[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6607-H6625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 2115
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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 further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 3662.
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 3662) making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1997, and for other purposes,
[[Page H6608]]
with Mr. Diaz-Balart, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose
earlier today, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
[Mr. Richardson] had been disposed of and the bill had been read
through page 48, line 19.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
wildlife fire management
For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression
activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency
fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands
under fire protection agreement, and for emergency
rehabilitation of burned over National Forest System lands,
$411,485,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That unexpended balances of amounts previously appropriated
under any other headings for Forest Service fire activities
are transferred to and merged with this appropriation and
subject to the same terms and conditions: Provided further,
That such funds are available for repayment of advances from
other appropriations accounts previously transferred for such
purposes.
reconstruction and construction
For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, $164,100,000, to remain available until
expended for construction, reconstruction and acquisition of
buildings and other facilities, and for construction,
reconstruction and repair of forest roads and trails by the
Forest Service as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23
U.S.C. 101 and 205: Provided, That not to exceed $50,000,000,
to remain available until expended, may be obligated for the
construction of forest roads by timber purchasers: Provided
further, That funds appropriated under this head for the
construction of the Wayne National Forest Supervisor's Office
may be granted to the Ohio State Highway Patrol, Ohio State
Department of Transportation, as the Federal share of the
cost of construction of a new facility to be jointly occupied
by the Forest Service and the Ohio State Highway Patrol:
Provided further, That an agreed upon lease of space in the
new facility shall be provided to the Forest Service without
charge for the life of the building.
land acquisition
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16
U.S.C. 4601-4-11), including administrative expenses, and for
acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in
accordance with statutory authority applicable to the Forest
Service, $30,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That funding for specific land acquisitions are
subject to the approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
acquisition of lands for national forests special acts
For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of
the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the
Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San
Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests,
California, as authorized by law, $1,069,000, to be derived
from forest receipts.
acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges
For acquisition of lands, to be derived from funds
deposited by State, county, or municipal governments, public
school districts, or other public school authorities pursuant
to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16 U.S.C. 484a),
to remain available until expended.
range betterment fund
For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection,
and improvement, 50 per centum of all moneys received during
the prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock
on lands in National Forests in the sixteen Western States,
pursuant to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as
amended, to remain available until expended, of which not to
exceed 6 per centum shall be available for administrative
expenses associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation,
protection, and improvements.
gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research
For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $92,000, to
remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund
established pursuant to the above Act.
administrative provisions, forest service
Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal
year shall be available for: (a) purchase of not to exceed
159 passenger motor vehicles of which 14 will be used
primarily for law enforcement purposes and of which 149 shall
be for replacement; acquisition of 10 passenger motor
vehicles from excess sources, and hire of such vehicles;
operation and maintenance of aircraft, the purchase of not to
exceed two for replacement only, and acquisition of 20
aircraft from excess sources; notwithstanding other
provisions of law, existing aircraft being replaced may be
sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in value used to offset
the purchase price for the replacement aircraft; (b) services
pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2225, and not to exceed $100,000 for
employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; (c) purchase, erection, and
alteration of buildings and other public improvements (7
U.S.C. 2250); (d) acquisition of land, waters, and interests
therein, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (e) for expenses pursuant
to the Volunteers in the National Forest Act of 1972 (16
U.S.C 558a, 558d, 558a note); and (f) for debt collection
contracts in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3718(c).
None of the funds made available under this Act shall be
obligated or expended to change the boundaries of any region,
to abolish any region, to move or close any regional office,
or to implement any reorganization, ``reinvention'' or other
type of organizational restructuring of the Forest Service
without the consent of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be advanced to the Wildland Fire Management appropriation
and may be used for forest firefighting and the emergency
rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its jurisdiction.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for assistance to or through the Agency for International
Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service in
connection with forest and rangeland research, technical
information, and assistance in foreign countries, and shall
be available to support forestry and related natural resource
activities outside the United States and its territories and
possessions, including technical assistance, education and
training, and cooperation with United States and
international organizations.
None of the funds made available to the Forest Service
under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the
provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture
Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C 147b unless
the proposed transfer is approved in advance by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the
reprogramming procedures contained in House Report 103-551.
None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be
reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
procedures contained in House Report 103-551.
No funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund of the Department of
Agriculture without the approval of the Chief of the Forest
Service.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, any
appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service may
be used to disseminate program information to private and
public individuals and organizations through the use of
nonmonetary items of nominal value and to provide nonmonetary
awards of nominal value and to incur necessary expenses for
the nonmonetary recognition of private individuals and
organizations that make contributions to Forest Service
programs.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, money
collected, in advance or otherwise, by the Forest Service
under authority of section 101 of Public Law 93-153 (30
U.S.C. 185(1)) as reimbursement of administrative and other
costs incurred in processing pipeline right-of-way or permit
applications and for costs incurred in monitoring the
construction, operation, maintenance, and termination of any
pipeline and related facilities, may be used to reimburse the
applicable appropriation to which such costs were originally
charged.
Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to
conduct a program of not less than $1,000,000 for high
priority projects within the scope of the approved budget
which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as
authorized by the Act of August 13, 1970, as amended by
Public Law 93-408.
None of the funds available in this Act shall be used for
timber sale preparation using clearcutting in hardwood stands
in excess of 25 percent of the fiscal year 1989 harvested
volume in the Wayne National Forest, Ohio: Provided, That
this limitation shall not apply to hardwood stands damaged by
natural disaster: Provided further, That landscape architects
shall be used to maintain a visually pleasing forest.
Any money collected from the States for fire suppression
assistance rendered by the Forest Service on non-Federal
lands not in the vicinity of National Forest System lands
shall be used to reimburse the applicable appropriation and
shall remain available until expended as the Secretary may
direct in conducting activities authorized by 16 U.S.C. 2101
(note), 2101-2110, 1606, and 2111.
Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $1,500 is
available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official
reception and representation expenses.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Forest
Service is authorized to employ or otherwise contract with
persons at regular rates of pay, as determined by the
Service, to perform work occasioned by emergencies such as
fires, storms, floods, earthquakes or any other unavoidable
cause without regard to Sundays, Federal holidays, and the
regular workweek.
To the greatest extent possible, and in accordance with the
Final Amendment to the Shawnee National Forest Plan, none of
the funds available in this Act shall be used for preparation
of timber sales using clearcutting or other forms of even
aged management in hardwood stands in the Shawnee National
Forest, Illinois.
Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
593, funds up to $1,000,000 for
[[Page H6609]]
matching funds shall be available for the National Forest
Foundation.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for interactions with and providing technical assistance to
rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 80 percent of
the funds appropriated to the Forest Service in the National
Forest System and Construction accounts and planned to be
allocated to activities under the ``Jobs in the Woods''
program for projects on National Forest land in the State of
Washington may be granted directly to the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife for accomplishment of planned
projects. Twenty percent of said funds shall be retained by
the Forest Service for planning and administering projects.
Project selection and prioritization shall be accomplished by
the Forest Service with such consultation with the State of
Washington as the Forest Service deems appropriate.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and (2),
and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
fossil energy research and development
For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy
research and development activities, under the authority of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91),
including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible
and equitable interests in any real property or any facility
or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for
conducting inquiries, technological investigations and
research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and
disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social
and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603),
performed under the minerals and materials science programs
at the Albany Research Center in Oregon, $358,754,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That no part of
the sum herein made available shall be used for the field
testing of nuclear explosives in the recovery of oil and gas.
alternative fuels production
(including transfer and rescission of funds)
Monies received as investment income on the principal
amount in the Great Plains Project Trust at the Norwest Bank
of North Dakota, in such sums as are earned as of October 1,
1996, shall be deposited in this account and immediately
transferred to the General Fund of the Treasury. Monies
received as revenue sharing from the operation of the Great
Plains Gasification Plant shall be immediately transferred to
the General Fund of the Treasury. Funds are hereby rescinded
in the amount of $2,500,000 from unobligated balances under
this head.
naval petroleum and oil shale reserves
For necessary expenses in carrying out naval petroleum and
oil shale reserve activities, $143,786,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the requirements of
10 U.S.C. 7430(b)(2)(B) shall not apply to fiscal year 1997.
energy conservation
For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation
activities, $499,680,000, to remain available until expended,
including, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
excess amount for fiscal year 1997 determined under the
provisions of section 3003(d) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C.
4502): Provided, That $125,000,000 shall be for use in energy
conservation programs as defined in section 3008(3) of Public
Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507) and shall not be available until
excess amounts are determined under the provisions of section
3003(d) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4502): Provided
further, That notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public
Law 99-509 such sums shall be allocated to the eligible
programs as follows: $100,000,000 for weatherization
assistance grants and $25,000,000 for State energy
conservation grants.
economic regulation
For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Office of Hearing and Appeals, $2,725,000, to remain
available until expended.
strategic petroleum reserve
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve
facility development and operations and program management
activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $220,000,000,
to remain available until expended, of which $220,000,000
shall be repaid from the ``SPR Operating Fund'' from amounts
made available from the sale of oil from the Reserve:
Provided, That notwithstanding section 161 of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act, the Secretary shall draw down
and sell in fiscal year 1997 $220,000,000 worth of oil from
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Provided further, That the
proceeds from the sale shall be deposited into a special
account in the Treasury, to be established and known as the
``SPR Operating Fund'', and shall, upon receipt, be
transferred to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account for
operations of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
spr petroleum account
Notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 6240(d) the United States share
of crude oil in Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 (Elk
Hills) may be sold or otherwise disposed of to other than the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Provided, That outlays in fiscal
year 1997 resulting from the use of funds in this account
shall not exceed $5,000,000.
energy information administration
For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Energy Information Administration, $66,120,000 to remain
available until expended.
administrative provisions, department of energy
Appropriations under this Act for the current fiscal year
shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles;
hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase,
repair, and cleaning of uniforms; and reimbursement to the
General Services Administration for security guard services.
From appropriations under this Act, transfers of sums may
be made to other agencies of the Government for the
performance of work for which the appropriation is made.
None of the funds made available to the Department of
Energy under this Act shall be used to implement or finance
authorized price support or loan guarantee programs unless
specific provision is made for such programs in an
appropriations Act.
The Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings,
equipment, and other contributions from public and private
sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other
agencies, Federal, State, private or foreign: Provided, That
revenues and other moneys received by or for the account of
the Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of
products in connection with projects of the Department
appropriated under this Act may be retained by the Secretary
of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for
plant construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-
sharing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing
contracts or agreements: Provided further, That the remainder
of revenues after the making of such payments shall be
covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided
further, That any contract, agreement, or provision thereof
entered into by the Secretary pursuant to this authority
shall not be executed prior to the expiration of 30 calendar
days (not including any day in which either House of Congress
is not in session because of adjournment of more than three
calendar days to a day certain) from the receipt by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of
the Senate of a full comprehensive report on such project,
including the facts and circumstances relied upon in support
of the proposed project.
No funds provided in this Act may be expended by the
Department of Energy to prepare, issue, or process
procurement documents for programs or projects for which
appropriations have not been made.
