resources off the coast of California and the Gulf of Mexico and 
elsewhere in this country, that we would trade the development of those 
resources to generate a pool of revenues to protect and to provide and 
to expand the public lands system within this country, that we would 
take a portion of those royalties and set them aside so we could buy 
lands for additions for new parks, for additions to existing parks and 
for our wildlife refuges, in some cases for forests and other public 
land units.
  What has happened now because we have gone and spent ourselves into a 
deficit position, we now use this sacred trust, if my colleagues will, 
to protect the assets of the public lands of this Nation. We are now 
using that as a gimmick to balance this budget. Every dollar we do not 
take out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund that is reserved for 
the acquisition of public lands we divert, whether it is to the 
military budget, to the education budget, to infrastructure, to some 
other purpose. But that is not what we told the people of this country 
we were going to do with this money, and that is not what the people of 
this country expect us to do with this money.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Chairman, what we have now is we have a situation where by 
deferral of land acquisitions, deferral of the protection of the parks, 
deferral of the protections of the wildlife refuges and the other 
public lands, we are now subsidizing other activities in the Government 
where we do not have the courage to say no. It does not mean they are a 
higher priority, it does not mean they are a better priority. It just 
means this committee has less money to work with.
  I think by adopting the Farr amendment, we have the opportunity to 
suggest that perhaps the priorities ought to be changed. Unfortunately, 
we can only deal with it within the context of the budget that is given 
to this committee. The gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] has sought 
to go to the energy research, the fossil fuel research portions of this 
budget that clearly do not have as high a priority as they might have 
had at one time, clearly do not have as high a priority at a time when 
the energy companies were not doing as well as they are doing today, 
clearly do not have as high a priority at a time when we were 
struggling to fill the strategic petroleum reserve, and now we are 
selling off portions of the petroleum reserve kind of willy-nilly. The 
President wants to sell off parts of it, this committee has made a 
decision to sell off parts of it.
  Obviously this is not as high a priority. But what is a high priority 
with the American people is the additions to and the protections of the 
public lands, and most importantly, I think, as we start this summer 
season, the protections and the additions to the crown jewels, the 
national park system of this country that so many families will spend 
time this summer visiting with their children and with other members of 
their family. This amendment is about setting those priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not mean that fossil fuel research 
will not take place. This amendment suggests that those who will 
benefit by the fossil fuel research perhaps shoulder more of the 
burden, now that they are doing better as a result of the run-up in 
gasoline prices and a stabilizing of world oil prices.
  That is what this amendment suggests: that we share the burden; that 
the other luxuries that we want to put into the spending of this budget 
not be subsidized by the trust. This is a trust fund, a trust we 
created with the American people to protect the national parks, to 
preserve the national parks, to expand the national parks, and to 
protect the other public lands of this Nation. The Farr amendment gives 
us an opportunity to do that.
  I know that the chairman of this committee believes strongly in the 
protection of the national parks, but he has to play the cards that he 
is dealt. I would hope that he would understand that this is hopefully 
a statement by a majority in this House that is deeply concerned about 
those cards and would perhaps play them in a different fashion, in a 
way in which the committee was incapable of playing them during the 
committee deliberations. I would urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to correct this statement 
that we have not recognized the priorities. Certainly it would be nice 
to do a lot of these things. If we buy more land, it costs more money. 
We need to take care of what we have.
  I know the gentleman from California is very strongly in favor of a 
moratorium on offshore drilling both of the gentlemen from California. 
Therefore, they would diminish the revenues that flow into the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund for these acquisitions.

[[Page H6553]]

  Mr. Chairman, the vast amount of the money that goes in that fund is 
from drilling off of Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas, so I think if they 
are so anxious to have more money in the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, they should be out here supporting the lifting of the drilling 
moratorium on offshore drilling from California.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, some of that money, a good deal 
of that money, also comes from drilling off the coast of California. 
The point of it is that this Congress created that fund so those 
revenues would be reinvested back into lands. It now has a $900 million 
surplus. We are only asking for a very small amount of that money.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the 
fossil energy research is an investment in the future of this Nation. 
We are an energy-dependent Nation. We burn more energy per person than 
any other nation in the world. What we want to do is make it 
affordable, what we want to do is increase our economic competitiveness 
in the world market, and most importantly, we want to improve the 
environment: clean air, clean water, jobs. That is what defeating this 
amendment is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not put any money in for commercialization. That 
is up to the private sector totally. But we do say that it is in the 
interests of the American public to have these things that I just 
described. Therefore, we are willing to be a partner with the private 
sector in developing the technology. Then the commercialization is 
something that is picked up by the private sector.

  Mr. Chairman, we have already cut fossil research by 23 percent since 
1995. I think it is vitally important that we keep these programs 
going.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Farr amendment. I 
want to echo some of the comments made by the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]. Let us make no mistake 
about what is happening from this amendment. I have a letter here from 
the Secretary of Energy that I would like to quote from. We are talking 
about almost a 40 percent cut in the fossil energy R&D accounts.
  This is a quote from Secretary Hazel O'Leary.

       A cut of this magnitude would effectively eliminate the 
     Department of Energy's fossil energy R&D programs and limit 
     our Nation's ability to manage its energy future. We have 
     already cut this program to the bone. The administration's FY 
     1997 budget request of $348 million represents a 10.5 percent 
     reduction from fiscal year 1996 funding levels and a 20-
     percent reduction from FY 1995. Taking an additional $137 
     million from this program, plus the estimated $30 to $40 
     million in termination costs, would essentially stop it dead 
     in its tracks.

  So, Mr. Chairman, let us be clear about this. What we are talking 
about in the Farr amendment is the elimination of the fossil energy 
research and development program in this country. Mr. Chairman, we just 
talked about, into the future, 85 percent of our needs; fossil energy 
is going to play a major role in providing 85 percent of the energy 
needs of this country.
  Many people in the environmental community say, well, coal and oil, 
they are dirty fuels. That is exactly our point. Why would we stop 
research and development in ways to burn coal cleaner and cheaper and 
to use fossil fuels more efficiently, in environmentally sound ways, 
right at the time when our dependence on them is increasing, not 
decreasing?
  Mr. Chairman, let us not be fooled by this. I urge all Members to 
understand, a vote for the Farr amendment and later on for the Walker 
amendment is a vote to eliminate fossil energy R&D programs in this 
country. I think that would be terribly shortsighted.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield
  Mr. DOYLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, it does not eliminate it. This 
program has received over $2 billion in the history of fossil fuel 
research. We only take, of the appropriations this year, one-third; $1 
out of every $3.
  Mr. DOYLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's 
amendment takes 38 percent from the budget. The Secretary of Energy, 
Hazel O'Leary, in a letter that I would be happy to share with the 
gentleman, says clearly here that we are talking about gutting, 
terminating, eliminating, fossil R&D programs for this country, right 
here from our own Secretary of Energy.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly come to speak in favor of the amendment, 
not because of the contents, but just recognizing the work that this 
committee has done in trying to balance the needs of this country. But 
we have a problem of national proportions, which is a national 
responsibility in south Florida.
  Early on in the history of south Florida, south Florida, the rim of 
south Florida had a natural dike. Outside we had, of course, the 
Atlantic Ocean. Within, we had a river of grass, which now is known as 
the Florida Everglades. There were natural springs bubbling up in 
downtown Fort Lauderdale, just in the new river. There were natural 
springs in Dade County that were bubbling up. It was a true tropical 
paradise.
  Then, along came development within the Everglades itself. The whole 
attitude of the people was to drain the swamps, get rid of the 
alligators, get rid of all the problems, drain the swamps and put in a 
series of canals. Then agriculture came in to backfill on what was once 
the river of grass and the bottom of this giant swamp.
  We have found that because of this right now, something has happened 
which has got everything out of balance. We have found that the natural 
ecosystem of the Everglades now is in serious danger, irreversible 
danger. We find down at the south end of the Florida bay that the 
natural marine habitat is disappearing, which is the nursery for all of 
the fisheries going up the coast, the east and west coast of Florida.
  We have found that this is being caused because of the salinity that 
is building up and the rapid change of the salinity because of the 
rapid flow of the waters down into the southern part of the Everglades 
National Park, which is the Florida Bay. This is a national 
responsibility. The only way to solve this problem is to reacquire some 
of this land and try to turn to the past and try to reestablish the 
natural flow of much of the water flowing through the Everglades.
  What is the tradeoff? The tradeoff is the irreparable damage that is 
being caused right now, day by day, as we sit here. We are finding that 
this is happening at a more and more rapid rate every day. It is 
imperative that more money be found for land acquisition so that we can 
put a stop to this destruction of this most valuable natural resource. 
It is a Federal responsibility. It is an entire network of Federal 
lands. It is a great national park. It is tremendously important, not 
only for the natural environment of Florida, but for the very supply of 
water that supplies the growing population of south Florida.

  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think what the gentleman from California 
is proposing is a transfer of these funds from the fossil fuel area 
into the land acquisition fund, so we can speed up the acquisition of 
this land, is a most reasonable request. I would therefore urge all the 
Members to support this amendment, which will speed up the restoration 
of the Everglades and perhaps actually save the Everglades from the 
destructive process that has been put into place over many, many years 
of neglect and misunderstanding of the environment of south Florida.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I am going to come down in 
opposition to this amendment, but I would like to provide a little 
background beforehand.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not an all black or white situation. We see 
emerging here, expressed in debate on both sides, a recognition that we 
do need more funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I 
thoroughly agree

[[Page H6554]]

with that, and would support every reasonable effort to achieve that 
kind of funding.
  We also, I think, see on both sides a recognition that we need to 
continue with the program of fossil energy research and development. 
That program, of course, has been under attack for several years 
because we point, as we have seen here on the floor today, to the 
mature coal and oil industry and say, why can they not do their own 
research. Well, they could if they wanted to spend the money. But their 
biggest priority is selling more oil and coal, not in doing research.
  What we have in the present research program, as the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee pointed out, is a working partnership 
between industry and the Government in which we are getting these 
companies to do the research by giving them an incentive. We are 
offering to match a part of the money. If Members can think of a better 
way to do it, to encourage mature industries to do research in the 
national interest which will improve the environment, improve the 
utilization of coal and oil by finding better and cheaper ways to get 
it out, I would like to know what it is, because I want to support 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, we have some Members in the House who do not believe in 
this kind of cooperative research as a way to achieve national goals. I 
differ quite strongly with them. I think this kind of partnership is 
the wave of the future and we are going to have to do it, and we are 
doing it here. Are we spending too much or too little? I cannot answer 
that question.
  I would support more money for this, but actually, the bill has in it 
$10 million more than the President requested, so I would support a 
reduction of $10 million and use that, at least, to fund some 
additional acquisitions of land through the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. I cannot, I do not believe it is in the national interest, cut 
this program back to the extent proposed in this amendment and in some 
of the other amendments which are going to be suggested. It is not good 
for the country to do that. It is not a proper utilization of national 
resources to avoid funding this research which is so important to the 
future of this country.

                              {time}  1345

  I come at this from a bias, of course, in favor of finding ways to 
get the private sector to support more research of this kind. I think 
the partnership arrangement does it. I want to continue to support 
that. I will support any other way of funding the acquisition of the 
lands which I know are necessary through the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. We use this in California for many different 
programs and I know it is important in Florida. Let us see if we cannot 
preserve the values from both of these things by a proper balance 
between funding the acquisition of land and a proper allocation of 
money for fossil energy research which I think is vital to the future 
of the Nation.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first I have to take a moment and compliment Chairman 
Regula and his staff. They have done a tremendous job. I sometimes see 
him as having tremendous responsibility and wisdom in this process and 
he has been more than fair to me, he has been very fair to the State I 
represent, Florida, and very fair to the environment. I also would be 
remiss if I did not thank Secretary Babbitt. I flew up during the 
Easter recess and met with him. He responded to an environmental 
concern in Florida. And this Congress has responded to environmental 
concerns in my State, which is being pressured by environmental 
problems and concerns.
  When we come to Congress, however, we have an important 
responsibility, and that responsibility is to make choices. This is a 
tough choice because there are good, worthwhile programs. But I cannot 
think of anything that we do in the long term for so few dollars that 
makes such a big difference to what we are going to leave behind. In a 
few decades, most of us will be history. Some of us will be pushing up 
daisies and some of us will be someplace else, but the legacy that we 
leave behind will be determined today by this policy.
  When you have a program, and I consider myself a fiscal conservative, 
and I get up with some folks of a little bit different philosophy, last 
year I was here with the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and now 
with the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], certainly a little bit 
different philosophy, but we agree that this is a sound investment with 
our dollars, that we have a surplus in the fund of $12 billion and that 
we get $900 million in, and this is an investment for the future.
  My colleague, Mr. Shaw, from south Florida came up and spoke about 
what was happening in our State. I grew up in south Florida. I saw what 
happened in south Florida. I saw the mistakes that were made in south 
Florida. Today we can see where we developed to the Everglades and now 
this Congress has to appropriate a quarter of a billion dollars to take 
back some of that land. In my district, I am in central Florida and the 
same thing is happening there. We see the mushroom. Since I have been 
in office for a little over 36 months here, I have 2 new cities, one of 
68,000 people, the third largest city in central Florida, in my 
district. I have another new city. The growth is phenomenal. And I will 
not get another chance. This is not a program where we are saying buy 
land and you do not want land out West. This is a program where local 
governments and State governments in concert with the Federal 
Government, and the way this darned thing should work, acquire land. We 
say that for children. I will not be here to enjoy it. We will not have 
another opportunity. I can tell you the developers are waiting with 
their plow.
  We are asking when you make these decisions, and I know they are 
tough decisions, I know the chairman is pressed to consider us, 
consider the legacy, consider these choices, and consider what we are 
going to leave behind us for this next generation and consider also 
that we will never get another chance in States like Florida and other 
areas, and again that this is a voluntary program and that is it a 
program of cooperation.
  I urge my colleagues, whether liberal, conservative, independent, 
moderate, Republican, Democrat, this is the chance to make a big 
difference in the environment that our children and grandchildren live 
in. This is a chance for them to inherit the earth, a part of that 
earth, and leave it a little bit better than we found it.
  I urge Members, I beg Members to consider this amendment to expand 
the funds in this particular provision offered by the good gentleman 
from California [Mr. Farr] and let us vote for this and vote for 
opportunity for the environment for the future.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Farr amendment as well. I 
agree with the comments that my colleague on the other side from 
Florida made. Just looking at the land acquisition funds that have been 
available through the Land And Water Conservation Fund, particularly 
for the two programs that New Jersey has most benefited from in the 
last few years, I am looking at for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
for fiscal year 1994 $83 million; and then in 1995 $67 million; in 1996 
$37 million; and now proposed, my understanding, for fiscal year 1997 
is $30 million. Every year at least since 1994 that amount has been 
going down.
  The same with the National Park Service. Fiscal 1994 $95 million; 
fiscal 1995 $85 million; fiscal 1996 $49 million; and my understanding 
for fiscal 1997 proposed $30 million.
  The bottom line is that the Federal Government has been less and less 
able to provide for open space acquisition which is so important, 
particularly for a State like mine. New Jersey is the most densely 
populated State in the country. There are many projects out there 
through the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the Park Service or 
the Forest Service where we would like to see additional acquisition 
for open space to alleviate, if you will, some of the problems of high 
density so that people have a place where they can enjoy themselves, 
have recreational opportunities, whatever.
  I think the point here and the point of the Farr amendment is that 
these opportunities are decreasing because the Federal Government has 
not been

[[Page H6555]]

able to provide the funds. Similarly although the States try oftentimes 
to provide funding, they have, because of budget cuts and because of 
their own constraints, not been able to make up for the difference.
  So I think what the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] is 
essentially saying here is that here is our opportunity to take some 
money from another fund, in this case the fossil energy R&D where to 
some extent the oil companies which I know have been making windfall 
profits this year, we have all heard about that, we all know what is 
going on with the oil companies and they should be able to pay a little 
more so that we can release more money that can actually be used for 
open space acquisition. I think it is a very simple amendment, it makes 
the point clearly, that if we want to reverse the situation and see the 
Federal Government involved in more land acquisition, more open space 
acquisition, this is certainly the way to go.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It 
is interesting, as chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, 
Forests and Lands, to come to this floor and talk to my colleagues. A 
day does not go by that somebody comes up to me and says, ``Mr. 
Chairman, I have got this great place for a park in my district and it 
would be great if we could put a bill in for my legacy to buy that.'' 
And then another person comes up and he says, ``I want to buy up a few 
more acres of forest here for the Forest Service.'' Then a third person 
thinks we ought to exchange something over to BLM. This has been going 
on for years around here.
  In fact, one of the leading members of this committee--who is now 
deceased--from California used to have the park-a-month club, where 
they bought park after park. In fact there is a statue to him down 
around the Presidio where he bought all these parks. I guess some were 
good, and I do not object to that. I love our parks like you do.
  However, we find ourselves in the position, now we turn around, we go 
to the Ralph Regula's and the Sid Yates' of the world, we say, Fine, 
now fund them. However the public says, ``We don't want to put the 
money up to fund them.'' We want all the beauties of the parks and 
forests but we cannot fund them.
  I have sat and chaired meeting after meeting with the GAO, the 
General Accounting Office. They walk in, what do they say to me? They 
say that our biggest single problem is we do not have enough money to 
take care of these areas. We do not have enough men. We do not have 
enough manpower. We do not have enough time.
  We continue to go on buying and buying more and more of these 
particular pieces of ground. I think that is probably all right if we 
can afford them. Unfortunately, living within our income really is not 
in popularity in this particular body.
  Chairman Young did an interesting thing. He decided that he would 
check out how much ground we have bought. He ased the GAO to look into 
it. Excluding the Alaskan Native Statehood Act, 34 million acres have 
been added to the Federal land base in the last 30 years, so we now 
have 650 million acres. Just that 34 million acres is the size of the 
combined areas of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, 
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont.
  So we are buying all this new ground but nobody is saying how we are 
going to take care of it. I agree that the Federal Government may not 
own all of the land, which is appropriate, but basically what we really 
ought to do is come up with a way for better changes, for sale of land.

  One of the most ridiculous statements that can be made in America is, 
``I'm going to go buy some ground for the Federal Government'' or ``I'm 
going to exchange ground with the Federal Government.'' Believe me, 
folks, that does not happen. It is so tied up with rigmarole, jumping 
through hoops, EIS's and all that type of thing, it never happens.
  As a city councilman for 12 years in the little town of Farmington, I 
tried to make a minor land exchange with the Forest Service. It did not 
work. As a legislator for 8 years I tried to do it. It did not work. As 
speaker of the Utah House we tried to do it. They could not find a way 
to get through the paper of it all. Finally, as a U.S. Congressman, I 
finally got that through. It took 30 years to get a minor land exchange 
done with the Forest Service.
  So those things do not occur. But I am sympathetic to inholdings, and 
I think we should be working to take care of it. I think the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has done everything that he possibly can.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the 
reason people are having such difficulty with this is we do have a 
surplus here. We are not spending enough money. When the gentleman was 
a city councilman and mayor, he received money out of the land and 
water conservation money that came to his city. When he was a State 
legislator he received money out of the land and water conservation 
money that came as grants to his State.
  What has happened is all that money has dried up because we are not 
spending it, even though we are taking in $900 million. We are only 
asking that you spend another $135 million of that $900 million surplus 
for acquisition, so that those cities and counties and States could 
benefit from this surplus. That is what this amendment is about.
  Mr. HANSEN. Reclaiming my time, when I was a city councilman, a State 
legislator and speaker of the House, I do not recall getting any of 
that money, and I was chairman of the executive appropriation 
committee. It just did not happen.
  Let me just say, in my humble opinion, I think what has been worked 
out here in many, many long hours is the correct way to handle this. I 
would urge defeat of this amendment. I think they have done a good job 
on the Appropriations Committee. Let us get on with more important 
things.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
   Mr. Chairman, I appreciate several of my colleagues from the other 
side of the aisle speaking in favor of this amendment. I think what is 
clear is this is a bipartisan amendment. It is not just a Florida 
amendment. Each of us in Florida can speak to specific acquisitions 
that need to be taken by this country. We can speak, in fact, in south 
Florida alone, probably in the billion-dollar range of appropriate 
lands that should be bought by governmental entities. The State of 
Florida has taken the lead, local governments have taken the lead, and 
the Federal Government needs to be a participant in that.
  The property is only getting more expensive. If there is any lesson 
about land acquisition by governmental entities, it is do it now. Do 
not do it tomorrow. Do not do it in 5 years. Do not do it in 10 years. 
Do it now. Because the reality is the land is only getting more 
expensive.
  And not just that they are getting more expensive but there is 
another reason. Each of us is getting a little bit older, our children 
are getting older and our grandchildren are getting older. What that 
means is a little less opportunity for us and our children and our 
grandchildren to enjoy really the treasures of America. That is really 
what this debate is about, really giving the treasures of America to 
our children, our grandchildren and ourselves.
  As I said, there is a place in every part of America that benefits by 
this amendment. We have people from New Jersey, people from California, 
people from literally every State in this country, 435 Members. I hope 
that when the vote occurs, each of us will remember that and the vote 
will pass unanimously. I do not expect that to happen but I hope that 
happens, and I think that is what our constituents expect us to do on 
final passage of this amendment.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to cut the 
fossil energy

[[Page H6556]]

research and development program. This, of course, is robbing Peter to 
pay Paul. I am a strong supporter of our National Park System, and I am 
a strong supporter of the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land 
Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service. But I cannot support adding 
more funding to these programs at the expense of our fossil energy 
programs.
  This proposal in fact would shut down the fossil energy programs. 
This would be highly counterproductive when we consider that our fossil 
energy programs are designed to help protect the environment. The 
research is focused on ways to use energy resources like coal, oil, and 
natural gas in a more environmentally sound manner. We rely on these 
energy resources, and it is critical that we find ways to use them in a 
clean, efficient way. If we shut down the fossil energy programs, we 
are turning our backs on the development of technology we will need 
into the 21st century. We are turning our backs on the environment and 
on our Nation's energy security. We will be turning our backs on 
partnerships we have formed with industry which is footing at least 
half the bill on most of these fossil energy projects.
  Our Nation cannot afford to fall behind in the development of these 
new technologies, and we cannot afford to renege on our commitments. I 
urge my colleagues to defeat these amendments.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair will note the Chair 
permitted the gentleman from Ohio to address the amendment for a second 
time without objection.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is recognized for a third time 
for 5 minutes, without objection.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
want a couple last comments before we vote.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just reemphasize that the fossil energy research 
touches the lives of every American. It means jobs in the future, it 
means clean air, it means energy security. It is so vitally important 
to this Nation that we work in a partnership arrangement with the 
private sector to develop better ways to use our energy.
  We consume enormous amounts of energy in this Nation, and if we use 
it carefully, we will have it for future generations and at the same 
time we will protect our environment.
  We have $100 million in this bill for land acquisition. We have a 
problem of maintaining and taking care of what we have now, and I think 
it would be very poor, very unwise public policy to abandon our goals 
of clean energy, of clean air, of all those things in order to transfer 
money to the land account and thereby increase the costs down the road 
of maintaining these land resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the Members to vote against this 
amendment and support the good environmental policies of this Nation.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, this vote is about whether oil 
companies get more research money or whether your city, county, and 
State gets more land acquisition money. The gentleman from Ohio pointed 
out that this vote is essentially the difference between Ohio receiving 
$830,000 in grants from my amendment or no money. I think that most of 
the Members here coming to represent their districts have to also think 
about representing the totality of the districts.
  It is not just the Federal forest lands and Federal park lands and 
BLM lands and fisheries management, but it is also State lands, county 
lands, and city lands. This amendment allows those communities to get 
access to funds that have been created by Congress for that purpose, 
for that purpose alone. It does not delete the funding in the oil and 
gas research fund. It only takes a third of that money and still leaves 
in excess of $200 million for research.
  So I suggest to Members of this House that if they want to support 
their communities for their ability to acquire land from willing 
sellers, then this is the amendment to do it, and I ask for an ``aye'' 
vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  The question was taken; and the chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 235, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 251]

                               AYES--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Studds
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--235

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     English
     Everett
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich

[[Page H6557]]


     Rahall
     Regula
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Sabo
     Sanford
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Emerson
     Fields (TX)
     Franks (CT)
     Gallegly
     Hyde
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Montgomery
     Peterson (FL)
     Ramstad
     Schumer
     Tauzin
     Torres
     Wilson

                              {time}  1427

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Mr. MOAKLEY 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MINGE, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Messrs. BARCIA, CHABOT, and YOUNG of 
Florida, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mrs. KELLY, and Messrs. HORN, ROYCE, 
SHADEGG, WHITE, BILBRAY, and FORBES changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments in this portion of the bill?


                amendment no. 27 offered by mr. sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment and I ask unanimous 
consent it be considered out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Sanders: In the item 
     relating to ``Bureau of Land Management--payments in lieu of 
     taxes,'' after the first dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY--fossil 
     energy research and development, after the dollar amount, 
     insert the following: ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.

                              {time}  1430

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
gentleman from Vermont offering the amendment?
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania objects.
  Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title I is as follows:

                   oregon and california grant lands

       For expenses necessary for management, protection, and 
     development of resources and for construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other 
     improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad 
     grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and 
     California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent 
     rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein 
     including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such 
     grant lands; $98,365,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That 25 per centum of the aggregate of all receipts 
     during the current fiscal year from the revested Oregon and 
     California Railroad grant lands is hereby made a charge 
     against the Oregon and California land-grant fund and shall 
     be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury in 
     accordance with the second paragraph of subsection (b) of 
     title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 876).

                           range improvements

       For rehabilitation, protection, and acquisition of lands 
     and interests therein, and improvement of Federal rangelands 
     pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), notwithstanding any 
     other Act, sums equal to 50 per centum of all moneys received 
     during the prior fiscal year under sections 3 and 15 of the 
     Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.) and the amount 
     designated for range improvements from grazing fees and 
     mineral leasing receipts from Bankhead-Jones lands 
     transferred to the Department of the Interior pursuant to 
     law, but not less than $9,113,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $600,000 shall be 
     available for administrative expenses.

               service charges, deposits, and forfeitures

       For administrative expenses and other costs related to 
     processing application documents and other authorizations for 
     use and disposal of public lands and resources, for costs of 
     providing copies of official public land documents, for 
     monitoring construction, operation, and termination of 
     facilities in conjunction with use authorizations, and for 
     rehabilitation of damaged property, such amounts as may be 
     collected under Public Law 94-579, as amended, and Public Law 
     93-153, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any provision to the contrary of section 
     305(a) of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1735(a)), any moneys 
     that have been or will be received pursuant to that section, 
     whether as a result of forfeiture, compromise, or settlement, 
     if not appropriate for refund pursuant to section 305(c) of 
     that Act (43 U.S.C. 1735(c)), shall be available and may be 
     expended under the authority of this Act by the Secretary to 
     improve, protect, or rehabilitate any public lands 
     administered through the Bureau of Land Management which have 
     been damaged by the action of a resource developer, 
     purchaser, permittee, or any unauthorized person, without 
     regard to whether all moneys collected from each such action 
     are used on the exact lands damaged which led to the action: 
     Provided further, That any such moneys that are in excess of 
     amounts needed to repair damage to the exact land for which 
     funds were collected may be used to repair other damaged 
     public lands.

                       miscellaneous trust funds

       In addition to amounts authorized to be expended under 
     existing laws, there is hereby appropriated such amounts as 
     may be contributed under section 307 of the Act of October 
     21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), and such amounts as may be 
     advanced for administrative costs, surveys, appraisals, and 
     costs of making conveyances of omitted lands under section 
     211(b) of that Act, to remain available until expended.

                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management shall be 
     available for purchase, erection, and dismantlement of 
     temporary structures, and alteration and maintenance of 
     necessary buildings and appurtenant facilities to which the 
     United States has title; up to $100,000 for payments, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, for information or evidence 
     concerning violations of laws administered by the Bureau; 
     miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement 
     activities authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be 
     accounted for solely on his certificate, not to exceed 
     $10,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the 
     Bureau may, under cooperative cost-sharing and partnership 
     arrangements authorized by law, procure printing services 
     from cooperators in connection with jointly-produced 
     publications for which the cooperators share the cost of 
     printing either in cash or in services, and the Bureau 
     determines the cooperator is capable of meeting accepted 
     quality standards.

                United States Fish and Wildlife Service

                          resource management

       For expenses necessary for scientific and economic studies, 
     conservation, management, investigations, protection, and 
     utilization of fishery and wildlife resources, except whales, 
     seals, and sea lions, and for the performance of other 
     authorized functions related to such resources; for the 
     general administration of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service; for maintenance of the herd of long-horned cattle on 
     the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge; and not less than 
     $1,000,000 for high priority projects within the scope of the 
     approved budget which shall be carried out by the Youth 
     Conservation Corps as authorized by the Act of August 13, 
     1970, as amended, $520,519,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1998, of which $11,557,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for operation and maintenance of 
     fishery mitigation facilities constructed by the Corps of 
     Engineers under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, 
     authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1976, to 
     compensate for loss of fishery resources from water 
     development projects on the Lower Snake River, and of which 
     $1,000,000 shall be provided to the National Fish and 
     Wildlife Foundation for implementation of the Natural 
     Communities Conservation Plan, and shall be available only to 
     the extent matched by at least an equal amount from the 
     Foundation and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9701, the Secretary 
     shall charge reasonable fees for the full costs of providing 
     training by the National Education and Training Center, to be 
     credited to this account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, of 
     which not to exceed $2,000,000 shall be available for the 
     direct costs of providing such training: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $1,000,000 of the funds provided herein 
     may be used for contaminant sample analysis.

                              construction

       For construction and acquisition of buildings and other 
     facilities required in the conservation, management, 
     investigation, protection, and utilization of fishery and 
     wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands and 
     interests therein; $38,298,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                natural resource damage assessment fund

       To conduct natural resource damage assessment activities by 
     the Department of the Interior necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental

[[Page H6558]]

     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 9601, et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 
     as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act 
     of 1990 (Public Law 101-380), and Public Law 101-337; 
     $4,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4-
     11), including administrative expenses, and for acquisition 
     of land or waters, or interest therein, in accordance with 
     statutory authority applicable to the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, $30,000,000, to be derived from the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until 
     expended.

            cooperative endangered species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), as 
     amended, $13,085,000, for grants to States, to be derived 
     from the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, 
     and to remain available until expended.

                     national wildlife refuge fund

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 17, 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $10,779,000.

                         rewards and operations

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4203, 4211-
     4213, 4221-4225, 4241-4245, and 1538), $1,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

               north american wetlands conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233, 
     $7,750,000, to remain available until expended.

                 rhinoceros and tiger conservation fund

       For deposit to the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, 
     $400,000, to remain available until expended, to carry out 
     the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (Public Law 
     103-391).

              wildlife conservation and appreciation fund

       For deposit to the Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation 
     Fund, $800,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     carrying out the Partnerships for Wildlife Act only to the 
     extent such funds are matched as provided in section 7105 of 
     said Act.

                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations and funds available to the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for purchase of 
     not to exceed 83 passenger motor vehicles of which 73 are for 
     replacement only (including 43 for police-type use); not to 
     exceed $400,000 for payment, at the discretion of the 
     Secretary, for information, rewards, or evidence concerning 
     violations of laws administered by the Service, and 
     miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement 
     activities, authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be 
     accounted for solely on his certificate; repair of damage to 
     public roads within and adjacent to reservation areas caused 
     by operations of the Service; options for the purchase of 
     land at not to exceed $1 for each option; facilities incident 
     to such public recreational uses on conservation areas as are 
     consistent with their primary purpose; and the maintenance 
     and improvement of aquaria, buildings, and other facilities 
     under the jurisdiction of the Service and to which the United 
     States has title, and which are utilized pursuant to law in 
     connection with management and investigation of fish and 
     wildlife resources: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 
     501, the Service may, under cooperative cost sharing and 
     partnership arrangements authorized by law, procure printing 
     services from cooperators in connection with jointly-produced 
     publications for which the cooperators share at least one-
     half the cost of printing either in cash or services and the 
     Service determines the cooperator is capable of meeting 
     accepted quality standards: Provided further, That the 
     Service may accept donated aircraft as replacements for 
     existing aircraft: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior may not 
     spend any of the funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     purchase of lands or interests in lands to be used in the 
     establishment of any new unit of the National Wildlife Refuge 
     System unless the purchase is approved in advance by the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance 
     with the reprogramming procedures contained in House Report 
     103-551.

                         National Park Service

                 operation of the national park system

       For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and 
     maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the 
     National Park Service (including special road maintenance 
     service to trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), and 
     for the general administration of the National Park Service, 
     including not to exceed $1,593,000 for the Volunteers-in-
     Parks program, and not less than $1,000,000 for high priority 
     projects within the scope of the approved budget which shall 
     be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as authorized 
     by 16 U.S.C. 1706, $1,135,139,000, without regard to 16 
     U.S.C. 451, of which $12,800,000 for research, planning and 
     interagency coordination in support of land acquisition for 
     Everglades restoration shall remain available until expended, 
     and of which not to exceed $72,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, is to be derived from the special fee account 
     established pursuant to title V, section 5201, of Public Law 
     100-203.

                  national recreation and preservation

       For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs, 
     natural programs, cultural programs, environmental compliance 
     and review, international park affairs, statutory or 
     contractual aid for other activities, and grant 
     administration, not otherwise provided for, $36,476,000.

                       historic preservation fund

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the Historic 
     Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), 
     $36,212,000, to be derived from the Historic Preservation 
     Fund, to remain available until September 30, 1998.

                              construction

       For construction, improvements, repair or replacement of 
     physical facilities including the modifications authorized by 
     section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and 
     Expansion Act of 1989, $119,745,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That funds provided under this 
     head, derived from the Historic Preservation Fund, 
     established by the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 
     amended (16 U.S.C. 470), may be available until expended to 
     render sites safe for visitors and for building 
     stabilization.

                    land and water conservation fund

                              (rescission)

       The contract authority provided for fiscal year 1997 by 16 
     U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.

                 land acquisition and state assistance

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4-
     11), including administrative expenses, and for acquisition 
     of lands or waters, or interest therein, in accordance with 
     statutory authority applicable to the National Park Service, 
     $30,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, of 
     which $1,000,000 is to administer the State assistance 
     program: Provided, That any funds made available for the 
     purpose of acquisition of the Elwha and Glines dams shall be 
     used solely for acquisition, and shall not be expended until 
     the full purchase amount has been appropriated by the 
     Congress.

                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the National Park Service shall be 
     available for the purchase of not to exceed 404 passenger 
     motor vehicles, of which 287 shall be for replacement only, 
     including not to exceed 320 for police-type use, 13 buses, 
     and 6 ambulances: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated to the National Park Service may be used to 
     process any grant or contract documents which do not include 
     the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided further, That of the 
     funds provided to the National Park Service in this or any 
     other Act not more than $1,700,000 is to be used for the 
     Office of the Director, not more than $2,000,000 is to be 
     used for the Office of Public Affairs, and not more than 
     $951,000 is to be used for the Office of Congressional 
     Affairs: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated to the National Park Service may be used to 
     implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the southern 
     end of Ellis Island until such agreement has been submitted 
     to the Congress and shall not be implemented prior to the 
     expiration of 30 calendar days (not including any day in 
     which either House of Congress is not in session because of 
     adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day 
     certain) from the receipt by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President of the Senate of a full and 
     comprehensive report on the development of the southern end 
     of Ellis Island, including the facts and circumstances relied 
     upon in support of the proposed project.
       None of the funds in this Act may be spent by the National 
     Park Service for activities taken in direct response to the 
     United Nations Biodiversity Convention.
       The National Park Service may in fiscal year 1997 and 
     thereafter enter into cooperative agreements that involve the 
     transfer of National Park Service appropriated funds to 
     State, local and tribal governments, other public entities, 
     educational institutions, and private nonprofit organizations 
     for the public purpose of carrying out National Park Service 
     programs pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 6305 to carry out public 
     purposes of National Park Service programs.

                    United States Geological Survey

                 surveys, investigations, and research

       For expenses necessary for the United States Geological 
     Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research 
     covering topography, geology, hydrology, and the mineral and 
     water resources of the United States, its Territories and 
     possessions, and other areas as authorized by 43 U.S.C. 31, 
     1332 and 1340; classify lands as to their mineral and water 
     resources; give engineering supervision to power permittees 
     and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensees; 
     administer the minerals exploration program (30 U.S.C. 641); 
     and publish and disseminate data relative to the foregoing 
     activities; and to conduct inquiries into the economic 
     conditions affecting mining and materials processing 
     industries (30 U.S.C. 3, 21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and 
     related purposes as authorized by law and to publish and 
     disseminate

[[Page H6559]]

     data; $730,163,000, of which $62,130,000 shall be available 
     only for cooperation with States or municipalities for water 
     resources investigations; and of which $137,000,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 1998 for the biological 
     research activity and the operation of the Cooperative 
     Research Units; and of which $16,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for conducting inquiries into the 
     economic conditions affecting mining and materials processing 
     industries: Provided, That none of these funds provided for 
     the biological research activity shall be used to conduct new 
     surveys on private property, unless specifically authorized 
     in writing by the property owner: Provided further, That 
     beginning in fiscal year 1998 and once every five years 
     thereafter, the National Academy of Sciences shall review and 
     report on the biological research activity of the Survey: 
     Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be 
     used to pay more than one-half the cost of topographic 
     mapping or water resources data collection and investigations 
     carried on in cooperation with States and municipalities.

                       administrative provisions

       The amount appropriated for the United States Geological 
     Survey shall be available for the purchase of not to exceed 
     53 passenger motor vehicles, of which 48 are for replacement 
     only; reimbursement to the General Services Administration 
     for security guard services; contracting for the furnishing 
     of topographic maps and for the making of geophysical or 
     other specialized surveys when it is administratively 
     determined that such procedures are in the public interest; 
     construction and maintenance of necessary buildings and 
     appurtenant facilities; acquisition of lands for gauging 
     stations and observation wells; expenses of the United States 
     National Committee on Geology; and payment of compensation 
     and expenses of persons on the rolls of the Survey duly 
     appointed to represent the United States in the negotiation 
     and administration of interstate compacts: Provided, That 
     activities funded by appropriations herein made may be 
     accomplished through the use of contracts, grants, or 
     cooperative agreements as defined in 31 U.S.C. 6302, et seq.

