[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 92 (Thursday, June 20, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6635-H6681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 455 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 3662.
{time} 1032
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, with Mr. Burton of Indiana in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on
Wednesday, June 19, 1996, the bill had been read through page 80, line
4. Pending was amendment No. 28, offered by the gentleman from Vermont
[Mr. Sanders].
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, the bill is
considered read.
The text of the remainder of H.R. 3662, as amended pursuant to House
Resolution 455, is as follows:
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 302. No part of any appropriation under this Act shall
be available to the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Agriculture for the leasing of oil and natural
gas by noncompetitive bidding on publicly owned lands within
the boundaries of the Shawnee National Forest, Illinois:
Provided, That nothing herein is intended to inhibit or
otherwise affect the sale, lease, or right to access to
minerals owned by private individuals.
Sec. 303. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or
distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote
public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on
which congressional action is not complete.
Sec. 304. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 305. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency shall be obligated or expended to
provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal
servants to any officer or employee of such department or
agency except as otherwise provided by law.
Sec. 306. No assessments may be levied against any program,
budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by this Act
unless advance notice of such assessments and the basis
therefor are presented to the Committees on Appropriations
and are approved by such Committees.
Sec. 307. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of
the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an
entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds
the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act
of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the
``Buy American Act'').
(b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
(1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In
the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided using
funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the
Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in
expending the assistance, purchase only American-made
equipment and products.
(2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing
financial assistance using funds made available in this Act,
the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each
recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement
made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 308. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified
as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located
on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands
in a manner different than such sales were conducted in
fiscal year 1995.
Sec. 309. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated or expended by the National Park Service to
enter into or implement a concession contract which permits
or requires the removal of the underground lunchroom at the
Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
Sec. 310. Where the actual costs of construction projects
under self-determination contracts, compacts, or grants,
pursuant to Public Laws 93-638, 103-413, or 100-297, are less
than the estimated costs thereof, use of the resulting excess
funds shall be determined by the appropriate Secretary after
consultation with the tribes.
Sec. 311. Notwithstanding Public Law 103-413, quarterly
payments of funds to tribes and tribal organizations under
annual funding agreements pursuant to section 108 of Public
Law 93-638, as amended, may be made on the first business day
following the first day of a fiscal quarter.
Sec. 312. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for the AmeriCorps program,
unless the relevant agencies of the Department of the
Interior and/or Agriculture follow appropriate reprogramming
guidelines: Provided, That if no funds are provided for the
AmeriCorps program by the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies
fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill, then none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be
used for the AmeriCorps programs.
Sec. 313. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used (1) to demolish the bridge between Jersey City, New
Jersey, and Ellis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian use of
such bridge, when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such
pedestrian use is consistent with generally accepted safety
standards.
Sec. 314. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or
expended to accept or process applications for a patent for
any mining or mill site claim located under the general
mining laws.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply if the
Secretary of the Interior determines that, for the claim
concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with the
Secretary on or before September 30, 1994, and (2) all
requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the
Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode
claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised
Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and
section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill
site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by
the applicant by that date.
(c) Processing Schedule.--For those applications for
patents pursuant to subsection (b) which were filed with the
Secretary of the Interior, prior to September 30, 1994, the
Secretary of the Interior shall--
[[Page H6636]]
(1) Within three months of the enactment of this Act, file
with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and
the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
United States Senate a plan which details how the Department
of the Interior will make a final determination as to whether
or not an applicant is entitled to a patent under the general
mining laws on at least 90 percent of such applications
within five years of the enactment of this Act and file
reports annually thereafter with the same committees
detailing actions taken by the Department of the Interior to
carry out such plan; and
(2) Take such actions as may be necessary to carry out such
plan.
(d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent
applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the
request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior
shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party
contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to
conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill
sites contained in a patent application as set forth in
subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the
sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party
contractor in accordance with the standard procedures
employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of
third-party contractors.
Sec. 315. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for the purposes of
acquiring lands in the counties of Lawrence, Monroe, or
Washington, Ohio, for the Wayne National Forest.