In addition to other authorities set forth in this Act, the
Secretary may accept fees and contributions from public and
private sources, to be deposited in a contributed funds
account, and prosecute projects using such fees and
contributions in cooperation with other Federal, State or
private agencies or concerns.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Indian Health Service
indian health services
For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5,
1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of
the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian
Health Service, $1,779,561,000, together with payments
received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b)
for services furnished by the Indian Health Service:
Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal
organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any
other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the
grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available
to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year
limitation: Provided further, That $12,000,000 shall remain
available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic Health
Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $353,125,000 for
contract medical care shall remain available for obligation
until September 30, 1998: Provided further, That of the funds
provided, not less than $11,306,000 shall be used to carry
out the loan repayment program under section 108 of the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act: Provided further, That
funds provided in this Act may be used for one-year contracts
and grants which are to be performed in two fiscal years, so
long as the total obligation is recorded in the year for
which the funds are appropriated: Provided further, That the
amounts collected by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services under the authority of title IV of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act shall remain available until expended
for the purpose of achieving compliance with the applicable
conditions and requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the
Social Security Act (exclusive of planning, design, or
construction of new facilities): Provided further, That of
the funds provided, $7,500,000 shall remain available until
expended, for the Indian Self-Determination Fund, which shall
be available for the transitional costs of initial or
[[Page H6610]]
expanded tribal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements
with the Indian Health Service under the provisions of the
Indian Self-Determination Act: Provided further, That funding
contained herein, and in any earlier appropriations Acts for
scholarship programs under the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act (25 U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available for obligation
until September 30, 1998: Provided further, That amounts
received by tribes and tribal organizations under title IV of
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act shall be reported and
accounted for and available to the receiving tribes and
tribal organizations until expended.
indian health facilities
For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and
equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities,
including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans,
specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase
and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers;
and for provision of domestic and community sanitation
facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act
of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and
titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with
respect to environmental health and facilities support
activities of the Indian Health Service, $227,701,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated for the planning, design, construction or
renovation of health facilities for the benefit of an Indian
tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land for sites to
construct, improve, or enlarge health or related facilities.
administrative provisions, indian health service
Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service
shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109 but at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent
to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under
5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft;
purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints;
purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and
renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone
service in private residences in the field, when authorized
under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms
or allowances therefore as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are
concerned with the functions or activities for which the
appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved
conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or
activities: Provided, That in accordance with the provisions
of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, non-Indian
patients may be extended health care at all tribally
administered or Indian Health Service facilities, subject to
charges, and the proceeds along with funds recovered under
the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651-53)
shall be credited to the account of the facility providing
the service and shall be available without fiscal year
limitation: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
law or regulation, funds transferred from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service
shall be administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian
Sanitation Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended:
Provided further, That funds appropriated to the Indian
Health Service in this Act, except those used for
administrative and program direction purposes, shall not be
subject to limitations directed at curtailing Federal travel
and transportation: Provided further, That the Indian Health
Service shall neither bill nor charge those Indians who may
have the economic means to pay unless and until such time as
Congress has agreed upon a specific policy to do so and has
directed the Indian Health Service to implement such a
policy: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, funds previously or herein made available
to a tribe or tribal organization through a contract, grant,
or agreement authorized by title I or title III of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25
U.S.C. 450), may be deobligated and reobligated to a self-
determination contract under title I, or a self-governance
agreement under title III of such Act and thereafter shall
remain available to the tribe or tribal organization without
fiscal year limitation: Provided further, That none of the
funds made available to the Indian Health Service in this Act
shall be used to implement the final rule published in the
Federal Register on September 16, 1987, by the Department of
Health and Human Services, relating to the eligibility for
the health care services of the Indian Health Service until
the Indian Health Service has submitted a budget request
reflecting the increased costs associated with the proposed
final rule, and such request has been included in an
appropriations Act and enacted into law: Provided further,
That funds made available in this Act are to be apportioned
to the Indian Health Service as appropriated in this Act, and
accounted for in the appropriation structure set forth in
this Act: Provided further, That funds received from any
source, including tribal contractors and compactors for
previously transferred functions which tribal contractors and
compactors no longer wish to retain, for services, goods, or
training and technical assistance, shall be retained by the
Indian Health Service and shall remain available until
expended by the Indian Health Service: Provided further, That
reimbursements for training, technical assistance, or
services provided by the Indian Health Service will contain
total costs, including direct, administrative, and overhead
associated with the provision of goods, services, or
technical assistance: Provided further, That the
appropriation structure for the Indian Health Service may not
be altered without advance approval of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
indian education
For necessary expenses to carry out, to the extent not
otherwise provided, title IX, part A of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and section 215
of the Department of Education Organization Act, $52,500,000.
OTHER RELATED AGENCIES
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531,
$20,345,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act
are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups
including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands
residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and
all others certified as eligible and not included in the
preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any
single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985,
was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi
Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such
household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be
provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided
further, That the Office shall relocate any certified
eligible relocatees who have selected and received an
approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a
replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the
land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
Development
payment to the institute
For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title
XV of Public Law 99-498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56, part A),
$5,500,000.
Smithsonian Institution
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as
authorized by law, including research in the fields of art,
science, and history; development, preservation, and
documentation of the National Collections; presentation of
public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation,
dissemination, and exchange of information and publications;
conduct of education, training, and museum assistance
programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for
terms not to exceed thirty years), and protection of
buildings, facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000
for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to 5
replacement passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for employees; $317,188,000, of which
not to exceed $31,664,000 for the instrumentation program,
collections acquisition, Museum Support Center equipment and
move, exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum of the
American Indian, the repatriation of skeletal remains
program, research equipment, information management, and
Latino programming shall remain available until expended, and
including such funds as may be necessary to support American
overseas research centers and a total of $125,000 for the
Council of American Overseas Research Centers: Provided, That
funds appropriated herein are available for advance payments
to independent contractors performing research services or
participating in official Smithsonian presentations.
construction and improvements, national zoological park
For necessary expenses of planning, construction,
remodeling, and equipping of buildings and facilities at the
National Zoological Park, by contract or otherwise,
$3,250,000, to remain available until expended.
repair and restoration of buildings
For necessary expenses of repair and restoration of
buildings owned or occupied by the Smithsonian Institution,
by contract or otherwise, as authorized by section 2 of the
Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), including not to
exceed $10,000 for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
$39,954,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That contracts awarded for environmental systems, protection
systems, and exterior repair or restoration of buildings of
the Smithsonian Institution may be negotiated with selected
contractors and awarded on the basis of contractor
qualifications as well as price.
construction
For necessary expenses for construction, $7,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
National Gallery of Art
salaries and expenses
For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of
Art, the protection and
[[Page H6611]]
care of the works of art therein, and administrative expenses
incident thereto, as authorized by the Act of March 24, 1937
(50 Stat. 51), as amended by the public resolution of April
13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9, Seventy-sixth Congress),
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in
advance when authorized by the treasurer of the Gallery for
membership in library, museum, and art associations or
societies whose publications or services are available to
members only, or to members at a price lower than to the
general public; purchase, repair, and cleaning of uniforms
for guards, and uniforms, or allowances therefor, for other
employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902); purchase
or rental of devices and services for protecting buildings
and contents thereof, and maintenance, alteration,
improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches, and
grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and repair
of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by contracts
made, without advertising, with individuals, firms, or
organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms
and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $53,899,000,
of which not to exceed $3,026,000 for the special exhibition
program shall remain available until expended.
repair, restoration and renovation of buildings
For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and
renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or
occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or
otherwise, as authorized, $5,942,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for
environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior
repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of
Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded
on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
operations and maintenance
For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and
security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts, $10,875,000.
construction
For necessary expenses of capital repair and rehabilitation
of the existing features of the building and site of the John
F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $9,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of
the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356)
including hire of passenger vehicles and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $5,840,000.
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
National Endowment for the Arts
grants and administration
For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$82,734,000, shall be available to the National Endowment for
the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the
arts through assistance to organizations and individuals
pursuant to section 5(c) of the Act, and for administering
the functions of the Act, to remain available until expended.
matching grants
To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of
1965, as amended, $16,760,000, to remain available until
expended, to the National Endowment for the Arts: Provided,
That this appropriation shall be available for obligation
only in such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of
gifts, bequests, and devises of money, and other property
accepted by the Chairman or by grantees of the Endowment
under the provisions of section 10(a)(2), subsections
11(a)(2)(A) and 11(a)(3)(A) during the current and preceding
fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been
appropriated.
National Endowment for the Humanities
grants and administration
For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$92,994,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for
the Humanities for support of activities in the humanities,
pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for administering
the functions of the Act, to remain available until expended.
matching grants
To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of
1965, as amended, $11,500,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $7,500,000 shall be available to the
National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of
section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be
available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal
to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of
money, and other property accepted by the Chairman or by
grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections
11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding
fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been
appropriated.
Institute of Museum Services
grants and administration
For carrying out title II of the Arts, Humanities, and
Cultural Affairs Act of 1976, as amended, $21,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
administrative provisions
None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any
grant or contract documents which do not include the text of
18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may
be used for official reception and representation expenses.
Commission of Fine Arts
salaries and expenses
For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a
Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $867,000.
national capital arts and cultural affairs
For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190
(20 U.S.C. 956(a)), as amended, $6,000,000.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $2,500,000:
Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for the
compensation of Executive Level V or higher position.
National Capital Planning Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National
Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C 71-71i), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $5,390,000:
Provided, That all appointed members will be compensated at a
rate not to exceed the rate for Executive Schedule Level IV.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Memorial Commission, established by the Act of August 11,
1955 (69 Stat. 694), as amended by Public Law 92-332 (86
Stat. 401), $125,000.
United States Holocaust Memorial Council
holocaust memorial council
For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Council, as
authorized by Public Law 96-388 (36 U.S.C. 1401), as amended,
$29,707,000, of which $1,575,000 for the Museum's repair and
rehabilitation program and $1,264,000 for the Museum's
exhibitions program shall remain available until expended.
Mr. KOLBE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that title II of the bill may be considered 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 Arizona?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any points of order at this time?
point of order
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order on title II.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
provisos beginning at page 61, line 2, and ending at page 61, line 11,
based on the ground that such provisions would constitute legislation
in an appropriations bill in violation of rule XXI, clause 2, of the
rules of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the majority, the chairman and vice chairman
concede this point of order.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order having been conceded, it is
sustained.
Are there any amendments to title II at this time?
amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
In the item relating to ``Forest Service--Reconstruction and
Construction''--
(1) after the first dollar amount, insert the following:
``(reduced by $12,000,000)''; and
(2) after the second dollar amount, insert the following:
``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes, the
time to be equally divided.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
[[Page H6612]]
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this
bipartisan amendment to the Interior appropriations bill with my
colleagues the gentleman from Illinois, John Porter, the gentleman from
Florida, Dan Miller, the gentleman from Minnesota, David Minge, the
gentleman from California, Ed Royce, the gentleman from Wisconsin,
Scott Klug, and the gentleman from Indiana, John Hostettler.
This is a very bipartisan amendment. I want to pay particular thanks
to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] as well as the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] for their efforts. Mr. Klug worked very hard
on this amendment in years past, as well as Mr. Porter, and I
appreciate their efforts.
One would be surprised to know that there is money in this bill that
will go to the Forest Service, but will travel right from the pocket of
the taxpayer directly into the pockets of the most profitable timber
companies, such as Weyerhaeuser, Georgia Pacific, and International
Paper, in the form of federally subsidized timber roads in our National
Forest System.
One would think if we are going to allow private timber companies to
come in and remove the Federal assets from our forests for their own
profit, at the very least these companies would have to pay for their
roads that are needed to be made to get to that timber.
The American taxpayer has already paid for 379,000 miles of roads
that crisscross our national forests, which is more than eight times
the size of our U.S. Interstate Highway System. Enough is enough. We do
not need any new taxpayer-subsidized logging roads. If the new roads
for logging purposes are warranted, practical, and profitable, why
should not the corporate giants build their own roads?