                      Minerals Management Service

                royalty and offshore minerals management

       For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and 
     environmental studies, regulation of industry operations, and 
     collection of royalties, as authorized by law; for enforcing 
     laws and regulations applicable to oil, gas, and other 
     minerals leases, permits, licenses and operating contracts; 
     and for matching grants or cooperative agreements; including 
     the purchase of not to exceed eight passenger motor vehicles 
     for replacement only; $186,555,000, of which not less than 
     $74,063,000 shall be available for royalty management 
     activities; and an amount not to exceed $15,400,000 for the 
     Technical Information Management System and Related 
     Activities of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands 
     Activity, to be credited to this appropriation and to remain 
     available until expended, from additions to receipts 
     resulting from increases to rates in effect on August 5, 
     1993, from rate increases to fee collections for OCS 
     administrative activities performed by the Minerals 
     Management Service over and above the rates in effect on 
     September 30, 1993, and from additional fees for OCS 
     administrative activities established after September 30, 
     1993: Provided, That $1,500,000 for computer acquisitions 
     shall remain available until September 30, 1998: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated under this Act shall be 
     available for the payment of interest in accordance with 30 
     U.S.C. 1721 (b) and (d): Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $3,000 shall be available for reasonable expenses related to 
     promoting volunteer beach and marine cleanup activities: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, $15,000 under this head shall be available for refunds 
     of overpayments in connection with certain Indian leases in 
     which the Director of the Minerals Management Service 
     concurred with the claimed refund due, to pay amounts owed to 
     Indian allottees or Tribes, or to correct prior unrecoverable 
     erroneous payments.

                           oil spill research

       For necessary expenses to carry out title I, section 1016, 
     title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, and title VIII, 
     section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $6,440,000, 
     which shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
     Fund, to remain available until expended.

          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

                       regulation and technology

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public 
     Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not to 
     exceed 10 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only; 
     $94,272,000, and notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, an 
     additional amount shall be credited to this account, to 
     remain available until expended, from performance bond 
     forfeitures in fiscal year 1997: Provided, That the Secretary 
     of the Interior, pursuant to regulations, may utilize 
     directly or through grants to States, moneys collected in 
     fiscal year 1997 for civil penalties assessed under section 
     518 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
     (30 U.S.C. 1268), to reclaim lands adversely affected by coal 
     mining practices after August 3, 1977, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That appropriations for the 
     Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement may 
     provide for the travel and per diem expenses of State and 
     tribal personnel attending Office of Surface Mining 
     Reclamation and Enforcement sponsored training.

                    abandoned mine reclamation fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out title IV of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87, 
     as amended, including the purchase of not more than 10 
     passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, $175,887,000, 
     to be derived from receipts of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation 
     Fund and to remain available until expended; of which 
     $4,000,000 shall be for supplemental grants to States for the 
     reclamation of abandoned sites with acid mine rock drainage 
     from coal mines through the Appalachian Clean Streams 
     Initiative: Provided, That grants to minimum program States 
     will be $1,500,000 per State in fiscal year 1997: Provided 
     further, That of the funds herein provided up to $18,000,000 
     may be used for the emergency program authorized by section 
     410 of Public Law 95-87, as amended, of which no more than 25 
     per centum shall be used for emergency reclamation projects 
     in any one State and funds for federally-administered 
     emergency reclamation projects under this proviso shall not 
     exceed $11,000,000: Provided further, That prior year 
     unobligated funds appropriated for the emergency reclamation 
     program shall not be subject to the 25 per centum limitation 
     per State and may be used without fiscal year limitation for 
     emergency projects: Provided further, That pursuant to Public 
     Law 97-365, the Department of the Interior is authorized to 
     use up to 20 per centum from the recovery of the delinquent 
     debt owed to the United States Government to pay for 
     contracts to collect these debts: Provided further, That 
     funds made available to States under title IV of Public Law 
     95-87 may be used, at their discretion, for any required non-
     Federal share of the cost of projects funded by the Federal 
     Government for the purpose of environmental restoration 
     related to treatment or abatement of acid mine drainage from 
     abandoned mines: Provided further, That such projects must be 
     consistent with the purposes and priorities of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act.

                        Bureau of Indian Affairs

                      operation of indian programs

       For operation of Indian programs by direct expenditure, 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and grants 
     including expenses necessary to provide education and welfare 
     services for Indians, either directly or in cooperation with 
     States and other organizations, including payment of care, 
     tuition, assistance, and other expenses of Indians in 
     boarding homes, or institutions, or schools; grants and other 
     assistance to needy Indians; maintenance of law and order; 
     management, development, improvement, and protection of 
     resources and appurtenant facilities under the jurisdiction 
     of the Bureau, including payment of irrigation assessments 
     and charges; acquisition of water rights; advances for Indian 
     industrial and business enterprises; operation of Indian arts 
     and crafts shops and museums; development of Indian arts and 
     crafts, as authorized by law; for the general administration 
     of the Bureau, including such expenses in field offices; 
     maintaining of Indian reservation roads as defined in 23 
     U.S.C. 101; and construction, repair, and improvement of 
     Indian housing, $1,381,623,000, of which not to exceed 
     $90,829,000 shall be for payments to tribes and tribal 
     organizations for contract support costs associated with 
     ongoing contracts or grants or compacts entered into with the 
     Bureau prior to fiscal year 1997, as authorized by the Indian 
     Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, and up to 
     $5,000,000 shall be for the Indian Self-Determination Fund, 
     which shall be available for the transitional cost of initial 
     or expanded tribal contracts, grants, compacts, or 
     cooperative agreements with the Bureau under such Act; and of 
     which not to exceed $339,709,000 for school operations costs 
     of Bureau-funded schools and other education programs shall 
     become available on July 1, 1997, and shall remain available 
     until September 30, 1998; and of which not to exceed 
     $55,838,000 for higher education scholarships, adult 
     vocational training, and assistance to public schools under 
     25 U.S.C. 452 et seq., shall remain available until September 
     30, 1998; and of which not to exceed $55,603,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for housing improvement, road 
     maintenance, attorney fees, litigation support, self-
     governance grants, the Indian Self-Determination Fund, and 
     the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Program: Provided, That tribes and 
     tribal contractors may use their tribal priority allocations 
     for unmet indirect costs of ongoing contracts, grants or 
     compact agreements: Provided further, That funds made 
     available to tribes and tribal organizations through 
     contracts or grants obligated during fiscal year 1997, as 
     authorized by the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, or 
     grants authorized by the Indian Education Amendments of 1988 
     (25 U.S.C. 2001 and 2008A) shall remain available until 
     expended by the contractor or grantee: Provided further, That 
     to provide funding uniformity within a Self-Governance 
     Compact, any funds provided in this Act with availability for 
     more than one year may be reprogrammed to one year 
     availability but shall remain available within the Compact 
     until expended: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, Indian tribal governments may,

[[Page H6560]]

     by appropriate changes in eligibility criteria or by other 
     means, change eligibility for general assistance or change 
     the amount of general assistance payments for individuals 
     within the service area of such tribe who are otherwise 
     deemed eligible for general assistance payments so long as 
     such changes are applied in a consistent manner to 
     individuals similarly situated: Provided further, That any 
     savings realized by such changes shall be available for use 
     in meeting other priorities of the tribes: Provided further, 
     That any net increase in costs to the Federal Government 
     which result solely from tribally increased payment levels 
     for general assistance shall be met exclusively from funds 
     available to the tribe from within its tribal priority 
     allocation: Provided further, That any forestry funds 
     allocated to a tribe which remain unobligated as of September 
     30, 1997, may be transferred during fiscal year 1998 to an 
     Indian forest land assistance account established for the 
     benefit of such tribe within the tribe's trust fund account: 
     Provided further, That any such unobligated balances not so 
     transferred shall expire on September 30, 1998: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     funds available to the Bureau, other than the amounts 
     provided herein for assistance to public schools under 25 
     U.S.C. 452 et seq., shall be available to support the 
     operation of any elementary or secondary school in the State 
     of Alaska in fiscal year 1997: Provided further, That funds 
     made available in this or any other Act for expenditure 
     through September 30, 1998 for schools funded by the Bureau 
     shall be available only to the schools in the Bureau school 
     system as of September 1, 1995: Provided further, That no 
     funds available to the Bureau shall be used to support 
     expanded grades for any school beyond the grade structure in 
     place at each school in the Bureau school system as of 
     October 1, 1995: Provided further, That in fiscal year 1997 
     and thereafter, notwithstanding the provisions of 25 U.S.C. 
     2012(h)(1) (A) and (B), upon the recommendation of either (i) 
     a local school board and school supervisor for an education 
     position in a Bureau of Indian Affairs operated school, or 
     (ii) an Agency school board and education line officer for an 
     Agency education position, the Secretary shall establish 
     adjustments to the rates of basic compensation or annual 
     salary rates established under 25 U.S.C. 2012(h)(1) (A) and 
     (B) for education positions at the school or the Agency, at a 
     level not less than that for comparable positions in the 
     nearest public school district, and the adjustment shall be 
     deemed to be a change to basic pay and shall not be subject 
     to collective bargaining: Provided further, That any 
     reduction to rates of basic compensation or annual salary 
     rates below the rates established under 25 U.S.C. 2012(h)(1) 
     (A) and (B) shall apply only to educators appointed after 
     June 30, 1997, and shall not affect the right of an 
     individual employed on June 30, 1997, in an education 
     position, to receive the compensation attached to such 
     position under 25 U.S.C. 2012(h)(1) (A) and (B) so long as 
     the individual remains in the same position at the same 
     school: Provided further, That notwithstanding 25 U.S.C. 
     2012(h)(1)(B), when the rates of basic compensation for 
     teachers and counselors at Bureau-operated schools are 
     established at the rates of basic compensation applicable to 
     comparable positions in overseas schools under the Defense 
     Department Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act, 
     such rates shall become effective with the start of the next 
     academic year following the issuance of the Department of 
     Defense salary schedule and shall not be effected 
     retroactively.

                              construction

       For construction, major repair, and improvement of 
     irrigation and power systems, buildings, utilities, and other 
     facilities, including architectural and engineering services 
     by contract; acquisition of lands, and interests in lands; 
     and preparation of lands for farming, and for construction of 
     the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project pursuant to Public Law 
     87-483, $85,831,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such amounts as may be available for the 
     construction of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project may be 
     transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed 6 per centum of contract authority 
     available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Federal 
     Highway Trust Fund may be used to cover the road program 
     management costs of the Bureau: Provided further, That any 
     funds provided for the Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25 
     U.S.C. 13 shall be made available on a non-reimbursable 
     basis: Provided further, That for fiscal year 1997, in 
     implementing new construction or facilities improvement and 
     repair project grants in excess of $100,000 that are provided 
     to tribally controlled grant schools under Public Law 100-
     297, as amended, the Secretary of the Interior shall use the 
     Administrative and Audit Requirements and Cost Principles for 
     Assistance Programs contained in 43 CFR part 12 as the 
     regulatory requirements: Provided further, That such grants 
     shall not be subject to section 12.61 of 43 CFR; the 
     Secretary and the grantee shall negotiate and determine a 
     schedule of payments for the work to be performed: Provided 
     further, That in considering applications, the Secretary 
     shall consider whether the Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization would be deficient in assuring that the 
     construction projects conform to applicable building 
     standards and codes and Federal, tribal, or State health and 
     safety standards as required by 25 U.S.C. 2005(a), with 
     respect to organizational and financial management 
     capabilities: Provided further, That if the Secretary 
     declines an application, the Secretary shall follow the 
     requirements contained in 25 U.S.C. 2505(f): Provided 
     further, That any disputes between the Secretary and any 
     grantee concerning a grant shall be subject to the disputes 
     provision in 25 U.S.C. 2508(e).

 indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to 
                                indians

       For miscellaneous payments to Indian tribes and individuals 
     and for necessary administrative expenses, $65,241,000, to 
     remain available until expended; of which $56,400,000 shall 
     be available for implementation of enacted Indian land and 
     water claim settlements pursuant to Public Laws 101-618, 102-
     374, 102-575, and for implementation of other enacted water 
     rights settlements, including not to exceed $8,000,000, which 
     shall be for the Federal share of the Catawba Indian Tribe of 
     South Carolina Claims Settlement, as authorized by section 
     5(a) of Public Law 103-116; and of which $841,000 shall be 
     available pursuant to Public Laws 98-500, 99-264, and 100-
     580.

                 indian guaranteed loan program account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $4,500,000, as authorized 
     by the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as amended: Provided, 
     That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize total loan principal, any part of 
     which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed $34,615,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan programs, $500,000.

                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (except the 
     revolving fund for loans, the Indian loan guarantee and 
     insurance fund, the Technical Assistance of Indian 
     Enterprises account, the Indian Direct Loan Program account, 
     and the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program account) shall be 
     available for expenses of exhibits, and purchase of not to 
     exceed 229 passenger motor vehicles, of which not to exceed 
     187 shall be for replacement only.

                          Departmental Offices

                            Insular Affairs

                       assistance to territories

       For expenses necessary for assistance to territories under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, 
     $65,088,000, of which (1) $61,239,000 shall be available 
     until expended for technical assistance, including 
     maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, insular 
     management controls, and brown tree snake control and 
     research; grants to the judiciary in American Samoa for 
     compensation and expenses, as authorized by law (48 U.S.C. 
     1661(c)); grants to the Government of American Samoa, in 
     addition to current local revenues, for construction and 
     support of governmental functions; grants to the Government 
     of the Virgin Islands as authorized by law; grants to the 
     Government of Guam, as authorized by law; and grants to the 
     Government of the Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by 
     law (Public Law 94-241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $3,849,000 
     shall be available for salaries and expenses of the Office of 
     Insular Affairs: Provided, That all financial transactions of 
     the territorial and local governments herein provided for, 
     including such transactions of all agencies or 
     instrumentalities established or utilized by such 
     governments, may be audited by the General Accounting Office, 
     at its discretion, in accordance with chapter 35 of title 31, 
     United States Code: Provided further, That Northern Mariana 
     Islands Covenant grant funding shall be provided according to 
     those terms of the Agreement of the Special Representatives 
     on Future United States Financial Assistance for the Northern 
     Mariana Islands approved by Public Law 99-396, or any 
     subsequent legislation related to Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands grant funding: Provided further, 
     That of the amounts provided for technical assistance, 
     sufficient funding shall be made available for a grant to the 
     Close Up Foundation: Provided further, That the funds for the 
     program of operations and maintenance improvement are 
     appropriated to institutionalize routine operations and 
     maintenance improvement of capital infrastructure in American 
     Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Republic 
     of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of 
     Micronesia through assessments of long-range operations 
     maintenance needs, improved capability of local operations 
     and maintenance institutions and agencies (including 
     management and vocational education training), and project-
     specific maintenance (with territorial participation and cost 
     sharing to be determined by the Secretary based on the 
     individual territory's commitment to timely maintenance of 
     its capital assets): Provided further, That any appropriation 
     for disaster assistance under this head in this Act or 
     previous appropriations Acts may be used as non-Federal 
     matching funds for the purpose of hazard mitigation grants 
     provided pursuant to section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5170c).


                      compact of free association

       For economic assistance and necessary expenses for the 
     Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 
     232, and 233 of the Compacts of Free Association,

[[Page H6561]]

     and for economic assistance and necessary expenses for the 
     Republic of Palau as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 
     232, and 233 of the Compact of Free Association, $23,638,000, 
     to remain available until expended, as authorized by Public 
     Law 99-239 and Public Law 99-658.

                        Departmental Management

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for management of the Department of 
     the Interior, $53,691,000, of which not to exceed $7,500 may 
     be for official reception and representation expenses.

                        Office of the Solicitor

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, 
     $35,208,000.

                      Office of Inspector General

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $24,439,000, together with any funds or property transferred 
     to the Office of Inspector General through forfeiture 
     proceedings or from the Department of Justice Assets 
     Forfeiture Fund or the Department of the Treasury Assets 
     Forfeiture Fund, that represent an equitable share from the 
     forfeiture of property in investigations in which the Office 
     of Inspector General participated, with such transferred 
     funds to remain available until expended.

                   National Indian Gaming Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Indian Gaming 
     Commission, pursuant to Public Law 100-497, $1,000,000.

             Office of Special Trustee for American Indians

                         federal trust programs

       For operation of trust programs for Indians by direct 
     expenditure, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and 
     grants, $19,126,000, to remain available until expended for 
     trust funds management: Provided, That funds made available 
     to tribes and tribal organizations through contracts or 
     grants obligated during fiscal year 1997, as authorized by 
     the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et 
     seq.), shall remain available until expended by the 
     contractor or grantee: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the statute of limitations shall 
     not commence to run on any claim, including any claim in 
     litigation pending on the date of this Act, concerning losses 
     to or mismanagement of trust funds, until the affected tribe 
     or individual Indian has been furnished with an accounting of 
     such funds from which the beneficiary can determine whether 
     there has been a loss: Provided further, That unobligated 
     balances previously made available (1) to liquidate 
     obligations owed tribal and individual Indian payees of any 
     checks canceled pursuant to section 1003 of the Competitive 
     Equality Banking Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-86; 31 U.S.C. 
     3334(b)), (2) to restore Individual Indian Monies trust 
     funds, Indian Irrigation Systems, and Indian Power Systems 
     accounts amounts invested in credit unions or defaulted 
     savings and loan associations and which where not Federally 
     insured, including any interest on these amounts that may 
     have been earned, but was not because of the default, and (3) 
     to reimburse Indian trust fund account holders for losses to 
     their respective accounts where the claim for said loss has 
     been reduced to a judgement or settlement agreement approved 
     by the Department of Justice, under the heading ``Indian Land 
     and Water Claim Settlements and Miscellaneous Payments to 
     Indians'', Bureau of Indian Affairs in fiscal years 1995 and 
     1996, are hereby transferred to and merged with this 
     appropriation and may only be used for the operation of trust 
     programs, in accordance with this appropriation.

                       Administrative Provisions

       There is hereby authorized for acquisition from available 
     resources within the Working Capital Fund, 15 aircraft, 10 of 
     which shall be for replacement and which may be obtained by 
     donation, purchase or through available excess surplus 
     property: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, existing aircraft being replaced may be sold, with 
     proceeds derived or trade-in value used to offset the 
     purchase price for the replacement aircraft: Provided 
     further, That no programs funded with appropriated funds in 
     ``Departmental Management'', ``Office of the Solicitor'', and 
     ``Office of Inspector General'' may be augmented through the 
     Working Capital Fund or the Consolidated Working Fund.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or 
     office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the 
     emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft, 
     buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment 
     damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other 
     unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until funds specifically made 
     available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies 
     shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds 
     used pursuant to this section are hereby designated by 
     Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, and must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible.
       Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or 
     transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in 
     addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of 
     the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency 
     prevention of forest or range fires on or threatening lands 
     under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for 
     the emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its 
     jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or 
     actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other 
     unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to 
     actual oilspills; response and natural resource damage 
     assessment activities related to actual oilspills; for the 
     prevention, suppression, and control of actual or potential 
     grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the authority in 
     section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 Stat. 1658); for 
     emergency reclamation projects under section 410 of Public 
     Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year funds 
     available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit 
     assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy 
     State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in 
     this title for fire suppression purposes shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding 
     fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies 
     for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in 
     connection with their use for fire suppression purposes, such 
     reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently 
     available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further, 
     That for emergency rehabilitation and wildfire suppression 
     activities, no funds shall be made available under this 
     authority until funds appropriated to ``Wildland Fire 
     Management'' shall have been exhausted: Provided further, 
     That all funds used pursuant to this section are hereby 
     designated by Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and must be 
     replenished by a supplemental appropriation which must be 
     requested as promptly as possible: Provided further, That 
     such replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro 
     rata basis, accounts from which emergency funds were 
     transferred.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for operation of warehouses, garages, shops, and 
     similar facilities, wherever consolidation of activities will 
     contribute to efficiency or economy, and said appropriations 
     shall be reimbursed for services rendered to any other 
     activity in the same manner as authorized by sections 1535 
     and 1536 of title 31, United States Code: Provided, That 
     reimbursements for costs and supplies, materials, equipment, 
     and for services rendered may be credited to the 
     appropriation current at the time such reimbursements are 
     received.
       Sec. 104. Appropriations made to the Department of the 
     Interior in this title shall be available for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the 
     Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment 
     of dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library 
     membership in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members.
       Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of the 
     Interior for salaries and expenses shall be available for 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902 and D.C. Code 4-204).
       Sec. 106. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for obligation in connection with contracts issued 
     for services or rentals for periods not in excess of twelve 
     months beginning at any time during the fiscal year.
       Sec. 107. Appropriations made in this title from the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund for acquisition of lands and 
     waters, or interests therein, shall be available for 
     transfer, with the approval of the Secretary, between the 
     following accounts: Bureau of Land Management, Land 
     acquisition, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Land 
     acquisition, and National Park Service, Land acquisition and 
     State assistance. Use of such funds are subject to the 
     reprogramming guidelines of the House and Senate Committees 
     on Appropriations.
       Sec.  108. Prior to the transfer of Presidio properties to 
     the Presidio Trust, when authorized, the Secretary may not 
     obligate in any calendar month more than \1/12\ of the fiscal 
     year 1997 appropriation for operation of the Presidio: 
     Provided, That prior to the transfer of any Presidio property 
     to the Presidio Trust, the Secretary shall transfer such 
     funds as the Trust deems necessary to initiate leasing and 
     other authorized activities of the Trust: Provided further, 
     That this section shall expire on September 30, 1997.
       Sec. 109. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended by the 
     Secretary of the Interior for developing, promulgating, and 
     thereafter implementing a rule concerning rights-of-way under 
     section 2477 of the Revised Statutes.
       Sec. 110. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the

[[Page H6562]]

     Interior for the conduct of offshore leasing and related 
     activities placed under restriction in the President's 
     moratorium statement of June 26, 1990, in the areas of 
     Northern, Central, and Southern California; the North 
     Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; and the Eastern Gulf of 
     Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude and east of 86 
     degrees west longitude.
       Sec. 111. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of leasing, 
     or the approval or permitting of any drilling or other 
     exploration activity, on lands within the North Aleutian 
     Basin planning area.
       Sec. 112. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of 
     preleasing and leasing activities in the Eastern Gulf of 
     Mexico for Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sale 151 in the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Oil Resource 
     Management Comprehensive Program, 1992-1997.
       Sec. 113. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of 
     preleasing and leasing activities in the Atlantic for Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lease Sale 164 in the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Natural Gas and Oil Resource Management Comprehensive 
     Program, 1992-1997.
       Sec. 114. There is hereby established in the Treasury a 
     franchise fund pilot, as authorized by section 403 of Public 
     Law 103-356, to be available as provided in such section for 
     costs of capitalizing and operating administrative services 
     as the Secretary determines may be performed more 
     advantageously as central services: Provided, That any 
     inventories, equipment, and other assets pertaining to the 
     services to be provided by such fund, either on hand or on 
     order, less the related liabilities or unpaid obligations, 
     and any appropriations made prior to the current year for the 
     purpose of providing capital shall be used to capitalize such 
     fund: Provided further, That such fund shall be paid in 
     advance from funds available to the Department and other 
     Federal agencies for which such centralized services are 
     performed, at rates which will return in full all expenses of 
     operation, including accrued leave, depreciation of fund 
     plant and equipment, amortization of automatic data 
     processing (ADP) software and systems (either acquired or 
     donated) and an amount necessary to maintain a reasonable 
     operating reserve, as determined by the Secretary: Provided 
     further, That such fund shall provide services on a 
     competitive basis: Provided further, That an amount not to 
     exceed four percent of the total annual income to such fund 
     may be retained in the fund for fiscal year 1997 and each 
     fiscal year thereafter, to remain available until expended, 
     to be used for the acquisition of capital equipment, and for 
     the improvement and implementation of Department financial 
     management, ADP, and other support systems: Provided further, 
     That no later than thirty days after the end of each fiscal 
     year amounts in excess of this reserve limitation shall be 
     transferred to the Treasury: Provided further, That such 
     franchise fund pilot shall terminate pursuant to section 
     403(f) of Public Law 103-356.
       Sec. 115. None of the funds in this Act or any other Act 
     may be used by the Secretary for the redesign of Pennsylvania 
     Avenue in front of the White House without the advance 
     approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 116. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of the Interior to continue or 
     enforce the designation of any critical habitat for the 
     marbled murrelet on private property in the State of 
     California, excluding approximately 3,000 acres of redwood 
     forest commonly known as the ``Headwaters Grove'', located in 
     Humboldt County, California.
       Sec. 117. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to transfer any land 
     into trust under section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 
     48 Stat, 985, 25 USC s. 465, or any other federal statute 
     that does not explicitly denominate and identify a specific 
     tribe or specific property, unless it has been made known to 
     the Secretary of Interior, or his or her designee, that a 
     binding agreement is in place between the tribe that will 
     have jurisdiction over the land to be taken into trust and 
     the appropriate state and local official(s) and that such 
     agreement provides, for as long as the land is held in trust, 
     for the collection and payment, by any retail establishment 
     located on the land to be taken into trust, of State and 
     local sales and excise taxes, including any special tax on 
     motor fuel, tobacco, or alcohol, on any retail item sold to 
     any non-member of the tribe for which the land is held in 
     trust.


                             point of order

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, on page 47 of the bill, section 117, I make 
the point of order that it is legislation on an appropriations bill. It 
is written in the form of a limitation, but, nevertheless, it requires 
additional duties on the Secretary of the Interior and, therefore, it 
is subject to a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the 
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The language in section 117 of the bill would, among other things, 
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to designate another person to 
fulfill a specific role. As such, section 117 includes legislation. The 
point of order is sustained. Section 117 is stricken from the bill.
  Are there any amendments to the remaining portion of title I?


                    amendment offered by mr. walker

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: In the item relating to 
     ``National Park Service--operation of the national park 
     system'', after the third dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $62,000,000)''.
       In the item relating to ``Bureau of Indian Affairs--
     operation of Indian programs''--
       (1) after the first dollar amount insert the following: 
     ``(increased by $27,534,000)''; and
       (2) after the fourth dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(increased by $27,534,000)''; and
       In the item relating to ``Department of Energy--fossil 
     energy research and development'', after the dollar amount, 
     insert the following: ``(reduced by $137,804,000)''.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes, to 
be equally divided between the two sides.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] will be recognized for 10 minutes and a Member in opposition 
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 10 minutes in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had an extensive debate about the fossil energy 
program that just preceded this and the questions that arise about 
exactly how we are spending that money. Let me enter one more point 
into that debate. When this House passed an authorization bill last 
year, we funded these programs at $221 million. This particular 
appropriations bill is at a figure $138 million above what this House 
authorized last year.
  At the time that that authorization took place, there was, in fact, a 
vote on the floor. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle] sought 
to do what the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] proposes, and that is 
to have only a 10-percent cut rather than the cut that the committee 
proposed. Instead, the House voted by a rather large margin to stick 
with the committee's position in terms of the authorization.
  What I am here today doing is defending that authorization, to say 
that we ought to put the appropriations in this bill, the spending in 
this bill that equals where we are on the authorization amount.
  Now, what we do in this amendment is, we then transfer some of the 
money into some other accounts. For example, one of the things we do is 
we put some money into the National Park Service for operations and for 
maintenance; $62 million of the money saved here would go for 369 Park 
Service units in 49 States and the District of Columbia. This is an 
increase of $23.8 million above the administration's request that will 
help begin addressing the backlog of serious maintenance needs in the 
national parks.

  Second, the money goes for education. $27.5 million will be used for 
an increase to forward-fund Native school operations to fund the 
administration's request to provide quality education for more than 
51,000 Native Americans.
  Third, this amendment addresses the issue of deficit reduction. 
Nearly $48 million in budget authority will be reduced under this 
amendment. In short, this amendment is proenvironment, pronational 
parks, proeducation, prodeficit reduction, probasic research, and 
anticorporate welfare.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment for that reason. I think it is 
time that we start taking money out of accounts which are essentially 
industrial

[[Page H6563]]

subsidies and put them into the things which are high priorities for 
this country. That is what this does; it takes money out of industry 
subsidy programs and puts the money into national parks, into Indian 
education, and into deficit reduction.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle].
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman and I rise in strong 
opposition to the amendment. While I do not have anything against the 
programs it seeks to plus up, I once again believe we should not do 
this at the expense of fossil energy.
  This amendment has almost a fictional quality about it. Here we have 
the vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget, who has never been a 
proponent of big government, seeking to fund social programs at levels 
above the President's request. I welcome the sudden concern of my 
colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker, in the last months in Congress 
for programs he seeks to increase funding for, especially since he has 
never been a vocal advocate for them in the past. However, I doubt his 
true motivation lies with the programs he is increasing. Rather, it 
lies with the program he seeks to cut, fossil energy.
  I want to praise the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] for the 
clever approach. He may succeed in getting his amendment passed, 
although I hope who voted against the Farr amendment will remember the 
Walker amendment is just about identical, and we should defeat it also.
  I have here a letter from Public Citizens Critical Mass Energy 
Project in support of the Walker amendment, and I quote, ``Coal and oil 
are extremely dirty energy sources and are significant sources of air 
and water pollution.''
  Mr. Chairman, I could not state a better argument for fossil energy 
R&D than this. This statement makes it sound as if fossil research was 
trying to find more ways to make it harmful to use these fuels when 
that is the very purpose of these programs, to find more efficient ways 
and cleaner ways to burn fossil fuel.
  Let us look at why the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] 
claims we should cut fossil to roughly $221 million. He said the 
Committee on Science did not act on these accounts in fiscal year 1997 
because he knew he did not have the votes in committee to defend his 
vision of energy policy. When we debated H.R. 3322, the science 
authorization, the committee chair claimed we handled the energy 
accounts on the floor last year. He refers us back to H.R. 2405, which 
passed the House last October without prior notice, and let me quote 
from that debate.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] said, ``I never 
contended I brought this matter before the committee. I brought it to 
the floor as my own amendment.''
  The Committee on Science never agreed to the authorization levels.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask all Members to do what they did with the 
Farr amendment, and let us soundly defeat this amendment.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the 
Committee on Science, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for the time.
  I listened with great interest to the arguments of my good friend and 
colleague on the other side of the aisle from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. 
With all due respect, I think that what we should focus on today is not 
the notion of personalities but the notion of public policy. And while 
I have the utmost respect for the Herculean efforts brought to the 
formulation of this bill by the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Appropriations, my good friend and colleague, Mr. Regula of Ohio, I see 
the Walker amendment as providing a common sense approach to some badly 
needed funds in some areas of great concern.
  First and foremost, as the representative of the Sixth District of 
Arizona, I am acutely aware of the solemn and oft-regarded sacred 
nature of our treaty and trust obligation with native Americans. I 
believe this amendment works to address those problems by raising the 
forward-funded tribal education by $27.5 million.
  Also, in the Grand Canyon State of Arizona, where some of nature's 
greatest treasures exist, I am mindful of the need to deal with the 
real wear and tear on some of our national parks. And, yes, if the 
truth be told, I do have my share of problems with the Park Service in 
terms of funds and some questions about how those funds have been used, 
but no one can dispute the fact that this type of maintenance is 
needed.
  Moreover, to the notion of dealing with our deficit, the Walker 
amendment eliminates spending by $48 million. So, it rightly does what 
we come to this Chamber to do, to determine the proper priorities, to 
deal not in personalities but in policy, and to realistically face the 
future.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the 
Walker amendment and would urge my colleagues here in this House to 
join me in that support.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to the Walker amendment. Let me give my colleagues one 
example of the productivity of these research dollars.
  Just as NIH research has been critical to the great strength of the 
American medical products sector, so R&D dollars have been critical to 
the development of clean energy alternatives.
  Fuel cell technology. It has taken more than a decade of time to 
develop this technology. The private sector has invested $3 for every 
$1 the public sector has invested and the result is a very clean energy 
technology that is going to demand, as we get into production, iron-
making, and especially steel manufacturing, electrical systems, heat 
exchanger and boiler manufacture, piping vessels, piping vessel 
capability, primary industries that are essential to keep our economy 
strong.
  Secondary industries, plating, transportation of scrap, recycling of 
scrap metals, handling equipment and so on and so forth. It is just the 
kind of product that America's future depends on if we are going to be 
a strong manufacturing economy, capable of producing state-of-the-art 
energy sources.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Walker amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Walker 
amendment that seeks to reduce fossil energy accounts by over $130 
million in order to bump up the National Park Service's and native 
American accounts.
  I would point to the illustrations we have brought here from the 
Committee on Appropriations Interior Subcommittee that shows already we 
are increasing national park operations by $55 million and the native 
American is also increased about $52 million. So we are increasing 
these programs in this budget in this appropriations bill already.
  But I would also point out, one of the previous speakers came up and 
spoke about establishing national priorities, and that is exactly why 
this amendment goes in the wrong direction when we consider the fact 
that 85 percent of the energy requirements that we have in this country 
today are met through fossil fuel energy. Eighty-five percent.
  Also consider the fact that today we import 58 percent of the oil 
from overseas.

                              {time}  1445

  This, Mr. Chairman, is a national priority. What were to happen if 58 
percent of the fuel oil that we were importing from overseas was cut 
off and now we are in a national crisis? Say we are in a conflict 
somewhere around the world. How are we going to meet that 58 percent of 
oil that we were importing that has been cut off because of some 
national crisis? How are we going to meet those fuel requirements? The 
energy fossil energy research and development is absolutely essential.
  This has been portrayed as corporate welfare. This is not corporate 
welfare. When we think about energy, fossil energy research and 
development, we

[[Page H6564]]

might think of the Texaco's and Mobil's or Shell's. But 80 percent of 
the wells that are in this country today, domestic production in this 
country, are produced from wells that produce less than two barrels of 
oil per day. That is the marginal well, the stripper well, the 
producer, the mom and pop operation, the rancher, the farmer. That is 
the people that benefit through the fossil fuel energy research and 
development.
  This is a bill that goes in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on the Walker amendment.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this with a number of other 
members of the Committee on Science on this side of the aisle and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Wamp], and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent], who we have 
just heard and others. We rise to oppose the Walker amendment.
  I think the situation has changed from last year. First of all, when 
we take a look last year, we made a commitment.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] 
is a supporter of this amendment. I just want to correct the gentleman.
  Mr. DAVIS. I stand corrected on that, Mr. Chairman. But I know that 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] and I, could reach no 
contemporary consensus this year on the authorization. We are dealing 
with last year's, last year's amendment which was offered on the floor. 
Last year we made a commitment to reduce R&D funding in both fossil and 
energy efficiency by 10 percent. That commitment is more than met in 
the bill before us this year which is a 14-percent cut.
  This amendment would amount to a 47-percent cut from last year's 
level. It would literally wreak havoc on what is currently a planned 
and sensible downsizing of the government R&D part of this. Funding for 
fossil energy has been declining from $442 million in fiscal year 1995 
to $359 million in fiscal year 1997 under the committee bill, a 23-
percent decline in 2 years.
  More than 92 percent of global man-made carbon emissions are released 
from outside the United States. Higher efficiency technologies, I 
believe, will help lower CO2 emissions by more than 40 percent 
compared to existing options while reducing energy costs providing 
exportable technologies. I do not think we want to move backward on 
this, which is where this amendment takes us with reduced funding for 
R&D. The private sector R&D funding, including the Electric Power 
Institute and the Gas Research Institute, is declining at the same 
time.
  Private sector spending on R&D in this area has dropped nearly 30 
percent since 1982. Energy demand in the United States is going to 
continue to grow. EIA predicts that overall energy consumption will 
increase 19 percent over the next two decades. It does not make sense 
to cut funding for R&D in this area.
  Contribution to fossil fuels to our energy mix will not decline when 
this increase occurs. In fact in my judgment, it is going to continue 
to grow. EIA projects that by the year 2015, 88 percent of our energy 
will come from fossil fuels. I urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Holden].
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, we are far too 
dependent in this country on foreign oil. What we need to be doing is 
investing in our own natural resources. I represent the anthracite coal 
fields of Pennsylvania. We have between 300 and 500 years of coal 
reserves left. We should be spending our Federal dollars investing in 
alternative uses of anthracite coal and not be so dependent on foreign 
oil. Scientists already are able to convert anthracite coal into diesel 
fuel. We are not able to do that cost efficiently yet.
  We need to invest in our own natural resources. Anthracite coal is a 
prime example where I believe this Congress should be spending money. 
Anthracite coal is low in sulfur, and high in Btu, and meets all of 
EPA's requirements as far as emissions go. So I say to my colleagues, 
defeat this amendment. Let us invest in our own natural resources.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I appreciate the 
debate. Let me just clarify a couple of points of, first of all, some 
Members who have come before us and make us think that there is going 
to be no money left for fossil energy research if we adopt this 
amendment. Wrong. There is going to be $221 million left for fossil 
energy research, even if we adopt this amendment. That is a quarter-of-
a-billion dollars that will be available for fossil energy research.
  So no doubt about it, there is going to be money there to do that. 
The question is whether or not we need the additional $138 million 
above what the House authorized last year. That is another point. We 
have heard several Members come to the floor and say, the Committee on 
Science did not do it. The House did it. Ultimately, the House is the 
place where we make these decisions. The House passed authorization 
last year for fiscal year 1997, is that the figure that would be in 
place should my amendment pass.
  So this keeps with the authorization, which in fact in the committee 
report last year the committee said that they would go with whatever 
the House passed in terms of an authorization. Yes, they also put 
language in that said they would only take a 10-percent cut so there is 
enough confusion in there, I guess, to make anybody's points. But the 
fact is, their report said that they would stick with the House-passed 
authorization. The House-passed authorization is what is in my 
amendment.
  Third, I think it ought to be remembered by everybody who came out 
here and argued a few days ago on the floor about the bump in this 
year's funding, the fact that the deficit is going up a little bit this 
year. When we were arguing the budget just a week ago, lots of Members 
worried about the bump.
  Here is your chance to begin doing some deficit reduction and taking 
care of the bump. Here we are, we have got $48 million in deficit 
reduction here. We get a chance to begin voting to reduce spending 
below what the budget says, so that what we can do is begin to deal 
with some of these factors. This helps us on the bump.
  Fourth, I would suggest to my colleagues that a chart that has been 
floating around here, talking about the impact of reductions in fossil 
energy R&D by State, actually when we add up the figures on the chart, 
adds up to more money that they claim is coming out of the States that 
is in my amendment. So we have to be real careful about some of the 
figures flying around here. They actually have millions of dollars more 
that is coming out of the States, when we add them all up, than what is 
included in my amendment. Be very careful of some of the documentation.

