[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.

                          ____________________