Our amendment would eliminate Federal funds for the Forest Service
for the construction of only new timber logging roads in fiscal year
1997. There have been other amendments that have been offered. This is
a very specific amendment that only goes for the building of new roads,
and the money will be, in fact, rescinded.
Thirty million dollars from this would be cut by the amendment for
the purchaser credit program, $12 million from the reconstruction and
construction budget of the Forest Service that is used for building new
roads and for the administrative costs associated with those new roads.
The amendment only cuts funds from the budget that would be used to
build 550 miles of new roads, and we do not touch the funds that would
be used for the repair of roads or the existing infrastructure. Nothing
in this amendment would keep private companies from building their own
roads.
Some may say that this amendment will cause the price of lumber to
increase, leading to higher home prices. The fact is that the interest
rates alone affect home prices much more than the price of lumber. Only
less than 5 percent of the cost of building a home actually goes to the
cost of lumber. So anyone who argues that this is going to push up the
price of lumber is not following how homes are built.
Our approach is very simple: Let the market dictate. If the roads
must be built and should be built, let the companies that want to build
the roads go ahead and build them. Why should the American taxpayer
have to reach into their back pocket and subsidize roads that are going
to be utilized by private companies for the purposes of going and
cutting our finest trees, and in many cases cutting them up, mulching
them into fiber board, and selling them to somebody else, where we have
to buy them back at inflated prices?
The truth of the matter is if we are to stand up, and I appreciate so
many of the Members from the Republican side who have joined with me in
the offering of this amendment, because I know that just as you are
opposed to so much welfare, that you are opposed to welfare on both
sides of the equation, and in fact do not believe in so many of your
cases that we ought to be providing subsidies to corporations as well.
Many Members of the Republican side have been suggesting that in recent
months, and we very much appreciate the help and support that they
could give us on this amendment.
Finally, I would just like to add how much I appreciate the fact
that, again, Mr. Porter, Mr. Klug, and so many other fine Republicans
like Dan Miller and Ed Royce and John Hostettler have joined with us in
this amendment. This will be the first time that we really have a
chance to defeat the lumber lobby in the Congress of the United States
and stand up for the ordinary people who are paying the taxes. This
will not cut roads, it will simply make sure that the roads that are
going to be cut by the Forest Service are going to be paid for by the
corporations that use them for their own purposes.
Let us be honest with the American people and say where we need to
build roads to rebuild the old road system, we will pay for it. Where
we need to build roads for recreational purposes, we will pay for it.
But if the purpose of the road is to be built so that lumber companies
can go in and identify trees that they themselves want to chop down,
let those lumber companies themselves pick up the tab.
Mr. Taylor of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, if I had a chance to ask the gentleman a question, I am
not sure if he is familiar with President Clinton's Option 9. Option 9
is for the Pacific Northwest. It is going to be very difficult for the
President to carry out his Option 9 without the funds for roads,
especially new roads, to meet the commitment to the people of the
Pacific Northwest.
Second, Mr. Chairman, this I think is probably the fourth time this
evening that we have tried to debunk this myth that is being predicated
that there is a subsidy for road building. The timber that is sold in
the national forest is sold on a bid. It is not on a negotiated basis;
it is sold to the highest bidder in a bid process. The Forest Service
usually puts a floor in; that is, a figure below which they will not
go.
The bid includes the fact that the Forest Service will give credit
for roads to be built for timber harvest, because they want those roads
build for specific purposes beyond timber harvest. They want them built
for recreational purposes, they want them built for fire protection,
they want them built for a variety of reasons.
If a company on a private tract of land wanted to build roads for
private timber, they could probably build those roads at a fraction of
the cost that the Government wants their roads built, because the
Government wants a multiple use in their forest. So they dictate how
the roads will be built for the broader use. It adds value to the
forest land for recreational purposes and other purposes.
If the credit is not given, then the company bidding will simply
lower its bid, all companies bidding will lower their bid to take into
consideration the cost of that road, because it is a special road that
the Government wants built.
So there is no subsidy, there is no savings. You pay in the front or
you pay in the back. You pay the same thing. It is a myth to say that
anyone is being subsidized because implicit in the bid itself, when a
person bids for that timber, he will bid that price, knowing that he is
going to get credit for the road construction. If he were not getting
credit for the road construction, he would give a lower price for the
timber so that he would be able to cover the Government's road
construction, because it is a specifically built road to Government
standards for use far beyond timber.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we can put that myth to bed, and then maybe we
can get on with real debate on this subject.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend yielding. Is it
not a fact that a lot of the timber that we are attempting to harvest
on Federal forest lands declines in merchantable value, or loses its
monetary value altogether because of our inability to get these sales
out, because of our inability to harvest these dead, dying and diseased
trees in particular?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time,
certainly in the area of salvage that is true, because the appeal
process is getting so long now many companies will not give a high bid
for government timber because the process is so lengthy.
[[Page H6613]]
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, is
it not a fact that some of our friends concerned about so-called below
costs sales and concerned about taxpayer subsidies are the same people
who are opposed to allowing any kind of expedited logging on our forest
lands, including the salvage harvesting of dead, dying and diseased
trees?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Exactly. The Sierra Club came out
recently with a vote two to one against any cutting on government
forest lands altogether.
Mr. RIGGS. Did I understand correctly the Sierra Club, the most
moderate mainstream environmental organization, the one that enjoys the
most moderate mainstream image of all environmental organizations,
voted recently two to one to completely ban all logging on Federal
forest lands?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Exactly. The implications of that is
going to be severe, not only economically, because of the thousands of
jobs and tens of thousands of jobs to be lost, but environmentally.
Because as we pointed out again and again, we use wood products for
many things. That table in front of you is an example. If we do not
make it out of wood, we make it out of a finite product, usually
plastic or metal. Both are finite and harsher on the environment. We
also need the plastics for other uses.
We need the renewable resource of wood. Throughout eastern America,
the Appalachian hardwood in the Forest Service, I would say 50 percent
of the timber, the Appalachian hardwoods that are going to be collected
in the future, is going to come from Forest Service lands, supports the
furniture industry that not only supplies homes across this Nation, but
is a substantial export market for us, value added.
The other factor I would like to point out in the total object we are
talking about is all the folks who want to stop harvest in the forest
do not tell us what is going to happen to replace all those forest
products that the people need and a growing population needs, much less
the jobs that will be abolished.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kennedy-Porter
amendment and would suggest that the arguments being made by the other
side apparently, after only a brief display, are obviously trying to
create a strawman. They do not want to talk about the issue in terms of
what is in this amendment. This amendment does not ban harvesting on
the national forests. That is not what this amendment does. This
amendment takes out some $50 million in terms of subsidy for new road
construction for those sales.
{time} 2130
What we are saying is that this ought to make economic sense. I might
say it would be a good idea if it made environmental sense as well. It
would be a good idea if it made scientific sense, I would suggest, too.
And first and foremost, perhaps it would be a good idea if it made
ethical sense, that it was the right thing to do in terms of what we do
in terms of policy.
So I think the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Kennedy], is coming
from an economic basis here, but I think in the end it makes a lot of
scientific and environmental sense. We have rejected amendments to take
and transfer this money out, and this is the consequence that my
friend, Mr. Kennedy, is trying to show, what happens to these forests
and what is happening with these roads. Because when they are
constructed and we end up with nearly 400,000 miles of roads, they are
just left in a bad condition.
This slumping, this taking of the soil that is washing into the
streams is destroying the fisheries, destroying the watersheds, leaving
behind literally tens of billions of dollars of damage in this country,
in our landscape, that we have a responsibility for as stewards, that
is left in disrepair.
What is the suggestion of this committee? What is the suggestion on
this floor? To construct more new roads. Are we closing down some? Yes,
but not nearly enough. Are we containing them at the level that is
necessary? Not nearly well enough. And that has been bad policy that
has been handed to us today to make a decision.
The decision ought to be to take the money and save this money for
the taxpayer and to save this legacy for future generations.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentleman's yielding and his comments. I want to clear up a couple of
the inaccuracies that were suggested by the two earlier speakers.
First and foremost, there is $2 million that was requested by the
Forest Service to go into our forests to clean up the areas that need
to be cleaned up. We have not touched that money. The money that was
requested specifically by the Forest Service to meet the concerns of
the gentleman from California, [Mr. Riggs], is left in the budget.
This deals with the fact that in 1995 a GAO report showed that the
timber sale program lost an estimated $330 million a year for 3 years
for a total of over a billion dollars to the American taxpayer between
1992 and 1994. This is what we are talking about, is whether or not the
roads, when they go in, that we can say that we are going to sell as
many board feet of timber if we cut the subsidy.
Well, obviously, that is probably true. I will grant my colleagues
that. But the truth of the matter is, we are going to save the American
taxpayer millions and millions of dollars at the same time. If what we
are really about is simply to subsidize timber sales, then why not just
write the timber companies a check and to heck cutting down the trees.
Keep the trees.
But that is not what we are really wanting to do. What we want to do
is hide the fact that underneath this program is a tremendous subsidy
that goes to these companies and ends up with the kinds of damage done
that that picture demonstrates.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman is
right. If there were not a subsidy, we would not have the $164 million
in the bill that we have before us. It is just economic sense. If these
forests cannot pay for themselves, if these forests do not pay to cut
these trees down, and I tell my colleagues, our forestry practices are
a disaster because of incidents like this.
Go out and fly over the 400,000 miles of roads that they have
constructed that are in disrepair and will never be taken care of. At
the rate we are going, we are just destroying the environment, is what
we are doing, and it does not make economic sense. We would not have to
have this money in the bill.
Our forestry practices have resulted in just the prime cuts going. So
the areas that remain, yes, they are below cost, because the prime
areas have been cut out. It takes money, obviously, to restore these
areas today. That is what is going on, is the type of cuts, and what is
left simply does not make sense in terms of the economics. That is why
we will have to have more and more money each year to deal with this
particular problem.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I must, unfortunately, oppose the Kennedy amendment. In my judgment,
there is a correlation between how much money we spend in roads and how
much timber harvesting we are able to do. If we cut the timber road
purchaser credit program by 60 percent, we are going to drastically
reduce timber harvesting in the States that use the timber purchaser
credit program. We are also going to cut back the other construction
program.
Now, I agree with the gentleman from Minnesota, but if we cut the
money for roads, then we are also cutting road maintenance and we are
cutting recreational roads. These things all are affected.
These roads are used for multiple purposes. The Forest Service
provides more recreational opportunities than our entire National Park
System, and we have to have roads to get into these recreational areas.
So we cannot walk away from the truth here. The truth is, if we are
going to cut the road program by 25 percent, total, then we are going
to dramatically reduce the level of timber harvesting.
Mr. Chairman, I must tell my friend from Massachusetts that there is
no
[[Page H6614]]
subsidy here that I know about, because what happens is, we have two
different programs. In some areas, the Forest Service builds the roads,
and when they do that, people bid on this timber and they will bid a
certain level. In some cases, the timber operator builds the roads, and
in that case, he bids less for the timber. That is called purchaser
credit.
There are two different systems, but both of them are based on the
economics of how much this timber is worth.
Now, I must remind everyone that we have cut timber harvesting in
this country by over 50 percent, and in the Pacific Northwest, we have
reduced it by 85 percent. This has had a dramatic negative effect on
the economies of many areas. To come in now and again cut these timber
roads, many of which are used for maintenance and recreation and other
purposes, simply is going to cause additional problems.
In fact, most of the money in the President's program for watershed
restoration is to take out roads. A lot of this money is used to take
out existing roads.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let us
point out the fact that there have been a couple of statements that are
simply not true. This amendment does not cut recreational roads, number
one.