  Also I would suggest that in terms of environment, the League of 
Conservation Voters has said that this is the right direction to go, 
they are for this amendment. And they point out, for example, that this 
is an amendment that does, in fact, meet the needs of reducing fossil 
energy research to the right levels at the same time funding the parks.
  Public Citizen, also an environmental organization, has written 
saying, fossil energy programs have received over $15 billion in 1995 
dollars in Federal funding since 1974. The fossil energy industry is 
prosperous and mature. It is not deserving of a continuing large share 
of taxpayer support. The money that would be cut in this amendment can 
better be used for national parks, Indian education, and deficit 
reduction.
  That is exactly the point. That is what we are doing with this 
amendment. We get a chance to increase the funding for the national 
parks. We get a chance to increase funding for the Indian schools, and 
we also get a deficit reduction.
  I might make one final point; that is, that this amendment actually 
brings the bill somewhat closer to the administration's 
recommendations. When

[[Page H6565]]

you look at the statement that the administration has given with regard 
to whether that the administration has given with regard to whether 
they veto the bill, a number of the areas in that particular message is 
in fact addressed by this amendment. They were concerned about the 
amount of money for Indian education. They were concerned about some of 
the moneys that were in their request for national parks that are not 
reflected in this particular appropriation. So this does in fact get us 
somewhat closer to where the administration would be on this bill and 
maybe avoids a veto on some of these issues as a result of the adoption 
of the amendment.
  I would urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment. It is prodeficit 
reduction. It is pro-environment. It is pro-national parks. It is pro-
Native Americans. And it is anti-industrial subsidy. It is a good 
amendment. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  (Mr. MOLLOHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Walker amendment to reduce funding 
for fossil energy research and development and transfer these funds to 
the National Park System, Indian programs, and the budget deficit.
  I wish that I did not have to stand here today in opposition to an 
amendment that would increase funds for our national parks. Unlike my 
colleagues on the other side of aisle, I have a history of supporting 
our parks. The 360 or so units of the National Park System are among 
the Nation's most precious natural areas, cultural resources, and 
recreation sites. These parks belong to the people, not just today, but 
in perpetuity. The Republican cuts to the National Park Service have 
greatly undermined our parks.
  In fiscal year 1996 House Republicans thought it sufficient to 
provide a budget for the Park Service that would be $69 million less 
than the President's request. And this year they apparently believe 
that $1.13 billion, $290 million less than the President's request, is 
sufficient to sustain our Park System. Perhaps Republicans now realize 
that their cuts have gone too far, and they are trying to compensate by 
attacking an important program like fossil energy R&D. A program which 
stands for the development of clean, efficient, low-cost fossil energy 
technologies. I say: raise funds for the park service--just don't take 
it out of fossil energy R&D.
  The Walker amendment effectively eliminates the Federal-private 
sector partnerships that are within 2 to 3 years of reaching their 
objectives--after 20 years and hundreds of millions of dollars of joint 
Government and industry investment. This bill will cause scores of 
private companies, who signed on with the Federal Government to cost-
share high-risk, high-payoff research, to see the Government renege on 
its agreements. In all likelihood these companies will either abandon 
their research or look for foreign interests to pick up the cost-share.
  It is particularly ironic that the Walker amendment comes at this 
point in time. Throughout the world, our economic competitors are 
expanding their government-industry partnerships, modeling their R&D 
arrangements after the public-private cooperative efforts which were 
pioneered here in the United States. In spite of a flat economy, Japan 
has nearly tripled its funding over the past 5 years for advanced coal 
combustion technology--the technology most in demand in the growing 
global marketplace. In fact, the governments of Germany and Japan are 
increasing their cooperative efforts with their private industries to 
develop technologies for global sale. Why? Because a $1 trillion market 
for advanced coal and other power-generating equipment awaits them in 
the 21st century. The Walker amendment would unilaterally put U.S. 
developers at a distinct disadvantage against the combined arsenals of 
other governments.

  It is also ironic that the Walker amendment comes at a time when an 
unprecedented restructuring of our domestic energy market has caused 
private industry's investment in energy R&D to drop by 35 percent since 
the mid-1980's.
  The U.S. energy industry involves more than $500 billion a year in 
sales and about 8 percent of our gross national product. Some 85 
percent of our energy consumption comes from fossil fuels--coal, 
petroleum, and natural gas. With this kind of impact on our economy, 
the development of clean, efficient, low-cost fossil energy 
technologies should be one of the Nation's--and this Congress'--top 
priorities.
  The Walker amendment turns its back on the future of technologies 
that supply 85 percent of the energy in this country. It turns its back 
on technologies that are within 2 to 3 years of crossing over the 
threshold to private sector deployment. It turns its back on today's 
energy industry where U.S. private sector investment in R&D is already 
declining. The Walker amendment turns its back on hundreds of millions 
of dollars in public and private investment--provided in good faith--to 
develop clean, efficient, low-cost technologies that can be used here 
at home and can be marketed to customers overseas.
  I strongly oppose the Walker amendment to cut funding for fossil 
energy R&D by $137.8 million in the fiscal year 97 Interior 
appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Walker 
amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, just let us get the facts straight here. I have a 
letter addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
dated May 7, 1996. It points out that the Davis amendment in the 
authorization bill, and I quote: ``the Davis amendment clarifies that 
authorization for these programs should be reconsidered if in the 
budget and appropriations process more funds become available.''
  Now more funds have become available. So that what we have just heard 
about what passed this House last year is not relevant in view of the 
fact that we now have more money available.
  Second, I would like to point out a quote from the administration 
letter which says, ``a cut of this magnitude would effectively 
eliminate the Department of Energy's fossil energy R&D programs and 
limit our Nation's ability to manage its energy future.'' It goes on to 
say that ``fossil energy consumption will continue to supply 85 percent 
or more of the total energy consumption in the United States for well 
into the next century.''
  What we are talking about is the energy future of this Nation. We are 
talking about energy independence, as was pointed out by a previous 
speaker.
  We now import nearly 50 percent of our energy needs in terms of 
petroleum. That is a fragile position to be in. The world is volatile. 
What happens to our industries? I can remember in the last 1970's that 
I had companies that manufactured plastics come to me and want a few 
barrels of petroleum products because some other things come out of a 
barrel of oil. Probably, some of the fabric in this suit has an oil-
based derivative. So it is important that we have energy security.
  Second, it is important that we develop the ability to use our 
energy, coal, oil and gas, without impacting on our clean air, without 
impacting on our environment. What this vote is all about is to protect 
our environment, to move to more ability to maintain clean air.
  What it is about is energy security. What it is about is jobs, bottom 
line is jobs, because in this Nation, we are heavily dependent on 
energy in every facet of our life, of our industrial community, of our 
domestic community. Households today use far more electricity than they 
did in the past. We drive many more miles than we did in past years.

  Therefore, it becomes vitally important that we protect our energy 
resources, that we use them wisely, because they are finite, that we 
use coal, because it is a tremendous energy resource in this Nation. If 
we do what is embodied in this amendment, we cripple our fossil energy 
program.
  Let me point out, because this amendment transfers to parks and 
native Americans, we have increased park operations $55 million. We 
have increased native American programs $52 million. The committee in 
its wisdom reduced the fossil energy budget by 14 percent from 1996, a 
total of 23 percent from 1995. It is going down. To pass this amendment 
totally upsets this balance that we have achieved between the needs of 
our society for energy versus some of these programs. Obviously they 
are put in there to sound attractive to Members, to save more parks, 
more native Americans.
  Let me just reiterate, energy is vital to every person in this 
Nation. It is vital to our future. We want to be independent. We want 
clean air. We want jobs.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Chairman, a vote ``no'' is for those things, a vote ``no'' is for 
jobs, clean air and for energy independence.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H6566]]

  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates].
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I join the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], in opposing this 
amendment. I agree completely with the arguments that he has advanced. 
This amendment would really disrupt our energy programs tremendously.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois.
  One last comment: If you voted ``no'' on the last amendment, this one 
is worse. The last amendment slashed the fossil program $134 million 
after we already took out $60 million. This amendment slashes it $137 
million, three more million dollars after we have taken out $60 
million. So if you were a ``no'' on Farr, you are an even more emphatic 
``no'' on Walker.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 224, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 252]

                               AYES--196

     Allard
     Andrews
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Montgomery
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Porter
     Quinn
     Reed
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stearns
     Studds
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tejeda
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Vento
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--224

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     King
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McHale
     McIntosh
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Brownback
     Conyers
     Emerson
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Gallegly
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Ramstad
     Schumer
     Tauzin
     Wilson

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. HEINEMAN, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. WELLER, and Mr. 
ARCHER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Messrs. COBURN, WAXMAN, and COOLEY, Ms. 
McKINNEY, Messrs. LATHAM, VENTO, RUSH, and CHRISTENSEN, Mrs. ROUKEMA, 
and Mr. McKEON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 252 I had 
intended to vote ``aye,'' but I inadvertently voted ``no.'' I would 
like for the Record to reflect that I would have voted ``aye'' on 
rollcall No. 252.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3662, the fiscal year 1997 
Interior appropriations bill. I commend the chairman, the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Regula], and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates], for their diligent efforts that produce a bill 
that properly protects our environment and meets the needs of the 
shrinking Federal budget.
  As the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is 
aware, I have long supported the need for Federal funding for the 
acquisition of Sterling Forest which lies between New York State and 
the State of New Jersey. Similarly, I know that the gentleman from Ohio 
also supports what I and my colleagues from New York and New Jersey are 
trying to do with regard to Sterling Forest, which is located in my 
congressional district in the State of New York. I am gratified that 
the House today will be offered an opportunity to vote for the funding 
for this important endeavor.
  Mr. Chairman, permit me to note that Speaker Gingrich and the 
Speaker's environmental task force are fully supportive of the need to 
preserve Sterling Forest. I look forward to working with the gentleman 
from Ohio, Mr. Regula, during the fiscal year 1998 process, as well as 
Speaker Gingrich, to put an end to this long, hard-fought battle to 
preserve Sterling Forest. By doing so, we will protect the Appalachian 
Corridor, protect the new Jersey watershed, consolidate contiguous 
public lands, and preserve its ecological integrity.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this fair-
minded bill that not only supports our environment but continues our 
congressional efforts to balance the Federal budget.

[[Page H6567]]

                     amendment offered by mr. dicks

  Mr. DICKS. 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. Dicks: On page 47 of the bill, 
     strike lines 3 through 9.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 3662, 
the fiscal year 1997 Interior appropriations bill. Specifically, my 
amendment strikes section 116 of the general provisions of title I of 
the bill, eliminating language that withholds funding and restricts the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from designating critical habitat on 
certain private lands in northern California.
  I believe that section 116 is an ill-advised provision for several 
reasons, and that it is inappropriate to include this language on the 
fiscal year 1997 Interior appropriations bill. First of all, the 
provision allows for the weakening of the Endangered Species Act [ESA]. 
The gentleman from California, who is responsible for this provision 
being included in the bill might want you to believe that all this 
amendment does is withhold funding; but in fact it prevents the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service from carrying out its statutory and 
regulatory responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.
  The act allows for the Service to designate critical habitat for 
species listed as ``threatened or endangered.'' Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Endangered Species Act specifically states:

       The Secretary shall designate critical habitat, and make 
     revisions thereto, under subsection (a)(3) on the basis of 
     the best science available and after taking 
     into consideration the economic impact, and any other 
     relevant impact, specifying any particular areas as 
     critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude any area from 
     critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of 
     such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such 
     area as part of the critical habitat, unless he 
     determines, based on the best scientific and commercial 
     data available, that the failure to designate such area as 
     critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
     species concerned.

  Critical habitat designation is the one area of the Endangered 
Species Act where economic impacts are clearly considered, and I 
believe that is what fully occurred in this circumstance.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my colleagues, there are three major 
reasons why I am opposed to the Riggs amendment. First of all, Mr. 
Chairman, I believe that we should be supporting the Endangered Species 
Act, not undermining it. Critical habitat, when we designate it on 
private land, all it does is require one on private lands to come in, 
if you are going to take a bird or a species, in this case the marbled 
murrelet, and get an incidental take permit.
  The way to do that is by filing a habitat conservation plan. That is 
how you get out of jail. You do not get out of jail by coming to the 
U.S. Congress and offering an amendment that makes it possible for you, 
while everybody else is complying with this law, to get a special deal. 
That is what I object to here.
  Second, the marbled murrelet in northern California had declined in 
population from 60,000 down to about 6,000. The reason it has declined 
is because its habitat, old growth redwood trees, have been cut down in 
that area in a very significant way.
  Third, as I mentioned, there is a way to get out of the Endangered 
Species Act, and that is to enter into a multispecies HCP. In this 
case, Pacific Lumber, who has most of the territory here, about 40,000 
acres, did not negotiate in good faith with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to get a multispecies HCP. Up in my State of Washington, I sat 
down with Murray Pacific, Weyerhauser, Plum Creek, and the major 
companies in my area. I said, ``Gentleman, you are going to have to 
work with the Fish and Wildlife Service. You are going to have to get 
an HCP.'' Those companies are up there negotiating these HCP's. They 
get 100 years of certainty, they get to go into their land and do the 
harvesting; yet, they have to make some set-asides for conservation 
purposes, be it is the right thing to do. It is a win-win.
  What am I going to do if the Riggs amendment is enacted? Then all 
these companies are going to come to me and say, Norm, why do you not 
offer an amendment to take me out from underneath the Endangered 
Species Act? This is something we have never done. I just think it 
would be a tragic mistake in this instance to do it. That is why I am 
offering this amendment to strike the Riggs amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me put this debate in perspective, because we have 
now heard from the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], let us see, 8 
minutes under the rule, several minutes under general debate, and the 
last 5 minutes. I do not believe I have heard him once mention the two 
words, private property.

                              {time}  1530

  There was a lot of discussion about the marbled murrelet. No 
discussion about private property. He said he believes in the 
Endangered Species Act. But the flipside of that is the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks], unlike 277 Members of this House in a 
bipartisan manner, voted against the Private Property Protection Act in 
March of last year. That is why we are here. We are talking about 
protecting private property rights.
  Let us do some simple math here for just a moment.
  Mr. Chairman, here is what we are talking about. The Fish and 
Wildlife Service wants to designate nearly 4 million acres of property 
in the Pacific Northwest, Oregon, and Washington and northwest 
California, as critical habitat for the marbled murrelet, a tiny little 
seabird, which actually is not at all in danger of extinction because 
of flourishes in British Columbia and Alaska.
  Let us look at how that 4 million acres breaks down. First of all, 
the ownership, largely Federal lands, these are properties that are 
already under public ownership and in the public domain, 2.9 million 
acres; 706,000 acres owned by State governments; 10,000 acres owned by 
local government; and 48,000 acres, 1 percent, privately owned.
  So the question is, do you have to have it all? Why will 99 percent 
not suffice?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I will not yield.
  Mr. DICKS. I will get the gentleman extra time. I promise the 
gentleman I will get him extra time if he will yield. I will ask for 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. RIGGS. I will yield then at the appropriate time. I appreciate 
the gentleman now wanting to engage in a debate since he was unwilling 
to earlier.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is the private property that 
was 1 percent of the 4 million acres. I will admit right from the get-
go, there is no way to satisfy the regulatory appetite of the Federal 
Government. I acknowledge that. I acknowledge that there are those that 
genuinely believe we have to have it all, even the final, last, 
remaining 1 percent under private ownership.
  But here is the problem, Mr. Chairman. That 1 percent represents 4 
timber companies and 6 small ranches, 10 property owners altogether, in 
my congressional district. If we cannot protect private property rights 
for these 10 property owners, we cannot protect private property rights 
for America.
  So before Members think that this is an easy vote, a clean, green 
environmental vote with no consequences in your congressional district 
because you do not have to worry about the economic consequences and 
the potential job losses, you can come down here and demagogue in the 
well because it does not mean anything to you and your constituents 
back home.
  But it means a lot to the families that are affected, or would be 
affected, by the Dicks amendment, some of whom are in the gallery 
today. I want to introduce those families, because when we get done 
voting, if you have really got the courage of your convictions, you can 
come down and look those families in the eye and explain it to them.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman is not 
allowed to make reference to the occupants of the gallery. The 
gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, because the last thing we 
want to do, of course, is personalize this debate and put a human face 
on it.

[[Page H6568]]

No, let us talk about it in the abstract. Let us talk about it 
conceptually. Let us not talk about the families and the property 
owners that are directly affected.
  But I am talking about them because I represent them, and I care 
about them. The Gift family, 501 acres, they have owned this ranch 
since the 1800's, and it is prairie land, not forest land. It is 
prairie land. They graze on this property. Here it is. At least those 
of us in northern California can tell the difference between a cow and 
a marbled murrelet. These are cows, not marbled murrelet seabirds.
  The Gift family, 501 acres taken. The Bowers family, 156 acres taken. 
In case you cannot see it, Mrs. Bowers is wheelchair-bound. She is 
still trying to operate the family ranch. Harold Crabtree, his entire 
254 acres taken by the designation.
  Do not tell me that these families have the financial resources to 
prepare elaborate habitat conservation plans and go through months and 
months of review with the Federal bureaucracy in order to get an 
incidental-take permit because they cannot. They do not have the 
wherewithal or the financial resources.
  That is what we are talking about here. Fundamentally this debate 
boils down to whether you believe in private property rights, whether 
you are going to take a stand here and now to follow through on the 
commitment we made last March when the House voted overwhelmingly in 
favor of the Private Property Protection Act.
  I look forward in the debate as we move forward to further 
introducing these families. Again I ask that Members take a stand here 
and now, protect private property and the families and jobs that depend 
on that private property.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
   Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue talking about families. 
Somehow it seems that in this list of families, we left off one leading 
Californian, and I think that the gentleman from Washington would 
indulge me that if, in fact, there were a citizen and a worthy cause, 
he might be more sympathetic to the Riggs amendment. But the fact is, 
these families with their couple of hundred acres are not really 
affected by this. But good old Charlie Hurwitz, now there is a man that 
we could all be proud of. He has got 40-some-odd thousands acres of 
this stuff, most of which he got by stealing money from the Federal 
Government. Charlie, if he is not under indictment, he is under the 
cloud of it for raiding a savings and loan which he used to buy Pacific 
Lumber.
  After he bought Pacific Lumber in the district of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], and this is who the gentleman is trying to 
protect, he proceeded to lay off 105 people and he proceeded to log all 
these redwoods and sell them off to pay off the junk bonds that were 
supposed to pay off the savings and loan that forced the Pacific Life 
Insurance Company, Executive Life, into bankruptcy, costing not only 
the people in his district 100 jobs but costing hundreds of people to 
lose their pensions. This is good old Charlie Hurwitz from the 
gentleman's district. He is the corporate raider who owns this land who 
is trying to clear-cut all of the redwoods. Forget the murrelets. Let 
us think about the hundreds of loggers who will be out of work when 
Charlie is done.
  I think that we should protect private property. The first person we 
ought to protect is the Federal Government from raiders like Hurwitz 
who will go in and clean out a savings and loan to illegally acquire 
this property, then begin to fire the people, deprive them of their 
pensions, sell off really what is a birthright for generations to come, 
these magestic redwoods, cut them down, sell them off to pay off junk 
bonds.
  Is that the kind of a gentleman that you would like to help, I would 
ask the distinguished gentleman from Washington? The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] wants to help him.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to 
applaud the gentleman from California who has written on this subject 
and who has even suggested that maybe we could trade the massive $1.2 
billion that we lost, or that the Federal Government lost because of 
the S&L that Mr. Hurwitz went bankrupt with.
  Mr. STARK. We could make a deal with the devil himself and trade him 
out of his.
  Mr. DICKS. We could buy the headwaters redwoods that are so critical 
to this. But in this case, most of the land is Pacific Lumber Co. land. 
The gentleman is right.
  The other point the gentleman is right on, too, is that there was a 
Federal court that said you have got to issue critical habitat. So the 
Fish and Wildlife Service was directed by a court to do it.
  Also, Mr. Hurwitz was stopped from logging the rest of the old growth 
because of a Federal court decision.
  Mr. STARK. But then he found the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs]. Aha. He did not have to bother with the Federal court and the 
$1.6 billion he stole from the savings and loans. He could just sneak a 
little amendment in here to get himself absolved and continue to rip 
off on the public.
  Is that the kind of a private citizen we should be helping when it 
entails destroying these redwoods which all of the citizens of the 
country can enjoy, I ask the gentleman?
  Mr. DICKS. I do not think we should do it for those reasons. Let me 
also say to the gentleman, I think the important point here is that 
critical habitat----
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] yield 
for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. STARK. Not at this time. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. 
Chairman?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I am listening to some comments. I 
am about ready to take----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. Does the gentleman yield 
for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. STARK. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?


                             POINT OF ORDER

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have asked a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Is the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] raising a point of order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rarely do this, but I have heard 
some very serious charges made from the gentleman in the well that 
relates to nothing about this bill. Of course in taking a question, the 
gentleman offered the amendment, in fact the intent of the amendment--
--

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. My point of order is when does one ask to have 
the words taken down, especially when the question comes to a fellow 
member of this committee that asks and presents an amendment and 
someone questions the integrity, such as, ``He found Mr. Riggs and now 
he can go ahead and steal from the public.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The demand for the gentleman's words to be taken down 
must immediately follow the words in question. So a demand at this 
point is untimely.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I would not ask that that be done, but I would 
suggest to the gentleman, and I do respect the gentleman in the well, 
to be very careful when he questions another Member on the floor of the 
House and show him due respect. He is a Member of this House. He is 
supporting those small people.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California may continue.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska's point is well 
taken. The intent of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is 
unquestionably honorable in this. He is trying to help Mr. Hurwitz, 
there is no question about that, and that is his right as it is Mr. 
Hurwitz's right who still walks abroad as a free man even though he has 
some civil differences with the Federal Government. I appreciate that.
  However, the question still remains, is good old Charlie the kind of 
person that we think should be helped by giving him a gift and allowing 
him to log these redwoods.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

[[Page H6569]]

  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  If I were Mr. Hurwitz, I would be working with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to do a multispecies habitat conservation plan like Murray 
Pacific, Simpson, Weyerhaeuser, and other people are doing in order to 
have a negotiated settlement of this issue so that he can get an 
incidental take permit and we can protect the owls and the murrelets.
  The only problem here for the other people, by the way, there is a 
notion here that when you have a designation of critical habitat, you 
cannot do anything on your private lands. That is not accurate. You can 
go in and continue to log, but you cannot go in and take one of the 
species. If you are going to take a species, then you have got to get a 
habitat conservation plan, which is completely understandable.
  So there is a way for Mr. Hurwitz to proceed, but he chooses not to 
because he wants to bring lawsuits saying that this whole process is a 
constitutional taking of his property. I guarantee I will work with any 
of the people that are here from the Congressman's district, with the 
people in the Fish and Wildlife Service who are doing HCP's to see if 
we can get them taken care of. I will be glad to work with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] to help the people who 
legitimately need help.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] 
has expired.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the gentleman from California be given 2\1/2\ additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I have had 
some discussion with the gentleman offering this amendment and after we 
have one more speaker on this side, which would even out the time at 
that point, we will seek a unanimous-consent agreement to limit the 
debate on the amendment.
  So I would ask that we go to a speaker on this side, then we will 
have an even amount of time. I would object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment. I want to congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs] for introducing this amendment.
  I am still very frustrated that one person's name was used over and 
over and over again. What happened to the five landowners, the little 
ones, 125 acres, 151 acres, 527 acres? There are no trees on those 
lands. Contrary to what the gentleman from Washington says, there is in 
fact with the Fish and Wildlife, you cannot do anything on that land if 
they designate it might disturb the murrelet. The murrelet is not 
endangered. It is not endangered, I say to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks]. It is all over the area. But the Fish and 
Wildlife says it is endangered. So we bow and we scrape to the Federal 
Government, the almighty Federal Government.
  Yet these people, this lady in the wheelchair, these people on this 
little ranch with their kids, they are browbeaten by this Government 
saying you must meet our requirements. With what? Has the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Dicks] ever been on a farm? No. Does he know 
anything about farming? No.
  Mr. DICKS. I worked on a farm for two summers.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman knows how these people live, and 
he wants them to go get a lawyer, and draw up this plan and we have got 
the big Federal Government, the Fish and Wildlife, telling you what to 
do, that ``if you don't do it you're going to jail and you're going to 
get fined.'' That is our Government today. We wonder why we have got 
the Freemen or the militants. We wonder why, in fact, we have got 
unrest in this country.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Chairman, it is because our Government, in fact, has got out of 
hand and out of line with the Endangered Species Act, and I am glad to 
hear the gentleman supports the Endangered Species Act, 35,000 people 
were put out of work in his area. In California and Oregon alone, 181 
mills closed down. For what? For a species not endangered--because the 
Fish and Wildlife Service says it is endangered.
  I write a bill that says it must have biological substantial evidence 
it is endangered, and I am criticized for that.
  Do you know how to get a specie on the endangered list today? Any one 
of you can file a petition, as they did in Alaska. That is all you have 
to do. Then the agency says, we must study it. It the meantime, by the 
way, you are going to lose your job. This is just how ridiculous the 
Endangered Species Act is today.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is ridiculous that this amendment is even 
proposed when this gentleman has families to protect, and he talks 
about one person. What about the families? I do not care if it is one 
family or one acre. When this Government is wrong, it is wrong.
  What happened to the gentleman's liberalism? What happened to his 
protecting the masses? What happened to ``We have to think about the 
people''? All he thinks about now is the Government and how right they 
are. I am telling you they are wrong in this case, dead wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment, and I support the gentleman 
from California.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Resources, for 
his very strong remarks.
  We have heard some on the other side, in fact, I believe I heard the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] say this earlier today, that my 
amendment may actually send the marbled murrelet into extinction, and I 
just want to get on the record right now how absurd that contention is. 
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, there are an estimated 
18,000 to 35,000 murrelets in Washington, Oregon, and California alone, 
with several hundred thousand additional birds in Alaska and British 
Columbia.
  The second point I want to make, particularly since the gentleman 
from California spoke first, to point the finger to one particular 
company, the gentleman may want to bad-mouth the majority owner of that 
particular company, but I want him to know he is talking about the 
largest private employer in the largest county in my congressional 
district, and that employment at that company has grown from 
approximately 950 employees at the time of the merger in 1986 to 1,600 
employees as of last month, an increase of 650 living-wage jobs that 
cannot be easily replaced in our local economy.
  So this debate is about private property, as I said earlier, and the 
families and jobs that depend on that private property, not about a 
particular individual property owner.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, I had an opportunity, I 
wrote a good bill with the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] to 
solve this problem. But anybody who thinks the Endangered Species Act 
works, I would suggest he start reading it and seeing where this 
Government has gone out of whack, when they tell a woman she cannot 
take and raise grain on her ranch because there is a kangaroo rat. She 
stopped raising grain. The rats left because there was nothing to eat. 
It burned and burned the houses down in all the area.
  This is the act that Members support. I am terribly disappointed to 
support an Endangered Species Act that does not protect the species, 
does not take and protect the private landowners, in fact, allows this 
Government to run amok. I am saying, let us change it. That is what I 
am saying.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I have a feeling I am not going to get it, 
but I am going to propound it anyhow. I ask unanimous consent that all 
debate on this amendment be limited to 60 minutes, the time equally 
divided between the gentleman from Washington offering the amendment 
[Mr. Dicks] and the gentleman from California, and all amendments 
thereto.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I object.

[[Page H6570]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about an individual, Mr. Hurwitz. It 
is about corporate ethics and corporate policy, and it is about special 
legislation that if you are rich enough, you are strong enough, you 
have enough lawyers and you have enough lobbyists, what you can get 
done in the Congress of the United States.
  It was not about the families who are on the poster board here, 
because if they wanted to take care of those families, they could have. 
The driving force for this amendment is Mr. Hurwitz. Mr. Hurwitz, who 
would get exempted not 145 acres or 165 acres on the family spread. Not 
that, but 32,000 acres of California's redwood forest heritage that he 
seeks now to log in violation of the law.
  But that is not anything new from Mr. Hurwitz. Because when Mr. 
Hurwitz had a pension fund, he ran the pension fund in violation of the 
law. When Mr. Hurwitz had an S&L, a savings and loan, he cost the 
taxpayers of this country a billion dollars, because he ran that in 
violation of the law. When Mr. Hurwitz had employees, he ran his 
company in violation of the law with respect to the labor law.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate under the rules of the 
House to charge individuals with crimes of which they have not been 
convicted?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I may have regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I will make a point of order that the 
gentleman's comments are out of order because they amount to slander, 
in that the individual mentioned has not been convicted of any of the 
crimes.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I object. I ask the 
gentleman's words be taken down because he has no evidence that any of 
this is suggestive slander. It is a matter of public record what Mr. 
Hurwitz has done to the people of this company, the people of the 
community, and the people of our State.
  The CHAIRMAN. Both gentlemen will suspend. The Clerk will first 
report the words of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

                             {time}   1555

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] seek 
recognition?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, so we can move forward, I ask unanimous 
consent that the words in question be considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does not need unanimous consent to 
withdraw his objection to Mr. Miller's words; all he needs to do is 
withdraw his demand.
  Mr. RIGGS. I do so, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California, [Mr. Miller] 
withdraw his request?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I do. The gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] informed me I was wrong, that the gentleman said 
I was ``slender.'' That is what I took offense at.
  The CHAIRMAN. Both demands are withdrawn. The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] is recognized for the remaining 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the Committee is not in 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The slender Member from California wants order. The 
Committee will be in order.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this may be a painful 
biography to point out, but it is an important one, because it goes to 
the character of this amendment and it goes to the character of the 
company behind this amendment. Because every time this company has 
engaged a regulatory agency of this Government, the FDIC, who is 
worried about his banking practices, he has encountered them in court. 
The Office of Thrift Supervision, which was dealing with the taxpayers 
money, he has encountered them in court. The California Forest 
Practices Board, he has encountered them in court. And the Federal 
judge on forest practices, he has encountered them in court.
  This man has engaged every law that he has been involved with in his 
company, and he has essentially violated them all or been charged with 
violating them all by regulatory agencies and the courts of this 
country. So what good does he do? He comes to the Congress of the 
United States, and to suggest that somehow the Members of this body, 
the Members of this body can be conned into allowing him to do 
something which nobody else gets to do in California, the Pacific 
Northwest, in dealing with the problems of our environment, he simply 
gets to escape his responsibility under the law. He simply escapes his 
responsibility under the law.

  Now, they put a couple of families in the lifeboat with him to 
decorate it up, but the captain and the crew is Mr. Hurwitz and Pacific 
Lumber Co. They are the driving force, because they are the 33,000 
acres that are being exempted here.
  So what? So he can start practicing the forest practices that brought 
him in violation of the State law and the Federal law? No. We cannot 
have that in California. We treasure our redwoods, and so does this 
Nation. And you know why he is lumbering these woods? Why he is 
timbering these woods? He is timbering because he sold junk bonds and 
now he cannot pay the interest on those junk bonds that he destroyed a 
pension plan with, that he destroyed a wonderful company with, a 
company that used to take care of its employees' children by giving 
them college scholarships, a company that used to take care of you at 
Christmastime and Thanksgiving. Those employees were thrown out. They 
were bought an annuity and the annuity collapsed. But now he has to pay 
those bonds off.
  He has been in my office, he has been in everyone's office, or his 
representatives have. He tried to shop one deal after another to avoid 
obeying the law. This is the court of last request. This body should 
not dignify this request. This body should turn down this request in 
the name of decency, in the name of this institution. This is so far 
out of the realm of responsibility it should not even befoul the 
aisles, befoul the aisles of this Congress, that this man would come 
here in the name of his not wanting to obey the law, to desecrate the 
redwoods, to desecrate forest practices, to desecrate these lands.
  No, that should not be allowed. And when we talk about private 
property, let us talk about the small businessman in terms of the 
fisherman, the people that are fishing off of your coast and my coast, 
because when this man gets done logging on the streams, the salmon 
fisheries go to hell. What about those small business people? It is all 
entertwined. That is why it is called an ecosystem. That is why we are 
using Federal, State, and private lands to share the burden, to share 
the burden.
  This is not the answer. This is wrong, it was wrong when it was 
introduced in the committee, and it was wrong when it has been brought 
to this floor, and it is wrong that you should have to take your time 
with it. Because this is not fair to the people in Oregon and 
Washington and California who are playing by the rules, the people who 
are trying to amend their practices.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has expired.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. COOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Dicks amendment. I do not know what is 
happening in this debate. We seem to be off on an individual. We are 
not talking about the masses, the little people involved in this 
process. For too long private property owners of America have been 
asked to sacrifice property for government ventures. Nameless faces, 
bureaucrats who believe in quasi-science instead of sound principles, 
have trampled all over the constitutional guarantee of just 
compensation for the land that is taken for public use. This has to 
end.
  In my 18 months in Congress, I have been astounded by the number of 
people who believe that all America's land

[[Page H6571]]

is theirs for the taking. How far has this gone? It has gone too far. 
We are involved in a debate now, we are talking about an individual in 
California. Let us talk about the little people in California and also 
in Oregon that have done nothing wrong. If somebody has done something 
wrong, let us get some legislation to punish them, but let us not 
punish the other people involved in this process by masking it to the 
point of where we are going to take the land away from the little 
people because we have somebody big who may or may not have done 
something wrong.

  This bill contains commonsense language to protect the private 
property that the Government is asking to set aside for the marbled 
murrelet habitat. This provision only relates to 1 percent of all the 
area designated as critical habitat. Unfortunately, the opponents of 
this provision feel there is no such thing as private property. This is 
a radical measure. The private property in question is northern 
California, southernmost tip of the marbled murrelet migration.
  With 4 million acres set aside for critical habitat in Oregon, in 
Washington, and California, is 1 percent of the habitat, the 
southernmost tip of the bird's migration, going to change anything? Not 
at all. I do not think so, especially when you consider the murrelet is 
mostly found in Canada and Alaska. What the opponent of private 
property rights ought to do is petition the Canadian Government to set 
aside millions of acres of land in their country for this critical 
habitat.
  But, again, maybe they think that the bird simply stops at the 
border. It is the time for Congress to stand up and protect private 
property rights and not allow this discussion to focus on one 
individual who may or may not have had a problem. But think about the 
thousands and literally hundreds of small families as we have seen by 
the example that are being adversely affected by this piece of 
legislation.
  I oppose the Dicks amendment.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dicks-Stark amendment, and I 
want to salute them for offering it. It would strike the language from 
this Interior bill which obviously I think has been established in the 
debate so far will harm the marbled murrelet.
  The bill prohibits the expenditure of funds to protect this 
endangered species that nests in the Head Waters Forest in California.
  As a Californian, I rise in support of the amendment. How dare anyone 
try to pluck out the jewels in the crown of our State? Why does this 
bill give special treatment to one timber company at the expense of 
this endangered species and the Endangered Species Act?
  The U.S. District Court in California has already stopped Pacific 
Lumber. Maybe the other side should have called this the Pacific Lumber 
amendment. The U.S. District Court in California already stopped 
Pacific Lumber from cutting crucial sections of this bird's habitat, 
because Pacific Lumber refused to comply with the Endangered Species 
Act. So it is not the Endangered Species Act that should be coming 
under the hammer today, it is Pacific Lumber. Now Pacific Lumber is 
asking the Congress to reverse that decision. Members, make no mistake 
about it. That is what the attempt is here today. I want to repeat 
that: Now Pacific Lumber is asking the Congress to reverse the court's 
decision.
  Why are we being asked to reverse this decision? Because 1 percent of 
the marbled murrelet's total critical habitat designated by the Fish 
and Wildlife Service is on private lands in Washington, Oregon, and 
California.
  Pacific Lumber is concerned that they will not be able to continue 
logging their logging activities in the area. Importantly, and this is 
something that every Member should listen to, a critical habitat 
designation does not in and of itself prevent logging or other 
activity; it simply triggers a process to ensure that any activity in 
the area does not adversely modify the habitat. That is a reasonable 
approach. I want to repeat that, that is a reasonable approach. There 
is nothing farfetched or off the ranch about this. It is a reasonable 
approach.
  Where there were once 60,000 marbled murrelets there are now only 
2,000 to 5,000. Commercial logging has destroyed 95 percent of this 
nesting habitat. I think we have the responsibility to protect 
threatened and endangered species. They are a part of the cycle of our 
life. They are a part of the cycle of our life that God has given to 
us. It is not for us to desecrate, it is not for us to use up. The 
Riggs language in the Interior appropriations bill would doom this 
coastal bird forever, and I urge my colleagues to support the Dicks-
Stark amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to strike language 
from the Interior bill which will harm the marbled murrelet.
  This bill prohibits the expenditure of funds to protect the 
threatened marbled murrelet, a sea bird that nests in the Head Waters 
Forest in California.
  Why does this bill give special treatment to one timber company at 
the expense of the marbled murrelet and the Endangered Species Act? The 
U.S. District Court in California has already stopped Pacific Lumber 
from cutting crucial sections of this bird's habitat because Pacific 
Lumber refused to comply with the Endangered Species Act.
  Now Pacific Lumber is asking the Congress to reverse that decision.
  And why are we being asked to reverse this decision? Because 1 
percent of the marbled murrellet's total critical habitat designated by 
the Fish and Wildlife Service is on private lands in Washington, 
Oregon, and California. Pacific Lumber is concerned that they won't be 
able continue logging activities in the area.
  Importantly, a critical habitat designation does not, in and of 
itself, prevent logging or other activity--it simply triggers a process 
to ensure that any activity in the area does not adversely modify the 
habitat. That's a reasonable approach.
  Mr. Chairman, where there were once 60,000 marbled murrelets, there 
are now only 2,000 to 5,000. Commercial logging has destroyed 95 
percent of their nesting habitat.
  We have a responsibility to protect threatened and endangered 
species--they are part of our cycle of life. The Riggs language in the 
Interior appropriations bill could doom this coastal sea bird forever. 
I urge my colleagues to support the Dicks amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to my colleagues the 
reason that critical habitat was designated on private lands, and, by 
the way, in Washington, Oregon, and northern California it was only 1 
percent of the lands, and it is because suitable nesting habitat on 
Pacific Lumber Co. lands in Humboldt County is the only available 
nesting habitat for the southern portion of zone 4. It is imperative to 
protect marbled murrelet habitat on corporate forest lands in northern 
California, because these lands provide a biological link for the 
murrelet populations between Redwood National Park to the north and the 
State redwood parks to the south. This is not being done in any mean-
spirited way. It is being done to protect the marbled murrelet.
  I was somewhat amazed by my friend from California suggesting that 
the murrelet, because it is surviving in Alaska, that we are not 
concerned about it. You have to understand under the law we have to 
protect these species throughout their range, and that is why you have 
got to protect them in northern California, Oregon, Washington, and 
Alaska. That is our law.
  I would say to my colleague from Alaska, he is chairman of the 
committee. We have been waiting for him to come out with his amended 
bill. I understand that maybe the leadership on the majority side has 
had second thoughts about it, but I got to tell you this: To get up 
here today and say unequivocally that he does not support the 
Endangered Species Act I think is shocking. The Endangered Species Act 
is important to the future of this country, it is important to our 
biological diversity, it is important to the future of mankind. I think 
that we ought to think very, very carefully here today about a special 
exemption.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the comments of 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] because this is the point I 
made earlier today. The gentleman claims that we have to have this 1 
percent of private property to preserve the critical habitat for the 
murrelet toward the southern range of its existence.