Sec. 316. Of the funds provided to the National Endowment
for the Arts:
(a) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an
individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a
literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or
American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
(b) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure
that no funding provided through a grant, except a grant made
to a State, regional or local group, may be used to make a
grant to any other organization or individual to conduct
activity independent of the direct grant recipient. Nothing
in this subsection shall prohibit payments made in exchange
for goods and services.
(c) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group,
unless the application is specific to the contents of the
season, including identified programs and/or projects.
Sec. 317. The United States Forest Service approval of
Alternative site 2 (ALT 2), issued on December 6, 1993, is
hereby authorized and approved and shall be deemed to be
consistent with, and permissible under, the terms of Public
Law 100-696 (the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988).
Sec. 318. None of the funds made available to the
Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture
by this or any other Act may be used to issue or implement
final regulations, rules, or policies pursuant to title VIII
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to
assert jurisdiction, management, or control over navigable
waters transferred to the State of Alaska pursuant to the
Submerged Lands Act of 1953 or the Alaska Statehood Act of
1959.
Sec. 319. No funds appropriated under this or any other Act
shall be used to review or modify sourcing areas previously
approved under section 490(c)(3) of the Forest Resources
Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-
382) or to enforce or implement Federal regulations 36 CFR
part 223 promulgated on September 8, 1995. The regulations
and interim rules in effect prior to September 8, 1995 (36
CFR 223.48, 36 CFR 223.87, 36 CFR 223 subpart D, 36 CFR 223
subpart F, and 36 CFR 261.6) shall remain in effect. The
Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior
shall not adopt any policies concerning Public Law 101-382 or
existing regulations that would restrain domestic
transportation or processing of timber from private lands or
impose additional accountability requirements on any timber.
The Secretary of Commerce shall extend until September 30,
1997, the order issued under section 491(b)(2)(A) of Public
Law 101-382 and shall issue an order under section
491(b)(2)(B) of such law that will be effective October 1,
1997.
Sec. 320. Section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134 is amended
as follows: Under the heading ``Title III--General
Provisions'' amend section 315(f) by striking ``September 30,
1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 1999''
and by striking ``September 30, 2001'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``September 30, 2002''.
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 19 and
earlier today, no further amendments shall be in order except the
following amendments, which shall be considered read, shall not be
subject to amendment or to a demand for division of the question, and
shall be debatable for the time specified, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent:
An amendment by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] regarding
weatherization, for 20 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] regarding
weatherization, for 10 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker] regarding
weatherization, for 10 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]
regarding the red squirrel, for 15 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] regarding
the NEA, for 10 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] regarding
the NEH, for 30 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] or another
member regarding timber contracts, for 10 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] regarding
timber sourcing, for 10 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver]
regarding funding levels for codes and standards, for 10 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] regarding
the Endangered Species Act, for 10 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] regarding
PILT, for 20 minutes;
An amendment by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] or the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] regarding timber salvage, for 60
minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht]
regarding an across-the-board cut, for 20 minutes;
An amendment by the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] regarding
grizzly bears, for 10 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] regarding
BIA, for 20 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] regarding
telecommunications, for 10 minutes; and
An amendment by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] regarding
Pictured Rocks National Park, for 10 minutes.
Pending is amendment No. 28 offered by the gentleman from Vermont
[Mr. Sanders].
Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 19, 1996, the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
For what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra]
rise?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to call up my
amendment out of order, to briefly explain that amendment and enter
into a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee.
The CHAIRMAN. First of all, there is no order of amendments. Is the
gentleman asking that his amendment be put ahead of other amendments
that are currently pending?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I
understand it is going to be a very short period of time, is that
right?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it will be
very short.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Michigan offering his amendment
or just seeking time?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
Mr. DICKS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, can the
gentleman explain to me what is going to happen here? This is on the
NEA amendment?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, this is on
the NEA amendment. I will offer the amendment. I will briefly explain
the amendment. I will enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the
subcommittee and I will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Sanders amendment is temporarily
[[Page H6637]]
withdrawn and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] is recognized
to offer his amendment.
amendment offered by mr. hoekstra
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Hoekstra: In the item
relating to ``National Endowment for the Arts--grants and
administration'', after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $31,500)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday June
19, 1996, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] will be recognized
for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
for allowing me to take my amendment out of order. I will make this
brief.