When the gentleman talks about the fact that timber sales might go
down, the truth is that less than 10 or 12 percent of the total amount
of timber that is cut in this country comes from the national forest.
No. 2, the private sales in this country have skyrocketed, so we are
not talking about damage done to the lumber industry. What we are
talking about is the subsidy program which the GAO----
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Well, if the gentleman would just allow
me to finish, then he can take back, so I will learn something here,
because I am sure I will from the gentleman.
The GAO says that we are going to lose $330 million on this program
this year. That is how much they claim is going to be lost.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the people from the
Forest Service do not agree with the GAO calculations. And, again, one
of the reasons that we are not getting as much return out of our timber
harvest is because we have put on all kinds of additional environmental
restraints and restrictions in order to protect and do ESA's and do
EIS's and all the other things that we have to do to protect the
environment. The gentleman agrees that those are important priorities
that we ought to do.
Mr. Chairman, again, I want to say it one more time. If we cut the
roads program, we are going to then reduce timber harvesting from what
the committee approved, 4.9, down about 1.7 less. It would be down to
about 3.2. And we have carpenters and all kinds of people out there who
depend on the timber coming off the Federal forest lands.
As I told the gentleman and my good friend, we have already cut the
timber harvesting program in this country by approximately 50 percent.
I think going any further than that is a very serious mistake, and I
would urge the House to reject the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, the only point again I would like to make is that,
yes, there are going to be reductions in the number of board feet.
Where we go about 4 percent of the total board feet last year out of
the timber program that comes out of the national forest program, some
of that 4 percent that we get out of the total sales from the national
forest program will go down a small percentage. It is a tiny, tiny
percentage from the overall number of board feet cut.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me say one other thing here. At he
request of our former chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Yates], the General Accounting Office recently completed a report
detailing the allocation of Forest Service timber sale receipts to
various funds and accounts and comparing total receipts to outlays for
timber sale preparation and administration.
The report covers fiscal years 1992 through 1994. That is 3 years
during which timber sales ere at a postwar low. Nevertheless, the
report shows nearly $3 billion in timber sale receipts against $1.3
billion in preparation and administration outlays. Therefore, we are
covering the cost by approximately $1.7 billion.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
once again yield, I would just like to point out that that report goes
on to say, if the gentleman would read the next page, that those
numbers do not take into account the cost of building the roadbed into
the forest, which is 70 percent of the cost; it does not take into
account something else, too, and it is a phony baloney report.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me point out that I have been on the committee that
handles these things for 16 years. I am chairman of the Subcommittee on
Forest Service, Public Lands and National Parks. If anyone would care
to come to our meetings, we hold hearings on these things on a very
regular basis. In fact, there is one tomorrow at 10 o'clock. We have
gone over this issue ad nauseam. How much it costs, below-lost timber.
It goes on and on and on.
Here is the myth that seems to float around here right now, and it
goes this way: Cutting all funds for construction of new forest roads
will save the Federal Government $95 million per year or $495 million
over 5 years. They tie this argument to the claim that the Forest
Service timber sale loses money.
I can tell my colleagues after 16 years on that committee that is
completely and unequivocally false.
Withholding these road funds for fiscal year 1997 will preclude
needed environmental improvements to the existing road system and will
cause the termination of most timber sales on the national forest.
And today, just today, we went over these facts. Listen to these
figures, please, resulting in a net loss of approximately $600 million
in annual timber sales.
Now, a lot of folks have been wondering, why do we have so many fires
around the area? We have fires all over the West and other areas. One
of the reasons we are hearing this is because they cannot get to them.
It is very romantic to see them jumping out of Cessna 210s and things
such as that, but, in reality, how they fight these fires is these guys
take these trucks and go up these roads. These roads we are not taking
care of. These roads we are not going to build. So this is one of the
reasons we find ourselves in that situation.
Eliminating the funding for the Forest Service would virtually half
the Forest Service's timber sales program, which is needed to, one,
accomplish forest management activities; two, provide an important
share of the Nation's wood products. And my friends may have noticed
how timber is going up over the years. When I built a home 20, 30 years
ago, a 2-by-4 was 87 cents. It is now $4. One of the reasons directly
tied to that is because of that.
And being in the construction business myself for many years, I can
tell my colleagues that, contrary to what my good friend said, timber
is a big part of building homes.
Many accounting firms are looking at this at this particular time,
and we have had them before the committee. And what have they testified
to? They say one of the reasons the cost of housing is going up is
because we are not doing this.
My good friend from Massachusetts made an interesting statement not
too long ago. He said, we are going to take care of this timber lobby.
That is not the person we are going to hurt. I will tell him who we are
going to hurt. If we go back to our districts and look in the faces and
eyes of these people with modest incomes who like to hunt and fish and
camp and be out in the outdoors and enjoy it, those are the people we
are going to hurt.
We are not hurting the lumber industry at all. They are moving out of
these areas, and wisely so, because they can do it cheaper. If Members
[[Page H6615]]
want a great experience, they should go down with the gentleman from
California, Wally Herger, and look at some of this that is owned by
private industry, where they are flourishing and doing very well, and
then look what the Federal Government is doing. Old growth forest and
fires.
And now we are even kicking the cattle off the ranch because we do
not want those to take care of the grass. Funny enough, in Canada they
send them up there, paying them $5 a head to eat that grass so it does
not burn.
{time} 2145
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman seems to have a good handle on
this issue. Let me ask him this. I am concerned about small communities
like I have in my area, I have a lot of national forests in my
community, like Phillips, WI that is totally in a national forest. They
do not have any power of taxation. What happens when they need some new
streets like they do?
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the gentleman a
classic example. Anybody in here ever heard of Escalante, UT?
Escalante, UT has Escalante sawmills in it; 268 people have jobs there.
Guess what? The extreme groups came in and they challenged every one of
the contracts. No, they will not let them do it. Two hundred sixty-
eight people do not have jobs anymore. You want to buy a town? You can
buy one. It is called Escalante, UT, because they all went out because
people were challenging the road building.
Also Kaibab Industries in Arizona has a place in Utah. They are
pretty well out. That is what happens in these little communities when
we follow amendments like the one from our good friend from
Massachusetts.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I am
interested in what is going to happen if this amendment would pass.
What is going to happen to this small community that is within this
national forest? They are not going to get a new street. They do not
have any power of taxation.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues, of my 16 years
in that committee, do you know who uses these roads, it is not these
guys. A lot of this was pointed out by the gentleman from Washington.
This build them themselves in many instances. Who uses the road is the
person who likes to recreate, the person of modest means. That is the
person who is going to be hurt.
In answer to your question, those little communities are the ones
that suffer. The little communities that are all through the 48 lower
States and the other 2, they are the people that will suffer. I think
this is a misguided amendment. I have great respect for the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
the CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous
consent, Mr. Hansen was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
point out the fact that you had cited this as though all 379,000 miles
worth of roads, all the new roads that the repairs that are going to go
into 1,850 miles worth of roads, the new roads that are going to be
built for recreational purposes, all seem to account for nothing. All
of the cuts that you and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] are
predicting come out of these 550 miles worth of new roads. You have a
lot of roads to go out and cut a lot of timber, which is only harvested
4 percent of the total take in this country. So how you can blame this
tiny little cut of $50 million for all these terrible things that are
going to happen, I think is irresponsible.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts
thinks this is a defense bill. Fifty million in the interior bill is a
big deal. It is about one-third of the timber program, timber road
program. So this is a big amendment, worse than any of the ones we have
seen today.
Mr. HANSEN. Well stated.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and there are
several points I want to make. The first on purchaser road credits,
they are not necessary for timber harvesting. Logging occurs on land
managed by the Bureau of Land Management under their lump sales
program, which does not involve purchaser road credits.
States also manage their timber sale programs much more effectively.
According to the General Accounting Office, States fund their programs
with a percentage of timber sales receipts which provides a built-in
incentive to promote cost efficiency.
The General Accounting Office also states that while the States'
planning processes are fairly straightforward, the Federal agencies'
processes are much more lengthy and expensive.
I would lastly also like to note that the House budget resolution
that we recently passed calls for market-based decisionmaking in public
land management in the area of multiple activities, including the
timber road programs. In my view, those of us who supported our budget
resolution should also support this amendment.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague, Mr. Royce, has put this
in perspective. There has been a lot of emotion on both sides of this
issue tonight. I think in the end it really boils down to hard, cold
numbers.
Let me go back to the point the gentleman from Massachusetts made
earlier in terms of the General Accounting Office study. The General
Accounting Office, which essentially is charged by Congress with doing
fiscal analysis, came back and said we have lost nearly $1 billion over
3 years in below-cost timber sales. Of that, $245 million was the cost
of new road construction.
Again, this amendment does not say you cannot harvest and that timber
companies cannot cut down trees. It simply says if they want to do it,
they can pay for it.
Let us put in perspective exactly how much mileage we are talking
about. There are already 379,000 miles of roads in the National Forest
Service which is eight times bigger than the national highway system.
We have already built roads from one corner to the next.
It seems to me it should be a fundamental Republican principle that
at the very least you break even. What an extraordinarily novel idea,
if you actually make money when you sell a Federal resource.
Let me again congratulate my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Porter],
the gentlemen from California, [Mr. Royce], and the gentleman from
Massachusetts, [Mr. Kennedy], for trying to bring some common sense
and, more than anything else, economic sense to this issue which says,
if you are going to do harvesting, go ahead and do it. Let the private
companies pay for it. And when you harvest the timber, let us make a
buck at it.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would have to say that we have spent the last year
and a half discussing timber, cattle grazing, mining. And the
difficulty I have with all of this is that I never find a time when
those who are interested in these industries are willing to give at all
in solving some of our budgetary problems in this country. No, we have
to continue to subsidize the timber industry. We have to continue to
subsidize the cattle ranchers. We cannot change that. We have to
continue to subsidize mining interests in our country. There is never
any give to solve our country's problems. I wish I could say that there
was.
Here we are asking simply to cut $50 million to build 550 miles of
new road on top of 379,000 miles of existing road, as Mr. Klug just
said, eight times, eight times longer than the interstate highway
system. And we are saying, why not forgo this, why do we not just do
this for a year. There are plenty of roads out there that are already
in existence. Yet, no, no, we cannot do that.
[[Page H6616]]
We are already subsidizing them and we have to continue to do it.
I believe very strongly that it is time we look at all of these kinds
of subsidies and we say, hey, the Federal taxpayers do not have an
obligation to the U.S. timber industry. They do not have an obligation
to cattle ranchers to subsidize, nor do they have an obligation to the
mining industry.
We have a mining law that has been in existence since 1872,
subsidizing an industry. Let us have a time when the interests who come
up here and say, yes, we have to balance the budget, but we have got to
do it on everybody else's interests but ours, we are going to protect
ours ad infinitum. I think it is time that contributions be made.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that after having hearings
on each one of those issues you mentioned, we are trying to come up
with a grazing bill that pays more. We have had more hearings that say
that they are not being subsidized in both timber, mining and grazing
than we have otherwise. I do not know where the gentleman comes up with
those figures, because they are surely not the figures we get in front
of the committee. That is the line of extreme environmentalists. We do
not get that. We sit there for hour after hour after hour going through
this. I would like to know where these figures come that you are
talking about. I have never seen them, and I have been on that
committee for 16 long years.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman mean that we are not
subsidizing these industries?
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are at all. In fact, the
facts we have, we are making money on this timber industry to the tune
of $600 million this year.
Mr. PORTER. I find the gentleman's arguments incredible, frankly.