[[Page H6572]]

  But I want to point out again, 693,000 acres, 693,000 acres in 
Humboldt, Del Norte, and Mendocino Counties have been designated 
critical habitat, and almost all of that is on public lands, my 
colleagues. It is on public land. The Six Rivers National Forest, the 
Redwood National Park, the King Ranch National Conservation Area, and 
parcels of Bureau of Land Management land. In addition, 175,000 acres 
of State land, including the State redwood parks, the Sinkonyone 
Wilderness State Park, and some Mendocino coastal parks. What we are 
talking about here now is 29,000 acres owned by Pacific Lumber Co. and 
another 8,000 acres, smaller parcels, owned by nine other private 
property owners.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we have heard it 
represented and a number of very unkind things have been said about Mr. 
Hurwitz. I have never met Mr. Hurwitz. So I find it fascinating to see 
such intensity coming out of the other side. When Mr. Riggs' 
predecessor offered the amendment 2 years ago on the Head Waters, we 
were going to spend $1 billion, and you all voted to pay Mr. Hurwitz $1 
billion for some 56,000 acres. That was OK, because that is more 
Government land, and that is a positive good.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, did I 
understand the gentleman correctly to say that in the last Congress my 
predecessor, Congressman Dan Hamburg, offered a bill that would have 
authorized Federal taxpayers to spend up to $1 billion to acquire 
56,000 acres of productive timber land?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. That is exactly what I said.
  Mr. RIGGS. And the two gentlemen from California who have been most 
outspoken, Mr. Stark and Mr. Miller, voted for that bill?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. That is my understanding.
  Mr. RIGGS. That sounds like a bailout for Charles Hurwitz.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. That was a bailout for Charles Hurwitz. That was OK in 
that day. Today Mr. Hurwitz is the subject of attack. I fought Mr. 
Hamburg on this, by the way.
  I just want to point out when you want to shoot the rich, Mr. 
Hurwitz, it is the working person that takes the bullet. Here is a book 
on the Pacific Lumber Co. You heard they now have 1,600 employees, up 
by over 500 from when the merger occurred. You have the Blakeleys and 
the Andersons. You have the Phillips, a number of people, a whole book. 
These are flesh and blood people that work for a living. They are not 
the Fortune 500.

                              {time}  1615

  They are people that get up every morning and go to work and they are 
thankful they have a job. And this mean-spirited attack is going to 
basically throw these people out of work, just as has happened in my 
district with the shutting down of timber, and in the district of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] as well as the district of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], and a number of districts 
throughout the Northwest.
  And here the Clinton administration comes again. They are everybody's 
friend. Just like they did in their great timber summit, we lost two-
thirds of the timber jobs; and with their growth proposal, we went to 
four-fifths of the jobs that were lost. I do not want that to happen to 
this area. These people are too important.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is seeking to exempt only 1 
percent of the territory. And do not believe these representations that 
this is to get at Mr. Hurwitz for all those supposedly terrible things 
he has done. We are seeking to protect private property rights, the six 
ranches which are important.
  They want to talk about Mr. Hurwitz and get the focus off the six 
ranches, the people who do not have the attorneys or the money for the 
attorneys and the accountants and so forth to do these habitat 
conservation plans. These are the people we seek to protect. And, yes, 
we seek to protect the employees in Mr. Hurwitz' company.
  Mr. Hurwitz is wealthy. He will continue to be wealthy whatever 
happens on the floor today, but these people, when they are out of a 
job, will be on welfare and we do not want that. I strongly urge 
Members to defeat the Dicks amendment.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must admonish our guests in the gallery not 
to show demonstrations with applause.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say to my two colleagues over 
there, there is a way for Mr. Hurwitz to get a certain program where he 
can continue to harvest on his entire property, and that is to do a 
multispecies HCP like every other responsible timber company is doing 
in the Northwest. But he will not do it because he wants to get special 
legislation either to exempt him or he wants to take it to court and 
raise a taking.
  The reason this land is so important on this private property is 
because it has got the most nesting murrelets in the entire northern 
California area. That is why the judge, the scientists and everyone 
else said it is critical habitat and that is why we have to protect it.
  Now, that makes sense to me, and I appreciate the gentlewoman's 
yielding.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] is fighting for 10 individuals in his district. 
I think that is fine, but I am here to speak for thousands, thousands 
of people in Oregon, in Washington, and in California who depend for 
their livelihood on fishing. I am not going to use my own words, I will 
use the words of a man who is very well respected, Mr. Glen Spain, who 
represents the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen, and I quote:

       We urge you, on behalf of the commercial fishing industry, 
     to oppose the Riggs rider and support stripping it out of the 
     bill.

  They go on to say:

       Anything that delays ESA-mandated recovery of the marbled 
     murrelet is a direct threat to our industry and tens of 
     thousands of coastal and inland jobs that we provide.

  Mr. Spain goes on to say:

       The amendment, the Riggs amendment, is counterproductive, 
     shortsighted, and will ultimately delay the steps necessary 
     to minimize landowner impacts, not assist landowners in the 
     long run.

  Critical habitat designation does not stop logging activities on 
private land; it only assures that the impact on the murrelet is 
considered and assessed. Critical habitat only directly impacts 
Federal, not private, actions.
  Now, Mr. Spain goes on to say, remembering he represents thousands of 
fishermen:

       If Congress wants to minimize the impact of this listing on 
     our industries, Congress would be working towards a speedier 
     designation of critical habitat, far more recovery funding, 
     and for better science, not the reverse. We therefore urge 
     you, on behalf of the fishing industry and the hundreds of 
     thousands of jobs that we represent, to vote against the 
     Riggs amendment and vote to strip it from the funding bill.

  I agree, Mr. Chairman, that they are supporting thousands and 
thousands of jobs, and that is why I urge my colleagues, because of the 
Oregon, Washington, and California fishermen, to support the Dicks 
amendment, support private property rights, support jobs.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman continue to yield?
  Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman tell me where that 
gentleman that wrote the letter is from?
  Ms. FURSE. The gentleman is the Northwest regional office 
representative. Now, they have offices in Sausalito, CA; El Granada, 
CA; Mendocino, CA; and Eugene, OR; and they do indeed represent the 
fishermen of the Nation.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, 
and I have a copy of the same letter. And just to respond to the 
gentleman's question, he has clearly checked the box that says Eugene, 
OR, on the correspondence, so he is from Eugene, OR.
  I want to make one other point the gentlewoman skipped over in 
quoting from the letter. The author says:

       The marbled murrelet is a sea bird which is also of great 
     concern to fishermen because under the ESA our industry must 
     go to extraordinary and sometimes expensive

[[Page H6573]]

     lengths to avoid even accidental ``take'' of the bird in 
     commercial fishing gear.

  It is my understanding that murrelets are dying in fishing nets. And 
if we take the gentlewoman's logic out to its logical extension, 
perhaps we should ban commercial fishing because it is bad for 
murrelets.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
the gentleman is worried, the fisherman is worried that if we take the 
Riggs approach, instead of being threatened, the species will be 
endangered and there will be even more onerous restrictions put on the 
fisherman. That is why he is worried, because it has an adverse effect 
on that whole segment of the economy if it is endangered.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, those are thousands of 
small, small businesses who have this. They are willing to go to the 
length of protecting the marbled murrelet, but they see no reason why 
one or two or maybe even ten companies should be relieved of that, that 
burden. They say, let us share the burden, let us not just have the 
fishermen carry the burden. Let us share it, as private property owners 
across my State, the gentleman's State and Washington State are 
prepared to do.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Dicks amendment and 
rise in strong support of the Riggs language adopted by the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  I think finally, after we sift out the debate that has gone on today, 
and some of it, admittedly, has been quite mean-spirited, we finally 
find out that they let the cat out of the bag, and the fact is that 
some people are mad at a California timber company. So we are really 
going to show them. We are going to get the Fish and Wildlife Service 
after them, and we are going to list a bird that spends most of its 
life at sea.
  Its nesting habitat is in Alaska and Canada, but we are going to fix 
this timber company. We will list some bird and we will take their 
land, and, oh, by the way, we are going to take several other farmers' 
land, and it makes no difference if we throw them out of an income.
  I have sat by and I have listened for years to these dulcet, round, 
pear-shaped tones about how we can work with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service on establishing critical habitat on an individual's land. Well, 
just ask my people in Idaho or the people west of the 100th meridian 
how much the Fish and Wildlife Service works with private owners on the 
designation of private land for critical habitat.
  Mr. Chairman, it simply does not work that way. Ask the hundreds of 
thousands of people who have been thrown out of work or had their 
businesses totally diminished because of listing of endangered species.
  I think this has gone for enough, and I think that there are 
appropriate prosecuting attorneys who can certainly, if there is a 
valid case here against this lumber company, can certainly go after the 
lumber company. But we do not use the listing of an endangered species 
to go after a lumber company. That is a complete distortion of this 
system. I am thoroughly disgusted with it and I think we need to 
strongly support the Riggs language.
  In addition to my support, the National Association of Realtors 
support the Riggs language and his position, and the Farm Bureau, the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Forest and Paper Association all 
support the Riggs position.
  I urge opposition to the Dicks amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Washington, Representative Dicks, and the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Stark.
  My friends, we must correct the terrible provision included in this 
bill, a poison pill that will destroy the magnificent headwaters forest 
of northern California. By stripping the endangered species critical 
habitat designation from 37,000 acres of forest, the Riggs provision 
will allow logging to begin at will, logging in a pristine old growth 
forest which is home to many precious species, including a rare sea 
bird and the dwindling coho salmon.
  The Riggs provision would lead to the extinction of the marbled 
murrelet, which, in California, has seen a population decline from over 
60,000 birds to fewer than 5,000 today. These birds nest in the 
headwaters forest and rely on critical habitat designation for their 
survival.
  The Riggs provision also threatens the endangered coho salmon. Mr. 
Chairman, the headwaters is home to some of the last coho salmon runs 
in California. If we do not pass the Dicks amendment, the murrelet and 
the coho could be gone forever.
  Preserving these species is crucial not only to our ecosystem but to 
the commercial fishing industry in my district and in the district of 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] as well. Under the Riggs 
provision, fishermen will see their salmon catch continue to decline 
and, eventually, die.
  We must ask why. Why are we asked to swallow this poison pill, a 
poison pill which may send rare species into extinction? The 
unbelievable answer, Mr. Chairman, is for a special interest giveaway 
to Pacific Lumber. This is simply outrageous and it is not acceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of northern California and the Pacific 
Northwest know that we can successfully balance our environmental 
protection and economic growth. They are ready to work together on a 
common solution to our region's problems. The Riggs provision, however, 
leaves them out of the process, and in so doing, would set a disturbing 
precedent for our future and for our environment.
  We do not want the headwaters forest to be destroyed. We do not want 
the Endangered Species Act and the Pacific Northwest forest plan to be 
undermined, and we are amazed that this is proposed in the first place, 
proposed for the sake of corporate special interests.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not what the doctor ordered. We must refuse to 
swallow this poison pill and vote for the Dicks-Stark amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's yielding to 
me.
  It is not like there is not a way for Pacific Lumber to deal with the 
Federal Government on this issue. They have sat down, but they have 
never negotiated in good faith to get a habitat conservation plan. Now, 
under a habitat conservation plan, they get 100 years of certainty 
about harvesting timber on their lands, and for that they give some 
protection to those species on the lands. Most of the protection for 
species in the Northwest will be done on Federal lands, so this is the 
constructive thing to do.
  Companies in my State of Washington, Weyerhaeuser, Plum Creek, Murray 
Pacific, ITT, right here, all have worked out their problems with the 
Federal Government and the Fish and Wildlife Service in a negotiated 
settlement. But, again, Pacific Lumber has refused to do that, and it 
is because they think that either by going to court and filing a taking 
suit or by coming to Congress that they can get legislation enacted 
that takes away their responsibility. Every other company out there is 
doing this. We have never done this before under the Endangered Species 
Act, and I think it would be a terrible precedent to set.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman's support of my amendment, and I hope 
that we can pass it here today.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, before the gentlewoman from California walks 
off the floor, I want to point out that she obviously did not read the 
bill, because on page 47 of the bill, section 116, beginning at line 3, 
we have the language of my amendment, and it says:

       None of the funds made available in this act may be used by 
     the Department of the Interior to continue or enforce the 
     designation of any critical habitat for the marbled murrelet 
     on private property in the State of California, excluding 
     approximately 3,000 acres of redwood forest commonly known as 
     ``Headwaters Grove'', located in Humboldt County, California.

[[Page H6574]]

                              {time}  1630

  The gentlewoman, of course, insisted on using the Headwaters Forest 
as a reference throughout her remarks.
  Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, I believe that the gentleman points 
out that the portion of this private property that was supposedly the 
ancient forest, the headwaters, redwood, the big redwood trees, is 
specifically exempted from the amendment that was adopted in committee. 
We have been talking about that on and off during this debate. But it 
was specifically exempted in committee.
  Here we go again. I think that this debate has been very, very 
instructive. It really does outline what the debate has been over the 
Endangered Species Act over the past several years. That is what we 
want to use as the Endangered Species Act, which is supposed to protect 
fish and wildlife from becoming extinct. We want to use that to 
accomplish other goals. We have heard that we wanted to use it to 
accomplish something that the fishing industry wants. But more 
importantly, we have heard it said that we want to use the Endangered 
Species Act to punish this particular company, that we want to go after 
this company and punish them for whatever transgressions they have 
committed over the years, whatever it is, real or imagined that they 
may have done. We want to use the Endangered Species Act to achieve 
that goal.

  This entire listing of putting the marbled murrelet as threatened has 
been politically driven from the very beginning. I would like to read 
one thing here out of something that the Defenders of Wildlife has sent 
out, and my colleagues on the other side have used this extensively in 
their prepared floor statements. It says the marbled murrelets 
population in California, believed to have been about 60,000, is now 
estimated to be between 2,000 and 5,000 individuals.
  One of the problems on this listing was the fact that Fish and 
Wildlife could not count the marbled murrelets. They had a real tough 
time counting them. They could not find the nests. They resorted to 
trying to count them as they would go out into the ocean to feed. They 
had a real tough time counting them. Yet today it is presented as fact 
that at one time, sometime in ancient history, we had 60,000 marbled 
murrelets in northern California because the Defenders of Wildlife put 
it in their piece of paper that they sent out. Even though they cannot 
count them today, in today's time they cannot count them, they have a 
tough time finding them, but somehow it is presented as fact that at 
some point they had that number.
  Furthermore, this map here that I would like to bring to my 
colleagues' attention points out the land patterns in northern 
California, in this one particular section. The brown and purple areas 
represent publicly owned lands. We can see that the vast majority of 
this area is publicly owned. There is no doubt about it. But they went 
in here to this area and picked out one particular section of ground 
that they were going to go after, which just happens to be the land 
that is predominantly owned by one timber company. It also involves 
nine other private property owners, nine other small individuals, but 
they went after that one particular piece of land to further their 
agenda of trying to punish this one person.
  They have been trying for years to get this piece of property. They 
were never able to get it through legislation, through buying it, 
through anything that they ever tried. So they resorted to the Federal 
Government's trump card, the Endangered Species Act. You find an 
endangered species, you get it on the list, somehow, some way, even if 
you have to use trumped up science to do it, even if you have to make 
things up, you get it on the list and then you go after the property, 
because that is the one thing that you can do, is to use the Endangered 
Species Act.
  Unfortunately, my time has expired.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman that the 
reason that the habitat has been, that this area was designated is 
because it is where the murrelets are living. It is their habitat. 
There are the old-growth trees. This is where they reproduce. It is not 
any vendetta or trying to get somebody. It is because that is where the 
species exist, that is where their habitat exists.
  What I would say to the gentleman from California, when we cut the 
habitat down, the species populations go down. They have been going 
down at 6 to 8 percent per year. If we do not stop it, then we are 
going to lose that species in that particular area.
  So I just wanted to point this out to my friend. This is no vendetta. 
This is trying to do what the law that Congress passed said we should 
do. That is to protect these species throughout their range.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment by the 
gentleman from Washington. I could not agree more with his words that 
are still echoing in this Chamber, that this is not to punish any 
single company. Indeed, I am concerned about the tenor here that sort 
of makes a cartoon process out of rules and regulations that a number 
of responsible timber owners in the Northwest are working with us to 
try and deal with the issues of environmental protection.
  It is not about a handful of small property owners, as has been 
repeatedly documented throughout the course of this conversation. It 
is, rather, for the overwhelming benefit of the single large property 
owner.
  It is not about using a process against somebody. This is what other 
companies are, in fact, doing. They have learned to use abitat 
protection plans and, in fact, even light-end timber companies are, in 
fact, advertising that point to their customers throughout the 
Northwest. To observe that there is no science involved when, in fact, 
what we are giving is a political fix to solve the problem primarily of 
one large owner really stretches credibility here in this regard.
  If we adopt this approach, what we are suggesting to people is, 
rather than working in a cooperative fashion under the framework of the 
law, seek a political fix. Rather than working with the Government, 
with other landowners, with environmentally concerned citizens, seek a 
political fix. And if this political fix fails and, in fact, it goes 
through the progression of increased requirements for protection, what 
we will, in fact, have ended up doing is putting an even greater burden 
on the responsible private owners who have been playing by the rules 
because they are going to have to pick up the slack if it fails.

  This Riggs proposal is a blow against cooperation and voluntary 
compliance. It sends the message to go to Congress to circumvent the 
laws. It is the wrong message to business. It is the wrong message to 
the environment, and it suggests that we are turning our backs on 
people who are committed to keep and improve our environmental 
protections.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continued to yield, on 
this one point about this vendetta, here is a letter written by David 
E. Blockstein, Ph.D. and Chair of the Ornithological Society:

       As the umbrella organization representing this Nation's 
     5000 ornithologists and students of bird life, the 
     Ornithological Council recognizes that we all have to play 
     our part if our wildlife resources are to survive in the 21st 
     century. Our members have spent many thousands of hours 
     studying endangered and threatened species like the marbled 
     murrelet. Much of this time has been contributed on a 
     voluntary basis. The central finding of this work is that 
     without habitat, our wildlife will not survive.
       Critical habitat designation is important because it 
     provides direction to the Fish and Wildlife Service, if a 
     private landowner applies for a Federal permit, such as an 
     incidental take permit. By itself, critical habitat 
     designation does not restrict action to the landowner. The 
     Fish and Wildlife Service designates Federal lands for 
     critical habitat first and will only designate private land 
     as critical habitat if Federal lands are insufficient as in 
     the case in northern California. If anything, the Fish and 
     Wildlife Service has been too cautious when it comes to 
     identifying critical habitat on nonFederal lands.
       The Riggs rider is wrong for the following reasons: By 
     depriving the government of one of its most important tools 
     in species protection, it drives up the cost of recovering 
     the marbled murrelet and increases the probability of 
     extinction.
       The Riggs rider sets a dangerous precedent that could be 
     used to harm the recovery of other species.

[[Page H6575]]

       Other States in the Pacific northwest and elsewhere have 
     learned to live with the law and are trying to protect their 
     wildlife species. It would be unfair to exempt northern 
     California.
       Other Members of Congress have avoided legislating through 
     appropriations riders; Congressman Riggs should not have 
     special privileges.
       Please vote to delete the Riggs rider from the interior 
     appropriations bill. David E. Blockstein, Chairman of the 
     Ornithological Council.

  That is not politicians speaking. Those are some of the Nation's 
finest scientists.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to our new 
colleague from Oregon and our good friend from Washington, the sponsor 
of this amendment. I listened with interest to the letter offered by 
the gentleman from the ornithological association.
  I stand here in the well today representing the people of the Sixth 
District of Arizona, many of whom feel they are voiceless and powerless 
against an onslaught that is ofttimes offered in moderate tones, with 
the occasional playground taunt or the demonization of one personality.
  In stark contrast to the assertion of my new colleague from Oregon, I 
would commend to him the words of my good friend, the ranking member 
from the Committee on Resources on his side of the aisle, who 
absolutely, tooth and nail, went after a private citizen for the sin of 
operating a company that provides jobs and, dare I say the word, yes, 
``profits.'' But what we have to ask, Mr. Chairman, is this question, 
What is reasonable? What is fair?
  Again, despite the letters, despite the playground taunts, despite 
the venom and vitriol, here are the facts. Take a look at the ownership 
of the acreage for this critical habitat designation, 2.9 million acres 
belong to the Federal Government; 706,000 acres belong to the State 
government; only 48,000 acres are private.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a fair question to ask, Is it not reasonable to 
allow a true balance to exist, to let the fragile rural economies and 
the very downtrodden that side of the aisle purports to champion keep 
their jobs and their way of life? When, oh when, will we speak up for 
the disenfranchised who do not have the glitz and glamour of the 
Hollywood crowd on their side but a simple plea and request: Let us 
keep our jobs. Let us keep our way of life because we have an interest 
in the environment, too. We have an interest in seeing this society 
preserved and, yes, we love the true concept of conservation. Yes, that 
is an emotional plea backed up by a rational plea.
  Mr. Chairman, I would implore the Members of this minority to rise up 
against this amendment. It is unfair, it is unreasonable.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise in 
opposition to the Dicks amendment. It will undermine private property 
rights. It will harm resource protection and conservation. It will 
impose a Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all approach.
  If you support private property, resource protection and flexible 
commonsense regulation, you should reject this amendment. The amendment 
violates private property rights. Ninety-nine percent of the land for 
critical habitat of the marbled murrelet is on public lands. Only 1 
percent is on private property.

  The interior appropriations bill currently protects both the murrelet 
and the rights of private landowners. The amendment would undermine 
this careful balance. It would ignore and violate the constitutional 
rights of private landowners in California. That is why the amendment 
is opposed by the League of Private Property Voters.
  By violating private property rights, the amendment will undermine 
environmental protection. The private landowners in northern California 
are good environmental stewards. They have worked over generations, 
both to productively use their land and to protect their natural 
resources. The amendment will sabotage their efforts. It will convert 
resources from environmental assets into financial liabilities. In so 
doing, it will harm the very species it claims to help.
  One cannot protect species unless they work with landowners. The 
amendment punishes landowners for good environmental management.

                              {time}  1645

  By punishing landowners it harms species as well. If my colleagues 
are concerned about protecting the marbled murrelet, reject this 
amendment. The amendment rejects flexible regulation in favor of a 
Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all approach.
  The current bill recognizes the private land is different from public 
land, so it applies different approaches to protect the marbled 
murrelet on private and public lands. The amendment rejects this 
flexible, reasonable approach. Instead it imposes a command and 
control, one-size-fits-all approach on all property regardless of who 
owns it.
  If we really believe in commonsense regulation, if we really believe 
and support flexibility, if we really believe that the era of big 
government is over, as the President tells us, we must reject this 
amendment. Protect the environment, secure private property rights, 
ensure flexibility. Reject one-size-fits-all, Washington knows best, 
and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I apologize for speaking on this amendment because I 
have not been on the floor during most of the debate, and undoubtedly 
at least some, if not most, of what I say will be repetitious. I had 
intended to participate, and only because I was in a markup was I not 
able to be here.
  The point that I would like to make is that what the Riggs amendment 
does is intervene in the processes of an ongoing court case which has 
halted the logging on the property that is a subject of discussion 
here, and through the enactment of this legislation the processes of 
the court would be circumvented. Normally speaking, the Congress is 
reluctant to do this kind of thing, and I do not quite understand why 
they would be doing it in this particular situation.
  Now I did hear the emotional remarks of our good friend from Arizona 
a few moments ago about how it was important to preserve the jobs and 
the profits created by the owner of this property who is doing so much 
for the economics of the United States. I think this is the same 
gentleman who presided over the bankruptcy of the sixth largest savings 
and loans in the United States which cost the taxpayers a billion and a 
half dollars. I cannot quite get so emotional about his claims to be 
providing this great civic service by overlogging the redwoods of 
northern California. Now I admit that he has a right to use his 
property in accordance with reasonable public standards, but I do not 
think he has a right to be proud of the great service he is doing until 
I can understand a little better why he was unable to conduct a 
successful savings and loan business to begin with.
  Now we have this endangered species problem in southern California. 
It does not involve the forests. We have the kangaroo rat, the Delhi 
sand fly, a number of other things that the developers hate, but we 
learned to love them and to live with them in the same fashion that the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has described in the Northwest. 
Basically the major developers and the private property owners have 
agreed that a simple device of multiple species habitat protection, 
worked out with the support and help of the local government, or the 
State government as the case may be, is the logical approach both to 
protecting private property rights and to preserving species.
  Now if my colleagues do not agree it is useful to preserve endangered 
species, of course this kind of approach will not appeal to them very 
much. But I think that it would be unwise to publicly, take the 
position that our society is entitled to wipe out any species that it 
likes. I just do not think that will sell.
  Now we have to this with good judgment, we have to respect property 
rights, we have to protect those who suffer a loss as a result of 
protecting endangered species. We try and do this in accordance with 
the normal workings of law, and I think this is the course we ought to 
continue to follow.

[[Page H6576]]

  I think this amendment introduced by my good friend from northern 
California, Mr. Riggs, to circumvent judicial processes, to secure 
special treatment for a rather small number of people, including the 
gentleman that we have been talking about, is really not the operation 
of law but an effort to circumvent the normal processes of our society, 
and I support the amendment to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Dicks].
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Dicks amendment to 
strike language added to the Interior appropriations bill which will 
allow the Pacific Lumber Co. to circumvent the Endangered Species Act 
on most of the land contained in the Headwaters Forest. This provision, 
which was added by the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], would 
prohibit the Department of Interior from enforcing the designation of 
critical habitat for the marbled murrelet on lands exclusively within 
his district.
  The Headwaters Forest is the largest remaining property owned old 
growth redwood forest in the world. It hosts numerous species, 
including the murrelet and the coho salmon. Now Congress is planning to 
provide a special exemption for Pacific Lumber--a company that has 
demonstrated reckless logging practices within the Headwaters Forest.

  For over 100 years Pacific Lumber was owned by a company that 
operated under model sustainable logging practices. Well, as many of my 
colleagues know, in 1986, Charles Hurwitz orchestrated a hostile 
takeover of the Pacific Lumber Co., primarily through junk bonds. In 
the wake of the takeover, Hurwitz's United Savings Association of Texas 
failed, costing the taxpayers $1.6 billion. It was the sixth largest 
savings and loan failure in U.S. history.
  Currently there are FDIC and OTS suits pending against Mr. Hurwitz 
and Maxxam Corp., which owns Pacific Lumber.
  Pacific Lumber furiously increased the rate of logging in the 
Headwaters Forest, tripling the logging of redwood, especially old 
growth trees. After nearly exhausting the resources of this forest and 
facing numerous lawsuits and court orders to halt its destructive 
practices, Pacific Lumber laid off 105 workers.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service recently designated lands as critical 
habitat for the marbled murrelet, and only 1 percent is privately 
owned. Only those lands that contain individual mature or old growth 
trees with occupied or potential nesting sites are included. Critical 
habitat is essential to protect enough area for the species to expand 
its range and recover to healthy population levels. A lengthy review 
and public comment period preceded the designation of the critical 
habitat. Based on that public comment, the boundaries were reduced from 
the 1995 proposal.
  Through this provision, the Pacific Lumber Co. is merely trying to 
circumvent a Federal court order that halted logging in crucial 
sections of the habitat until a sufficient Habitat Conservation Plan 
has been completed. While I understand the concerns of the gentleman 
from California, I feel this exemption is irresponsible, and completely 
lacking any scientific justification, and I urge my colleagues to 
eliminate it by passing the Dicks amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's support and 
again reiterate what underlies what the gentleman said. All the company 
has to do is go and sit down with the Fish and Wildlife Service. They 
work out a multispecies habitat conservation plan, and it takes some 
work to do it, there is no doubt about it, but there is a lawful way 
for them to have certainty, to protect the jobs, and that is what most 
responsible companies would do.
  But to come here with this amendment which undermines a court 
decision, undermines the Endangered Species Act and frankly is 
inappropriate on this particular bill, I just think is a mistake, and I 
appreciate the gentleman's support.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] and I are 
often together in many areas, and I find that today we do oppose each 
other. I support the Riggs proposition that was put into the committee.
  First of all, we need to look at the Endangered Species Act itself, 
and we should not be doing that quite vigorously in committee. The act 
was passed some years ago with the intent of not killing endangered 
species, of not destroying, going in and physically destroying those 
species. We got to the regulations. It turned out to be, after the 
regulations were completed, not to disturb the habitat of that species. 
Now that is broad as the whole world.
  It is a long way from California to North Carolina, but in North 
Carolina we found the red cockaded woodpecker landing on a gentleman's 
land that by all the authorities, both regulators and nonregulators, 
was being managed in a businesslike, a professional and environmental 
way. There was 8,000 acres of land, and he won awards in doing it. The 
red cockaded woodpecker landed on it, built a nest, and in order to 
keep from disturbing the woodpeckers' habitat, they took a thousand 
acres of this land, set it aside. He could no longer harvest timber. He 
really could not do anything with it much. He went ahead and started 
harvesting the other 7,000 because he did not know when seven of the 
cousins of the red cockaded woodpecker might come over and take the 
rest of his land.
  Now we do not know, and we did not know at that time, whether or not 
the red cockaded woodpecker was endangered at that time simply because 
the man manages land, harvests it, grazes it and so forth, but that was 
not the question. It was determined by the bureaucracy that it would 
disturb the habitat.
  Now in the Pacific Northwest with the spotted owl we found that 
thousands of people were put out of work, we found that private 
property rights were taken in order to protect the owl. Some years ago 
I went out on a tour of the area. We found plenty of owls. We found 
finally that the owl probably was miscounted, that there were a lot 
more spotted owls than we thought. In fact they were quite more 
adaptable. We found them nesting in Kmart signs. So they had adjusted 
to their habitat pretty well. But that did not stop the fact that we 
destroyed tens of thousands of jobs in the Pacific Northwest and 
endangered private property rights.

  Now let us look at the marbled murrelet and see whether or not we are 
talking about really the destruction of the marbled murrelet by setting 
aside this 1 percent. I was on the Interior Committee in question; the 
scientists coming in.
  First of all, the marbled murrelet most of its life nests in the 
Aleutian Islands. There are no trees in the Aleutian Islands. So if it 
has to have trees, I asked the scientists, why, how did it get along in 
the Aleutians? They said it adapts. Well, precisely.
  Most of the land of the nesting areas is along the coast, is already 
protected, so the seafaring marbled murrelet has habitat to come in and 
nest in in the coast. The 1 percent that we are talking about may not 
even be necessary at all.
  In fact, if the 99 percent of public land that we now set aside is 
not enough to protect the marbled murrelet, why do we think 1 more 
percent of private property is absolutely essential to that at all, and 
there is no reason to say that we are going to destroy the marbled 
murrelet, even though its numbers may be decreasing, by defeating the 
Riggs position and taking this private property.
  The only thing we know for certain is that we are treading on private 
property rights each time someone puts forth one of the 5,000, one of 
the 5,000 endangered species, and there are 5,000 out there endangered 
or listing. We can shut down the entire United States any time we want 
to put any of those endangered species forward, as we have the spotted 
owl, or as we have done with the marbled murrelet. We have to get some 
sense back into our Endangered Species Act, and we must stop taking 
people's private property under the guise of protecting endangered 
spices when there is very little scientific evidence at all.

[[Page H6577]]

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, I would think the 
gentleman would be up here applauding the Fish and Wildlife Service for 
keeping the designation of critical habitat down to 1 percent of the 
land, 48,000 acres, Washington, Oregon, and northern California, and 
only in those areas where the recovery plan states that there is no 
Federal lands or there is no State lands to designate, and it happens 
to be that this area, this 40,000 acre area in northern California, has 
the best old growth habitat and a large number of murrelets, and so 
they felt that there was no other way to protect the murrelet in that 
area and keep distribution of the species without protecting this area.
  And I would just point out even with the designation of critical 
habitat there really is no restriction. The company can go in and still 
get a habitat conservation plan, as the people of Georgia Pacific did 
very successfully on the red cockaded woodpecker.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Taylor] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Taylor of 
North Carolina was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman's courtesy. Is it really essential; in other words, is the 
marbled murrelet going to be destroyed if this 1 percent is not in? 
That would be the first question, and the second----
  Mr. DICKS. And the scientists have said that there is a greater risk 
of extinction if we do not protect it in this area, and that is why 
they said we have got to designate it as critical habitat.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. If that is absolutely essential, then 
have we considered the taking and compensating? We are considering the 
taking. Then can we consider the compensation of the individuals, not 
just this individual, but the other ranchers and other private property 
owners?
  Mr. DICKS. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] does not support 
this idea, so I do not know. I think we cannot do it, I guess. I would 
be perfectly willing to consider it.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this has been fairly thoroughly debated 
already. But one thing that has been, I think, given fairly short 
treatment is the question of fundamental equity between what is 
proposed to happen in California under the language of the gentleman 
from California and what is already the process for working out this 
same problem in the forests of Oregon and Washington. Questions of 
fundamental equity for the companies in those States that have gone the 
extra mile, have worked out with the government habitat conservation 
plans so as to avoid the proverbial train wreck. And I think it is very 
unfair to cut a special deal for this or any other particular company, 
given the efforts that are being made elsewhere in the Northwest to 
deal with this problem.
  Second, I hope we will not revert back to the form that unfortunately 
was all too often the case in dealing with appropriations bills, and 
particularly this appropriation bill, in the last session of this 
Congress, namely loading down this bill with ill-advised environmental 
riders that are a real invitation to legislative deadlock which we 
simply do not have time for this year in particular. I think it was a 
failed strategy both substantively and politically for the majority 
last year; it is not going to be any better this year.
  Finally, on the fundamental issue of the merits of the Endangered 
Species Act, Mr. Chairman, some very, very conservative and thoughtful 
scientists who work on environmental issues in my district have put the 
question to me about whether human activity has already made such 
changes in the natural environment on this planet that it may be beyond 
recovery.

                              {time}  1700

  Their answer to that question is we do not know yet. I think when we 
have doubts about that fundamental issue of whether human interference 
with natural systems may have put our survival in jeopardy, the 
question ought to arise whether we opt for a default position of 
further exploiting natural resources, or we opt for a default position 
of being very conservative about natural resources, including species, 
which are indicators of overall environmental health.
  As my friend and my predecessor in this job I think has very 
profoundly observed, ``the economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the 
environment.'' We forget that at our literal peril.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would again point out that there is a 
statement of the administration saying they strongly object to the 
language and provision concerning the designation of critical habitat 
to the endangered marbled murrelet on private lands in California. The 
provision adopted by the committee would adversely affect the 
administration's effort to achieve balanced implementation of the 
critical habitat designation for this species, and would set a 
dangerous and unsupportable precedent that would lead to costly and 
time-consuming litigation. I want the gentleman to know that the 
administration again strongly, as he knows, strongly opposes this 
rider.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Colorado, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for his amendment, 
and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] for his statement.
  The fact of the matter is, in this instance, this has been a 
longstanding problem. This new owner of this particular parcel of land 
knew when he bought this land what the laws were. This is not something 
that changed, in fact, during the course of his ownership. The interest 
here, of course, is a special interest amendment that is being offered 
to, in fact, increase the value of the land at the expense of the 
Endangered Species Act and at the expense of the laws of the land that 
we have.
  Is the Endangered Species Act perfect? No. Can it be improved upon? 
Yes. In a generic sense, I think it could. But to do it on this basis, 
with riders on appropriation bills for special interests, is 
inappropriate. I think the fact is that that law serves us pretty well 
if we look at all the resolution that has gone on. But if we are going 
to open the door up to special interest amendments, then we are going 
to find a disrespect for the laws of this land. That is what has 
happened.
  On the basis of anecdotal stories here, we have heard again about the 
spotted owl, about the marbled murrelet, on the basis of this. This is 
the rejection of science. This is not the acceptance of a sound science 
process on this House floor. It is rejecting the facts and putting in 
place the special interest. The hell with the facts, full speed ahead. 
That is what this amendment is: business as usual for the special 
interests. This amendment ought to be adopted and this measure pulled 
from this bill.
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman for his comments. It is a good 
reason to support the gentleman's amendments.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I worked with the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] 
on national security and a lot of different areas. I know he is not 
mean-spirited and I know he does not mean this amendment in that 
direction, but let me describe how I feel the gentleman is wrong in it, 
at the same time he is right. I think there needs to be a balance. This 
particular amendment I do not feel is a balance. Let me explain why.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have never met, and I do not know the 
gentleman with this particular company that the gentleman is talking 
about, and I do not really care about him. I know there are a lot of 
jobs at stake with it, and I know in the State of California and in the 
State of Oregon and in the State of Washington there have been 
thousands of jobs lost. We look at the individuals that you are

[[Page H6578]]

talking about and focusing on one gentleman.
  The things that the Democrat Party strives for, education, law 
enforcement, and those things, 94 percent of that is paid out of State 
revenues. All of those jobs, with the defense cuts in California, does 
the gentleman know how many jobs we have lost to the spotted owl and 
the gnatcatcher with the farmers, and with the Central Valley water 
project with the salmon and the farmers? It cost us $4 million because 
a kit fox lived under a bridge and we could not continue in San Diego. 
Those are the things we are talking about.
  In this particular case, Mr. Chairman, it is more than just the bird. 
I look at the cases in California, where we had people wanting to just 
doze around their house because in fire season, you know how bad it is. 
They could not. They were told no because it was gnatcatcher country. 
Do Members know how many homes we lost? We lost 12 very valuable homes 
to people. Those are real people, I would say to the gentleman from 
Washington. In New Mexico, remember when the little boy was lost for 3 
days and they would not let a helicopter land because it was a 
wilderness area?
  That is wrong when we take private property and put it on a list, 
which we cannot pay for, and I think a more balanced way, and we have 
offered and I offered to help, and I think part of the new ESA is to 
have revenues where we can pay for these lands. But when we take a 
person's land, cannot pay for it, it goes on a list, and because of 
that it is devalued to 10 cents on the dollar, and the Government comes 
in and says I want to give you fair market value, that is wrong.
  In this case, we are talking about real people. I do not care about 
the forestry people, but we have farmers, we have people who are going 
to lose their places, just like in all these other examples. I do 
believe that is wrong. Over 52 percent of California is owned by the 
Government. What is too much? In Idaho, I think it is somewhere close 
to 70 percent is owned by the Federal Government and set aside. There 
is a point to which, yes, we need to provide for the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I promised that I would yield to my 
friend, the gentleman from California, and then I will yield to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
want to address my remarks to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] 
who has repeatedly asserted throughout the debate tonight that somehow 
the largest of the 10 property owners who are affected by the marbled 
murrelet critical habitat designation, Pacific Lumber Co., which again 
happens to be the largest private employer in the largest county of my 
congressional district, although I know that does not count for a whole 
lot at times in our debates out here, but he has asserted that all they 
have to do is go down, see Fish and Wildlife, and get an incidental 
take permit under the Endangered Species Act, which would allow them 
then to selectively harvest in those areas where the murrelet has been 
detected.
  The facts are as follows. By the way, I might add, I received a 
letter today. I know this may seem a little incredulous to some of you 
on the other side. I received a letter today. Pacific Lumber opposes 
the amendment, my amendment, which I offered in front of the Committee 
on Armed Services, because it believes it does not provide sufficient 
relief. They feel my amendment should have provided for just 
compensation for this regulatory taking.
  Mr. Chairman, they go on and say: ``Pacific Lumber has worked 
diligently, without success, with the appropriate government agencies 
for years in an effort to ensure some economic return on and value from 
its timberlands which are considered habitat. It has spent over 3 years 
and $2.5 million in this regard, including substantial efforts to 
create an acceptable habitat conservation plan. Weyerhauser and Plum 
Creek,'' very important timber constituents of the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks] ``are much differently situated land-wise and 
murrelet-wise than Pacific Lumber Co. Also, the government is working 
with Weyerhauser and Plum Creek to obtain an acceptable HCP or an 
acceptable land swap. This is very different from Pacific Lumber's 
experience. For example, the government has told Pacific Lumber that 
the only kind of permissible activities it would allow on its privately 
owned marbled murrelet habitat would be,'' from the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, ``noncommercial mushroom picking, Christmas tree cutting, rock 
collecting, and recreational fishing.'' These are not viable 
alternatives and would do little to sustain the company, its employment 
base, and its tax base.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Cunningham was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would again point out that the designation of 
critical habitat has very significant meaning on Federal land, but when 
critical habitat is designated on private land, all it means is if you 
have to get a Federal permit, they have to take into account that you 
have got a murrelelet population and habitat on this particular land, 
only if there is a Federal nexus.
  Having said that, there is also a way to deal with the problem of the 
fact that you have murrelets on the land. That is to do a habitat 
conservation plan. When you do the habitat conservation plan, and I 
would take umbrage at what has just been said about this, the company 
involved here did not negotiate in good faith with the Fish and 
Wildlife Service. I have talked to the people that were there. They 
said they made it very clear when they came through the door that they 
were interested in filing a suit on taking, a constitutional taking, 
and they were never willing to negotiate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cunningham 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have to rebut this contention. I have to 
ask the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] if he has had any 
personal contact with top level officials of the Pacific Lumber 
Company.
  Mr. DICKS. No, I have not. But I have had contact with the top level 
officials of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  We keep hearing about the magical, mystical HCP process. I guess if 
you own 400,000 acres in one block, it is much easier to come up with 
an HCP which will work, because you are allowed to rotate your cutting 
throughout the entire parcel.
  Unfortunately for most small property owners, that is not an option. 
It is not available to you. You do not have the attorneys, you do not 
have the accountants, you do not have the biologists. You do not have 
the ability to adopt that kind of plan. I know the gentleman from 
Washington has worked very hard on HCP.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Pombo, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cunningham 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have supported HCPs. As the gentleman is well aware, 
in my endangered species reform bill. We strengthened the HCP process 
so it would be capable of establishing HCPs

[[Page H6579]]

that would actually work. My colleague, the gentleman from southern 
California [Mr. Brown], was down here before and he talked about the 
HCP process they established in southern California, which was a very 
painful and very expensive process that took years to come up with, and 
has shown everything that was wrong with the current Endangered Species 
Act in terms of an HCP.
  Again, the problem is not the major property owners. The problem is 
not the larger developers. The problem is the small people, the 
individual property owners that do not have the ability to do that.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] will continue to yield, the administration has made it very 
clear that for the small people, they are going to be able to come in 
and file something and be able to be exempted. What they are trying to 
do is get an HCP on the big companies.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, one of the worst 
possible things we could do to the Endangered Species Act is put in 
some arbitrary things and say if you have 5 acres or less, you are 
exempted from that.
  Again, in looking at the land patterns in northern California, the 
brown and the purple are publicly owned lands. They are either owned by 
the Federal or the State government. We can look at this and tell that 
there is an abundance of Federal- and State-owned lands, publicly owned 
lands. The gentleman keeps talking about the Headwaters Forest and the 
great redwoods. It should be pointed out that we also have the Redwood 
National Park just a few miles from there that is already federally 
owned and has fallen into disrepair, like most Federal land.
  I would like to quote one thing from the Defenders of Wildlife again 
in their thing that they sent out on this. They said that unlike other 
sea birds with nests in the sand, the marbled murrelet nests in 
branches 150 feet above the pine needle forest, in the column of trees. 
This is the property we are talking about, the private property. You 
would have a heck of a time finding that type of habitat that they 
insist they need for this bird.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks]. I think the provision added in 
full committee by the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] ought to be 
stricken from this appropriations bill. I think it is a special 
interest rider. We have a private calendar for the relief of 
individuals. Perhaps that rider ought to move to the private calendar.
  At any rate, I think we are ready to vote, Mr. Chairman. We have 
spent more than 2 hours in debating this amendment. I would hope that 
we are just about through with it so we can get on with the rest of the 
bill.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
as I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks]. In the interests of the gentleman's admonition 
for us to move on, I will eliminate some of my statement, but I do 
wish, in deleting my statement, that we will delete the Riggs rider in 
the Interior appropriations bill.
  The Headwaters Forest is very important, Mr. Chairman. It is home to 
the largest private growth of giant redwoods anywhere in the world, as 
well as home to the endangered marbled murrelet, as we have discussed. 
The critical habitat of the murrelet in the headwaters is an essential 
link between Redwood National Park and Humboldt Redwood State Park, 
where the murrelet also depends on old growth forest for survival.
  A few points on this. The great redwoods are a symbol of 
California's, indeed America's, magnificent natural wonders. Many of 
the trees are thousands of years old. They existed when Hannibal 
crossed the Alps. People come from all over the world to view these 
giant redwoods, and some of the trees would require many people to 
completely encircle them. They are truly natural wonders of the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is important to the point that has been 
made earlier. Once, 2.1 million acres of dense coastal redwoods covered 
the coast from the Oregon border to Big Sur in California. Today, 
original redwood occupies only 3.9 percent, of this former range, and 
the 48,000 acres we are talking about today is a large part of that 3.9 
percent. The ancient groves are interdependent and support numerous 
species.
  The Riggs amendment is a giant step forward in undoing the Endangered 
Species Act. The Riggs rider reduces protection of the marbled murrelet 
in northern California, and amounts to an outright assault on the 
Endangered Species Act, with the exclusive goal of protecting a major 
special interest that will gain financially from this rider.

                              {time}  1715

  It sets a dangerous precedent for other species and for the 
Endangered Species Act by opening up areas once protected.
  As the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has stated, adequate 
recourse currently exists for private landowners to have their 
grievances about the Endangered Species Act and critical habitats 
addressed.
  The appropriate place for an endangered species amendment is in the 
authorizing process as the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] has 
suggested he is pursuing. We have done enough damage to our old-growth 
and ancient forests without contributing further to their destruction.
  The Riggs rider would put the murrelet firmly on the road to 
extinction. If every Member of Congress sought to restrict coverage of 
the Endangered Species Act or circumvent its intent on a piecemeal 
basis, the ark would sink.
  The Dicks amendment places the public interest over individual 
economic gain. The marbled murrelet and the Headwaters Forest 
contribute greatly to the richness of our world and the natural 
heritage we will to future generations of Earth's inhabitants.
  Vote for the Dicks amendment to strike the Riggs rider from the bill. 
A vote against the Riggs rider is a vote for jobs, environmentally 
sound jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Dicks 
to delete the Riggs rider in the Interior appropriations bill.
  The Headwaters Forest is home to the largest private grove of giant 
redwoods anywhere in the world as well as home to the endangered 
marbled murrelet. The critical habitat of the murrelet in headwaters is 
an essential link between Redwood National Park and Humboldt Redwood 
State Park where the murrelet also depends on old-growth forests for 
its survival.
  These great redwoods are a symbol of California's indeed America's 
magnificent natural wonders--many of the trees are thousands of years 
old. These trees existed when Hannibal crossed the Alps. People come 
from all over the world to view these great redwood giants; some of the 
trees would require many people to completely encircle them. They are 
truly natural wonders of the world.
  Once, 2.1 million acres of dense coastal redwoods covered the coast 
from the Oregon border to Big Sur in California. Today, original 
redwood occupies only 3.9 percent of this former range, according to 
field work and satellite mapping. And the 48,000 acres, last remaining 
redwoods make up a large part of that small percentage.
  The ancient groves are interdependent and support numerous species, 
many of which are endangered. It is the collective nature of species 
and their habitat that determine their preservation and survival. 
Endangered species, once listed as endangered, should not be victims of 
actions that restrict their environment and further endanger their 
status in nature.
  The marbled murrelet once numbered 60,000 in California and has been 
reduced to between 2,000 to 5,000 birds. The reduction in numbers is 
directly linked to intense commercial logging which has destroyed over 
95 percent of the marbled murrelet's nesting areas.
  The Riggs rider is a giant step toward undoing the Endangered Species 
Act. The Riggs rider reduces protection of the marbled murrelet in 
northern California and amounts to an outright assault on the 
Endangered Species Act with the exclusive goal of protecting a major 
special interest that will gain financially from this rider.
  It sets a dangerous precedent for other species and for the 
Endangered Species Act by opening up areas, once protected, for timber 
harvesting. Under the bill, only 3,000 acres would be protected--the 
headwaters grove.

[[Page H6580]]

  As Mr. Dicks has stated, adequate recourse currently exists for 
private landowners to have their grievances about endangered species in 
critical habitats addressed. Section 10 of the act allows landowners to 
enter into long-term agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
through habitat conservation plans. These plans allow landowners to 
secure some certainty on the use of their private property over a long-
term, for as much as 100 years ahead.
  Critical habitat primarily seeks to protect enough area for the 
species to expand its range and recover to healthy population levels. 
Critical habitat designation and enforcement are crucial to the 
recovery of every listed species.
  The appropriate place for an endangered species amendment is in the 
authorizing process, not the appropriations process. We have done 
enough damage to our old-growth and ancient forests without 
contributing further to their destruction.
  The Riggs rider would put the murrelet firmly on the road to 
extinction. If every Member of Congress sought to restrict coverage of 
the Endangered Species Act or circumvent its intent on a piecemeal 
basis, the ark would sink.
  The Dicks amendment places the public interest over individual 
economic interest. The marbled murrelet and the Headwaters Forest 
contribute greatly to the richness of our world and the natural 
heritage we will to future generations of Earth's inhabitants.
  The world is a poorer place for the loss of a species. Vote for the 
Dicks amendment to strike the Riggs rider from the bill.
  A vote against the Riggs rider is a vote for jobs.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I just want to point 
out to my good friend from California and fellow member of the 
Committee on Appropriations again since she was present the other night 
and will recall the debate, the amendment specifically excludes the 
Headwaters Forest.
  So I do not understand why those on that side insist on repeating 
this contention that it includes the Headwaters Forest when it clearly, 
by the language of the bill, excludes 3,000 acres of redwood forest 
commonly known as the Headwaters Grove located in Humboldt County, CA.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the 
gentleman's original amendment was even more destructive than the way 
it was amended in committee because indeed he did not exempt the 
Headwaters Forest, these 3,000 acres.
  This perfecting amendment from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] 
in his good intention to protect some of the acreage simply did not go 
far enough. The 3,000 acres does not begin to cover the area that needs 
to be protected. But I am pleased the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs] is pointing out that his original amendment was even more 
drastic.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Yates was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to commend the gentlewoman 
for her statement. Yes, 3,000 acres are protected but there is at least 
33,000 additional acres that are not protected. The Fish and Wildlife 
Service says that in order to protect the murrelet in this area where 
you have got a lot of old growth, you have got to have some private 
property designated. Again, I point out that in the three States, they 
only designated 1 percent but that 1 percent is critical to the 
survival of the marbled murrelet in northern California. That is why 
they did it. They did it with great apprehension, frankly. Again, the 
answer here to my colleagues and the other private companies that have 
done this, get a habitat conservation plan. Negotiate it. The people in 
southern California did it. The people in northern Washington State are 
doing it. It is not that hard to do.
  What this is is an exemption that is going to then have every company 
in the country coming to all the Members saying, ``Why don't you get 
one for us.'' That is just not the way to do business.
  The irony of all ironies is the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] 
stating that Mr. Hurwitz is not satisfied with his amendment. If he is 
not satisfied with it, why is the gentleman offering it? Why does he 
not just withdraw it and accept my amendment?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. The reason I am offering it, I will be very clear again, 
is that we are talking about 10 property owners, 4 different companies 
and 6 small ranches. That is why. And because the principle involved 
here is the fifth amendment of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
  Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield further, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service has told me, and I have talked to the people in that region, 
they will sit down with those people, the small landonwers, and work 
this out. They are willing to sit down with Mr. Hurwitz and work this 
out.
  Mr. RIGGS. Does the gentleman have that in writing?
  Mr. DICKS. I have been told by people whom I have known and worked 
with for many years and we have worked successfully on getting the 
Murray Pacific HCP, so why do we not do it the old-fashioned way, do it 
right, instead of having this legislative rider that is going to cause 
all the problems for the Members of Congress in our areas?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has 
again expired.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all time for 
debating this amendment terminate in 10 minutes with the two gentlemen 
from California who are on their feet having spoken being given that 
full time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DICKS. I think a split of 10 minutes, 5 on each side; I will 
agree to that. They will agree to that.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all time on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 15 minutes, 
half on this side and half on that side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object to simply 
point out that many of our colleagues have now come to the floor to 
participate in this debate and I think we owe it to them to give them 
the opportunity to express their personal views. So I would seek a 
unanimous-consent agreement, but I would propose that we make it a 
little bit longer than the timeframe of the unanimous consent.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Twenty minutes. We have already debated it over an hour, I 
might say.
  Mr. DICKS. Two-and-a-half hours.
  Mr. YATES. This is only the third amendment to this whole bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. What is the time request on each side?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we have 20 
minutes, 10 minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. What is the unanimous-consent request from the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  Mr. YATES. The request is that all debate terminate in 20 minutes, 10 
minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I yield under 
my reservation to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I am inclined to support this, but I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, 
if it would be possible for those Members who are seeking the 
opportunity to speak on this amendment, if they could stand, raise 
their hands so that there would be some indication as to whether or not 
we should proceed with this measure. Members who, I guess, have already 
taken their time would not be included, this would be Members who have 
not yet taken an opportunity.
  It appears that there are several Members, Mr. Chairman, who wish to

[[Page H6581]]

speak on this, so I would propose to my dear friend from Illinois that 
we extend it to possibly 30 minutes total so that those Members who 
wish to speak would have the opportunity.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time for 
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 30 
minutes, 15 minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so to 
clarify that I would then control the 15 minutes of time in opposition 
to the Dicks amendment.
  Mr. YATES. And the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] will be in 
charge of our time on our side.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the time for debate on this 
amendment and all amendments thereto will be limited to 30 minutes. The 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Dicks] each will control 15 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend and 
northern California neighbor and colleague [Mr. Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Dicks 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the listing of the marbled murrelet is the capstone of 
efforts by extreme environmentalists to lock up private property in 
northern California. This small bird, which environmentalists claim is 
on the verge of extinction, actually has a habitat range that stretches 
all the way from California through Canada and into Alaska, where 
literally hundreds of thousands of murrelets can be found.
  The thrust of the movement and this amendment is to move the battle 
to stop timber harvests from Federal to private property. Over 4 
million acres of murrelet habitat already has been designated in 
Washington, Oregon, and northern California; 3.9 million of these acres 
are on Federal land.
  Less than 1 percent of the critical habitat, approximately 48,000 
acres, is located on private land. Seventy percent of this private 
property is owned by one property owner. This one property owner will 
have 33,000 acres of land locked up by an uncompensated taking unless 
this Congress has the courage to stop it.
  Mr. Chairman, 3.9 million acres of critical habitat for a bird that 
thrives by the hundreds of thousands in Alaska through northern 
California. We do not need to confiscate 33,000 acres of private 
property to save the marbled murrelet.
  Unfortunately, the extreme environmentalists do not see it that way. 
Extremist juggernauts like the Sierra Club have already declared open 
war on Federal timber harvests. Now they are setting their sights on 
private timber interests. Their work will not be done until every 
square inch of forest in North America has been converted to a park.
  Mr. Chairman, every private property owner in the United States 
should pay close attention to this vote. Today, extremist policies are 
taking property from a northern Californian. Tomorrow, it might be a 
Georgian or a Floridian or even someone in New York or New Jersey who 
will lose their property rights for the sake of furthering an extreme 
environmental agenda.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, especially those who champion 
private property rights, to stand up for the millions of private 
property owners in our country, to oppose policies that systematically 
rob Americans of their rights of self-determination, and to reject the 
extreme environmentalist agenda by opposing the Dicks amendment.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to speak out of order.)


                            evening schedule

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to let Members know what we have in 
mind. That is, there is about 25 minutes left on this amendment, and 
then there will be a vote. Then we have two amendments that will be 
offered that will be accepted by the ranking minority member and 
myself, and we will voice vote those. Then it would be our intent to 
roll votes after that for a rather sustained period.
  This will allow people to have some idea of what is planned for the 
rest of the evening. We do hope to finish this bill tonight, and I 
think we can, if everybody works at it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The Chairman, first of all I am a little disappointed in the hysteria 
that I have been hearing about what this all means. I want to read 
again, so that all my colleagues have an understanding objectively, 
with passions lowered, what this means.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service only designated non-Federal lands as 
critical habitat where Federal lands are limited or nonexistent where 
non-Federal lands are essential for maintaining marbled murrelet 
populations and nesting habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
recovery plan stated that suitable nesting habitat on Pacific Lumber 
Co. lands in Humboldt County, CA, is the only available nesting habitat 
for the southern portion of zone four. This area has known nest sites 
and is situated in a key area close to the coast, with no Federal lands 
in the immediate area that are able to provide similar recovery 
distributions.
  It is imperative to protect murrelet habitat on corporate forest 
lands in northern California because these lands provide a biological 
link to the murrelet populations between the Redwood National Park to 
the north and the State redwood parks to the south. Contrary to the 
assertion of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] that critical 
habitat designation amounts to a condemnation or taking of private 
land, the Fish and Wildlife Service action does not specifically 
prohibit logging or any other type of land use on those properties.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Does the gentleman's letter that he is reading from now 
make any mention of the nine other property owners who are affected by 
the marbled murrelet designation?
  Mr. DICKS. The same remedies exist for them.
  Mr. RIGGS. Does the gentleman's letter make any mention of those 
nine?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I said to the 
gentleman, the other people that are affected besides your major 
company can go to the Fish and Wildlife Service and can get a habitat 
conservation plan. The Fish and Wildlife Service has said it is going 
to work with smaller landowners.
  The most important areas, as the gentleman has mentioned, are the 
headwaters areas. The problem we have got here is that there is a legal 
and proper way to proceed. That is getting a multispecies HCP. What the 
gentleman is doing today with his amendment that was adopted in the 
full committee is trying to short-circuit the process.
  I would again say to the gentleman, why is it that Plum Creek, 
Weyerhaeuser, Simpson and the Murray Pacific Co. are all able to 
negotiate with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and yet Mr. Hurwitz and 
Pacific Lumber are not?

                              {time}  1730

  It is because this gentleman is not interested seriously in reaching 
an agreement which would give him 100 years of certainty and the 
ability to log on his land. Now, we can work out the problems of the 
other small landowners.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Washington 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the Fish and Wildlife Service, under 
the Clinton administration, has actually made a commitment to exempt 
small landowners.
  When we hear the discussion about landowners, the only reason this 
amendment has any effect in this bill is because of the large landowner 
exemption. This is a single-interest, special-interest exemption to 
this particular issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks]

[[Page H6582]]

this. I heard some suggestion that there was some modification to the 
fifth amendment to the Constitution in this particular amendment. Now, 
the gentleman from California, our friend and colleague, and the 
gentleman from Washington, neither of my colleagues have amended the 
fifth amendment to the Constitution in this appropriation bill; have 
they?
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, even in the Committee on 
Appropriations, we are not that brazen, I would assure my friend from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. Chairman, the point is here, there is not a taking, because the 
company can come in, they can get a habitat conservation plan. They can 
work out this problem with the Fish and Wildlife Service. They do not 
need to be exempted.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield to me further 
on this point of taking, there was an earlier court decision in this 
term of Congress.
  Mr. DICKS. Sweet Home, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. VENTO. The Sweet Home decision. And it was suggested that this 
activity by the Fish and Wildlife Service constituted, that was the 
assertion, that it constituted a taking. The Supreme Court rejected 
that particular logic.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest to my colleagues that in fact we 
are in an era where we have this new information and knowledge. It 
obviously is difficult for some of us to come to grips with it. It 
means new limits and complications in the world of work and in the 
world of commerce. But the fact is it has the same logic as if water 
ran through your land that you did not have any responsibility to 
anyone as to where the water came from or what you did to it while it 
was on your land or the air quality issue. The same is true with these 
habitat areas that have these important species. Obviously they affect 
all of us. They affect the entire fauna and flora in these ecosystems 
that are critical, and that is why we have laws in place, because of 
the foresight of others that addressed those issues with sound science 
and economics.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to point out, first 
of all, that under this administration we have seen a gradual erosion 
of private property rights. Many of us from the West, of course, 
vividly recall the broken promises of this administration, beginning 
with the Pacific Forest Conference, or whatever it was called, which 
has resulted in literally thousands of timber workers being unemployed 
today and on food stamps.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make one other point. The gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks] has repeatedly asserted that there is no other 
suitable murrelet habitat in the vicinity of these 37,000 acres. He has 
repeatedly asserted that, but in the immediate vicinity are 693,000 
acres of publicly owned land which has also been designated as critical 
habitat for the marbled murrelet.
  How many times do I have to repeat these statistics: 477,300 acres on 
Federal land and 175,000 acres on State land. That is not, that is not 
a lack of critical habitat in the immediate vicinity for the marbled 
murrelet.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time, and I want to respond to the comments of my friend from 
Washington, and he is my friend, on this issue. The gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks] has stated that it is all that a landowner has 
to do, is go in and get an HCP. Well, that cost of those timber 
companies who did that in my State hundreds of thousands of dollars to 
get that HCP. It is not that easy, in my judgment. They did it with 
great sacrifice, great time delays, and at a great cost of their 
corporate dollars, and that is very real.
  It is easy for us to stand here in this body and talk about, well, 
just go get an HCP or just go down and negotiate with the Fish and 
Wildlife Service. That is not that easy in today's world. That is one 
of the problems that I think small owners, landowners face, first.
  Second, I received a letter from the Farm Bureau. Now, I represent 
the eastern district of Washington, lots of farmers, lots of small 
farmers. This is what they said about this amendment of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs] and this provision in the appropriations 
bill. The Farm Bureau supports this private property rights provision 
and urges its retention in the bill. The provision sets a valuable 
precedent that it is wrong for the Government to impose regulations 
that prohibit private landowners from harvesting a crop.
  Third, I think all this debate really emphasizes is that we have got 
an Endangered Species Act in this country that needs very, very serious 
attention. We have ambiguities in the law that was passed in 1973. We 
are fighting this out today, this discussion between private property 
rights and the public interest in protecting critical habitat and 
protecting endangered species. They are both very, very important.
  But I think what we really ought to be doing instead of fighting this 
debate on this amendment is addressing the issue, the greater issue of 
reforming the Endangered Species Act to make it work so that small 
landowners and private property rights and big companies and birds and 
fish and animals can coexist. I think they can, and I think we ought to 
really direct our attention to that effort.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has repeatedly 
asserted throughout the day that the Endangered Species Act is working 
well in the State of Washington. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Nethercutt] also represents a congressional district. Is it your 
opinion that the Endangered Species Act is working well in the State of 
Washington today?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, I think we are frustrated in our 
State, whether it is the gentleman's district or mine. We are 
frustrated trying to make it work. Again, I want to make the point, it 
should work. We need to protect species. We need to protect private 
property rights. But under the current laws, we are all frustrated and 
it is costing everybody a fortune to make it work.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend from Washington, and he is my 
friend, that habitat conservation plans are a voluntary thing. A 
company like Murray Pacific, my good friend Toby Murray from Tacoma, 
WA, worked hard with my office, the Fish and Wildlife Service, everyone 
over an extended period of time to negotiate out a habitat conservation 
plan. I was there the day that that plan was approved. Toby Murray got 
up, conservative Republican, a business guy, solid as anyone. You would 
love him on your side of the aisle, and we would love him on our side 
of the aisle. He is providing good jobs for people.
  He said this was the proudest thing that he had ever done, to be able 
to sit down with the Federal officials and to work out an agreement 
that would allow him on his private lands to protect salmon, to protect 
murrelets, to protect owls, to protect species, and yet still be able 
to do harvesting for the next 100 years. That is a win-win. Now, that 
is not an Endangered Species Act that is broken. That is an Endangered 
Species Act that is working.
  I applaud this administration. I have opposed them on many things, 
and I think sometimes that they are, you know, too zealous. But in this 
area, they have been willing to sit down with the private sector, roll 
up their sleeves and come up with these habitat conservation plans. 
That is why I object to this approach, while all of my companies up 
there are doing it the right way, the way that the law lays out to do 
it, and they are succeeding.
  Plum Creek is going to be next, then Weyerhaeuser and the State of 
Washington. Then if we can get this protection with the Federal option 
nine at the core, we protect the major Federal lands, the big 
landowners, then we can exempt most of the little landowners that both 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and I are both concerned 
about. They can be exempted because we will protect enough species on 
the Federal lands and on the major private landowners and the State 
lands to let the little people off without any requirements whatsoever. 
That is my goal.

[[Page H6583]]

  Mr. Chairman, I am willing to work with the majority side in 
strengthening the habitat conservation provisions of the Endangered 
Species Act. But let us not go down the road of an exemption for one 
company that was taken in a hostile takeover, who comes here and asks 
for legislation and now they are not even satisfied with what the 
gentleman from California, [Mr. Riggs] is trying to do for him. I think 
this is a terrible precedent.

  We are all going to regret the day we do this. The administration 
says it will veto the bill over this. We have got a lawful way to 
proceed. We do not need to do this. This is a terrible mistake and we 
will rue the day that we did not protect the murrelet, did not protect 
the old growth redwood, and that we did not protect the Endangered 
Species Act.
  I thought this was going to be the new majority now that we are going 
to look at environmental things in a little more responsible way, and 
that is why I was so upset by the comments that were made by the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], when he said flat out, as chairman 
of your Committee on Resources, that he does not support the Endangered 
Species Act.
  I think we have got to sit here and say to ourselves, how can we say 
that? If biodiversity is not important, if protecting species is not 
important, even some of the most conservative Christians today in the 
church movement were standing up and defending the necessity to protect 
God's creatures. I say to the gentleman that protecting species is a 
responsibility of this Congress, and protecting the Endangered Species 
Act is the tool to do it.
  Can we improve it? Yes. But to come in here today for one company and 
try to pass a social exemption is wrong, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] said it better than I can say it, but it is not 
the right way to proceed. If we want to change the ESA, let us go to 
the authorizing committee and change it. Let us not do it here in an 
amendment that has had no hearings, no process, no procedure. It is 
simply wrong.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks], has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, suppose Pacific 
Lumber Co. jumped through all the hoops to get a habitat conservation 
plan, spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars and took the months or 
years to accomplish it. Do we have information that suggests what 
activities they might be permitted to carry out on their land, having 
spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars and the months to obtain 
such a plan?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, let me say again for the Record that Pacific 
Lumber Company was told by the Federal Government, quote, that the only 
kind of permissible activities it will allow on its privately owned 
marbled murrelet habitat would be noncommercial mushroom picking, 
christmas tree cutting, rock collecting and recreational fishing.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. And that is reasonable.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] my very good friend and a distinguished member 
of the Committee on Rules and the Chairman of the Legislative Task 
Force.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me the time, 
and since he mentioned I am on the Committee on Rules, it is great to 
see this marvelous testimony to the open amendment process we have gone 
through for the past several hours. Everyone is cheering for it, I can 
tell.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that as we look at this measure, I believe 
that what we have come to is actually a compromise. We continue to hear 
the terms veto bait and this is a special interest measure, but it is a 
bipartisan compromise. It includes the support of the Chairman of the 
Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, a Democrat from the 
California State legislature who has spent time looking at this, and 
Chairman Hauser has concluded that the Riggs language is very 
appropriate.
  It also enjoys the support of the inclusion of an amendment by the 
chairman of the subcommittee, who obviously dealt with this Headwaters 
question which continues to come to the forefront time and time again, 
and it is excluded. Mr. Riggs has made that point very, very clear. But 
very, very important is the fact that this addresses the issue of 
private property rights while it is also looking at the 
environmental concerns, which my friend from Washington has just 
raised.

  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record letters that have come from 
people who are actually witnessing this debate: Mary and Jack Walsh, 
who are property owners whose land was pictured here on the easel 
earlier, and people like Martin and Donna Gift, who I know are very 
interested in this debate and in fact are being victimized if we do 
proceed with this. Also a very thoughtful handwritten letter. It is 
handwritten, so I cannot read exactly. Donmarie Paddock-Bowers.
  The letters referred to are as follows:

                                             Jack Walsh, M.D.,

                                        Eureka, CA, June 14, 1996.
       Dear Congressman Riggs: I am writing you in regards to the 
     Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat Designation which is 
     currently impacting our family's property just north of 
     Fortuna, California.
       My wife Mary and I purchased this previously clear cut 
     property in 1953 when the second growth market was just 
     coming into its own. We never dreamed that we would see it 
     logged in our lifetime. This summer, our son Pat, will have 
     completed his ninth year of selective logging on a sustained 
     yield basis. We are all very proud of our logging operation.
       The property (880 acres), is completely surrounded by other 
     second growth stands. Why we were arbitrarily placed in this 
     Habitat Designation, without any input from our family or 
     forester is beyond our imagination. (see aerial photos)
       Just October, our forester, Ron Hunt wrote a detailed 
     letter to Russell Peterson, State Supervisor of Fish and 
     Wildlife in Portland, Oregon. He requested that our property 
     be removed from Habitat Designation for obvious reasons. (no 
     existing habitat) Several follow up inquiries were put off by 
     the Fish and Wildlife Service. We have yet to hear any 
     logical explanation as to why we were placed in the Habitat 
     Designation. (see Ron Hunt's letter).
       The arrogance of the Fish and Wildlife Service to 
     arbitrarily begin drawing maps which impact our property, we 
     feel is completely unjust. We have more than enough 
     regulations to overcome in an attempt to properly care for 
     our forest. We hope you can help us.
           Sincerely,
     Dr. and Mrs. Jack Walsh.
                                                                    ____



                                                   Gift Ranch,

                                      Kneeland, CA, June 14, 1996.
     Hon. Frank Riggs,
     1st District, California,
     Eureka, CA.
       Dear Congressman Riggs: I, along with my son Todd, am the 
     current owner and manager of the Gift Ranch in Humboldt 
     County, California. A significant portion of our ranch, 510 
     acres of grassland, brushland, and timberland have been 
     included within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
     (USFWS) marbled murrelet's ``so called critical habitate''. 
     This arbitrary designation of our property will cause a great 
     financial burden upon our families.
       This ranch has been owned and managed by the Gift family 
     for four (4) generations. We have been good stewards of this 
     land and the land has rewarded us with a reasonable living. 
     Currently, the ranch supports me, my wife, my son Todd, his 
     wife, and his three young children.
       Recently we, at considerable expense, obtained a long term 
     timber management permit from the State of California. This 
     contract with the state obligates us to grow our timber on a 
     ``sustained yield'' basis. It requires that we do only 
     selective logging and maintain existing wildlife habitate. 
     One of the requirements of this permit was an extensive, and 
     I mean extensive, wildlife review. Among the wildlife 
     habitate reviewed was the marbled murrelet. Both public and 
     private biologists agreed that due to the extensive 
     grassland, hardwood areas, and young growth forestlands that 
     our ranch was not murrelet habitate. Nowhere on this ranch is 
     the type of old growth forests that are reported to be 
     essential for murrelet habitate.
       This appears to be another example of heavy handed 
     government ``taking'' of private property with little or no 
     justification. At least the government could have explained 
     to us why my son's house and the 100 or so acres of grass and 
     oak woodlands is so critical to the survival of the marbled 
     murrelet which is a sea bird that nests in dense old growth 
     forests near the Pacific Ocean, not 20 or so air miles away 
     on a hot open south facing slope.

[[Page H6584]]

       This designation will not allow us to harvest the timber 
     (no matter how conservatively) that we need to supplement our 
     livestock operations. With severely depressed livestock 
     prices the managing of our timber resources is critical to 
     our existence.
       Every generation of Gifts have added assets to this ranch. 
     These assets are usually in the form of innovative 
     stewardship and/or acreage to the property. It seems odd that 
     the government with its vast holdings and seemly unlimited 
     resources must take land from the private individual non 
     industrial landowner to provide ``so called'' habitate for 
     the marbled murrelet and/or any other ``so called'' 
     endangered species.
           Sincerely,
     Martin Gift.
                                                                    ____

                                                    June 14, 1996.
     Congressman Riggs,
     Washington, D.C.
       My name is Donnavie Paddock Bowers, I am 55 yrs old. My 
     husbands name is Ben Bowers, he is 58 years old. We are 
     living on what's left of my family's sheep and cattle ranch. 
     Visualize a small ranch (440 acres) half wooded and half 
     prairie, this is a small ranch--too small in our county to 
     make a living on, so my husband has a job off the ranch to 
     make ends meet. My parents had 2,500 acres originally and 
     sold most of it off to retire, and kept enough of the ranch 
     to run, to supplement their retirement which is what we had 
     planned to do when Ben retires.
       I am disabled and in a wheelchair, I have been diagnosed 
     with 2 diseases, ``M.S.'' and ``Late Lyme Disease'' both of 
     which are incurable diseases at this time. So we have large 
     medical bills.
       We are very concerned (half of our property 220 acres) has 
     been put into the ``Marbled Murelet Habitat'' as seen on page 
     #412, 413, and page #414. We feel that we will be so 
     restricted over time that we won't be able to graze our 
     cattle on our own land, and won't have this extra income that 
     we desperately need to live on. This property is in my 
     blood--``I love it''. It makes me ill to think it could be 
     taken away from us. Why this ``marbled murrelet habitat'' 
     bill or some other bills that could come up in the future. 
     I have been fighting for the past 5 years to keep our 
     ranch (part or all of it) from being included into the 
     ``Headwaters Forest''. We can't get rich running this 
     ranch, but do need the extra income.
       Because of my disabilities I have to run the ranch from my 
     wheel chair and my wheel chair accessible van. If we are 
     forced off of our property at our ages and health we wouldn't 
     be able to start over! But the biggest concern is losing my 
     heritage which can't be replaced at any price! My family has 
     been on this land for 113 years. I thank God every morning 
     that I can live on this land that previous generations of my 
     family lived here before me.
       A few miles from house most of my relatives are buried, 
     including Mom & Dad.
       Please protect our personal & property rights. We voted for 
     you to look out for us when you went to Wash., D.C., Please 
     help us now.
       I want to continue running this ranch from my wheel chair 
     with my trusty dog named ``Teal'' at my side.
           Thank you,
     Donnarie, Paddock-Bowers.
                                                                    ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 17, 1996.

 Leading California Democrat Agrees--This Habitat is not for the Birds!

       Dear Colleague: Later this week, you may be asked to vote 
     on a provision now included in the Interior Appropriations 
     bill that excludes 37 thousand acres of private land from the 
     3.9 million-acre critical habitat designation for the marbled 
     murrelet. The murrelet is a small bird that sometimes nests 
     in old-growth redwoods. Why then, did the Interior Department 
     include 501 acres of land belonging to my constituent, Martin 
     Gift, that is largely prairie, as well as other, similar 
     private land? As you can see from the letter that follows, 
     Democratic Assemblyman Dan Hauser, Chairman of the California 
     Legislature's Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, 
     agrees that the designation is wrong.
       If you favor protection of private property from government 
     action that reduces value without compensation, then vote 
     ``No'' on any amendment to delete the habitat limitation.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Frank D. Riggs.

         California Legislature, Joint Committee on Fisheries and 
           Aquaculture,
                                    Sacramento, CA, June 17, 1996.
     Hon. Frank Riggs,
     Capitol Hill
       Dear Congressman Riggs: Mary Morgan of my staff has 
     personally toured Martin Gift's ranch. This ranch has been in 
     the family for four generations. It is my understanding that 
     a measure is pending that would declare approximately 500 
     acres of their ranch as critical habitat. Their ranch is part 
     of the 3.9 million acre designation for critical habitat that 
     is included in the Interior appropriation bill for 1997.
       I question the methodology that could have allowed this 
     portion of their ranch to be included in this critical 
     habitat designation. Scientists have never walked over this 
     land or studied this land from the land. Aerial photos are 
     not as accurate as land surveys. According to my staff 
     person, clearly, almost one-half of this acreage is bare 
     grassy prairie which is good grazing pasture. What tree would 
     a marbled murrelet or spotted owl live in on the bare grassy 
     prairie? On the remaining acreage, that is included in this 
     critical habitat designation, there is some fir, very little 
     redwood, some oak and pepperwood.
       At the very least, their ranch should be deleted from the 
     critical habitat designation. Moreover, given the shaky 
     methodology that included their land, may be the best 
     alternative is to exclude private land from this critical 
     habitat designation?
       Thank you for your thoughtful and timely consideration of 
     this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Dan Hauser.


  It seems to me that as we look at these very touching statements that 
have been made by these individuals whose rights are being jeopardized, 
if we pass this amendment by the gentleman from Washington, [Mr. 
Dicks], we have no choice other than to support private property 
rights, responsible environmental concerns, and we should move ahead 
and do this immediately.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself one minute.
  Mr. Chairman, again, let us just talk a little bit about Pacific 
Lumber Co. Pacific Lumber Co. was once an outstanding practitioner of 
sustainable forestry. In 1985, Charles Hurwitz' Houston based holding 
company Maxim Corporation orchestrated a hostile takeover of Pacific 
Lumber using junk bonds financed by the notorious Michael Milken and 
his firm, Drexel, Burnham, Lambert. Almost immediately after the take 
over, Hurwitz raided the PALCO employees' pension fund and practically 
tripled the rate of cutting redwoods to pay off the loans and junk 
bonds used to finance the takeover. In justification of his actions, 
Hurwitz was quoted by Time Magazine as telling his new employees, 
``There is the story of the golden rule: He who has the gold rules.''
  Now, this seems to me not to be a company that deserves our help here 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes an important point. There 
is in fact a right way to do business and a wrong way to do business.
  My family, interestingly enough, logged in this area and logged for 
this company and settled in this area in the 1840's and taught school 
and were workers in the mills in Eureka and Scotia and that whole 
surrounding area for many, many years, before they moved down to the 
San Francisco Bay area. Our family is legend with the culture of the 
woods and what it meant to work in those woods, and it is a very 
important part of our state.
  As the gentleman pointed out, at one time this was a company that 
people pointed to with great pride, not only because it took very good 
care of its resources, but because its schedule of cutting was based 
essentially on sustainable forestry before we knew the term here in the 
Halls of Congress.
  But all of that changed one day when this company was subject to a 
leveraged buyout and the bottom line and interest rates took precedence 
over the workers, over the forest resources, and, unfortunately, 
also over the laws of this Nation that are there to protect workers, 
protect pension plans, protect labor rights, and to protect the futures 
of those families. That is long and legendary, and we have had some 
heated debate about that today.

  But the fact of the matter is as we close this debate, this House of 
Representatives cannot be used in this fashion, because this is 
deciding simply you no longer want to play by the rules, as does every 
other company in California and the Pacific Northwest and many other 
areas of our country, as they struggle with endangered species.
  Rather than try and reform that legislation, all that we have had so 
far is these extreme proposals that say ``you can't kill the species, 
but you can destroy the habitat.'' These extreme proposals that have 
caused Speaker Gingrich now to announce that the Endangered Species Act 
changes are dead for this year, they will not be passed.