Mr. HANSEN. Well, come to the committee then.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me explain to the gentleman from
Illinois, I hold him in high regard, obviously, he is chairman of one
of the subcommittees on which I serve on the Committee on
Appropriations, but I have to point out in all fairness that the
gentleman makes no bones about his environmental bent. He is an
opponent of timber salvage harvesting, the idea of harvesting even a
dead, dying or diseased tree.
I just want to bring a little bit more factual light to bear on this
particular debate. We have had reference made here on this floor
tonight to the GAO study. This diagram refers to the GAO study. It
talks about the distribution of timber sale receipts for the Federal
fiscal years 1992 through 1994. Initial distribution of timber sale
receipts which totaled $2.995 billion goes into six funds or accounts.
One is the national forest fund. We will talk more about that in a
moment. Second is for reforestation, $736 million. Third, preparation
of salvage sales, again, many of the Members making this argument
tonight are opposed to the idea of salvaging even dead, dying and
diseased trees on national forest lands, even though we have had
scientific testimony that it is good for fire suppression purposes and
the health of the forest.
One hundred thirty-four million dollars for brush removal and erosion
control. Last, the credits that the gentleman from Washington referred
to for purchaser built roads, $221 million and 5 million for interest
and penalties assessed.
This is the interesting figure over here, and it should concern the
gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Porter], chairman of the Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, because of the $1.34
billion that goes into the national forest fund, $886 million is going
to States in which those forests are located. Those are payments in
lieu of taxes. Those are going primarily for local public education in
those States. Another $134 million is going to roads and trails and $22
million to the Forest Service for road building purposes.
But here is the bottom line; here is the net figure. Defy this
number, defy this number. Remaining funds to the Department of
Treasury. Could that be any more clear? Two hundred ninety-seven
million dollars going to the Department of Treasury. It is a net, it is
a net revenue generator to the Federal treasury.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I know that paper came out of
the GAO report. There is a $1.3 billion cost in addition, so that the
net cost to the Federal Government is almost $1 billion. This is the
revenue, where it goes.
There is only $300 million going to the Federal Government, but you
do not take into consideration on the next page from that chart which
shows that $1.3 billion cost. The GAO says there is a net cost of
timber sales, not net revenues.
Mr. RIGGS. You are saying there is $1.3 billion in addition to this?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Of cost to the Federal Government to run the
program. Look at the next page of the report.
Mr. RIGGS. This comes right out of the GAO report. As we talked about
earlier, I also want to point out that one of the reasons that we have
so-called below cost sales is because we do not salvage or harvest
these trees in a timely manner. They begin to lose a lot of their
monetary value. This is merchantable timber, but if we do not harvest
it when it has a monetary value, then of course we are not getting the
best return on that particular timber.
One other thing I want to say. I want to ask my colleagues about
this. I see that the forest health bill in the other body is now held
up over the debate about whether or not we would permit forest health
type selective harvesting on Federal forest lands in so-called roadless
areas. This amendment prevents us from building any new roads in
Federal forest lands. So it is part and parcel of the movement again to
turn Federal forest lands into national parklands.
The point I want to make in conclusion, Mr. Miller and others, you
have joined together in your pork busters coalition or the green
scissors coalition, do you support the position of the Sierra Club,
which is part of the green scissors coalition, which has come out by a
vote of 2 to 1 of its membership in favor of a complete ban on all
logging on Federal forest lands, an extreme position to put it mildly,
a position that says we are not even going to harvest a dead, dying or
diseased tree. Does the gentleman from Florida support that position?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I support Mr. Taylor. and his
amendment on salvaging timber. That is not the issue we are talking
about. The issue we are talking about here is costing the Federal
taxpayers money.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is aligned in the green
scissors coalition with the Sierra Club which has now taken the
position of favoring a complete ban on all foresting on Federal forest
lands.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman know that
Citizens Against Government Waste favors this amendment. This is not
strictly a green scissors vote. It is a green scissor vote and it is a
fiscally conservative vote, too.
Mr. RIGGS. I will simply point out that my colleagues, I know they
are sincere about this, my colleagues who are behind this, they have
not come to those of us who represent these congressional districts to
discuss this. You might talk to inside the beltway groups, whether it
be Citizens Against Government Waste or the Sierra Club, but you do not
come to us and say, tell us about the impacts of doing this, as high-
minded and well-intentioned as this might be, Tell us about the
economic consequences.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Riggs was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. RIGGS. You do not come to us. Instead you rise on the floor in a
very high-minded fashion, but you do not consult those of us who
represent these districts which are disproportionately impacted by
these well-intentioned amendments on the House floor.
[[Page H6617]]
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
{time} 2200
Mr. DICKS. Now, one of the things that is confusing here: the study
that was done by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] shows that in
the National Forest Fund over that 3-year period we get 1.3 billion.
That is, I think that is, the gentleman's figure there on the far
right. But then the law requires us to do some things that I would
consider kind of good government things with that money if we sent back
25 percent of it to the States. That is 886.7 million.
We then provide roads and trail funds, 134.2 million, and the Forest
Service for road building purposes, 22.9. The remaining funds went to
the Treasury, 297.7. So those cannot be considered; I mean I do not
think those should be considered cost to the programs. Those were
Congress' decision to take care of the communities, the counties, where
this timber harvesting was done. That is where the vast amount of that
money went. And if we look at it from that perspective, we even have a
bigger return than the 297.7 in the Treasury. We have a return that
looks to me roughly about 1.3 billion.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, would the gentleman say
that figure one more time?
Mr. DICKS. 1.3 billion.
Mr. RIGGS. Would that be roughly equal to the 1.3 billion that the
gentleman from Florida just claimed was the actual outlay by Federal
taxpayers for this program?
Mr. DICKS. I think what we have here is about 1.3 in outlays and 1.7
in total dollars that come in above that, so it will be a total of 3
billion.
We have a major return on investment here that was documented by the
GAO. The problem is people want to twist these figures and not look at
where this money goes. The money went to good government purposes, not
the cost of the program.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, let me yield first to my colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], and then I wish to yield to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think there has been a
lot of confusion about how to read these charts and these numbers. The
truth of the matter is that the total timber sales receipts were $2.995
billion. They went to the purposes on the chart which the gentleman had
showed us in the well. But what he does not show us is that in addition
to the timber sales receipts there is another 1.2 billion that went
into the fund from the general fund of the United States of America. So
that is why, when we add the two together and--excuse me--it is my time
here.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Florida would continue to yield,
the truth is that if we add both figures together, we come up with the
total amount of revenues that come into the forest system. At that
point, then discount the costs that are mandated by the Congress for
various actions that we deem as appropriate for the Forest Service to
take, and they are substantial, and as the gentleman from Washington
[Mr. Dicks] has already indicated, there are things that all of us have
signed off on. Then what is done, if we look at the cost of how much we
put into the forest versus how much we subtract out of the forest as a
result of selling the trees, and it comes out according to--and listen,
this thing is on the same page of the GAO account. Here is the cost
structure, and here is how much it costs the taxpayer. And according to
this report, it costs the taxpayer, 1992, $339.6 million; in 1993,
$377.2 million; in 1994, $278.6 million, for a grand 3-year total of
$995 million, and that is the true story.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up on what my
colleague from Massachusetts said. He is right on track and because he
is right on track there are a number of organizations that have
followed this very closely. These are fiscal watchdog groups, and they
support this amendment.
I might point out it is Taxpayers for Common Sense, Citizens Against
Government Waste, Taxpayer Assets Program. They are all in favor of
this amendment, as too are all of the significant environmental groups
like the Wilderness Society and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
For good reason, they are all concerned with the responsible management
of public lands.
As we work to cut unnecessary spending and balance the budget, it
makes good sense to cut those programs that target assistance to large
corporations and harm the environment.
That's the opportunity that we have before us today through support
of this amendment. Road building is one of the most fiscally and
environmentally irresponsible components of the Forest Service's timber
sale program.
The Forest Service is supposed to serve the interests of the entire
general public that appreciates and values our National Forests, yet 95
percent of the roads constructed under the Forest Service program are
used for logging, not recreational or other general purposes. Taxpayers
must therefore pay twice--once for road subsidies and again for the
environmental damage that results.
Taxpayers have already subsidized a network of forest roads eight
times the size of the interstate highway system. This amendment simply
prevents the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to build new forest
service roads. Funding for maintenance and rehabilitation of the
existing 1,850 miles of logging road for use in the fiscal year 1997
timber harvest program will not be affected by this amendment. Nor will
the ability of private companies to build new roads with their own
money.
An amendment as sensible as this has garnered the support of both
fiscal watchdog groups, such as Taxpayers for Common Sense, Taxpayer
Assets Program, and Citizens Against Government Waste, and of
environmental groups, such as the Wilderness Society and the Natural
Resources Defense Council, for good reason. They are all concerned with
the responsible management of public lands.
Support U.S. taxpayers and the environment. Support the Kennedy-
Porter-Miller-Minge-Royce-Klug-Hostettler amendment.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this
amendment to cut spending the for Forest Service road construction.
This amendment represents exactly what the American people sent us here
to do. It is a bipartisan amendment to eliminate wasteful spending.
Before we appropriate taxpayer dollars, we must ask the question: Is
this the proper function of Federal Government? And should working
Americans be forced to spend their hard-earned dollars on this program?
I do not believe that Government needs to provide subsidies to the
logging companies. Logging is an important industry, I realize, but it
does not need a subsidy. We do not subsidize aluminum companies or
concrete companies or brick companies, and yet we have adequate
supplies for home construction from those industries. If logging in the
national forest makes national economic sense, then let us let market
economics establish that. There is the real debate, where logging in
many parts of our national forest is economically rational. We can
settle that argument very easily by stopping the market-distorting
Federal subsidy.
The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] read from the GAO
report. It is a $995 million loss for 3 years.
Now we can come up with, oh, this expert said this and this expert
said that. That is the reason we have the General Accounting Office, to
come up with an arbitrary unbiased statement of what the real costs
are. It is costing the American taxpayers.
This is a simple amendment to save $30 million, and we need to send a
message to the Forest Service. The Forest Service, and there is a
report recently, just as matter of fact today that a letter was sent
from the General Accounting Office, saying the books of the Forest
Service are a mess. They cannot even tell us, the Forest Service, what
it is actually costing. So we have to send a message to get their books
in order.
This is a good amendment. It is a fiscally conservative amendment. It
cuts spending. It does not shift it to another area. It does not ban
logging in the national forest. It is just saving the taxpayers money,
and that is what we are here for.
[[Page H6618]]
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. RIGGS. I notice that our friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Boehlert], when he was talking about the environmental organizations
that have endorsed my colleague's amendment skipped right over the
Sierra Club, and yet I am looking at an article, a very recent
newspaper article, says the Sierra Club, by voting for the first time
in its 104-year history supports an end to commercial logging in
national forests. Does the gentleman agree with that position?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. That is not the question here. The question is
saving the taxpayers money.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to start out by saying I am not opposed to
logging on public lands. I am not opposed to timber salvage. I think
forestry-related industries are very important to our national and
local economies.
But as much as I am for these things, I am against corporate welfare.
Mr. Chairman this country is still in the midst of a fiscal crisis.
With more than $5 trillion in national debt, we, the elected
representatives of this country, are charged with making the choices in
priority that will bring the budget into balance. I know very well that
these choices are not always popular. But Mr. Chairman, we simply must
take stands if we are going to balance the budget--and we must, balance
the budget.
This amendment which I am helping offer is a simple solution to a
somewhat convoluted Federal program. The amendment strikes $12 million
in administrative funding and $30 million in purchaser credits through
which the Forest Service subsidizes timber companies as they log on
public lands. The subsidy, which of course really comes from the
taxpayer, reimburses the companies after they build the necessary roads
to harvest timber in national forests.
Now, when a company harvests on privately owned land--they pay for
the roads themselves, they pay for the land--and then they sell the
product. Well, they get to sell the product they harvest on public
land--and they do make a bid for the rights to harvest--but they get
all of this help--$30 million of free lumber in 1997, to build the
access roads. This is pure corporate welfare.
These roads are not recreational or fire roads, because there are
separate line items for these types of roads. And these are not
existing roads--as the funding to maintain those is intentionally left
alone by the amendment.
Perhaps most importantly, there is nothing in this amendment which
would prohibit private companies from paying for their own roads should
they wish. Some oppose this amendment by saying that if the amendment
becomes law, companies may decide it is not fiscally prudent to build
such roads. If this happens, I would ask on behalf of the taxpayers in
my district, if the companies don't think it makes sense, why should
the Federal Government be doing it?
I help offer this amendment because we need to be diligent in rooting
out this kind of spending, if we are to give the taxpayers of this
country what, at the very minimum we should give them--a balanced
budget. A vote for the amendment is a vote of fiscal responsibility,
toward a balanced budget and against corporate welfare.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting debate. I listened as the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] said that only 4 percent of
the timber is off the Federal lands, and maybe that does not have a
very big impact to Massachusetts, but in Detroit, OR, in Mill City, OR,
and Idanha, OR, communities that I represent that are surrounded by
Federal forest land, it makes a real big impact, and when they are
trying to keep their schools open and they are trying to keep their
businesses open, it does have a huge impact on those people.
Earlier we saw a picture of a forest road that had erosion problems,
and I think that that is significant, and one of the things that is
significant about that is we have changed the method of building the
roads, we have increased the cost to prevent the erosion that was
pictured there, and, as my colleagues know, if it is simply a question
of getting the timber out, timber companies can get in and haul logs
out for a fraction of the cost that we demand that they pay, but
because we want those roads to be there for years, because we want
those roads to be available for camping and hunting and fishing, and I
have gone into the national forest, and I have gone hunting and I have
gone camping, and I have gone fishing on those lands, on those roads
that were paid for with the logging moneys. Those are multiple use, and
there may be money in the budget that is designed for recreation, but
the money that we require the logging companies to pay to build these
roads is also being used for those multiple uses. It is also being used
for fire fighting, pulling the logs out.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, it
is interesting to hear the gentleman talk about, and I think
eloquently, about the fact that he is concerned about the people in his
district and how they are going to be affected by a budget cut which is
costing the taxpayer money by providing corporate subsidies to the
lumber industry, and all I am pointing out to my colleagues is that we
have heard an awful lot of rhetoric in this Chamber about how we ought
to be getting rid of the budget deficit.
Now, when they do that, when they cut the health care and the
Medicare and Medicaid fund, when they cut the education fund, and when
they cut the research and development fund, that comes out of my
district, and the people of my district, the poor kids and the working
class families in my district get hurt, and all of a sudden when the
shoe comes on their foot, all of a sudden, oh, no, no, no. We got to
protect that.
All I am trying to point out is what hurts us. It also ought to be
shared with people in other parts of the country.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we do feel
those same cuts to health care, and we do feel the same cuts the
gentleman from Massachusetts is talking about, but the thing that he is
not talking about is that road is far more than hauling a log to the
mill. That road is for fire protection. That road is for hunting and
fishing and recreation, and that is not a cost.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the gentleman again I
appreciate what the gentleman has said here. The bottom line here is
the Kennedy amendment will cut timber harvesting on a Federal forest
from 4.9 to 3.2 or 1.7 million reduction, and that means a loss of
revenue, a loss of jobs, and a very significant impact. And the
gentleman simply does not have it understood that there is no subsidy
here.
I mean we tried to explain it to him over and over again, but there
is no subsidy. People bid on these contracts, they bid on these
contracts, and in purchaser credits they bid lower because they have to
build the roads.
In the other case they bid more, bid more for the timber, because the
Government pays for the roads, and the GAO report says that overall,
when we net it all out, we still made $300 million even though we spent
$900 million in payments back to the counties when we spent it in two
or three other categories that should not be considered cost of
producing the timber.
{time} 2215
This was done because we decided that they deserved part of the
receipts. We could have put them all in the Treasury. If they all went
in the Treasury it would be over 23 to 1 in a positive cash flow. So I
appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I would urge us to get on and
let us vote on the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentleman yielding.
[[Page H6619]]
Mr. Chairman, the point is, we are subsidizing, according to the GAO,
$330 billion to this industry. I feel sorry for the people who
potentially lose their jobs as a result, but the truth of the matter is
if we want a balanced budget, it has to be shared equally by a lot of
people. Cutting this corporate subsidy I think is a step in the right
direction.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee, I
would like to remind the gentleman from Massachusetts that we have made
significant cuts in our committee to make sure we do our part to
balance the budget, and the GAO does nothing to recognize the subsidy
that the timber industry does for recreational industries.
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, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to try this one more time. I beg the
indulgence and patience of my colleagues. If we reduce the number of
timber sales on Federal forestlands, we reduce the number of timber
sales receipts. That is pretty easy to follow. If we reduce the number
of timber sales receipts, we reduce funding for reforestation, salvage,
road building purposes, and we reduce the timber yield taxes, which, as
the gentleman from Washington just pointed out, go to local counties to
help compensate, to help mitigate for the fact that so much of their
tax base and land mass is in Federal ownership.
That is where the corporate subsidies are coming into play. That is
money that is coming from the successful purchases of these timber
sales. If we did not have private parties bidding on these sales and
purchasing this timber, much of this money would have to be paid for by
the taxpayer out of general revenues. That is the point we have been
trying to stress all night when we say this is not a net loss program
to the taxpayer. It does not involve a taxpayer subsidy.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to correct something I said. I wanted
to say, and I want to make clear, it is 1.7 billion board feet
reduction from 4.9 to 3.2. It will cost us hundreds of millions of
dollars in revenue. It is 1.7 million if we do not have these roads. We
have to have the road structure in order to do these things.
Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say, to clarify
what the gentleman is saying, he is saying if we reduce the number of
sales that we are going to have less money coming in?
Mr. RIGGS. That is correct.
Mr. POMBO. It is going to cost the Government more money to run the
program because they are not having any money coming in?
Mr. RIGGS. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. POMBO. The gentleman is telling me that all of the money that
goes to the schools and fire suppression and everything else is still
going to be paid for by the taxpayer?
Mr. RIGGS. That is correct.
Mr. POMBO. The money that is coming in from private industry, that is
creating thousands of jobs, regardless of the efforts of some of my
friends on the other side of the aisle, they still have some timber
jobs, that if that money does not come in, that the taxpayer is
actually going to get hit worse because there is no more private
industry?
Mr. RIGGS. Yes, the gentleman is correct, if the gentleman will
continue to yield. If we do not permit any new roads into roadless
areas, if we do not permit new sales, then obviously timber sale
receipts are going to decline and the distribution of those receipts,
much of which goes for many important purposes, not least of which,
again, is timber yield taxes to local counties, revenue is going to
decline and some of it, not all of it, but some of it obviously will
have to be made up by the taxpayers out of general revenues.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I would
say that at the end of the day we put $300 million in the Treasury. I
think that is remarkable. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], but I would first like
to ask him a question.
If many people have fought very hard to preserve these areas for
future generations, in that it is extremely important that we preserve
our natural heritage and that we preserve those areas for future
generations, but if we do not have any access points into these areas,
if we do not have any roads into those areas, how are future
generations going to get in to see them?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would point out to the gentleman, Mr.
Chairman, that right now he has have 379,000 miles.
Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the
roads that the gentleman is specifically saying that we will not build.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. if the gentleman will yield, what I am
trying to suggest is that in existence today in the national forest
system are 379,000 miles of roads.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I am not talking about the roads that are
built already. I am not talking about the roads in existence, not the
roads that we have already built. We are talking about the roads that
the gentleman wants to stop us from building. How are we going to get
into those areas for the public to enjoy them?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield, this
amendment allows, when private companies want to build a road to go
harvest lumber, they can go right ahead. They can go right ahead.
Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is saying
that he does not want them to do this.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say this: The gentleman is
cutting the timber purchaser credit program by 60 percent.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Baloney.
Mr. DICKS. He is taking that out of the program.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo]
has expired.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from California [Mr. Pombo] be allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. chairman, I object.
Mr. DICKS. Did somebody object?
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from California [Mr. Pombo] be allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, the fact is the program
the gentleman is cutting by $30 million is the program called timber
purchaser credits, where the timber companies build the roads and then
they bid less for the timber to compensate themselves for the roads
that have been constructed, so I would say the gentleman is cutting
that program by 60 percent. That is hardly a de minimis act. He ought
to be adding money to the program, not cutting it.
Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to say that this is nothing more than furthering the agenda
of locking up our public lands, locking them up to using them for any
resources extraction, as well as locking them up so that the American
public does not have an opportunity to enjoy our public lands. That is
all it is. It is furthering an extremist agenda.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H6620]]
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
We have heard an awful lot of talk and yakking this evening about
this issue. What I would like to point out is that in any way we add up
the numbers, when the GAO finished dealing with all of the numbers,
they recognized that there were hundreds of millions of dollars' worth
of losses in timber sales that are going to companies that are making
very fine profits.
We are in a situation where only 4 percent of the lumber that is
harvested in the United States of America comes out of our national
forests. We have 379,000 miles of existing roads. In this
appropriations bill, there is another 1,400 miles of additional roads
that they want to fix up. We did not touch them. They want more money
to build up roads for recreational purposes. We said fine. All we did
was target specifically the new roads that are going to lose money for
the American taxpayer. That is all this amendment does.
Mr. Chairman, I would just point out if we go through the $2.9
billion in receipts, $1,3 billion for general appropriations and timber
sales, $736 million for reforestation of timber sales, $555 million for
timber salvage sales, $134 million for timber brush removal and
erosion, $221 million for purchaser road credits, we are already up to
the $2.9 billion dollars.
It does not in fact account for the $886.7 million to the State
program, it does not take into account the fund for $134 million to
build roads and trails, and it does not take into account the $22.9
million, and that then adds up to the $297.7 million in losses.
That is a lot to take in, but the GAO report does not lie. This
report tells it like it is. The American taxpayer loses $300 million a
year as a result of these tax subsidies that go to these companies,
plain and simple. We can dress it up any way we want, but the monkey
still dances to the way the music plays, and that tells us that we lose
$300 million.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, this is where the gentleman is wrong. Let us
say, instead of taking that money and putting it to the national forest
fund which takes care of the payment to counties, let us say we put all
of that money into the Treasury and then appropriated it for those
specific purposes. Then the gentleman would say that the amount going
into the Treasury, instead of being $300 million, would be roughly $1.3
billion, and then that would have been the return compared to the cost
of the program. The rest of it went to legitimate government purposes.
The fact that we took it out of the program and took care of those
purposes without sending it to the Treasury is where I think the
gentleman confuses himself. Those are legitimate government purposes.
Mr KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the
fact is there are legitimate government purposes, for which this body
has already passed laws, that says certain sales percentages are going
to be distributed to the localities.
Mr. DICKS. Then do not treat that as a cost of the program.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It is a cost of the program. The truth
of the matter is you might have differences, you might want to cut out
certain costs. Those you might want to do. If you want to cut out the
money going to cities and towns, go right ahead and do that. Right now
that is not possible. What is possible is to get rid of the subsidy
program that goes to these companies, and that is what this amendment
tries to do, plain and simple.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] will be postponed.