[[Page H6585]]

  So now we are back with this kind of extreme proposal, that says 
simply you get yourself a lobbyist, you get yourself a lawyer, and you 
opt out of the system.
  We really cannot present to the American people that that is the way 
you do business, because there are a lot of businesses in my area, 
there are a lot of home builders in my area, there are a lot of land 
developers in my area, that are struggling to put together habitat 
conservation areas. That is the way they do business. They will be able 
to build fewer homes or in different places or use parts of land and 
not other parts of land, because that is what they are required to do 
to present compatibility with the species and with the protection of 
our environment. That is the way those people are doing business.
  They do not all get to run to the Congress and say ``Take us out.'' 
If this is about endangered species and this is about reform, we can 
talk about reform. What we were not able to talk about in the last 
session was the gutting of the Endangered Species Act.
  We should not allow Mr. Hurwitz and Pacific Lumber Company to 
unilaterally, only for his purpose, to gut the Endangered Species Act. 
That is what this amendment does, for one particular party, for one 
particular purpose, that has been unable, unable, to decide to play by 
the rules and to obey the law.
  I want to thank the gentleman very much for offering this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has 1 minute 
remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] has 5\1/2\ 
minutes and has the right to close.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it is my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the committee and I am a 
senior member of the committee. I have the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] has the right 
to close, because he represents the committee position and is a member 
of the committee.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, simply to point 
out that Pacific Lumber Co., as I mentioned earlier, has grown from 950 
employees in 1986 at the time of the merger to 1,600 employees as of 
last month, and over the past 10 years, this is no cut and run 
operation. I would say to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], 
over the last 10 years the company has invested over $125 million in 
capital improvements and additions to equipment and machinery. It has 
purchased two sawmills, invested in additional timber lands, and has 
invested heavily in modernizing its facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in this Chamber agrees we should not 
carelessly cause the extinction of animal or plant species. 
Unfortunately, this amendment, our current policy, makes it harder to 
save endangered species. I think it is important to realize that just 
because something is called an Endangered Species Act, it is not 
automatically effective in saving endangered species. In fact, over the 
last 20 years, that act has not been credited with saving a single 
endangered species.
  Now, the reason is the act creates the wrong incentives. The most 
effective way to preserve a threatened species----
  Mr. DICKS. Has the gentleman heard of the bald eagle?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. The bald eagle was by DDT.
  Mr. DICKS. The DDT did not save it. The Endangered Species Act saved 
it.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the most effective way 
to preserve threatened species is by improving and expanding their 
habitat. One might expect that an endangered species law would reward 
people for creating habitat. It does not do that.
  For example, it could pay people who establish breeding grounds for 
the spotted owl or the marbled murrelet. We do not do that. Instead, we 
punish those who happen to have endangered species on their property. 
It is the wrong way to go about it. It benefits all of society. We 
should not impose on small property owners the imposition that does us 
all good. We need to change our policy. It is not a good amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo], cochairman of the Speaker's task force on the 
environment.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, yes, it is true that this debate really is not about 
the Endangered Species Act. I wish we were debating the Endangered 
Species Act on this floor today, but we are not. We are debating about 
whether or not we should protect the private property rights of these 
few people.
  What it really comes down to is that, yes, the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks] is correct about one thing. When your property 
is designated as critical habitat, and it is private property, it is 
not immediately affected under the law, unless you want to use it. If 
you want to use it for anything, you have to go to the Federal 
Government to get permission to use it.
  Mr. DICKS. Only if you want to take a species.
  Mr. POMBO. If you want to use your property, you have to go to the 
Federal Government and get permission to use your property, or risk 
being taken under the Endangered Species Act and being prosecuted for 
taking an endangered species. You must go to the Federal Government to 
use your property.
  So, fine. You do not have to go to the Federal Government, unless you 
want to use your property.
  Now, under the marbled murrelet critical habitat listing it says they 
need 150-foot-tall trees. This is part of the private property that was 
so necessary to include under the Endangered Species Act to protect the 
threatened marbled murrelet, this property right here. You can tell 
that it is not a forest, it is not populated with 150-foot-high trees, 
and yet they insist that it must be protected. This is about private 
property rights. That is what this debate is all about, and that is 
what we must protect.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. 
The gentleman before said they cannot use the property. They can go in, 
they can get an incidental take permit; small companies are regularly 
exempted by this administration. The story here today is whether we are 
going to allow a special interest amendment to exempt one company from 
having to go through the lawful pattern that every other company is 
going through. The question is about the survival of the marbled 
murrelet in northern California. It is about protecting old growth 
redwood forests. The recovery plan of the forests of the Fish and 
Wildlife Service says that this habitat is critical.
  Now, think of it: In three States we only designated 48,000 acres, 
most of which are Pacific Lumber. I think it is wrong to give them an 
exemption. I urge my colleagues to support the Endangered Species Act, 
to support the environment.
  Now, this will probably be one of the most important environmental 
votes of the year. The administration has said that they will veto this 
bill if this rider is not taken out. Let us not mess up the Interior 
appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is recognized 
for 2 minutes to close.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, after much debate we finally found a point 
to agree on. This is probably the most important private property 
rights vote that we will have in the 104th Congress, and that is what 
this is about. Since 99 percent of the designated habitat is unchanged 
in my amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. I said environmental vote.
  Mr. RIGGS. This is not an endangered species debate. Instead, it is 
about the core differences here between those who seek to protect the 
rights of private property owners, including some longtime ranch 
families, and those who have little concern about government regulatory 
takings of property without compensation.
  So that is what this debate is about. Let us put an end to the 
taking. Let us keep our promises. Let us not betray

[[Page H6586]]

rural America. If you were one of the 277 Members of this body who back 
on March 3, 1995, voted for the Private Property Protection Act, I urge 
you, I implore you, to reject the Dicks amendment, his motion to 
strike, and to stand firm for private property rights, stand firm for 
the small ranch families and rural America.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Dicks amendment to strike language added to the Interior 
appropriations bill which will allow the Pacific Lumber Co. to 
circumvent the Endangered Species Act on most of the land contained in 
the Headwaters Forest. This provision which was added by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs], would prohibit the Department of the 
Interior from enforcing the designation of critical habitat for the 
marbled murrelet on lands exclusively within his district.
  The Headwaters Forest is the largest remaining privately owned old 
growth redwood forest in the world. It hosts numerous species, 
including the murrelet and the coho salmon. Now Congress is planning to 
provide a special exemption for Pacific Lumber--a company that has 
demonstrated reckless logging practices within the Headwaters Forest.
  For over 100 years Pacific Lumber was owned by a company that 
operated under model sustainable logging practices. Well, as many of my 
colleagues know, in 1986, Charles Hurwitz orchestrated a hostile 
takeover of the Pacific Lumber Co., primarily through junk bonds. In 
the wake of the takeover, Hurwitz's United Savings Association of Texas 
failed, costing the taxpayers $1.6 billion. It was the sixth largest 
savings and loan failure in U.S. history. Currently there are FDIC and 
OTS suits pending against Mr. Hurwitz and Maxxam Corp., which owns 
Pacific Lumber.
  Pacific Lumber furiously increased the rate of logging in the 
Headwaters Forest, tripling the logging of redwood, especially old 
growth trees. After nearly exhausting the resources of this forest and 
facing numerous lawsuits and court orders to half its destructive 
practices, Pacific Lumber laid off 105 workers.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service recently designated lands as critical 
habitat for the marbled murrelet, and only one percent is privately 
owned. Only those lands that contain individual mature or old growth 
trees with occupied or potential nesting sites are included. Critical 
habitat is essential to protect enough area for the species to expand 
its range and recover to healthy population levels. A lengthy review 
and public comment period preceded the designation of the critical 
habitat. Based on that public comment, the boundaries were reduced from 
the 1995 proposal.
  Through this provision, the Pacific Lumber Company is merely trying 
to circumvent a federal court order that halted logging in crucial 
sections of the habitat until a sufficient Habitat Conservation Plan 
has been completed. While I understand the concerns of the gentleman 
from California, I feel this exemption is irresponsible, and completely 
lacking any scientific justification, and I urge my colleagues to 
eliminate it by passing the Dicks amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Dicks amendment. Since 
the start of the 104th Congress, the Republican majority has 
consistently attempted to ignore the nation's existing environmental 
protections. In this particular instance the Republicans would like to 
prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service from enforcing critical habitat 
protections for the marbled murrelet in the state of California.
  For those of you who are unaware, the marbled murrelet is an 
endangered seabird that nests in old-growth forests. In order to 
protect these endangered birds, the Fish and Wildlife Service recently 
designated roughly 4.5 million acres of forest in California, 
Washington, and Oregon as critical habitat areas. Yet, rather than 
encourage private industries to comply with these protections and enter 
into a multi-species habitat conservation plan, the bill before us 
today would exempt these companies in California from complying with 
these standards.
  In addition to harming the Nation's efforts to protect these 
endangered birds, exempting Californians from these standards will 
undermine efforts in my own state of Washington to have owners of 
critical habitat areas enter into multi-species habitat conservation 
plans of their own. The Dicks amendment would strike these 
environmentally dangerous provisions. I would hope that the House 
supports his efforts.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded vote

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 257, 
noes 164, not voting 13, as follows:

                               AYES--257

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--164

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Fowler
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kim
     King
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Schaefer

[[Page H6587]]


     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Baesler
     Brownback
     Emerson
     Fields (TX)
     Gallegly
     Hayes
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Peterson (FL)
     Ramstad
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Torricelli

                              {time}  1817

  Messrs. BILIRAKIS, HALL of Texas, and MANZULLO changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CAMP, WELDON of Florida, KASICH, and CHRYSLER 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. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 253, I was unavoidably 
delayed, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I was present on the floor and voted on 
rollcall No. 253. I intended to and thought I had voted in favor of the 
Dicks amendment, but on checking the Record find that I am recorded as 
``no.'' Apparently, I inadvertently pressed the wrong button on the 
voting station. I wish to correct the Record to indicate that my 
intention was to vote ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


                    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: On page 22, line 1, strike 
     ``$186,555,000'' and in lieu thereof insert ``$182,555,000''; 
     On page 58, line 25, strike ``$358,754,000'' and in lieu 
     thereof insert ``$354,754,000''; and on page 59, line 24, 
     strike ``$499,680,000'' and in lieu thereof insert 
     ``$507,680,000''.

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would move an additional $8 
million into some very important energy conservation programs in the 
bill. It would be offset by a $4 million reduction in the Mineral 
Management Services account and an additional $4 million offset against 
the fossil energy R&D program. The 8 million, it is my intention, would 
be divided, with 3 million to the Federal Energy Management Program, 
which makes tremendous difference in reducing the costs of operating 
Federal buildings and, therefore, a major contribution to our efforts 
to control the budget, and 5 million to the building equipment and 
materials program, which promotes major energy conservation programs in 
building construction around the country.
  I have been pleased to work with the chairman on this.
  Mr. Chairman, these en bloc amendments would increase by $8 million 
the funding for important energy conservation programs.
  To do this, they would reduce by $4 million each the funding for 
leasing of oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf and for fossil 
energy programs.
  One of the most serious shortcomings of this bill is the inadequate 
funding that it would provide for the programs managed by the 
Department of Energy's office of energy efficiency and renewable 
energy. These energy conservation programs return big dividends, 
including important reductions in the amounts that the Government must 
spend for energy. In other words, these programs help reduce budget 
deficits, while at the same time they also help reduce or avoid 
pollution in our air, water, and soil, lessen our dependence on foreign 
oil, and create jobs in American industry.
  These programs have already been severely cut. The 1996 legislation 
reduced them by 25 percent below 1995. Now, on top of that, this bill 
would inflict an additional cut of nearly 10 percent. The result would 
be to seriously damage these programs--programs that have been 
successful in reducing the Federal deficit as well as helping to boost 
America's economic growth, improve the quality of our environment, and 
enable us to maintain world leadership in several technologies.
  This amendment does not restore all the funds that these programs 
should have. In fact, even after the increase I am proposing, funding 
for the energy conservation programs will still be cut by more than $29 
million from current levels. But while I would have liked to do more, 
at least my amendment will somewhat mitigate the injury this bill will 
do to these tested, successful programs which save both money and 
energy.
  The offsets proposed in my amendment will not have serious adverse 
effects. Under the bill, large areas of the Outer Continental Shelf 
will remain under the longstanding moratorium putting them off-limits 
to oil and gas leasing. So, the proposed reduction in funding for the 
Mineral Management Service's offshore leasing program will not 
seriously hinder that program. And the proposed reduction in the fossil 
energy account can be absorbed by reducing the funds for work on an 
advanced natural gas turbine, which, even after the reduction, will 
receive $15 million more than President Clinton has requested and 
almost 30 percent more than this year.
  As to the proposed increases, my objective is to add $3 million to 
the Federal energy management program, and $5 million to the building 
equipment and materials program. Each of these programs has a proven 
track record of success, yet each of them would be severely hurt by the 
cuts in the bill as it now reads. Even with the changes I'm proposing, 
each of these programs will receive less than they are getting in the 
current fiscal year, although the harm will be lessened.


                   federal energy management program

  The Federal Energy Management Program provides technical and other 
assistance to reduce the amount of energy the Federal Government uses. 
In other words, it enables the Federal Government to reduce its 
spending on heating, lighting, and other energy costs--which means it 
helps reduce the budget deficit.
  These are not minor savings. The Energy Department estimates that in 
Colorado alone, the program has the potential to save $26.5 million 
annually, while creating 510 new jobs--savings and jobs that are at 
risk if my amendment is not adopted.
  And Colorado is not the only place where savings and jobs are at risk 
without my amendment. To take just a few examples, the energy 
department estimates that: in California, without my amendment the bill 
puts at risk annual savings of more than $188 million, and some 3,500 
new jobs; in Texas, without my amendment the bill puts at risk annual 
savings of more than $93 million, and some 1,700 new jobs; in Virginia, 
without my amendment the bill puts at risk annual savings of more than 
$82 million, and some 1,500 new jobs; in New York, without my 
amendment, the bill puts at risk annual savings of more than $51 
million, and some 900 new jobs; in Illinois, without my amendment, the 
bill puts at risk annual savings of more than $40 million, and some 700 
new jobs; in Arizona, without my amendment, the bill puts at risk 
annual savings of more than $23 million, and some 450 new jobs; and in 
Ohio, without my amendment, the bill puts at risk annual savings of 
more than $33 million, and some 600 new jobs.
  We should not be so shortsighted. We should not jeopardize such 
savings and jobs.


                building equipment and materials program

  The story is similar for the building equipment and design program. 
It funds research on advanced lighting, improved window technologies, 
and voluntary, market-driven initiatives to promote high-efficiency 
equipment.
  Every year, 35 percent of all the energy used in our country goes to 
light, heat, and cool residential and commercial buildings. The goal of 
the building equipment and materials program is to cut in half the 
energy used for light, heat, and air-conditioning--reducing waste and 
reducing costs. One example of what's underway is the joint DOE-EPA 
``Energy Star'' labels, a voluntary program for high-efficiency 
appliances. Another is promotion of advanced technologies like the 
superwindows with special coatings that cut down on energy 
transmission--technologies that have already saved American consumers 
more than $2 billion and that can save billions more.
  Mr. Chairman, energy conservation, increased use of renewable energy, 
and increased energy efficiency should be bipartisan goals. I greatly 
appreciate the help and support of many of our colleagues, on both 
sides of the aisle, who share that view. It's been a pleasure to work 
with them, and I am confident that they will join in support of these 
en bloc amendments.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to he gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we have examined the amendment. We have no objection to 
it. We are willing to accept it.
  I might say that in conference I would like to do some fine tuning as 
to where we move these accounts to get the most cost-effective way of 
accomplishing the goal.
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman for his support very, very much.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good amendment. Our side is 
willing to accept it.

[[Page H6588]]

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, these are among the most cost-effective 
programs that the Federal Government has to offer. I think that the 
gentleman's amendment is very important and will be well received by 
the Federal Government. I thank the gentleman for propounding it.
  I rise in strong support for the amendment offered by my colleagues, 
Mr. Skaggs and Mr. Ehlers.
  This amendment to restore a small portion of the energy efficiency 
budget is key to our Nation's environmental health and economic future.
  The Skaggs-Ehlers amendment also cuts Government waste. The Skaggs-
Ehlers amendment will return $3 million to the Federal Energy 
Management Program [FEMP]. FEMP's mission is to reduce energy use in 
the Federal Government, thus providing direct dollar returns to the 
taxpayer. FEMP provides at least $4 in lower Federal energy costs for 
every $1 spent.
  The Skaggs-Ehlers amendment will also help mitigate deep cuts in 
DOE's buildings efficiency research programs which have thus far 
yielded billions of dollars in energy savings, consumer savings, and 
pollution prevention. DOE research and development of advanced 
technologies in lighting and windows, for example, have improved 
consumer choice while providing Americans the opportunity to reduce 
their energy bills and improve their quality of life.
  These are critical needs and I look forward to working with the 
Department of Energy so that these additional funds will be targeted to 
these high results programs, such as lighting research and windows 
research.
  These programs have been among the most successful programs in the 
Federal Government. I serve as a cochair of the bipartisan Alliance to 
Save Energy and in that capacity I have become very familiar with 
Federal energy efficiency programs. These are some of the most 
successful--that's why they enjoy the strong support not only of the 
Alliance to Save Energy, but companies in the lighting and windows 
industries, environmental groups, and many others.
  I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Regula, for his 
leadership on these issues. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor 
of the Skaggs-Ehlers amendment to cut Government waste and improve our 
environment.
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman for his support.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
While research into alternative energy sources is extremely important, 
we must not lose sight of what we can do to lower our energy 
consumption today. Increased funding for energy efficiency programs 
within the Federal Government as well as for energy efficient building 
equipment and materials will dramatically reduce our country's energy 
demand at the present time.
  By increasing funding for the Federal Energy Management Program or 
FEMP, we will reduce energy use in the Federal Government thereby 
providing direct dollar returns to the taxpayer. Currently, the Federal 
Government wastes more than $1 billion annually on unnecessary energy 
bills. Expanding FEMP will be an important step in eliminating this 
terrible waste. FEMP has reduced the annual U.S. Government energy bill 
by $4.4 billion since 1985 and provides at least $4 in lower energy 
costs for every $1 spent.
  In addition to improving energy efficiency within the Federal 
Government, increased funding for building equipment and materials will 
improve options for the American homeowner to make their homes more 
energy efficient. Specifically the use of energy efficient lighting and 
windows will save the consumers significantly in their energy bills. In 
addition to providing consumers an opportunity to reduce their energy 
bills, these new materials and technologies will assist in pollution 
prevention.
  As cochair of the Alliance to Save Energy, a nonprofit coalition of 
business leaders working to promote energy efficiency, I have become 
very familiar with the Federal Government's energy efficiency programs. 
Both FEMP and the building equipment and materials program are among 
the most successful.
  I join together with the Alliance, companies promoting energy 
efficient building equipment and materials, environmental groups and 
many in supporting this amendment. I hope the rest of my colleagues 
will choose to do the same.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Skaggs-Ehlers amendment.
  This amendment is sound environmental policy that saves the 
Government billions--yes billions--in energy costs in Federal 
buildings.
  This amendment says that this Nation will not surrender in our war of 
independence from Persian Gulf oil.
  With passage of today's amendment, we will begin to turn back the 
tankers that carry oil from the Middle East.
  We will reassert our independence, and reduce the overseas reliance 
which has hurt our economy, and dragged us into war and conflict. We 
must end the high price--in lives and dollars--that has been placed on 
foreign oil.
  This amendment also means that we might have a few less tankers 
navigating Prince William Sound, Narraganset Bay, and the Chesapeake.
  This amendment takes significant steps toward improving and 
encouraging energy efficiency, and reducing our reliance on foreign 
oil.
  This amendment offers a long-term, forward-thinking approach to 
energy policy.
  This amendment signals that an energy efficiency strategy will become 
a larger and more important part of our Nation's energy picture.
  By improving energy efficiency, families will be able to have more 
disposable income, save energy, and incorporate environmental 
protection into their way of life.
  I urge you to vote to protect the environment and protect the wallets 
of working families by supporting the Skaggs-Ehlers amendment.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skaggs 
amendment to restore $8 million in funding to important energy 
conservation programs. This amendment would restore the Federal Energy 
Management Program [FEMP] and the Department of Energy's lighting 
research program to their fiscal year 1996 levels.
  The House should lead by example by providing Federal buildings with 
energy efficient lighting systems. Today, the Federal Government is 
committed to cutting their energy usage in over 500,000 buildings by 30 
percent over the next decade. Federal Energy Management Program funding 
plays a key role in meeting this objective.
  The Federal Energy Management Program is a small but significant part 
of the effort to reduce this Nation's energy dependency. We all agree 
that energy resources will become increasingly scarce in future years. 
Let's do the right thing and pass the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. calvert

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Calvert: Page 12, line 14, after 
     the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $1,000,000)''.
       Page 49, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: (reduced by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Regula for 
allowing me the opportunity to offer this amendment.
  My amendment would simply transfer $1 million from the Forest Service 
general administration account to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. We are decreasing 
bureaucracy to bring money back to the local communities to help save 
endangered species.
  The transferred money would be used to further the completion of 
habitat conservation plans and thus would serve two important purposes. 
It would provide lands as safe harbors for threatened and endangered 
species and bring us one step closer to creating multi-species 
preserves. It would also help protect American citizens from any 
negative effects of the Endangered Species Act by freeing them from 
various restrictions and fees. I would like to see acceptance of this 
amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept this. It is a 
good amendment. This program in southern California has worked out very 
well, and it has become a model for about 200 others, other programs of 
a similar nature around the country. We think it is a very excellent 
way of showing how we can get a partnership with private, local, State, 
Federal, all working together to set up a habitat conservation program.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman on this very 
thoughtful amendment. One of the greatest burdens for those who are 
trying to attain the American dream of

[[Page H6589]]

homeownership in Riverside County, the area represented by my friend, 
Mr. Calvert has been jeopardized by the Endangered Species Act and the 
overriding costs that have been imposed on those who are trying to be 
successful. This will in fact play a role in relieving, just a part, a 
part of that cost burden. I strongly support it and appreciate my 
friend's bringing forward this thoughtful amendment.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. I 
appreciate the chairman supporting it because this will be a 
downpayment, a new innovative way of implementing our species 
management. This is multi-species management. It is the next 
progressive step in preserving endangered species. I think we may all 
disagree about different tactics, but the goal should be the same, 
supporting the species.
  This act will help to pay for that new strategy and will show that we 
can truly update our approach and instead of being punitive and 
confrontational with many of our approaches like we have in the past, 
we are being cooperative and actually progressive with this.
  I strongly support my colleague's amendment on this side. I thank him 
very much for those of us that have worked over 5 years at moving to 
multispecies management of our endangered species.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, our side is willing to accept the amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my friend and colleague from California, Mr. Calvert to 
shift $1 million from the Forest Service General Administration Account 
to the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation fund. This funding 
is very important to further California's Natural Habitat Conservation 
Plans [NCCP]. This multi-species approach to habitat and species 
conservation is a great improvement over the traditional command and 
control methods. It brings all parties together to protect the 
environment and private property rights.
  Mr. Calvert's amendment will enhance the program in California to 
develop conservation and development plans in nine separate areas in 
southern California that protect multiple species while allowing 
economic growth. In San Diego, our Multi-Species Conservation Plan 
encompasses over 55,000 acres in the San Diego region. I am encouraged 
by these efforts to protect the habitat of native plant and animal 
species, and I'm glad the Federal Government can lend support to our 
exceptional project.
  Chairman Regula has been extremely supportive of our conservation 
plan, and I am sure it will be a model throughout the country. I 
commend Mr. Calvert for his amendment and urge my colleagues to join me 
in support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to request a colloquy with chairman regarding 
the fate of the ongoing restoration work at Fort McHenry National 
Monument and Historic Shrine. I would ask that the chairman engage in 
such a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the committee has cut a $2.5 
million line item in the Park Service's construction budget for the 
completion of a project that is now underway at Fort McHenry.
  Last year, based upon a high priority request from the Park Service, 
$1.5 million was appropriated for work to preserve the underground 
bombproof rooms and power magazines at the fort as well as some of the 
more deteriorated walls and defenses of the structure. This year the 
Park Service requested $2.5 million to complete this project.
  The action of the committee threatens the timely completion of the 
work that is now underway at the birthplace of our national anthem. I 
understand the pressures your subcommittee is under this year, but this 
was a 2-year high priority project requested by the Park Service that 
is being cut off in the middle. I would greatly appreciate your 
reconsideration of this project as this bill moves forward in 
conference with the other body.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concerns and 
his appreciation of the pressures we are under this year. I hope that 
in conference we will be able to seriously consider restoring the 
funding and see this important project through to completion in a 
timely manner.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his comments.


                     amendment offered by mr. goss

  Mr. GOSS. 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. GOSS: In the item relating to 
     ``National Park Service--land acquisition and state 
     assistance'', after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
       In the item relating to ``Forest Service--reconstruction 
     and construction'', after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to increase 
the funds available to the National Park Service for necessary land 
acquisition, reducing the Forest Service construction account by the 
same amount. The amount is $15 million.
  The reason that I am seeking this shifting of funds is to help 
provide money for Everglades restoration land acquisition that the 
Federal Government has promised. A $15-million increase in the Park 
Service's land and water conservation fund would pay for the top 
priority for Everglades land acquisition.

                              {time}  1830

  It is necessary to limit further degradation of the park and Florida 
Bay and to restore natural water flow which is critical to the long-
term survival of the entire system. This is a plan that has been agreed 
upon by many participating parties and that the Federal Government has 
committed to.
  Members should know that the State of Florida, its industry and its 
individual taxpayers, have made a solid financial commitment to 
Everglades restoration across the board. Over the estimated life 
restoration effort, which is a 15- to 20-year program, the State 
expects to spend $1.1 billion or 60 percent of the total cost, 
primarily from Florida taxpayers. The Federal Government is committed 
to $737 million, which is less than 40 percent over the same period, 
and the sugar industry will pay about $245 million in that period.
  I think this demonstrates that Florida is the senior partner here and 
is really stepping up to pay more than its share. It is clearly living 
up to its end of the bargain.
  The proposed source of funds we have chosen for this amendment is the 
Forest Service construction account, which saw an increase over last 
year's funding levels and includes the controversial road construction 
program. In fact, because it often costs more to build these roads then 
the Forest Service recovers in subsequent timber sales, many refer to 
the program as a subsidy. In my view they are right. The committee 
recommends that $62 million be spent on new timber roads next year. 
That is $15 million that we are talking about, represents 24 percent of 
that amount. But I ask Members to keep in mind that these construction 
programs are slated to have their funding levels increased over last 
year's amounts under the bill.
  By comparison, land and water conservation funding has declined 
steeply over the past 2 years, and the Park Service's share is down 
$19.1 million since last year. An additional $15 million, in fact, will 
not even restore it to last year's levels, but it will help the 
Everglades and other areas seeking help with land acquisition. I think 
most Members agree that the Everglades is a national priority, and we 
do not want to end up taking a step backward from our level of 
commitment to restore them.
  I am grateful for the excellent work done by the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula] in this committee this tough year. The bill before us does 
an excellent job of providing scientific and management resources 
necessary for the restoration effort we are talking about. It adds 
$13.8 million over last year's levels.

[[Page H6590]]

  I know Members remember that Congress made a strong investment in 
Everglades restoration in the farm bill passed this year. The truth is 
that there is already, quote, a short list for those moneys for the 
farm bill that far exceeds the available dollars we have got. This 
short list does not include lands that were scheduled to be purchased 
through the normal process of this appropriations bill because language 
in the farm bill specifically discouraged that. The money, in fact, is 
not fungible, and it is already declared for other areas.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield for a brief colloquy 
to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Is it in regards to the amendment?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman I am querying on the 
amendment. I would like him to accept the amendment, but short of that, 
if the gentleman from Ohio can, I would like to know if he can give us 
some assurances on this bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], 
for yielding, and I would say to him that we consider the Everglades 
restoration funding, including land acquisition, to be one of the very 
top priorities in our bill, and I might mention in the bill, and I am 
quoting from the report, ``the committee considers this,'' speaking of 
Sterling Forest, ``this and the Everglades restoration effort to be two 
of the highest priority projects in this bill.'' I understand that the 
pressing need for land acquisition is outlined by the State-Federal 
Everglades Task Force, and included in that were the National Park 
Eastern Expansion and the STA-1 watershed project.
  It is clear that the State of Florida and its taxpayers have made a 
real commitment to this restoration project, and it is appropriate that 
the Federal Government live up to its responsibilities as well. I would 
point out that we have increased all other Everglades accounts by a 
total of $13.4 million, and most of this is for science.
  Finally, while I cannot support this amendment, given the limited 
amount of money we have for land acquisition, I would pledge to work 
with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the Florida delegation 
in conference to ensure adequate funding for Everglades land 
acquisition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Goss was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim the time.
  I accept the pledge, and it will be my intent to ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw my request for this amendment. However, Mr. 
Chairman, others wish to speak on it, so I would like to allow them to 
strike the last word to speak on it briefly, and I believe the 
appropriate procedure then is for me to yield back the balance of my 
time and hope to get recognition for my request as soon as they are 
finished.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has done 
tremendous work on this amendment. I certainly support it. It is 
certainly needed. We went through the arguments and the problems with 
the Everglades and the need for the restoration. I think he has very 
adequately set forth the determination, which is met with financial 
backing by the State of Florida and the taxpayers of the State of 
Florida, for the restoration of this most precious natural resource.
  I think this is a good amendment. I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Regula], and I know the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates] also has an interest in the Everglades.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good amendment. I would be 
willing to accept it now. I do not know why the gentleman is going to 
withdraw it.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I wish that were to be the case, and I would 
like to comment, too, on the funding area for which the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss] picked out in order to fund this amendment, and it 
is a construction of roads into new forests that have not been 
harvested. I have always looked at this with a great deal of skepticism 
as to why in the world that we are putting these roads to nowhere 
through our national forests and, in effect, selling off these, in many 
cases, very precious timber resources at a loss when we put the price 
of the road in there.
  To me, I think we need to take a look, and I would hope that the 
Committee on Natural Resources would take a look, at reexamining our 
whole outlook as to how we manage our natural resources. We can 
certainly go in and, with some good forestry practices, we can cut our 
national forests. I am not necessarily opposed to that, but I think it 
is absolutely absurd to do this at a loss to the American taxpayers 
because we are losing the precious natural resources, being the 
national forests, and we are constructing roads to nowhere that really 
are not doing anybody any good, and we are losing money in the process. 
To me this makes absolutely no sense.
  But to get back to the main thrust of the amendment, this is a very 
important amendment, and at this time I will not object should the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] want to withdraw the amendment based 
upon the colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the subcommittee chairman for his 
assurances to address the issue of funding for Everglades land 
acquisition in conference. This is an extremely vital issue for the 
State of Florida, and I look forward to working with the chairman 
through conference.
  As the author of the amendment to provide $200 million for land 
acquisition in the Everglades earlier this year in the farm bill--it 
was not my intention, nor the intention of the Florida delegation, to 
have these monies undercut any future land acquisition funding through 
the normal appropriations cycle. As I stated during the debate on the 
conference report of the farm bill in House--``It is not my intent that 
these funds supplant any funds committed to South Florida for the 
purpose of Everglades restoration.''
  In fact, the Florida delegation has sent several letters to the 
Interior Subcommittee stating that the Farm Bill money was a furthering 
of the federal commitment to restore the fragile Everglades ecosystem--
not the end of this ongoing process.
  Mr. Chairman, as part of the Everglades Forever Act passed by the 
Florida legislature, the State of Florida has invested over $850 
million in Everglades and the agriculture industry has also pledged a 
commitment of up to $320 million. The Federal Government was the third 
part of the funding scheme for overall Everglades restoration--so we 
must retain that commitment.
  I appreciate the committee's willingness to make Everglades 
restoration one of its highest priorities--however, I believe the lack 
of funding in this bill for land acquisition under the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund is inconsistent with this goal.
  The Everglades ecosystem is a unique national treasure and its long 
term viability is critical to the water supply, quality of life, and 
economy for South Florida.
  Therefore, today, it is important to remember that because South 
Florida is home to seven of the ten fastest-growing metropolitan areas 
in the country--Everglades restoration is clearly on a critical path.
  And success will depend upon the federal government, the State of 
Florida, and all local, regional, and tribal interest working in 
tandem.
  But to keep this process moving forward we must not neglect the 
federal role--so with the chairman's assurances that this issue will be 
addressed in conference it is my hope that the Everglades will continue 
to receive the land acquisition funds it needs in the upcoming fiscal 
year.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, based on the assurance of the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the dialog and the colloquy we have had, I ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

[[Page H6591]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection to the request of the gentleman 
of Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] 
is withdrawn.


                   amendmed offered by mr. richardson

  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Richardson: On page 10, Under the 
     item ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service'', under the 
     item `'resource management'', after the second dollar amount 
     insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       On page 58, Under the item ``Department of Energy'', under 
     the item ``fossil energy research and development'', after 
     the first dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. RICHARDSON. (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply increases funding 
for the operations and maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge 
System by $5 million. Let me say that my amendment is supported by the 
National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the Wilderness Society, 
the Izaak Walton League, Defenders of Wildlife, the Freshwater 
Institute, the Wildlife Society, National Audubon Society, Wildlife 
Refuge Association, a variety of other hunting groups.
  Mr. Chairman, the refuge system is the only system of national lands 
managed primarily for wildlife, including migratory waterfowl, 
songbirds and endangered species. It also provides unique opportunities 
for compatible wildlife oriented recreation including hunting, fishing, 
wildlife education and observation. In fact, 30 million people visit 
refuges, 5.7 million anglers use 250 refuges, and 1.3 million hunters 
use 270 refuges.
  Mr. Chairman, I am taking a total of $5 million from the coal-fired 
plant. There have been a number of amendments here that went after some 
of the coal-fired and other fossil fuels. Mine simply takes 5 million, 
which is 5 million more than the administration requested.
  The refuge system has for years suffered from inadequate funding and 
staffing to manage its exceptional resources.

                              {time}  1845

  In 1993 the Interior Department Inspector General documented a $323 
million backlog in refuge maintenance projects. A growing number of 
refuges have been placed in custodial status. Furthermore, the report 
concluded that refuges were not maintained at a level sufficient to 
meet their goals. Many refuges today suffer with inadequate water 
supplies, insufficient staff and funding to implement plans to recover 
endangered species, restore habitat, or conduct even rudimentary 
inventories of their wildlife populations. The lack of adequate funding 
also threatens refuge recreation and interpretive programs. Inadequate 
operations and maintenance funds for national wildlife refuges have 
also resulted in reduced wildlife populations and fewer associated 
recreational opportunities.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just state once again, my amendment adds only $5 
million to the operations and maintenance of the National Wildlife 
Refuge System and takes this from fossil energy, $5 million that comes 
from an increase of $5 million from the administration request.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Regula] for the 
funding he has initiated on several of these programs, but I do think 
that we should go with the administration request. The refuges need the 
money. Environmental groups, hunting, fishing groups are for this 
amendment. They have sent a letter to all Members: Defenders of 
Wildlife, Fresh Water Institute, the Wilderness Society, Trout 
Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation. Mr. Chairman, this is an 
important priority to give $5 million to the National Wildlife Refuge 
System.
  Again, to my colleagues from the fossil energy areas, we are only 
taking $5 million over the administration request. Again, I believe 
this is a good amendment, an environmentalist amendment, a hunting and 
fishing amendment. But it deals constructively, in my judgment, with 
some responsible appropriations that the gentleman from Ohio has made 
in several of these instances. I do want to commend him. The numbers 
are a lot better, but I think with this amendment we can improve 
things. I would hope the gentleman would be supportive of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert the following for the Record:


                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                                    June 19, 1996.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Re: FY Interior Appropriations--Support Environmental 
         Protections.
       Dear Representative:  The League of Conservation Voters 
     (LCV) is the bi-partisan political arm of the national 
     environmental movement. Each year, LCV publishes the National 
     Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of 
     Members of Congress on environmental legislation. The 
     Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters 
     nationwide and the press.
       Over the next few days the House will be voting on the FY 
     1997 Interior Appropriations Bill. During consideration of 
     this bill several amendments will be offered relating to the 
     protection of the nation's environment and valuable natural 
     resources. LCV urges you to support the following amendments:
       Representatives Porter (R-IL) and Furse (D-OR) will offer 
     an amendment to repeal Section 2001 of Public Law 104-19. 
     This amendment repeals the so-called salvage logging rider 
     included in the 1995 Rescissions bill which suspended all 
     federal environmental and natural resource law for old growth 
     timber sales in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California 
     and salvage logging being conducted on Forest Service and BLM 
     lands nationwide.
       Representative Dicks (D-WA) will offer an amendment to 
     strike the provision prohibiting the implementation of 
     critical habitat designation under the federal ESA for the 
     endangered marbled murrelet on private lands in the northern 
     coastal area of California. If critical habitat in this 
     California area does not continue to be designated, there is 
     a strong likelihood of marbled murrelet extinction in 
     northern California. Critical habitat designation on private 
     land does NOT stop all activities, as such designation only 
     impacts federal, not private, actions.
       Representatives Kennedy (D-MA), Porter (R-IL), Miller (R-
     FL), Minge (D-MN), Royce (R-CA), Klug (R-WI), and Hostettler 
     (R-IN) will offer an amendment to reduce wasteful funding for 
     logging road construction in the National Forest System by 
     eliminating funding for new Forest Service logging roads in 
     Fiscal Year 1997. This amendment will save $48 million by 
     eliminating funding for 550 miles of new timber roads.
       Representative Skaggs (D-CO) will offer an amendment to 
     restore $8 million to energy conservation for the Federal 
     Energy Management Program and the high results building 
     research programs which were cut disproportionally to the 
     other severe cuts in the overall energy conservation budget. 
     These programs save taxpayers billion of dollars in economic 
     returns and energy savings while preventing tens of thousands 
     of tons of air pollution.
       Representatives Farr (D-CA) and Walker (R-PA) are each 
     expected to offer amendments which would use the Department 
     of Energy's Fossil Fuel Research and Development program as 
     an offset. Rep. Farr will offer an amendment to increase the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund account by $134.6 million, 
     and Rep. Walker will offer an amendment to provide an 
     additional $62 million to the National Park Service's 
     operating budget. While the conservation community supports 
     each amendment, the Farr amendment is of higher priority 
     because restoring funding to the Land and Water Conservation 
     Fund would provide additional funds for all land management 
     agencies, and renew the National Park Service's state 
     assistance program. If the Farr amendment is defeated, LCV 
     recommends approval of the Walker amendment which would 
     improve funding for the national parks.
       Representative Miller (D-CA) will offer an amendment to 
     provide $10 million to restore the Park Service's Urban Parks 
     and Recreation Program which was zeroed out in the Interior 
     Bill.
       Representative Richardson (D-NM) will offer an amendment to 
     increase funding for the operations and maintenance of the 
     National Wildlife Refuge System by $5 million, to be offset 
     by a decrease of $5 million in the Advanced Pulverized Coal-
     fired Power Plant.
       Representative Yates (D-IL) will offer an amendment to 
     correct an environmentally damaging provision in the 
     telecommunications Act of 1996 that could lead to a 
     proliferation of huge antenna towers in our parks, wildlife 
     refuges, and forests. This amendment would ensure that no 
     such facility is approved without public notice and comment 
     and a determination of consistency with other statutes 
     governing the unit.
       Representative Faleomavaega (D-AS) will offer an amendment 
     to strike section 317 of the Interior Appropriations bill. 
     That section declares to be legal a Forest Service permit for 
     the construction of a third telescope in the critical habitat 
     of the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel, despite three court rulings 
     that it violates the ESA and NEPA. He

[[Page H6592]]

     may also move to bar funds for Forest Service participation 
     in the construction and operation of the third telescope.
       LCV urges you to support these amendments to improve 
     environmental protection and energy conservation. LCV's 
     Political Advisory Committee will consider including votes on 
     these amendments in compiling LCV's 1996 Scorecard.
       Thank you for your consideration of this issue. If you need 
     more information please call Betsy Loyless in my office at 
     202/785-8683.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Deb Callahan,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                              Cooperative Alliance


                                       for Refuge Enhancement,

                                                    June 19, 1996.
       Dear Representative: We are writing to urge you to support 
     an amendment to be offered to the FY1997 Interior 
     Appropriations bill by Representative Bill Richardson to 
     increase funding for the operations and maintenance of the 
     National Wildlife Refuge System. The operating budget for the 
     Refuge System represents a tiny fraction of federal spending 
     but management and protection of this system is one of the 
     nation's most important wildlife conservation programs.
       Our diverse group formed last year out of strong support 
     for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 92 million-acre 
     Refuge System is the only federal public lands system 
     dedicated primarily to the conservation of fish and wildlife. 
     Throughout most of its 93-year history, the Refuge System has 
     been central to our nation's efforts to conserve migratory 
     birds, endangered species, and other wildlife. National 
     wildlife refuges also provide exceptional opportunities for 
     environmental education and wildlife-oriented recreation, 
     such as wildlife observation, hunting, and fishing.
       We are deeply concerned, however, for the integrity of the 
     National Refuge System. Chronic underfunding in past years 
     has led to degradation of refuge habitats and wildlife 
     populations and put at risk popular wildlife-oriented 
     recreation programs. Some refuges now report that as much as 
     95 percent or more of their funding goes to salaries, 
     utilities and other fixed costs. Some have even indicated 
     that their FY95 funding levels are less than fixed costs. 
     Exotic species, inadequate water supplies, and other problems 
     plague many refuges, undermining their ability to meet their 
     wildlife objectives. Management programs to help recover 
     endangered, threatened, and candidate species, restore 
     habitats and address resource threats are left unaccomplished 
     on an increasing number of stations.
       In September, 1993, the Department of the Interior's 
     Inspector General issued a report that documented a $323 
     million backlog in maintenance projects (Maintenance of 
     Wildlife Refuges, Report No. 93-I-1477). Inspectors found 
     that the Service was not maintaining any of the refuges that 
     it examined ``in a manner that would effectively enhance and 
     protect wildlife and provide a safe and aesthetic experience 
     for the public.'' The report concluded that ``refuges were 
     not maintained at a level sufficient to meet [their] goals 
     because Service funding requests for refuge maintenance have 
     not been adequate to meet even the minimal needs of 
     sustaining the refuges.''
       The funding increase proposed by Rep. Richardson's 
     amendment would begin to restore integrity to the National 
     Wildlife Refuge System. Such an increase could allow for 
     long-overdue habitat restoration, facilities repair, and 
     wildlife protection and management and is essential to 
     sustain and improve the quality of environmental education 
     and wildlife-oriented recreation programs.
           Sincerely,
         James Wyerman, Defenders of Wildlife; Robert Putz, 
           Freshwater Institute; Ronald Scott, Izaak Walton League 
           of America; Evan Hirsche, National Audubon Society; 
           Douglas Inkley, National Wildlife Federation; David 
           Tobin, National Wildlife Refuge Association; Rollin 
           Sparrowe, Wildlife Management Institute; Jim Waltman, 
           The Wilderness Society; Thomas Franklin, The Wildlife 
           Society; Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's concepts are well-meaning, but 
I simply have to point out that this would take this account $4 million 
over what the President has asked for, and he has not been shy in his 
requests. This would come out of our Fossil Energy Program. We have 
already cut $63 million from the 1996 levels. I think in the two votes 
we have had on the Fossil Energy Program, it is clear that the majority 
of this House feels we should maintain that program to protect our 
energy resources, to protect clean air, to protect jobs, to protect our 
energy independence.
  While Fish and Wildlife obviously would spend it, let me point out 
that we gave this program, fish and wildlife resource management, $20 
million more in this bill than we had in 1996. It is a 4-percent 
increase in the bill, while at the same time we were cutting fossil 
energy research by 14 percent. I do not think it is logical at this 
juncture to take another cut on fossil energy, which has already had a 
14-percent cut, to add it to an agency that has had a 4-percent 
increase. It is a matter of balance. It is a matter of trying to 
achieve equity among the many responsibilities of the agencies funded 
in this bill.
  For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would have to object strenuously 
to this amendment. Certainly I would think we would not want to go over 
the President's requests. We were within $1 million of that in the 
amount we put in the bill, and it is presently part of the proposal 
that is before us. I would hope that the Members would vote against 
this if we do have a rollcall vote.
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
by my colleague from New Mexico to provide additional funding for the 
operations of the National Park Service.
  One of the parks operated by the National Park Service, the home of 
former President Harry S. Truman, is located in my district in 
Independence, Missouri. Earlier this week I had the distinction of 
joining with Independence Mayor Ron Stewart, local preservationists, 
and National Park Service officials to announce that Harry Truman's 
neighborhood is one of the nation's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places.
  Hundreds of thousands of tourists visit the Harry S. Truman Historic 
District each year to experience a living history lesson unlike any 
other. It is one example of our vital national treasures which must be 
preserved. Unfortunately, like the Truman Historic District, many of 
these treasures are endangered due to new development, and decades of 
deterioration and neglect.
  The National Park Service is vital to the protection of preservation 
of historic landmarks like the Truman Home. The additional money 
provided by this amendment is necessary for the Park Service to perform 
its many operations. I urge my colleagues to support the National Park 
Service, and to vote for the Richardson amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Richardson] will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to title I?


                     amendment offered by mr. vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 33.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Vento: In the item relating 
     to the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR--National Park Service--
     Operation of the National Park System, insert ``(increased by 
     $23,480,000)'' after the third dollar amount.
       In the item relating to RELATED AGENCIES--Department of 
     Agriculture--Forest Service--Reconstruction and Construction, 
     insert ``(reduced by $28,050,000)'' after the first dollar 
     amount.

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, an amendment that 
talks about our fundamental priorities in this Congress in terms of the 
way we fund various activities, and enable and empower people to have 
the opportunity to use our resources.
  In the bill before the House presented after a lot of work, I guess, 
by the appropriation committees, I know a lot of work, I think 
fundamentally that the priorities are out of balance. Many of us are 
very concerned about our forests and the rate of cutting. We had quite 
a debate in this last year on salvage harvest and the concerns that 
grew out of that in terms of the indiscriminate harvest of millions of 
board feet from our national forests without regard to the various laws 
that protect the species.
  In this bill today, though, Mr. Chairman, we continue a subsidy of 
over $160 million in terms of the Forest Service appropriations, and 
the fact is that this appropriation largely goes to subsidize the 
construction of timber roads. In fact, my colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], had offered an amendment, which he subsequently 
withdrew, which others from Florida spoke about and began the 
discussion of the subsidization of timber harvest on our national 
forests.

[[Page H6593]]

  This, of course, does not just involve the construction of the roads, 
is also involves what we call the restoration of roads. That is 
actually road closing. So the Forest Service, as an agency, in fact, 
runs a road system through our forests, which is actually much greater 
in many respects than our interstate system. We operate a great road 
system that is produced there largely on a subsidized basis by, in 
fact, the Forest Service itself, in fact, 370,000 miles of road within 
our National Forests.
  The fact is when we get CBO to start scoring this, they do not even 
look at some of the facts in terms of the subsidies, because much of 
it, the advocates of forest road construction have been very clever in 
terms of their timber interests groups and others in this Congress and 
in this Government, in the way the budget scores this in terms of 
allocating these roads back to multiple use. Somehow these roads that 
are being constructed through these forests, roads to nowhere, as was 
pointed out, somehow have some great uses for recreation and other 
purposes.
  The forest road construction in this bill is actually $164.1 million. 
This goes on year after year, the spending of this money, similar 
amounts, to subsidize the harvest, and very often I think in some cases 
the indiscriminate harvest, based on legislation that is now in place 
with regard to the forest salvage rider that was added to some 
appropriation and rescission bills last year.

  What this amendment does is try to say straighten out those 
priorities, straighten out those priorities to meet the needs of the 
people of this country first, meet the needs that exist in the people's 
parks, the national park system. In this bill that is before us, they 
underfund the Park Service by $24 million less than what was asked by 
the administration.
  What the Vento amendment does not take out all of the subsidy for the 
timber roads, timber companies, and the credits they use. We are saying 
to the timber interests is to stand on your own 2 feet. Take the 
receipts that you get from the forest that you harvest and in fact 
apply those, apply them as credits. If the timber harvest does not pay, 
if it does not pay enough, maybe we ought not to be adding that subsidy 
to them to the extent that we are in order to harvest this timber.
  We do not take all the money out of there, we just say that we are 
going to meet the needs of the Park Service. The Park Service today has 
at least a $4 billion backlog, a $4 billion, with a ``b'', backlog of 
unmet maintenance needs.
  This spring, as all of us look forward to enjoying our national parks 
again in 1996, we are faced with some pretty bad news, bad news about 
the closing and limits in terms of how we are going to be able to use 
the parks, because the parks did not have the resources to maintain 
some of the facilities they embrace and to keep them open to the 
general public for this particular recreational season, for this summer 
season. We are going to face increasing problems of limited park uses.
  I realize that all of us support the parks, but the fact is that 
parks do not just need our enthusiasm and our lip service, they need 
real dollars. The Committee on Appropriations historically has done a 
very good job in terms of trying to respond to that. But in this case 
they fall $24 million short with a backlog of $4 billion in repair and 
maintenance. We are not going to catch up with that by spending money 
excessively in terms of our natural forests. This is a question of 
priorities. The Vento amendment transfers $24 million from the Forest 
Service account to the Park Service account to provide adequate funding 
for the park operations, based on the plan that was put before us by 
the administration.
  My amendment does not change the total funding of the Interior 
appropriation bill. It simply changes the allocation of funds within 
the bill. My amendment is about setting priorities.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is about setting priorities. 
Should be timber industry or the National Park Service get the 
preference when we allocate scarce Federal dollars. That is what this 
is about. The timber sales actually cost the Government money, forcing 
the American taxpayer to subsidize the timber interests. That is 
continuing business as usual with regard to this funding measure.
  Timber purchasers can build roads in natural forests for logging 
purposes and then can receive purchaser credits. Often they do, so the 
Federal Government never receives anything back, so often the timber 
sales yield so low a bid in terms of dollars that the Government does 
no receive money. In fact, they have to put more money into harvesting 
the forest, to clearcutting the trees, than in fact we get back. So the 
taxpayer not only loses these wonderful verdant green forests, but we 
also lose our green dollars from our pocketbook, the taxpayers' dollars 
that have to go in there to subsidize this activity.
  All we are saying is that the dollars in the appropriations, the 
Interior appropriation, ought to have a priority on the people's 
business, in the people's parks, in our national park system, which I 
think everyone would agree we would like to give more money to but we 
cannot do it because we are in a tough budget situation.
  But we can do it here by facing up to these special interests and by 
providing the money to the Park Service first, and let the special 
interests try to do it on the basis of the free enterprise system. They 
like to give speeches about it. They like the part about making money 
and getting Federal Government subsidies. They just do not like the 
idea of taking risks.
  It is time they start taking risks. It is time they start paying 
their own way in terms of these programs that we have, especially as 
they affect our natural resources. They are not just taking our 
dollars, they are not just cutting our forests, they are taking away 
America's legacy. They are allowing the despoiling of our national park 
system, the cultural natural resources, and they are cutting down the 
national forests in this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Vento amendment. Let us 
protect our national parks first.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let us look at the facts on this. We heard a lot about 
the problems in the parks. I would point out that the Inspector General 
in his audit report documented item after item after item, and that is 
before our watch. What causes these problems? The failure to administer 
these programs carefully; the fact that money was spent helping out 
private property owners and concessionaires. Here it is. What we are 
trying to do in this bill is to ensure that we manage these parks well. 
I said at the outset, we want to bring the same kind of cost-effective 
management to our services that we ask the private sector to do.
  Let me point out also that at this point we have just $2 million 
additional for this program, the Forest Service roads, whereas we have 
$55 million more in the Park Service. So we have recognized that. We 
have earmarked money for programs in the Park Service. It gets one of 
the larger increases in the bill, given the allocation that we had 
available.
  Let me also mention a couple of other things. That is that all this 
money on the Forest Service roads is for reconstruction; not new roads, 
just reconstructing the roads that are there. Why is that important? 
Any of the Members that have worked on a driveway or any kind of road 
that is not paved discover that if you do not take care of it, you get 
erosion. Pretty soon we get stream impact from the washing that goes on 
in these roads if they are not reconstructed. So environmentally, it is 
very important that these roads be constructed properly to prevent the 
impact on the streams and the adjacent areas.
  Second, and I have made this point in the general debate, our forests 
provide enormous recreation opportunities. They are multipurpose to the 
hunter, the fisherman, the camper, the Boy Scout, the bird watchers. 
All kinds of groups use our forests. In fact, the national forests have 
twice the visitor days of the national parks. How do they get there? 
How is the sportsman who wants to enjoy the outdoor delights of the 
forests in America to get there? They have to have a road, a reasonably 
safe road to utilize these resources.

[[Page H6594]]

  To say OK, this does not make sense because of below-cost sales, 
ignores that fact that there is enormous value to society, to people, 
to have these roads available for all of the recreational resources. 
There were over 300 million visitors last year in the national forests. 
I think to make this kind of a switch does not recognize the needs of 
those visitors, does not recognize the polluting impact of failure to 
reconstruct these roads.
  Again, we were very frugal in what we gave the road program as 
compared to what we gave the park program. I think it would be a big 
mistake in terms of priorities to adopt this amendment. I urge the 
Members to vote no.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Vento amendment which I 
understand would basically increase the National Park Service 
operations enough to bring the funding up to the President's request 
for fiscal year 1997, basically to stress that the Park Service 
operation funds, more funding essentially is needed for both operating 
national parks as well as to construct and maintain Park Service 
facilities that are used by many Americans.
  In my own district the demand for outdoor opportunities and 
recreation services continues to grow, and yet funding for the Park 
Service is shrinking, which does not make any sense to me. I have in my 
own district the Sandy Hook unit of Gateway National Recreation Area, 
which is basically used by millions of people in the highly urbanized 
New York-New Jersey metropolitan area.
  If I could just use that as an example, there are many needs right 
now at Sandy Hook that are not being met, not only in terms of 
facilities but even in terms of basic access to Sandy Hook. Just 
continued access to the park and sufficient water availability for fire 
fighting needs, for example, are a problem.
  I did want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula], because there is report language in the bill acknowledging the 
problem at Sandy Hook and recognizing that there is an access problem, 
and I do appreciate Chairman Regula including that. But I have to say 
that I do think we need more money for the Park Service.
  The Vento amendment would increase funding for the overall benefit of 
the American public and it takes it, I know, by reducing funding for 
construction of timber roads. But I do think that we need to 
recognize--and that is what the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
does--the fact that there is a need for more operational funds as well 
as for construction of facilities and other opportunities throughout 
the country.
  I also wanted to say, I know we passed it by, but I did want to also 
support the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Richardson] with regard to the National Wildlife Refuge system. Again 
if I could use New Jersey as an example, we are faced with very serious 
environmental problems, many of which are the result of human 
accelerated environmental changes, especially due to the high 
population density in my State.

  Whether it is coastal waters, migratory birds, fish or other wildlife 
resources under Federal trusteeship, it is only because of the national 
wildlife system that we have about five areas now in New Jersey that 
are protected. I was able to get a few years ago an extension of the 
service for another 2,000 acres of sensitive wetlands, but again there 
are a lot of unmet needs in my district as well as throughout the 
State. Until we are able to get some additional funding to the Fish and 
Wildlife service for acquisition, these needs are not going to be met.
  I realize that we are dealing with budget priorities and we are 
trying to reduce the deficit, but I do think that this is one area 
where most Americans and certainly those in my home State feel that the 
priorities should be to provide additional funding rather than the 
level of cutbacks that we have seen in the last few years.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I 
want to thank the gentleman for his support.
  I would just point out that the nearly $50 million in this 
appropriation of some $160 million dollars for Forest Service 
construction is for road credits. That would construct approximately 
550 miles of new roads. The fact is that I am not surprised that the 
Forest Service needs reconstruction of roads. They have 379,000 miles 
of Forest Service roads. That is eight times the number of mileage in 
the entire interstate highway system, eight times the amount of roads.
  So the fact that we have all of these roads and that they are somehow 
associated with recreation and they are there for some other purpose I 
think is ludicrous on the face of it. These are not there for any other 
reason. If my colleagues have ever flown over any area where these 
roads are located, it is to harvest the timber. That is why these roads 
are put in. They are there almost exclusively for that purpose. There 
may be some other tangential use that goes on with it but it is to 
support it on that basis.

  I am not cutting all the dollars in this item. I am saying the first 
priority ought not to be to these roads but to our Nation's national 
parks. That is what this amendment is about. If you are for the 
national parks, vote for the Vento amendment.
  If you are not for it, if you are for harvesting more of the forests 
and doing it at the expense of the taxpayer, eliminating future 
generations' legacy of forests and spending taxpayers' dollars to do 
it, then you can vote against it. But I think it is the wrong vote, and 
I think it is the wrong priority for this Congress.
  Can the Forest Service or the Park Service use a better accounting 
system? Yes, and they have put it in place, but that is not what this 
issue is about. It is about the priorities, whether it is for the parks 
or for the special interest timber interests.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, over the years I served with the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] in the Interior Committee and worked with the 
gentleman there, I have tried diligently to teach forestry to him and I 
have not had much success. We are good friends and I appreciate his 
interest in this area and before I leave Congress it is a goal of mine 
to make clear to him what this program is all about. There is no 
subsidy in the forest road system.
  First of all, the timber is sold by the national forests on a bid 
basis. The bid has two components. First of all, I bid what I am going 
to buy if I am a bidder for that timber that is put on sale by the 
Forest Service. Part of my bid includes the fact that I would be given 
credit for building a road to the Forest Service's specification, 
because the Forest Service in many cases plans to use that for 
recreation and other purposes. They may want it built to a much higher 
standard than you need to harvest the timber. They may plan to use it 
as their trail program. A great portion of the trails either for 
walking or horseback riding in our national forests comes from roads 
that were built to harvest timber and then kept and maintained for the 
purposes of recreation. So I get that credit.

  If the Forest Service did not give that credit to the person bidding, 
then the bid would be lower, therefore, it would be the same thing. The 
Forest Service would have to build it themselves at the cost that they 
are giving me credit for, or they would give me credit and I would 
build it. So it is a wash. There is no subsidy. There is a wash to the 
program when you are bidding timber.
  Unfortunately, what the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] is 
talking about, and he is confusing it to some extent, if you are taking 
$24 million in new money and transferring it over to the park, it does 
not come from the Forest Credit Program for road credit. What it comes 
from is the program to upgrade existing roads. They have over 1,700 
miles of old roads that are already built that they are going to try to 
raise standards on.
  This is an anti-environmental vote if Members vote with the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] because part of this money that he is going 
to be taking is being used to upgrade the environmental standards of 
that road. They

[[Page H6595]]

are going to reseed, try to cut sedimentation. Some of the money is 
going to be spent to upgrade the roads for recreational purposes, 
perhaps to raise weight limits on bridges and other areas to allow 
recreational vehicles to be involved. You are jeopardizing public 
safety and the environment by transferring the money over to the Park 
Service.
  As the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Committee pointed out, 
there has been close to $55 million put into park maintenance. To many 
people in the United States, they really do not know the difference 
between national parks and national forests when it comes to recreation 
because they may go to a national forest and camp or fish or carry out 
all the same things they would do, hike, as they would do in a national 
park. If we cut the money for maintaining their recreational roads 
which the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] is suggesting into the 
national forest and give it to the national park, what have we 
accomplished? If more people are going to the forest, the people need 
that road improvement in the forest just as much as they would need 
maintenance in the national park. And so we are not making a statement 
for the recreational user by taking money out of a forest where they 
now recreate and putting it into a park maybe that has less 
recreational use.

  Finally, I would like to point out, all this talk about subsidy, 
about losing money in national forests, the GAO--and the gentleman I 
think misquoted them a moment ago--pointed out, it documents that in 
fiscal year 1992 through 1994, we took in almost $3 billion. We spent 
just a little over $1.25 billion in administration costs and sale 
preparation for timber. So there was a substantial profit made by the 
U.S. Government.
  It is dictated to use that profit several ways. First of all, $1.3 
billion of it goes to the national forest fund. Almost $1 billion of it 
goes to the States where it is used for schools and government, State 
roads or county roads, given the case. $134 million goes in to maintain 
roads and trails for recreation. And then we have almost three-quarters 
of a billion dollars of it by law goes into reforest. Not all of that 
is reforesting areas that are cut. It may be reforesting areas that 
have burned, reforesting areas that have gone down with wind damage or 
disease.
  We also show that for other erosion, brush removal, other things, we 
have $1.34 million that go into the Forest Service use of maintaining 
the forest. The taxpayer would have to pay that out of his pocket if it 
was not coming from the sale of timber.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Taylor] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Taylor of 
North Carolina was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, to summarize I would say 
that to say that we are losing money by our timber harvest is not true. 
The homebuilders, the realtors, people who rely on the forest products 
to build homes know that it is not true and they know it is important 
for them to have a home.
  This vote that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] suggests is 
against public safety, as well as against the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I want to just turn to page 50 of the bill that the 
gentleman is commenting on and I want to point out it says on line 16 
that not to exceed $50 million to remain available until expended may 
be obligated for the construction of forest roads by timber purchasers.
  That is the $50 million that I am talking about. The issue of 
reconstruction and so forth is ahead of that. I am not suggesting in 
the amendment that I have that it ought to be taken all from that or 
all from the other area. I agree with the gentleman that there is a 
need to maintain roads, but I am just saying that it is a question of 
priority. There is $50 million in here for the construction of new 
roads, not just the credit program that the gentleman is talking about.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Is the gentleman talking about $50 
million for credit or $50 million for timber roads?
  Mr. VENTO. It is provided that $50 million out of the $164 million is 
an obligation of direct spending, direct subsidy by this Congress to 
those timber interests.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a classic case of what we do around 
here when all else fails, throw money at it. The fact is that the 
overall spending for our national parks has increased substantially 
over inflation in recent years. In fact, in the last 7 years alone, 
funding for national parks has increased by 69 percent. This bill 
continues that trend and authorizes an additional $50 million for park 
operating accounts. However, there are some concerns with allocating 
it. I do not see any reason just to throw money down a black hole 
because that seems to be the way we have done business around here for 
the past 40 years. We have tried to come up with a better way to manage 
the parks. H.R. 260, the bill of the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 
Hefley, supported by myself, by former Chairman Vento and Miller was 
one that was shot down here. Some people tried to say it was a park 
closing bill, which is the greatest misnomer I have ever heard in my 
life. That contained in it some of the management procedures that were 
necessary to take care of it.
  We are also working on a fee bill, which will allow the park 
superintendent to have in his own ability to spend the money himself 
without having to come back here or talk to somebody in Washington.

  We are working on lot of things to increase the park. We have talked 
about the idea of having a professional in the park director's 
position, so a man who has been in park work who understands the 
problems can take care of it. All of those things respond to this. Why 
take another $50 million and throw it at the park? We have tried that 
before and it has not worked.
  In other words, Congress could easily provide $25 million, $50 
million or $100 million in any funding agency and no expectation that 
campgrounds would be reopened and visitor services restored. In fact, 
the National Park Service has stated itself it needs $800 million in 
additional operating funds which, if you look at it, you have to have a 
little skepticism in your mind.

                              {time}  1915

  Several years ago the National Park Service estimated it had a 
shortfall of over $500 million to repair employee housing. However, in 
testimony before the committee, the GAO said this: They could not find 
1 in the 15 parks to justify their estimates for the housing shortfall, 
not one.
  Mr. Chairman, I support, and I am sure most of us do, responsible 
increase for our parks and believe they are provided for in this bill. 
I support a fee increase. I support taking care of the parks. I do not 
support closing any parks, contrary to what has been stated around 
America by a few folks. But I do support taking care of these things, 
and I cannot see where this is going to help anything. I personally 
feel if we are going to do this right, we should go down the path we 
are going, a reasonable modest, approach, doing it with a fee bill, 
doing it with a management structure change which we are working on. I 
am trying to work in harmony with the minority on this. I do not think 
this does anything but take $50 million out of a much needed road 
project in the forests.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to 
work, and I have been pleased to work with him for many years. In this 
case, we are going to agree to disagree.
  Mr. Chairman, my concern here is we have to make tough choices. This 
is a tough choice. This choice is whether we want to continue a $164 
million for Forest Service construction, roads, and the other 
activities in this particular account, or we want to transfer some of 
that to the Park Service.
  The gentleman has been a leader in pointing out the backlog in the 
Park

[[Page H6596]]

Service. When I was chairman, the gentleman was pointing it out and 
many others. Four billion dollars, I said it is; there are many that 
would claim it is higher. But the Park Service, one of the major 
backlogs the have is the roads that people use to get in and out of the 
parks. So that is 100 percent for the people of this country, not just 
some sort of incidental use that might be used in rural Minnesota or 
out-State Utah.
  My concern is the priorities here ought to be with the parks. I know 
the difference between a park and a forest. The gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Taylor] suggests that most people do not. I think they 
do. I think they know the difference between a park and a forest. They 
know where you can cut timber and where you cannot and the nature of 
our parks. I just think that this is making a tough choice. Making a 
tough choice, that is what this is about. We are going to have to make 
these tough choices. We need to send a message to those that are 
cutting resources and taking resources out of forests that they are 
going to have to pay their own way, that we cannot keep them on this 
base of $164 million. This is going into the forest largely for the 
timber interests in this country.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the 
gentleman that there have to be some tough choices. I have no problem 
with that. I submit to the House this is not the right choice. I think 
there are lot better ways to do it. I articulated three of them. If we 
had the time, I would like to get into this thing of road building. I 
think there is a lot better and easier way to do it. I urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hansen was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is trying 
to make believe that all recreation in this country in forests is done 
in the national parks. There is probably more recreation in forests 
than there is in national parks, and it is a multiple use. There is 
hunting, for instance, in the national forests, whereas in many parks 
there is no hunting. Most people are accessible to national forests far 
more than they are to national parks, and also many national parks have 
been put aside in limited type of recreational use.
  If we cut recreational road money, which the gentleman is suggesting, 
for the forest, we will be denying people access to the forest for 
recreation while purporting to help them out in the park where we 
already put $50 million for maintenance, is that not so?
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman makes an 
excellent point. If people would take the time to study it, they would 
see there is more recreation in the Bureau of Reclamation, there is 
more recreation in BLM and there is more recreation in the Forest 
Service than there is in parks, and now we are taking away from where 
people go and spend their time. I think that is an excellent point the 
gentleman has made.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. If the gentleman will continue to 
yield, if we are improving those roads in the forests against 
environmental hazards, reseeding and so forth, is it not better to 
spend that money in the national forest on environmental improvements 
than spend it in the parks where environment is not a concern?
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, that is how I would look at it.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula] that we can deal with now in the interest of expediting things.
  Santa Clara Day School in my district has received a grant from the 
BIA for facilities improvement and repairs. With these monies, Santa 
Clara would bring its elementary school, which was originally built in 
1926, up to modern code. Although the school has already altered its 
plans to cut construction costs, Santa Clara will fall $1.2 million 
short of the monies needed to complete construction in accordance with 
BIA education standards.
  I realize the chairman has done the best that he can on Indian 
construction funding in this bill, and I would ask that the BIA give 
consideration to Santa Clara with any discretionary funds available.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I sympathize with the situation of the Santa Clara Day School. I, 
like the gentleman from New Mexico, would also hope that the BIA would 
give consideration to the school situation with any discretionary funds 
within school construction that may come available.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to use this chart to illustrate how Forest 
Service timber sales have gone down. In 1990, we were almost at 10 
billion board feet. In 1995, we were down here to less than 4 billion 
board feet. The reason for the roads and the money we put in is for 
reconstruction, not for contract sales, and the money that the 
gentleman is taking out for his amendment comes out of reconstruction. 
Why reconstruct these roads? It avoids siltation in streams. It avoids 
other environmental problems and, most importantly, it gives access to 
the recreational user. I reiterate the Forest Service has double the 
visitor days of the Park Service. These visitors are people who go out 
to hunt, to fish, to camp, the low-cost type of recreation. It is 
important that they have a decent road to get access to these 
facilities. Our forests offer a wonderful recreation asset and, 
therefore, I think it is important that we have roads.
  We did not put a lot of money in. We added, I think it was, $2 
million, and we added $55 million to the parks. It is an equitable 
balance and for that reason, I would oppose the amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I 
could not agree more with the idea. I would like to close some of the 
roads. I think that is really where we ought to be putting some 
dollars, because I do not think in the long run you can keep 379,000 
miles of road open and maintained properly, because they do, in fact, 
disturb the watersheds of all of these areas and they are unnatural and 
there are a lot of problems with them.
  I understand the restoration to maintain the roads. We ought to be 
closing the roads. Restoration, not just the reconstruction. The 
problem with all of that is these roads were put in place and to an 
extent not 379,000 for recreation. There may be some for recreation, 
nothing to that. The other aspect is, it just is an indication of past 
problems where we did not require those that were harvesting the timber 
to pay for an adequate closure of those roads and for the maintenance 
of them in the future. So we are faced with the problem of what 
historically has been the policy here.
  My concern here, of course, is that there is in this bill, appears to 
be, $50 million for new road construction. It says of the $164 million 
that $50 million is for new road construction, and that is the basis. 
Of course, I am not taking all the dollars out of here. I would point 
out that yes, the Forest Service is used for recreation, but I think 
obviously our parks are also used for that. It is not a question just 
of numbers here. I think it is a question of what our priorities are 
and who ought to pay, more out of the credits, more out of the timber.
  Mr. Chairman, the saw timber is going down because they have 
eliminated the forests in this Nation. They have eliminated them. They 
started out in our area in Ohio and Minnesota and cut all the white 
pine and moved all the way west, and guess what, we are running out of 
it now. That is why those numbers are down, because we do not have 
those forests left that were eliminated 100 years ago. They have not 
come back.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, if I am to believe the Forest 
Service, the sustained yield is greater than the cut, and therefore we 
are growing more board feet every year than we are cutting. The reason 
these numbers are

[[Page H6597]]

going down is that we are recognizing the value of the forest for 
recreation, a high priority. There has been less pressure to cut 
timber. Just as recent as 1990, we were up almost to 12 million board 
feet, now we are down to 4. But these roads are there and we have to 
take care of them. The gentleman's amendment takes the money out of the 
reconstruction account.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, he is 
saying this bill does not mandate the harvest, as some of the bills in 
the 1980's mandated the harvest of an amount that was over and above 
the professionals. That is a positive aspect of this bill. But I 
obviously contend in my amendment the priorities are correct.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I would hope that Members would 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise and reluctantly oppose this 
amendment. The reason I am opposing it is that this cut of forest road 
money will result, by an estimate from the Forest Service, in a billion 
board feet reduction in the timber harvest program, our timber sale 
program. We only have 4.9. It is dramatically lower than it was 
historically.
  So if we take this money out of the roads, there is a corresponding 
reduction in timber sales. When you have that corresponding reduction 
in timber sales, it reduces the revenues to the Government and to local 
communities.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula  has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if this would result in a reduction of a 
billion feet of harvest, that means in essence we are subsidizing. If 
we were not putting the money in, that means those sales would not be 
sustained by their own credits, by their own revenue. That means that 
we are then subsidizing one-fourth of the timber in this bill. If the 
Forest Service numbers are correct, that is what that literally means, 
is that we are subsidizing it, because you cannot harvest it in the 
absence of the dollars of the Committee on Appropriations.
  So that I think is a pretty good message to the timber industry that 
we expect them to carry their own weight, we do not expect taxpayers, 
if we do not have break-even sales. I think with timber prices up and 
other factors, we ought to get off the subsidy in terms of these roads. 
We ought to at least make these programs pay for themselves. I do not 
think it is the recreation user that is the problem here.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, one point I will make is you have to judge 
the sales on a sales-by-sales basis. In most of the sales we are making 
money, and without the roads, you cannot do the sales. So I do not see 
where there is a subsidy at all.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, again I would like to point out in the area of subsidy, 
if you order a table to Minnesota, the gentleman did, or if you bought 
it at an auction, and at that auction they said, all right, you are 
getting the table for $100 and we will ship it, or you can pay at $90 
and we will pay the shipping cost of $10. It is the same thing when we 
are talking about giving credits for timber roads, there is no subsidy.
  We get the highest bid for the timber. If the credit was not given 
for the road, then the timber bid would be lower to include the road. 
The Forest Service wants the road built to their specifications, and 
that is why they give a credit for it. So there is no subsidy to the 
timber industry. It is a credit that is given when the road is built.
  Now, let me go on to the second thing where you can see by this chart 
the enormous drop in forest products. In fact, the Sierra Club, which 
the gentleman speaks out for many times, wants no cutting in our 
national forests. Now, if we cut, if we stop all cutting in our 
national forests, and we have almost done that because we are down to 
about 20 percent of our national forests now that can be considered for 
harvest, that is an antienvironmental position. I have not yet been 
able to persuade my friends on the right of that, all of them.
  But take this podium, it is made out of wood. We can make it out of 
wood or plastic or metal. If we make it out of the renewable resource 
of wood, it is much easier to make, takes less energy to make, it is 
easily recyclable. If we make it out of plastic, then we have to fight 
to get the oil out of the Middle East. We have to spill it two or three 
times on the way. It is more toxic in the manufacturing process and it 
is harder to recycle. That is saying nothing against plastic, because 
plastics are going to be needed. I am just saying if you start limiting 
your options, the same thing with metal, it takes 8 times more energy 
to produce a table with metal than it does with wood. It is much harder 
to recycle.
  Mr. Chairman, we are at a section of choices. If we follow the 
leadership of these folks who want all timber harvests stopped in the 
national forest and certainly if we do away with credits for roads, if 
we do away with any types of work with the Forest Service, because that 
is where a large portion of the timber is in the forest, which is 
different from the national parks part, then we are going to create far 
more environmental problems than we have solved in that manner.

                              {time}  1930

  Second, I would just say one other thing. If you look at our chart to 
the left, today we get three-quarters of a billion dollars of our 
reforestation, which contributes enormously to forest health, from the 
timber funds, the $3 billion that we take in saving timber. Our States 
and local communities get almost $1 billion to operate their schools 
primarily and for their local uses that would have to be made up by the 
American taxpayer. We have $134 million in erosion control and other 
programs that would have to come out of the taxpayers' pocket, and many 
other parts of improvements in our forest that come from the $3 billion 
we take in from the timber sale program, plus we provide lumber for 
houses that would have to come from sensitive areas like the rain 
forest and other parts of the world.
  We are provided with one of the best managed forests in the world and 
we have the best technical science in the world. So if we stop 
harvesting the national forest, we are going to have a forest health 
problem and going to have an economic and environmental disaster 
because of the jobs lost and because of the damage we do to the 
environment, having to use substitute finite products rather than 
renewable products.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and his 
continued effort to get me to see things his way. As a biologist, I try 
to get the gentleman to see things my way as well.
  I believe that these programs ought to stand on their own. The fact 
is you go to that auction house, you do not start off with the 
Government giving you an extra $164 million in order to build the 
roads.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what 
you are saying is the roads are built to government specifications. 
They either give you the credit for building the roads, or your bid is 
going to be lower because you are only going to pay a certain amount 
for that product.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, first 
of all, they may be built to government specifications, but there is a 
variety of reasons for that in terms of what happens with the rain and 
what happens with the erosion and other factors.
  The other issue is we do not pay for the restoration, the closure of 
the road. We do not pay for the maintenance of the road with that 
timber harvest. Why are we putting money here if these activities do 
not pay for themselves? Is it not time to make tough choices?

[[Page H6598]]

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, does 
the gentleman recognize that a great portion of the recreation that 
people go to fish, hunt, camp or picnic, they go to those areas on 
roads built under the program, as well as a great portion of our 
trails?
  Mr. VENTO. I do not think 379,000 miles of it.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me try to persuade my friend from Minnesota one 
more time. I think the focus of this debate has been on timber 
harvesting and timber harvesting road construction. I think the 
gentleman should understand that roads in the national forests are used 
by millions of Americans. They allow them access to over 121,000 miles 
of hiking trials, 96 wild and scenic rivers, 120 scenic byways, 397 
designated scenic wilderness areas, over 18,000 recreational 
facilities, including boat ramps, campgrounds, and picnic areas. That 
is the use of roads in national forests.
  They provide not only access for recreation, but for wildlife and 
fisheries projects, for fire protection, and for monitoring water 
quality. People have to get into these forests and understand what the 
water quality is. They provide for many other aspects of ecosystem 
management. For timber harvesting, certainly, but roads are really a 
necessary tool for environmental management in the national forests.
  As with regard to the amount of roads we are building versus those we 
are eliminating, in 1994 the Forest Service permanently closed, ripped 
up, restored, almost 2,300 miles among needed roads to productive 
forest land, as I said, in 1994, but they built only 519 miles. So we 
have a net loss of roads of 1,780 miles in 1994. That happened also in 
1995 and 1996.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, they only have 
378,000 miles of road left. We are very concerned about it.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand that. 
But there is a reason we have those roads. It is not just to rape the 
land and hurt the forest; it is to get people into the recreation areas 
and the places they are entitled to be in this area. What we are doing 
is increasing the road construction a very, very little amount for 
1997.
  I really think it is shortsighted to just say all roads are bad and 
we have to eliminate roads and put the money someplace else. I think it 
makes sense to do this.
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will yield further, my amendment cuts $28 
million out of this account of $164 million. I would just read from 
page 74 of your committee report. ``The committee recommends $97 
million for road construction areas, $2 million above the 1996 act. 
This includes $59 million for timber roads and $26 million for 
recreation.''
  So apparently you recognize the difference in this report. You can 
see the disparity. It is not as though there is a denial of the facts. 
In other words, you do articulate that. And $12 million for general 
purpose roads. So the bulk of this money, $50 million set aside again 
for road credits, timber harvest gives us $164 million total. It is 
clear that is articulated. This is for the subsidy in terms of what 
goes on in terms of timber harvest. That is the point here.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the 
gentleman's point. Really, one cannot just specify only timber roads as 
being bad. I think there are road systems in this great land of ours 
that are very valuable to the use of Americans, whether it is timber 
harvesting, recreation or other reasons. It is a good thing we are 
fixing some of these roads, they are in disrepair. We are trying to use 
this money for proper, not improper, purposes, and we ought to reject 
this amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Vento amendment. The fact of the matter is, we are sitting here 
with somewhere in excess of 350,000 to 370,000 miles of roads in our 
forests, and we claim that we have closed 2,300, and we have built 500 
miles in the last year. And 600 years from now perhaps we will have 
closed those roads. All of those roads should not be closed, but let us 
not pretend by a huge amount of money currently being spent is being 
spent on road closure, and let us not pretend that all of this money 
all of a sudden is here for the purposes of recreation.
  In fact, there is a line item within the bill that provides $26 
million for recreation roads. Not all of the roads that are built in 
the forest are necessary for hunting and fishing, because in fact if 
you come with me to the Sierras, if you four-wheel across the Sierras, 
you have roads that are 50 or 60 yards from one another. Not all these 
roads are in fact necessary.
  But what we have is a situation where if you want to buy timber from 
the Federal Government, the Government says, ``Come in and get it; we 
will build you the roads or give you a credit for building the roads.'' 
That program is costing us $109 million a year.
  Now, if you are a private landowner and you have 500 acres or 1,000 
acres or whatever to sell of timber, the person who buys the timber 
comes in and builds the road. The gentleman from North Carolina might 
be right that they deduct that from the price of the timber, so that is 
the real value of the timber.
  We are like the auction house that says, ``You can either pay $100 or 
$90. Do you want us to ship it or not?'' We say, ``Pay us $90 and we 
will pay to ship it.'' That is what is not fair about this.
  What you do not have is you do not have reflection of the real value 
of timber, because you have the Federal Government subsidizing the 
activity to extract it. Even if we provide a credit or we build the 
road, the fact is that 20 and 30 years later we are maintaining those 
roads. So the cost of that timber far exceeds and continues far beyond 
the harvest of that timber.
  So that is why we find ourselves stuck with more than $1 billion to 
log these forests over the last several years than the timber sales 
brought in. And what does that mean? That means that as this 
committee struggled to meet the demands of the National Park System in 
this country, they fell $23 million short. As they struggled to repair 
the elevator in the Washington Monument, as they struggled to do health 
and safety repair work at some of our parks, as they tried to provide a 
transportation system and all that, they still fell $23 million short.