Mr CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the
purpose of a colloquy with the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on
Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman form Arizona
[Mr. Kolbe].
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I have traditionally offered
amendments to this appropriations bill to eliminate funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts. I was considering offering an
amendment again this year. However, I understand that the Committee on
Appropriations set the funding level for the NEA in this bill at $99.5
million for fiscal year 1997. This funding level conforms to the
understanding that was reached last year with the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston], and your chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula],
as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior, regarding
future funding levels for the NEA.
Under that agreement, the House would fund the NEA at $99.5 million
for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and then zero out funding for the NEA
in fiscal year 1998. I have spoken to Chairman Livingston and he has
indicated that he is committed to last year's agreement, and that it
would be his intention next year to report out an Interior
appropriations bill which would contain zero funding for the NEA in
fiscal year 1998. I simply want to inquire of the gentleman whether
this would be his intention as well as that of the chairman of the
committee.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, speaking on behalf of the chairman of the
subcommittee, as well as myself and, I think, the other members or many
members of the subcommittee, that certainly is the intention.
Mr. CRANE. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, I will not offer my
amendment this year. Instead, I will simply commend the gentleman from
Arizona and my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], for his
hard work on this bill, and for standing by last year's NEA agreement.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just
wish to observe that the agreement being referenced in the gentleman's
colloquy was an agreement between the minority and the majority, and
the majority and the majority, but not anybody in the minority of the
minority, and therefore we did not want it to appear to have been an
agreement encompassing the views of the entire body.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would like to engage my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Kolbe], in a colloquy.
{time} 2230
Mr. Chairman, recently concluded scientific studies of forests within
the Sierra Nevada mountains of California indicate that timber
harvests, when accompanied by forest thinning, biomass removal and
other natural fuels prescriptions, can reduce fire risk and aid overall
forest health conditions. These same studies indicate that natural
fuels prescriptions are essential to the success of larger fire
management strategies, such as developing systems of defensible fuels
profile zones. Coordinated efforts of this kind, particularly when
mechanical and natural fuel treatments are utilized, can also provide
economic benefits to forest dependent communities in the form of
merchantable fiber for mills, fuel for biomass cogeneration plants, and
other valuable wood products.
Mr. Chairman, is it therefore the gentleman's expectation that funds
allocated to H.R. 3662 for forest health and natural fuels treatment in
region 5 of the Forest Service should be used, to the extent feasible,
for those prescriptions which both achieve forest health objectives and
provide useful wood products for forest dependent communities? And is
it also the gentleman's expectation that these prescriptions be carried
out in the most cost-effective manner possible and as part of larger
developed management strategies like timber harvest and large scale
fire management plans?
[[Page H6621]]
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I believe I can speak for the chairman of
the subcommittee in saying that the gentleman is correct in his
statement. The Forest Service should undertake fuels management actions
which are done in conjunction with larger management strategies,
integrated into national forest plans, and which include treatments
such as timber harvest and large-scale fire management planning. The
Forest Service needs to integrate its fire management and fuels
management activities into a coordinated effort to maximize forest
health benefits, economic benefits and overall cost effectiveness.
Mr. HERGER. I thank the gentleman.
amendment offered by mr. parker
Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Parker: In the item
relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY--ENERGY CONSERVATION''--
(1) after the second dollar amount, insert the following:
''(increased by $18,204,000)''; and
(2) after the third dollar amount, insert the following:
''(increased by $11,764,000)''; and
(3) after the fourth dollar amount, insert the following:
``(increased by $6,440,000)''.
Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania
and I are offering represents a simple case for restoring a degree of
equity to the funding levels contained in the Energy Conservation
Program at the Department of Energy.
The Energy Conservation Program is funded at $499 million fiscal year
1997. This represents a 7-percent reduction from fiscal year 1996 and a
39-percent reduction from fiscal year 1995. The Energy Conservation
Program is divided into a number of functional sectors or subprograms
with the funding levels for each one outlined by the Interior
Subcommittee.
Neither Mr. Fox nor I are advocating a restoration of funding to
prior year levels. We accept and support the original $499 million
funding level recommended by the Appropriations Committee.
What we do not accept, and which we seek to address with this
amendment is the breakdown of that overall funding level and the
allocation of funds to the various sectors within the Energy
Conservation Program that has been recommended by the committee.
One of the sectors within the Energy Conservation Program is the
State and Community Grants Sector. This is composed primarily of the
Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program.
The State Energy Program basically involves the Department of Energy
providing grants to the State Energy Offices who then use these funds
to implement State and Federal programs designed to save energy.
Under the Weatherization Assistance Program, the Department of Energy
makes grants to the States which are then used to weatherize low-income
housing to make them more energy efficient.
Both of these programs offer immediate energy saving potential. Both
of them are designed to assist people at the grassroots. Both of these
programs represent what I believe is a primary focus of this Congress--
sending taxpayer dollars out of Washington and back to the people.
We can accomplish this by simply making further, and I might add,
reasonable reductions in two other sectors of the Energy and
Conservation Program. We can reduce the industry and transportation
sectors by 8 percent below the fiscal year 1997 committee
recommendation and move that money to the Weatherization and State
Energy Programs.
The industry and transportation Sectors are primarily energy research
programs that are largely comprised of partnerships between DOE and the
private sector. For example DOE may partner with an automobile
manufacturer to develop new electric car technology.
These too are worth endeavors. However, it is not fair to make the
level of reductions in the people-oriented programs, like low-income
weatherization assistance, in order to limit the reductions to these
bureaucracy-oriented research programs.
Since fiscal year 1995, the State Energy Program and the
Weatherization Assistance Program combined have taken a reduction of
over 53 percent in their level of funding.
On the other hand, the Industry Sector has been reduced about 21
percent from its fiscal year 1995 level, and the Transportation Sector
has been reduced 16.5 percent.
The bottom line is that we are seeking with this amendment to show a
sense of fairness and to spread these reductions in funding across the
spectrum of the programs within the Energy Conservation Program in a
more equitable manner.
The $18 million that this amendment reallocates does not even
approach the recommendation of the budget resolution for these two
people programs nor does it establish actual equity between all of the
energy conservation programs. However, it does move toward a fairer
distribution of declining funds, it provides the State and
Weatherization Programs with a funding level that allows for a degree
of continuity in their programs, and it directly assists people--low-
income people.
There is no justifiable reason that this amendment should not receive
broad bipartisan support and I urge its adoption.
What we are simply saving is that this amendment moves money out of
Washington and it sends it back to the States. With this amendment, you
have a choice between supporting the Washington Department of Energy
bureaucracy and voting ``no'' or supporting the only Department of
Energy programs in this bill which go directly to our constituents by
voting ``yes.''
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor of this amendment with
Congressman Parker which would restore critical funding to the
weatherization assistance and State energy conservation grant programs.
I would like to commend Chairman Regula and the committee for their
outstanding work on this bill which they have again developed under
some of the most stringent budgetary conditions in a long time.
Congressman Parker and I are offering this amendment to increase
funding for the important low-income weatherization assistance and
State energy conservation grant programs. Our intention is to increase
the level for weatherization to the fiscal year 1996 enacted level and
the State Energy Conservation Program [SECP] to the fiscal year 1996
Senate appropriated level. In fiscal year 1996, weatherization
assistance took a serious cut of approximately 50 percent--something we
did not agree with.
Both the House Budget and Commerce Committees have supported full
funding of these programs. There is no consensus to reduce funding for
these programs and turn them over to the States. The States need the
Federal support of these programs at least at the levels we are
attempting to provide through our amendment.
The weatherization program is a cost-conscious, energy conservation
program which makes renovations to low-income homes to increase energy
efficiency and make health and safety improvements. These improvements
make a significant difference in the home heating bills of thousands of
families every year. For instance, in the cold climate region, a 1989
study found that first year net savings for natural gas consumption
represent a 25 percent reduction in gas used for space heating and an
18 percent reduction in total gas usage. This program can be the
difference in whether or not an elderly couple maintains their
independence and are able to stay in their own home. Furthermore,
regardless of how you feel about LIHEAP, the Weatherization Assistance
Program reduces the dependence on LIHEAP funds.
The State Energy Conservation program permits a wide variety of
targeted programs to be implemented at the State level, ranging from
pollution prevention--such as recycling, small business energy and
economic development programs, financing of energy efficiency projects,
agricultural energy programs, energy emergency preparedness, etc. For
example, these activities help every American by making
[[Page H6622]]
schools and hospitals more energy efficient which allows more resources
to go into education and medical care. A survey recently showed that
for every Federal dollar invested, $19 in non-Federal governmental and
private funds have been dedicated to these projects.
The gentleman from Mississippi and I are merely attempting to create
a more equitable distribution of the budget cuts which have taken place
over the last 2 years.
The State grant programs, which are people oriented programs have
endured disproportionate cuts, as you can see from this chart. The
other sectors are examples of Department of Energy bureaucracy-oriented
programs and we feel that this amendment will restore equity to this
section of the bill.
I urge Members to support our amendment and these important programs.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is a national disgrace that large numbers of people
in this country, including many elderly people, go cold in the
wintertime. That is not what this country is supposed to be about. It
is especially stupid that we have a situation where people are living
in extremely energy inefficient homes. They lack storm windows, they
have cracks in their walls, and they have inadequate heating systems so
that the little amount of money that they have that goes into heat ends
up being used very inefficiently.
The weatherization program is an intelligent, cost-effective program.
It saves money and it helps a lot of people. I commend the authors of
the amendment.
Mr. STERNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment, offered by
Mr. Fox, which will restore funding for the Weatherization Assistance
Program.
The Weatherization Assistance Program provides assistance to families
who are in the greatest need, particularly the elderly, those with
disabilities, and families with children. The assistance provided to
these families comes in the form of home insulation improvement, repair
and maintenance of heating and air conditioning units, and any number
of other home repairs that keep families in their homes.
Mr. Chairman, one of the best ways to conserve energy is to repair
damaged or aging roofs, windows, and insulation in any home. Too often,
lower income families don't have the resources necessary to make these
repairs. The Weatherization Assistance Program has proven effective in
ensuring that resources are available, leading to more energy-efficient
homes and lower utility bills for those who need it the most.
In 1995, my own State of Florida received close to $2 million,
serving 976 homes. Those numbers were literally cut in half for 1996,
serving 502 homes. The current 1997 proposals for the Weatherization
Assistance Program are cut by an additional $12 million, eliminating
service to an additional 50 homes. The amendment by Mr. Fox simply
restores funding to last year's level, for a total of $112 million.
I strongly support Mr. Fox's amendment to restore funding to last
year's level, and urge my colleagues to support this amendment as well.
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly in support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker] and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
Mr. Chairman, the Weatherization Assistance Program is used to
increase the energy efficiency of residences occupied by low-income
individuals. I know that there are a number of changes that many in
this body would like to see made to these programs, but for whatever
reason, those changes are not going to be occurring. On that basis, I
think it is appropriate to seek some level of stability in funding for
these programs so that to the extent that there are disagreements
between the administration and the Congress, that those who are in need
of this assistance are not caught in the crossfire. On that basis, I
would support the amendment which will introduce consistency and
stability in the funding of this very important program.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I know it is very seductive to take the money out of
conservation and put it into weatherization. It has a great appeal. But
just remember this. Energy conservation is for all the people. The
Energy Conservation Research Program affects everyone, because it means
that we save our energy resources so that they are there for future
generations.
{time} 2245
It means that we develop automobiles that will give us many more
miles per gallon. Weatherization affects a very limited number of
people and does not solve the problem. I think in terms of national
policy, the conservation program has a far greater long-lasting impact,
an important and valuable impact that will be beneficial to everyone as
opposed to putting some more money on weatherization.