  Let us not pretend that there is an equivalency here about the 
maintenance and the care of these national parks and these forest 
roads. There simply is not. We had that fight last session when we had 
a park commission bill on this floor. I was a supporter of that. That 
was one of the worst bipartisan drubbings we had. Why? Because the 
American public sent a message to every member of this Congress, except 
me, I guess, and a few others, that somehow they did not even want to 
consider the closure or the reconstitution of those parks and 
monuments. What they want us to do is have them open and available and 
put forth in first class shape.
  We cannot report to the American public this summer that that is the 
condition of our national parks. In California and elsewhere, we have 
campgrounds that are closed, we have campgrounds that are not 
accessible, we have repairs that are not made, we have bridges that are 
not safe, and we have trails that are unsafe for families to walk in 
those national parks.
  That is not to pit the national parks against the national forests, 
because that is not fair, because in many areas they serve essentially 
the same purpose. But the suggestion that somehow all of this money is 
really there so that we can keep the national forest open for hunting, 
fishing and recreation, just is not the case.
  The fact of the matter is, what we have here is a very substantial 
subsidy that does not exist in the private sector in the timber world. 
It does not exist in terms of providing us a true reflection of the 
real cost of these timber sales, and that is why the GAO and others 
have come to us time and time again and talked about the loss of 
revenues for the taxpayers in the presentation of this.

[[Page H6599]]

  We can better use that money in an area of much higher priority for 
the people of this Nation, and that is to present to them their parks 
in the seasons that they use them in first class shape for the use by 
them and their families.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of 
California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made a 
statement that we take in $1 billion less than it costs in the Forest 
Service in our timber program. Is the gentleman familiar with the GAO 
report that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] requested that said 
we take in roughly $3 billion, and it costs $1.25 billion to prepare 
the sale and administer the forest, which gives us a $2.7 billion 
profit? So, $1 billion goes to State governments, and $1 billion then 
goes for forest health, reforestation, erosion, and so forth.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, those 
payments to the State government under our budgeting procedures are not 
considered a cost to the program. I appreciate that. If you say that is 
not a cost and you take it off the books, then you are running a 
surplus.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. The cost is $1.25 billion according to 
GAO.
  Mr. MILLER of California. That is not an allocated cost.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, because 
it is the same GAO study on page 1 that suggests that we collect $3 
billion, we distribute $2.7 billion under law, or 90 percent of it goes 
back out, but it costs $1.3 billion for administering it. So the end 
result is that we have an outlay of $4 billion that takes place and an 
influx of $3 billion. So it costs us $1 billion in the 2 years to 
administer the programs from 1992 to 1994. You have a $1 billion net 
loss. This is part of it right here.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point 
is we can continue that loss or we can make up a shortfall. This deals 
with the national parks, this deals with the presentation of these 
national parks, this deals with the experience that our constituents 
and their families expect when they go to those parks.
  In our Committee on Natural Resources we constantly listen to the 
concerns about the backlogs in maintenance and effort, and people 
constantly are coming to our committee and passing authorizations for 
this program and handing it off to you and the Committee on 
Appropriations. That is why there is a shortfall. But nobody considered 
that when they asked us to pass those bills and expand those parks and 
participate in that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Regula, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of 
California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, a couple of things. I would like to give 
the gentleman a gentle reminder that for 40 out of the last 41 years, 
the budget has been controlled by his party, and if there is a $4 
billion backlog, I believe that that accrued during the time that his 
party was in charge.
  The second point I would make is that the president of his party 
requested $366 million for repairs and reconstruction of the parks. We 
put in $369 million. In other words, we put in $3 million more than the 
president requested. Why? Because we believe, and we agree with the 
gentleman, repairs and maintenance of the parks, all the functions of 
these agencies, is vitally important. We have tried to take care of 
that and address that problem. I just want to get the facts out on 
this.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is not 
about denying those facts. That is a historical record. As we see on 
this floor, we have had historically very strong bipartisan support for 
roads in the forest. That is how the parks have suffered.

                              {time}  1945

  Because as your committee has had its allocation and it has had to 
divvy it up, the forest interests have been here with their special 
interest hands out and they have garnered most of the money, and the 
parks have fallen further and further behind, and we have listened to 
this in our committees.
  It is not a question of which party is in power or not, it is a 
question of whether we will meet our obligation to the parks. And try 
as the gentleman might, we were still unable to meet our obligations in 
terms of the construction requests necessary for the maintenance of 
these parks. And I do not fault the gentleman, but I think it is a 
question, as we started out this afternoon, and it seems like 3 days 
ago that we started talking about setting priorities. We are suggesting 
this is a higher priority to the American public than the continuation 
of these roads in the forests would be to in fact provide for the 
proper maintenance of roads and other facilities inside of the national 
parks.
  I thank the gentleman not only for his comments but for all his hard 
work and for making all these horrible and terrible and tough 
decisions.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments to title I?


             amendment offered by mr. miller of california

  Mr. MILLER of California. 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. Miller of California: In the item 
     relating to the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR-National Park 
     Service-National Recreation and Preservation, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)'' after the dollar amount.
       In the item relating to DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-Fossil Energy 
     Research and Development, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, can we do 15 minutes? I may not use it, but I do not have any 
idea. I had other requests for time and I do not know if Members will 
be here or not.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request and 
make a unanimous-consent request that all debate on this amendment and 
all amendments thereto close in 15 minutes and that the time be equally 
divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was not objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] will be 
recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] 
will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I want to thank the gentleman for his consideration.
  For the second time in a row, the committee has recommended zero 
funding of the urban parks and rehabilitation program. As a result, 
once again we are seeing a long backlog of restoring the deteriorating 
urban

[[Page H6600]]

recreation facilities and that backlog will continue to grow.
  In 1995, there were almost 200 applications filed for this 
inexpensive but important program. Failure to provide any funding for 
the urban parks program is unacceptable at a time when after-school 
recreational opportunities for millions of children have disappeared 
from our cities and suburban communities. We know the hours of 3 to 6 
p.m. now are some of the most dangerous times not only for our 
children, but for our neighborhoods and for our families. The prime 
hours for gang activities, crime and violence are when children are 
without school, parental supervision, or constructive opportunities.
  A Carnegie task force report entitled ``A Matter of Time'' found 
that, other than infancy, the period of early adolescence is the most 
critically important time for the development because so much physical, 
social, emotional, and moral development is compressed into such a 
short period of time with our adolescents.

  The National Urban League just recently reported that the hours from 
3 to 6 p.m. is the peak time for violent youth crime and sexual 
activity among adolescents. Parents throughout this Nation are rightly 
concerned that during these critical hours of each day while these 
parents are working, and working out of necessity, their children have 
nowhere to play, nowhere to receive instruction, nowhere to learn 
proper values and behavior.
  All of us can hearken back in my generation to the time when we had 
after-school recreation programs, where we had city recreation 
programs, where we would go to the ball field or go to the arts center 
and do these programs. We could all hearken back to people who helped 
us, coaches and mentors and people who talked to us about life, talked 
to us about sportsmanship, talked to us about cooperation. The 
facilities to provide that in many of our urban areas has fallen into 
disrepair.
  What this program is is a program of partnership where the cities put 
up 30 percent of the money and make application to the Federal 
Government to reclaim, to reconstruct, to repair many of the 
recreational facilities that are in their communities. The communities 
that have made application are from the entire spectrum across the 
landscape. They are small towns, they are small cities, they are large 
urban areas, they are parts of counties that are seeking this kind of 
effort.
  This effort, when we presented it 2 years ago to the Congress, was 
approved overwhelmingly. It was approved overwhelmingly on a bipartisan 
basis. It was approved because it had the interest of the private 
sector, it had the support of major league baseball, it had the support 
of the MBA, it had the support of the sporting goods manufacturers, and 
it had the support of law enforcement agencies. It had the support of 
many of the agencies, of nonprofits, Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs, the 
Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, other agencies that provide these services, 
Big Brothers and Big Sisters to the young people of this country.
  We see these crisis hours in our community growing. We see them 
growing in concerns among parents, parents who unfortunately, because 
of economic need, are not able to be home in their communities after 
hours. They are not able to be there to supervise their children.

  They are looking for alternatives. We see national summit after 
national summit. We have seen discussions between the President and 
young people, between congressional leaders and young people, and 
always we get back to the fact there is not much to do. When we couple 
that with what we now see in the crime statistics, this program is a 
small but important and effective effort to try and to change the 
destiny of these young people and to reclaim these facilities. That is 
why this program has received such overwhelming support.
  This is not just about big recreational facilities in a few big 
cities. These cities run from Hialeah, FL; Peoria, IL; Kokomo, IN; 
Lynn, MA; Grand Rapids, MI; Kalamazoo, MI; Poughkeepsie, NY; Marietta, 
OH; Chattanooga, TN; Bellingham, WA, and when I have the handout, the 
list goes on and on and on.
  What are these cities asking for? They are asking for this Federal 
Government to serve a partner and a catalyst because, in fact, this is 
the money around which an additional effort can be organized to try to 
reclaim our communities and our neighborhoods.
  This is part of the war on crime. This is part of the war on drugs. 
This is a part of the socialization of our young people. This is a part 
of getting our young people to appreciate teamwork, participation, and 
constructive engagement with others. This is a part of transmitting 
values from adult populations to an adolescent population. This is a 
part of one generation, an older group of people, mentoring and 
coaching a younger group of people, about building teams, about 
building communities, about building volunteer spirit.
  These are grants. These grants do not keep these facilities open. 
These grants allow us to reclaim them, the disuse, the lack of repair 
and turn them into a catalyst for community action, for community 
organization and for youth activities.
  So I would hope that what we are asking is that we would take $10 
million out of the fossil fuel accounts, and many Members who voted 
against those early amendments have suggested to me that they will vote 
to support this amendment. This in only 4 percent of that account, but 
the multiplier effect of these projects that have been submitted from 
every State across the Nation, the multiplier effect far exceeds, far 
exceeds that small amount of money and its contribution to the fossil 
fuel accounts.

  We have heard the arguments about the fossil fuel account. We are at 
a time when that industry clearly has the ability to shoulder an 
additional burden. Make no misunderstanding about it, this is an 
American priority. This is about our streets, our neighborhoods, our 
children and our families. This is about where we live, it is about 
where our constituents live.
  A woman said to me the other day in a town hall meeting, I am so 
afraid of my neighborhood, an elderly woman. She said, Because they are 
home, but their parents are not home. There is no nowhere for these 
children to go. That is when the trouble starts.
  That is what the urban parks and recreation program is about. That is 
what was recognized by the private sector, who joined in their support, 
and by the sports organizations and by the police organizations as they 
joined in their support for this effort, as well as many of the oldest 
nonprofit service organizations that have supported our children 
throughout the history of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, those are nice sounding words. I was interested when 
the gentleman said he had overwhelming support. His overwhelming 
support does not include his President. In the President's budget he 
made absolutely no request for money for this program. His overwhelming 
support did not include the former chairman of this subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
  In 1995, the last time Mr. Yates served as chairman, there was no 
money put in this program, because even he recognized that these parks 
are a local responsibility. Our responsibilities are with the national 
parks. And with 369 units, we have our hands full.
  Let me point out that the State parks, the local parks, the tennis 
courts, the swimming pools are a local responsibility.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, our recollection is that the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates] put money into the bill but it was rescinded by 
the new Congress. I think that is the history here.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe the gentleman 
is correct, we did rescind the fiscal year 1995 funds, but in 1990 and 
1993 the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] had zero funding.
  Mr. DICKS. But, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to 
yield, Mr.

[[Page H6601]]

Yates has been a strong supporter of this.
  Mr. REGULA. I understand that, but the point I am making is that 
while he was a strong supporter in recognizing the priorities in 
several of those years, he decided that we did not have adequate money 
and that we should first of all take care of our national parks, and 
that is the point I would make. And, again, the President did not put 
it in his budget.
  These are local responsibilities. It is nice to do if we have plenty 
of money. We do not have plenty of money, and I do not think that we 
should trade the fact that under the fossil research program we can 
protect our jobs, energy dependent jobs and that we can protect the 
clean air programs that result from that. We can protect our energy 
independence.
  We should not trade that off for local tennis courts, and that is 
exactly what this amendment does. It says let us take money out of a 
program that has already had a 14-percent cut and add it to taking care 
of local responsibilities. Nice to do, nobody quarrels with that, but 
it is not the responsibility in this bill to meet those needs.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would strongly oppose this amendment 
because I think that we need to maintain our fossil energy research 
program. I think that we need to let the local communities understand 
that it is their responsibility to build the tennis courts, to build 
the swimming pools, to do the local parks. I hope that my colleagues 
will vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time, and in 30 seconds I would say that I always knew the gentleman 
from Ohio was never a rubber stamp for our President, but let me just 
say that in this budget we do an awful lot for local communities, 
because the forest monies we talked about earlier go to schools and 
public maintenance out west.
  We may not want to talk about that in the rest of the country, but 
the fact of the matter is this entire budget deals with local 
governments and we can choose. This is a priority. The gentleman may 
not like this priority, but this is a priority of the American people 
because this is about their neighborhoods and about crime.
  All of the evidence is starting to emerge that these are facilities 
that our neighborhoods need. That is why this program is included in 
the crime bill, too. The gentleman might have voted against that, but 
the fact of the matter is that is what the police chiefs and others 
have said they wanted in their arsenal to fight crime and to work with 
young people. I would hope the gentleman would take this and support 
this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I would just point out that this is an authorizing problem and I 
think the authorizing committee should deal with it. We have a 
responsibility to deal with the national parks and we have a 
responsibility to deal with the needs of fossil energy research. We 
have done that to the best of our ability in a very balanced way.

                              {time}  2000

  I think this amendment, while it is a nice thing to do, is not an 
appropriate response given the priorities that we have had, judgments 
we have had to make in this bill. I hope my colleagues would oppose 
this along with these other amendments because we have a balance. Let 
us not change that. It is not in the best interests of the people of 
this Nation to do so.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment 
which will reduce Federal assistance for the fossil energy industry to 
help fund parks in urban areas through the National Park Service's 
National Recreation and Preservation Program.
  As the representative of an urban area in Connecticut, there are few 
greater needs then maintaining and improving parks. Parks benefit 
everyone in the community, but most of all, it benefits our children. 
Ours is a time that forces young people to confront adult problems at 
earlier ages. That's why it's so important that we give our children 
park space to have fund and enjoy childhood in a safe, clean, and 
secure setting.
  Many, many Connecticut parents in my congressional district have 
expressed to me the No. 1 challenge they face is having someplace where 
their kids can go after school. Parents need to know that their kids 
have someplace safe to go to. They need to know that their children are 
not out somewhere getting into trouble. Parks offer children the 
opportunity to have good clean fun and they give parents the peace of 
mind that their kids are okay.
  But this bill contains no funding for urban parks. Zero. Nothing. 
What message are we sending to the hardworking parents in this country 
when we deny them this one small opportunity to do something positive 
about one of their greatest fears?
  The Miller amendment is a responsible effort to respond to the 
concerns of America's hard-pressed parents. For the modest funding 
level of $10 million, we will provide communities the opportunity to 
help families cope with the day-to-day pressures that besiege them.
  Mr. Speaker, many families in this country are working harder and 
harder to make less and less. Barely getting by has replaced the 
American dream as the daily preoccupation. A two-income household was a 
rarity just a generation ago, and now it is the norm. These families 
have to keep up with the pressures of the job and raising the kids. 
It's about time they got a break.
  Investing in parks is but a small step to give them that break. Let's 
provide our communities with safe and clean parks for the kids of our 
urban families to go. And let's give America's parents a little peace 
of mind.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Miller amendment.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller 
amendment to restore funding for the urban park program. It helps us 
achieve two goals. First, we can help revitalize and strengthen 
economically distressed communities making them more pleasant places to 
live. At the same time, we can reduce urban crime by giving our city 
youth alternatives to crime, drugs, and gangs.
  When Phoenix basketball courts and other recreation facilities are 
kept open in the summer months until 2 a.m., police calls reporting 
juvenile crime drop by as much as 55 percent. When the gyms start 
closing early in the fall, the crime rate goes up again. Midnight 
recreation programs range from basketball to swimming and have over 
170,000 participants, costing an average of 60 cents per youth.
  In Fort Myers, FL, juvenile arrests have dropped by 28 percent since 
1990 when the city began STARS--Success Through Academics and 
Recreational Support for young adolescents.
  In my own district in Philadelphia, police launched a program to help 
neighborhood volunteers clean up vacant lots and plant gardens, and 
burglaries and thefts in the precinct dropped by an astounding 90 
percent from 40 crimes per month to an average of 4 per month. The 
small investment that Mr. Miller has requested--$10 million--can bring 
such dividends, bringing green to neighborhoods and reducing crime.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Miller amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment to 
restore funding for the Park Service's National Recreation and 
Preservation Program.
  This program offers urban families brief refuge from the scenic 
pollution of urban blight, temporary refuge from the degradation of 
joblessness, and temporary refuge from the fear of stray bullets.
  To many of the millions residing in urban centers, Yellowstone is a 
million miles away--the Grand Canyon--a place they once saw in a film 
strip in elementary school. But the urban park, the ideal of 
visionaries like Edward Olmstead, is a place where urban dwellers can 
find some open space to throw a frisbee, ride a bike, or just feed the 
pigeons.
  Some of our urban parks even offer pools for families to get away 
from their non-air-conditioned apartments and cool off a bit. They're 
the places where the likes of a future Michael Jordan or Marcus Camby 
learn to play basketball. Where the Mo Vaughns hit their first home 
runs.
  The funding in this amendment provides grants for renovation of urban 
recreation centers. Many of these facilities are in such poor shape 
that they endanger kids' safety and health.
  These grants help repair, reconstruct, and rehabilitate these 
facilities so that they can remain open to the public.
  In the past these grants have provided recreation for the disabled, 
repaired swimming pools, resurfaced tennis and basketball courts, 
purchased picnic tables, created arts and crafts areas, fitness trails, 
and bocci courts for seniors.
  I urge you to support the Miller amendment. If you choose to vote 
against urban parks, and cite the quest for a balanced budget as your 
reason, just keep in mind the vote last week when this body gave the 
Defense Department $11 billion more than requested.

[[Page H6602]]

  If you choose to vote against this amendment, you will certainly know 
why the swimming pool won't be open this year--and why the water 
fountain will remain out of order.
  Support the Miller amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
will be postponed.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify a point in the report language 
of the bill.
  The report language on the Codes and Standards program would require 
the Department of Energy to achieve consensus between interested 
parties before proceeding with any rulemaking, including those mandated 
by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
  As Members know, DOE has worked long and hard with manufacturers this 
year to rethink and revamp its process for promulgating rules to allow 
much greater industry input into rulemaking. The process improvement 
efforts will soon come to fruition.
  I am concerned that a strict interpretation of consensus conveys to 
any company, organization or interested individual the right to veto 
any proposed standard, even if DOE has gone the extra mile to address 
industry concerns or even if there is a broad industry acceptance of 
the proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, what does consensus mean in this context?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, consensus in this case means that all 
participating parties need to be involved in the rulemaking process. We 
are trying to hold the department's feet to the fire to follow through 
on its process improvement efforts and then to conscientiously avoid 
repeating mistakes it has made in the past.
  Some of these have included not paying enough attention to ways in 
which the burden on manufacturers can be eased, failing to incorporate 
real world market information into their economic analysis and taking 
inordinately long amounts of time to issue standards.
  Our goal is to make sure that DOE solicits and seeks to address the 
concerns of manufacturers which then have to live with these standards 
while successfully complying with the law.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, can we clarify the language in conference to 
reflect the requirement for consensus is not just a rephrasing of the 
moratorium that we had last year but a standard of rigor which will be 
expected of DOE in future rulemakings?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
look forward to working with the gentleman to achieve clarification of 
this report language in conference with the Senate.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.


                  amendment offered by Mr. Richardson

  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Richardson:
       On page 15
       Under the item ``National Park Service'', under the item 
     ``operation of the national park system'', after the 3d 
     dollar amount insert ``(increased by $15,579,000)''.
       On page 50
       In the item relating to Related Agencies--Department of 
     Agriculture--Forest Service--Reconstruction and Construction, 
     insert ``(reduced by $20,000,000)'' after the first dollar 
     amount.

  Mr. RICHARDSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, what is the 
request?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, that the debate be limited to 10 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to object, but given the fact 
that this involves taking money out of roads, I do object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases funding by $15 
million for our national parks. It basically makes it the same level as 
what the Clinton administration requested for the national parks. Let 
me just state that I am taking these funds from Forest Service roads 
and not from fossil energy research, as was stated or printed in some 
document.
  Mr. Chairman, when is an increase not an increase? When you add up 
the funds being appropriated to directly support our national parks. 
The Committee on Appropriations has made it a point to trumpet that 
there is a 3-percent across-the-board increase for parks. Members 
should be aware that providing only a 3-percent increase will mean our 
national parks will have less money in which to operate in fiscal year 
1997 than they had in fiscal year 1996. Why? Because the 3 percent does 
not even cover such basic operational costs as the pay and retirement 
cost increases, inflation, and uncon- trollables.
  In addition, the bill cuts back on the amounts the National Park 
Service requested for resource stewardship, visitor services, 
maintenance, and park support, leaving the individual parks to pick up 
the costs that would otherwise be covered by these programs.
  When it comes to our national parks, we can and should do more. The 
Richardson amendment funds the additional $15.5 million the 
administration requested in operational increases for individual 
national parks. Again, what my amendment does is simply raises the 
amount $15 million to conform with what the Clinton administration 
requested for this fiscal year.
  These are the nuts and bolts funds for our national parks and not the 
bells and whistles.
  The Richardson amendment is only a small down payment on what is 
needed for our national parks. The amendment funds the rangers, the 
interpreters, the camp grounds, and the trails. The Committee on 
Appropriations may say that we cannot afford this, but I find it 
interesting that they found the money to earmark from park funds 
$650,000 for Lackawanna County, PA, $200,000 for a study of the Robert 
Russa Morton High School in Virginia, and $100,000 for a German-
American cultural center. Americans expect our national parks to be a 
funding priority.
  I think funding our national parks is a higher priority than spending 
over $164 million to build more Forest Service roads. Again, I am not 
decimating the road programs for forests. It is a $15 million decrease 
that would be moved to the national parks.
  There are already a quarter of a million miles of forest roads. We 
can and should take a small portion of these funds to make sure that 
our national parks are better cared for.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last year in the authorizing committee and in 
the appropriating committees and in the media and in the public there 
has been a debate about our national parks. No. 1, everybody agrees 
that they are important and that they are national treasures. But 
everybody agrees that they are not being funded properly, that there is 
crime in some areas, that there is not enough money for law enforcement 
in our parks. We do not have enough for park housing, for Rangers to 
maintain many of these jewels. Without necessarily going into the 
debate we had on a bill that was called the park closure bill, apart 
from that, I think the very least we should do is fund the parks to 
what the administration requested.
  This is not going to be enough. There are already proposals on the 
table to raise money for the parks through increased fees. There is 
also a proposal, a creative proposal the National Park Foundation has 
initiated which would

[[Page H6603]]

fund from partnerships between the public and private sector some of 
the parks. But in the meantime, it just strikes me that we should move 
these funds from Forest Service roads. There is already a lot of timber 
harvesting going on. We have got a whole system of roads being built.
  The budget is a healthy one for Forest Service roads. Let us just 
move the $15 million. We are not talking about changing a lot of 
operations that are existing, move them into the parks. Our parks need 
the money. We keep having these debates that we are not funding the 
parks properly.
  What my amendment is simply doing, again, it is funding the national 
parks at the level requested by the Clinton administration. It is not 
enough, obviously. We have had stories everywhere where in each State, 
in each region of the country that somehow our parks are not getting 
the right funding.
  There is not enough money for maintenance. The parks are overcrowded. 
We have got 260 million Americans visiting the parks again. Let us 
support the Richardson amendment which just beings the money for the 
Clinton administration request. It is not coming out of fossil energy 
as was originally printed.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard this song before. It sounds very 
attractive. We are going to take the money out of the roads, put it in 
the parks. We talked about 260 million visitors in the parks. Let me 
point out, once again, that the Forest Service gets twice, double, 
twice the visitor days of the Park Service. So if we are talking about 
providing recreation for the people of the United States, it is vitally 
important that we have adequate, safe roads so they have access to 
these recreational opportunities.
  I think that it is not a good use of the resources available to us to 
decimate the road program in order to put more money in the parks.
  Let me point out we have put an additional $55 million in the parks. 
This money that is being subjected to being moved is for reconstruction 
of roads. Why reconstruction? Because if we do not reconstruct these 
roads, you get a washing effect, gullies that end up silting up the 
streams. It has an adverse environmental impact on the streams, on the 
fishing, on the recreational opportunities. I think it is just a poor 
use of our resources to make this kind of a transfer.

  I have to say that we in the subcommittee listened carefully to the 
priorities of the various agencies. The Members collectively made 
judgments as to what represented a fair balance among the various needs 
that confronted us. We gave the parks a lot more money because there is 
heavy usage.
  But also, we gave money, provided money to reconstruct these roads 
that are absolutely essential to the recreation opportunities of 
millions and millions of Americans. I think it would be a mistake in 
judgment now at this point somehow to reduce the environmental 
protection of our streams that results from reconstructing the roads 
and also limiting the recreational opportunities of the 300 million 
people that visit the national forests.
  I hope that my colleagues would vote ``no'' on this amendment. Let us 
keep this delicately crafted balance that we have between the Forest 
Service and the parks and between the parks and Fish and Wildlife and 
the other agencies.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment that my colleague, the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] has offered. Even if you 
took both the Vento amendment and this amendment, you would still have 
$12 million in road construction and maintenance money for the Forest 
Service in this budget. The fact is that this then would meet the 
request of the administration in terms of construction and would meet 
the request of the administration in terms of operation.
  If you want to argue, if you want to meet the needs of the Park 
Service, I think the people's parks should have a priority over these 
subsidies that we are providing in terms of the timber harvest, in 
terms of that they are only doing restoration work. In fact we ought to 
have no money in this bill for new road construction. We should insist 
that the Forest Service sales actually pay for themselves, that the bid 
prices ought to be adequate.
  If someone is cutting timber on private land, they do not get a 
Government subsidy to build roads to that particular timber. They have 
to pay for it out of the receipts that they get in terms of the timber. 
Why should we treat our national forests any different than that? We 
should in other words be dealing with it on the basis of dollars and 
cents. The fact is that there are innumerable types of assistance and 
subsidy in terms of management of those forests.
  The dollars for recreation are separate dollars in this Forest 
Service budget for recreation roads, for administrative roads. We are 
talking about the pure subsidy that goes to the timber, to the sales, 
to the timber harvests that are given in credits. The fact is we have 
379,000 miles of road in the forests.

                              {time}  2015

  That is not for recreation; that is for harvesting the timber, and 
the fact is that those roads represent a tremendous liability. They are 
destroying our watersheds in these national forests. They obviously 
represent a great threat to the quality. We ought to be spending the 
dollars, we need to spend money because past congresses insisted on 
constructing these roads, not taking care of them, and then requiring 
restoration dollars in addition to that that we have to pay for it 
today.
  That is why we have got nearly 400,000 miles of these roads, because 
nobody paid attention to what is going on. It was just put in the 
roads, cut the timber and not worry about it, and that is the same 
attitude that is persisting in spending these types of dollars. We have 
got to hold these timber companies and the way that they treat these 
forests accountable, and we are not doing that. We are just saying to 
do it on a basis.
  We do not cut all the money out of here for roads and construction. 
In fact, we leave $125 million, and, as my colleagues know, many would 
argue it all ought to come out. But we got to send a message here. We 
got to send a message that the people's parks come first, that they 
come first in terms of the construction and maintenance needs that they 
have, that they come first in terms of operation. If we do not pay for 
operation, for the interpreters, for the Park Service people, we cannot 
keep them safe.
  We had a terrible incident that occurred here in terms of the Blue 
Ridge Parkway on the Appalachian Trail, where a constituent or person 
from my State was victimized, and others, and so I think we have got to 
make more certain that these areas are as safe as possible. We have got 
to have these dollars in place, and we do not have them today.
  We do not have them today, and we can do it. We can do it by changing 
and sending a message and letting these timber industry folks pay for 
their own roads by funding the operation of the parks, by funding the 
construction of the needs we have. We simply have to address this.
  We need to send a message tonight by voting for the Richardson 
amendment and voting for the Vento amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I hope we could be clear about what we 
are talking about in this situation, both with this amendment and also 
with the earlier amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], 
because by transferring money from the Forest Service construction and 
reconstruction account into the Park Service we are effectively, and 
perhaps this is an unintended consequence, turning our Federal forest 
lands into Federal park lands, and in our part of the world we do not 
need more park land. We have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of 
acres that are permanently preserved in the Federal and State park 
system of the California north coast. We have literally thousands of 
acres that are permanently preserved and are off limits from any timber 
harvesting of any kind.
  So we like to believe that our Federal forest lands in northern 
California are important, important for providing

[[Page H6604]]

a resource and a timber commodity that is used by virtually every 
American, and certainly important in terms of providing jobs in our 
home districts.
  Now let me just tell my colleagues a little bit about timber jobs, 
since we so easily shift the focus in our debate on this floor from 
jobs to other issues. But in terms of what we are talking about in 
terms of jobs, between 1989 and 1994 we have had 223 mills closed, 
timber mills in the Pacific Northwest. Forty-two of those mills are in 
my district and that of my neighbor to the east, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger]. That means that we have lost nearly 20,000 
jobs in our timber industry, and that does not count the indirect jobs, 
the service and support jobs, that we have also lost. And colleagues, 
this is catastrophic for us that represent these communities, a point 
we were trying to make earlier today in the debate on the Dicks 
amendment. Since 1994, these communities have been decimated.
  Now I also want to point out to my colleagues that during the years 
since the listing of the spotted owl in the Clinton-Gore option, the 
so-called northwest forest plan, these entire communities have been 
devastated, and we have yet to demonstrate, and I defy anybody here 
tonight, we have yet to demonstrate that any of the pain and suffering 
has been necessary or has had any measurable benefit for the spotted 
owl. Here is why I am particularly concerned and why I say that this 
transfer would have the effect of turning these productive forest lands 
into Federal park land.

  This is all part of a recent extremist trend in the so-called 
mainstream environmental movement in this country. Just a few months 
ago the Sierra Club, by a vote of 2 to 1 of its membership, voted to 
ban all logging on Federal forest lands. So I ask how long until the 
extremists openly call for a total ban on timber harvesting on Federal 
forest lands? That is why we are worried when there is an attempt to 
transfer money out of the construction and reconstruction accounts of 
the Forest Service.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] that we are not giving the Park 
Service money to purchase new parks. What we are doing is simply 
funding existing parks. I just want to make that absolutely clear.
  And we are not talking about decimating the Forest Service system. We 
are talking about $15 million. It simply moves the Park Service request 
to what the administration, the Clinton administration, requested. But 
it is for funding of individual parks, not purchasing new parks.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman, does he support 
the position that was recently taken by the Sierra Club?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. No, I do not.
  Mr. RIGGS. In favor of an outright ban on all logging on Federal 
forest lands----
  Mr. RICHARDSON. No, I do not.
  Mr. RIGGS. A position so extreme, that says we should not even 
harvest a dead, dying, or diseased tree?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Not at all. I have substantial timber harvesting in 
my State. No, I do not support that.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to conclude by saying I am very 
concerned about these amendments because again I think they reflect an 
environmental policy direction in the Federal Government that is a very 
real threat to our way of life in northern California. I hope my 
colleague can understand because this is very sincere, and it is from 
the heart, why those of us believe that this administration, backed by 
its democratic allies in the Congress, is still waging a war on the 
West, and we want it to stop. It has been too much.
  The survival of our way of life depends on developing sound 
environmental laws that are based on sound science and protect private 
property rights, and I personally am going to continue to fight for 
those kind of changes. I am going to oppose this amendment and the 
amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to assure the gentleman that, 
first of all, I do not look for a banning of all timber harvest, and 
this is based more on economics than it is based on anything else. The 
fact is that I understand the gentleman's need for jobs and employment 
in this area, but I think, as my colleagues know, the jobs and dollars 
that are spent in the Park Service also produce jobs. The dollars spent 
in the Park Service also produce economic activity. It is a question of 
what these dollars subsidize.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Richardson] will be postponed.
  If there are no other amendments to title I, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

                       Department of Agriculture


                             forest service

                     forest and rangeland research

       For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as 
     authorized by law, $179,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1998: Provided, That unobligated and unexpended 
     balances remaining in this account at the end of fiscal year 
     1996 shall be merged with and made a part of the fiscal year 
     1997 Forest and Rangeland Research appropriation.

  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to make a point 
of order on page 61 of title II.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to entertaining a point of order on 
page 61?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what was the unanimous-consent request?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado asked unanimous consent to 
transact a point of order on page 61 of the bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, could the 
gentleman from Colorado tell us what the point of order is?
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would be very pleased to.
  Page 61, beginning on line 2 and ending on page 61 line 11, based on 
the ground that such provision would constitute legislation in an 
appropriation bill in violation of rule XXI, clause 2, of the rules of 
the House.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we are not there yet.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Washington still reserve his 
right to object?
  Mr. DICKS. This has not been cleared with us. I would have to object 
at this point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       state and private forestry

       For necessary expenses of cooperating with, and providing 
     technical and financial assistance to States, Territories, 
     possessions, and others and for forest pest management 
     activities, cooperative forestry and education and land 
     conservation activities, $148,884,000 to remain available 
     until expended, as authorized by law.


                         national forest system

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and 
     utilization of the National Forest System, for ecosystem 
     planning inventory, and monitoring, and for administrative 
     expenses associated with the management of funds provided 
     under the heads ``Forest and Rangeland Research,'' ``State 
     and Private Forestry,'' ``National Forest System,'' 
     ``Wildland Fire Management,'' ``Reconstruction and 
     Construction,'' and ``Land Acquisition,'' $1,259,057,000 to 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 1998, and 
     including 50 per centum of all monies received during the 
     prior fiscal year as fees collected under the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, in accordance with 
     section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 4601-6a(i)): Provided, That 
     unobligated and unexpended balances in the National Forest 
     System account at the end of fiscal year 1996, shall be 
     merged with and made a part of the fiscal year 1997 National 
     Forest System appropriation, and shall remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 1998: Provided further, That 
     up

[[Page H6605]]

     to $5,000,000 of the funds provided herein for road 
     maintenance shall be available for the planned obliteration 
     of roads which are no longer needed.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN, it is my understanding that we have rolled these votes. 
We now have found, and it is my understanding that we would vote these 
amendments before we go further into title II.
  Is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: The earlier amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], amendment No. 33 offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], amendment No. 21 offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], and the later amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  amendment offered by mr. richardson

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Richardson] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were ayes 200, 
noes 220, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 254]

                               AYES--200

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Burr
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cummings
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Porter
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walker
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Williams
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--220

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Brownback
     Clinger
     Emerson
     Fields (TX)
     Gallegly
     Lantos
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Ramstad
     Tauzin
     Torricelli

                              {time}  2046

  Mr. HAMILTON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PETRI, BENTSEN, GENE GREEN of Texas, MANZULLO, SMITH of 
Michigan, BILBRAY, BARTLETT of Maryland, INGLIS of South Carolina, 
TAYLOR of Mississippi, CONDIT, and ORTIZ changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     amendment offered by mr. vento

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Diaz-Balart). The pending business is 
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178, 
noes 242, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 255]

                               AYES--178

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilliard

[[Page H6606]]


     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Talent
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--242

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Brownback
     Clinger
     Emerson
     Fields (TX)
     Gallegly
     Lantos
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Ramstad
     Tauzin
     Torres
     Torricelli

                              {time}  2054

  Mr. FOLEY, Mrs. CLAYTON, and Mr. ROSE changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. COYNE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          amendment no. 21 offered by mr. miller of california

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ``noes'' prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 223, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 256]

                               AYES--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walker
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--223

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts

[[Page H6607]]


     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Brownback
     Clinger
     Emerson
     Fields (TX)
     Gallegly
     Lantos
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Peterson (FL)
     Ramstad
     Tauzin
     Torricelli

                              {time}  2103

  Mr. McKEON and Mr. WAMP changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  amendment offered by mr. richardson

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Diaz-Balart). The pending business is 
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203, 
noes 218, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 257]

                               AYES--203

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Talent
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--218

     Abercrombie
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Everett
     Fazio
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Brownback
     Clinger
     Emerson
     Fields (TX)
     Gallegly
     Lantos
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Peterson (FL)
     Ramstad
     Tauzin
     Torres
     Torricelli

                              {time}  2111

  Mrs. ROUKEMA changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Chairman pro tempore 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3662) 
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________