Keep in mind we have already cut substantially from the conservation
program. We have funded weatherization, it is four times greater than
it was in 1977. We have the State grants of $25 million, and we have
tried to have a balance. We have tried to say let us do the research
that will develop vehicles that will go many more miles per gallon,
that will save energy, that means jobs for the future, that will mean
the ability to export our products and compete in the world market,
that will be beneficial to the entire economy in the United States, as
opposed to weatherization, which has a limited impact.
We have done, I think, very well by weatherization in this bill, and
we have tried to have a realistic balance between conservation, fossil
energy research, and weatherization. I know it has a great appeal.
Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, One of the problems we had was the DOE made
decisions, especially in the last few years, where they have maintained
their bureaucracy here in Washington at the expense of programs that we
were sending back home. They have drastically cut the amounts of money
that would go to the States, especially from the weatherization side
and also from our State energy officials, and those go directly to our
constituents. That is the biggest problem we have got. The DOE, we are
just talking about equity here. We are not talking about cutting out
the programs that DOE has. We are just talking about being fair about
it and having more go to the State, make up some of the difference as
far as the losses that we have had because they have cut us so much
more drastically than they have cut their own bureaucracy in
Washington.
Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would advise the
gentleman that we have taken out the administrative costs so that the
entire $100 million we provide in the bill actually goes out to the
weatherization programs in the states. So we have tried to address the
very thing that he is describing, and in that process, we have, I
think, struck a reasonable balance between conserving energy, doing the
research that is necessary to do so, doing the fossil programs and
weatherization. So my objection here is that we have already tried to
get something that reflects priorities of this Nation in a balanced
way.
Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. REGULA. Certainly I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. PARKER. I appreciate what has been done in trying to strike that
balance. I do not feel we have gone far enough and I think we have
shortchanged our States. We have shortchanged our citizens out there,
where in this part of the bill which deals with DOE, we have not sent
enough back home. That is one of the purposes of this amendment, to I
think rectify that situation.
Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I think we short-change our citizens
if we do not continue developing conservation programs, because in the
long haul, conservation of energy will
[[Page H6623]]
be vitally important to this Nation because of our great dependency on
energy for economic growth. We hear a lot of people talking about
economic growth as the solution to our budget deficits, to the
unemployment, to our trade balance. To get economic growth, we have to
get energy and we have to use it in a very efficient way. That is the
purpose of the conservation program.
Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
agree totally with the gentleman about conservation programs and they
need to be maintained. One of the problems is that from a percentage
standpoint, we have cut these programs going to the States by over 50
percent, whereas on the amount that is staying in the bureaucracy in
Washington, we have only cut it around an average of 25 to 30 percent.
There needs to be some equity there and we are only making an 8-percent
variation there from the standpoint of making that change.
Mr. REGULA. Let me reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, and simply say that
the energy conservation programs are not money going to the Washington
bureaucracy. It is going out on matching programs with the private
sector that develop, such as the auto industry, to develop fuel-
efficient automobiles, which is a great plus for the entire population.
All I am simply saying, as I said earlier, is the conservation
programs are beneficial to everybody. They are beneficial to economic
growth and so on. Weatherization has a narrow, relatively narrow
constituency and we feel that policywise we have struck a good balance
in the bill.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the position taken by the
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. I have, of course, no
objections whatsoever to the weatherization program. I wish we could
strengthen it. But if I read the figures correctly in this bill, what
the committee has done is to reduce the energy research and development
budget by 10 percent from last year and then by 25 percent from what
the President requested, which means about a 35-percent reduction below
the President's request, somewhere in that range. Am I correct on that
point?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is
correct.
Mr. BROWN of California. I think the chair of he subcommittee has
correctly pointed out that the importance of the energy research and
development program is that this is really an investment in the
improved efficiency of our economy. This benefits everyone in this
country, not the few, important as they may be, who cannot afford
adequate weatherization of their homes or who need the additional
protection to protect themselves from the extremes of either heat
or cold. I want to do something for these people, but I am more
interested in helping them and the rest of the people of this country
to improve our ability to create jobs, to improve our economy, to be
competitive in the world economy. I think this is what in the long run
is going to benefit us more than anything else. So I strongly support
the position of the committee. I really should not say strongly
support. I think we have cut energy R&D too much already and the
amendment of the gentleman would take that even further than it has.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. PARKER. Just to put the figures into perspective, if we look at
the three basic divisions that are in this bill, we are talking about
State grants and weatherization, DOE, industrial programs in DOE
transportation programs. The State grants and weatherization, what we
are talking about here, the changes that would be made from 1995 to
1996, excuse me, from 1995 to 1997, it has been cut 46.31 percent. On
the DOE industrial programs, it has been cut 26.81. On the
transportation programs, 22.21. We are talking about equity here as far
as when we are talking about the difference between 22 and 46 percent,
that is a major difference, and we are talking about just making up
some of the difference, that is all. It is not a major thing.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the argument of
equity that the gentleman makes, and in a perfect world I would
probably go along with it, but this is not a perfect world. I have
spent too many years trying to further the development of these very
important research and development programs in energy to be comfortable
seeing them cut by 30 to 35 percent, as they already are in this bill.
So again I take the position of supporting.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
In the administration's position, they say and I quote: Energy
conservation programs not only work to improve society's energy
efficiency, they also provide a successful means of pollution
prevention.
As the gentleman pointed out, not only is it jobs, competitiveness,
but we are all concerned about pollution. These conservation programs
do a great deal in reducing pollution from our energy sources.
Mr. BROWN of California. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is truly a
great statesman, and I appreciate that.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I won't take the full 5 minutes, but I come down a
little bit different than the gentleman from California on this,
because I know from personal relations with many people in my district
that the weatherization program has been a very good program,
especially for those who cannot afford to fix up their own place.
Different from Mississippi where he has the heat, we have got the cold.
When I look at this amendment, the areas that the gentleman from
Mississippi is taking the money from is much needed. The weatherization
program is much needed money. I see that we are forced into a choice
that many of us would not like to have to make, solely because of the
budget that has been driven in order to reduce funds, in order to give
money to the wealthy. That is all it amounts to. These cuts are not
necessary if we just forget the tax bill.
Let us just forget the tax bill, not have one. Then we can have the
weatherization, can still reduce the deficits. The Blue Dog budget, the
coalition budget provides it, and we can have the energy research
programs that we need. But because you all want to have the big tax
cut, we cannot do it. So we have to make a choice between making the
poor hot in the summertime in the South where they cannot afford air
conditioners, they cannot afford any fans, or in the North, where I am
from, they can freeze in the winter. Between that, which I do not like,
and cutting back on research and development in energy and conservation
programs, which I agree with the chairman of the subcommittee, I agree
with the gentleman from California, they are very much needed programs,
they are the future.
But what you have done with your budget and with your proposed cuts
in order to give taxes to the wealthy, you have forced us into this
dilemma. I am just going to ask the gentleman on my right, please, let
us just forget the tax bill and let us do a budget without the tax bill
so that we can still reduce the deficits and we can still have a good
weatherization program for the poor and we can still have sufficient
funds for research and development.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this bill that cuts
taxes.
Mr. VOLKMER. Reclaiming my time, I know that. I know it is in your
budget. I know why you had to make these cuts.
Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, we made these
cuts because we do not want our children and grandchildren to pay for
today's programs.
Mr. VOLKMER. The gentleman would not have to do that. If he would
have taken the coalition or the Blue Dog budget, he would not have had
to do that. We would not be here today making this decision on these
type of amendments if you would just forget the tax cut, forget it. Why
do you not just forget it? We would not have to make these terrible
decisions between choices of very good programs just so you can give
money in a tax cut bill.
[[Page H6624]]
Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, I think the gentleman is
directing his statements to the Committee on Ways and Means and the
Committee on the Budget.
Mr. VOLKMER. No, I am addressing my statement to all of the Members
on that side because they almost all voted for that budget that calls
for the tax cut in it. I say forget it.
Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think that
speech should be given on the budget.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I realize it is late and I am not going
to take all of my time, and I am concerned about the recommendation to
cut $411.8 million from the weatherization program for next year. Keep
in mind, we have cut this program, the weatherization program, almost
in half right now and we are asked to strike yet another blow to, I
think, a program that is very, very important.
We have just had a very harsh winter. This is a program that is used
essentially by the elderly and the disadvantaged, and I think we should
try to continue at level funding, which is reasonable considering that
we have drastically cut the funding in this year's program.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I am deeply
concerned about the Appropriation Committee's recommendation to cut
$11.8 million in weatherization funds for next year. This year, the
weatherization program was cut almost in half and now, we are asked to
strike another blow to this important program.
I would like to remind my colleagues of the particularly harsh winter
we just suffered. Furthermore, let's not forget last year's summer
which saw hundreds of our frail citizens die in their apartments while
trying to escape the heat. The weatherization program is essential for
preventing these tragedies by helping to keep our poor and elderly in a
safe environment in the extreme heat of the summer and the bitter cold
of the winter.
I understand the need to cut spending and balance the budget. And we
all know that balancing the budget isn't easy as almost every program
is going to take some cuts. However, I believe that the weatherization
program has already taken more than its share of cuts, and further cuts
will only serve to threaten the safety and welfare of our poor and
elderly neighbors.
I urge passage of this amendment to fund the weatherization program
at last year's level.
{time} 2300
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, what we anticipate doing here is having a
vote on the Kennedy amendment, and that will be the last vote of the
evening. Then the Sanders amendment will be offered rolled over until
tomorrow, along with the vote on this amendment. There will be one more
vote, and then we will do colloquies. Once we vote on the Kennedy
amendment, we will be done voting for tonight.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker]
will be postponed.
amendment offered by Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 211,
noes 210, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 258]
AYES--211
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chrysler
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Moran
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Talent
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walker
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Woolsey
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOES--210
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bishop
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Ensign
Everett
Fazio
Flake
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Gingrich
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hoke
Holden
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Roth
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Serrano
Shadegg
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Traficant
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
[[Page H6625]]
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--14
Brownback
Cox
Emerson
Fields (TX)
Gallegly
Lantos
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Ramstad
Rose
Tauzin
Torricelli
Yates
{time} 2318
Messrs. HEINEMAN, FLAKE, SCARBOROUGH, and McCOLLUM changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota and Mr. LINDER changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to do two things. First, I would like to
enter a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], and then I
am going to offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with Mr. Regula
regarding an issue that is very important to the State of Vermont and
others interested in conservation and sustainable agriculture.
Unfortunately, this bill does not provide funding for the Marsh-Billing
National Historic Park that is located in Woodstock, VT. The planned
opening for this park is 1998, and the administration's budget included
$340,000 in startup funding.
My understanding is that the gentleman would support funding for this
historic park should the Senate include funds specifically for this
purpose.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we included $55 million in increases for
the National Park Service specifically for operations and backlog
maintenance. If our allocation had been greater, I would have
recommended an additional $13 million for 39 specific park units
recommended in the 1997 budget. These units, including Marsh-Billing,
are either new parks or units that have experienced unusually high
visitation or boundary extensions.
Should the Senate include funding for this unit, either with a
specific earmark or by providing for the $13 million program, I will
certainly give serious consideration to supporting the Senate position.
amendment offered by mr. sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: In the item relating to
``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY--Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale
Reserves'', after the dollar amount insert the following:
``(reduced by $11,764,000)''.
In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY--Energy
Conservation'', after each of the first, second, and third
dollar amounts, insert the following: ``(increased by
$11,764,000)''.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Barton of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Burton of Indiana,
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 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.
____________________