We have been working on a project that we call the myth of the
magical bureaucracy, and it deals with what bureaucrats and the
bureaucracy in Washington are being asked to do in America. They are
being asked to do a number of different things. We are talking about
this city. We are talking about what has happened in this city where we
have Independence Avenue, which in many cases now has become Dependence
Avenue. It is the avenue that is full of bureaucracy that has moved
decision making away from the American people and has moved the
decision powers to here in Washington.
These buildings are staffed by what in many cases we call magical
bureaucrats. We call them magical bureaucrats because we are asking
them to do things which they were never equipped or able in power to
do. Today we are talking about a bureaucrat who we have asked to become
a film maker, a film maker for the National Endowment for the Arts. The
problem that we have with this film maker, this bureaucrat within the
National Endowment for the Arts, of the decision-making
responsibilities that they have taken from the American people and how
they have made these decisions.
Specifically, we want to just highlight one example. It is called the
Watermelon Woman. In 1996, after years of debate about the types of
arts that were being funded by the American taxpayers, the outrage at
the National Endowment for the Arts continues. This film has been
described as one of the hottest, as having some of the hottest sex
scenes ever recorded on celluloid.
That is not the type of decision making that we want in Washington.
It is the highlight of the myth of the magical bureaucrat that magical
bureaucrats in Washington know more about art than what the individual
taxpayers do. The bill to the American taxpayer, the purchase price of
the admission for a ticket to this movie, was $31,500.
My amendment would have been a clear signal to the National Endowment
for the Arts that this has to stop. Out of a $99 million budget, $99
million of bureaucrats describing what art is in America, it would have
cut and said to the NEA obviously in 1996, you had $31,500 to waste. In
1997, you are not going to get that money again.
After a colloquy with the subcommittee chairman, I will withdraw this
amendment because of some other agreements and arrangements that have
been made.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman at least for
having certainly his right to challenge and acknowledge his concerns
about the National Endowment for the Arts. Let me add my appreciation
for the withdrawing of this amendment and only to say that I stand in
support of the National Endowment for the Arts in its broadcast sense,
in its independence and its recognition of the symphony and the ballet
and the independent small arts groups that reach into the minority
community.
Just a last point for the gentleman's kindness, that particular film,
though I know raises many different perspectives, the Watermelon Woman
was a highly acclaimed film that dealt seriously and realistically with
the challenges faced by being a black woman in the entertainment
industry. So I would ask indulgence to recognize the need for broad-
based art and that we must consider the fact that the National
Endowment for the Arts has a long-standing history in reaching to rural
America, urban America and certainly to underserved Americans.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, there is no doubt that the NEA has
probably done some phenomenal things. I watched this movie, all right,
78 minutes, and I invite any of my colleagues to watch it as well.
Describing this as art is using the term very, very loosely. I would
not show it to my parents. I would not show it to my wife. I would not
want my kids to see it. I do not think any of my friends would want to
see it. And we paid for it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. We have had the occasion to have members of
our staff review it and look at it, and I do know everything is in the
eyes of the beholder. I would only offer to say that art is for those
individuals in different categories, and it is received differently. I
would simply say that we would have to view art in that manner
protected by the first amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's
assessment of that particular film, but there are other assessments of
it as well.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra]
has expired.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] have 3 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June
19, 1996, the time is controlled.
Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] is
recognized for 3 additional minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
for the purpose of a colloquy with my subcommittee chairman. I yield to
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the subcommittee chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is
going to withdraw the amendment, and I have not seen the film. I have
read descriptions of it, and I think it probably represents an abuse of
discretion in using Federal funds to provide support for this.
Obviously the first amendment runs to the right to free speech, but I
do not think it necessarily means that in the use of public money that
you can be careless in the way in which it is expended.
I might tell the gentleman in response to his concern that in this
report, the following language appears: This appropriation is
consistent, we are speaking of the amount that has been appropriated
for the National Endowment for the Arts, which is the same for this
year as it was in 1996. This appropriation is consistent with the
agreement reached on the floor of the House during debate over the
fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriation bill in terms of the proposed
reauthorization by the House legislative committee of jurisdiction to
phase out Federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts over
a 2-year period.
The committee has provided bill language to allow funds to remain
available until expended and this gives them the flexibility to close
out the agency. But an agreement was reached by our leadership to
terminate the agency in 2 years, and this bill reflects that agreement.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for that clarification, based on
that agreement and recognizing the expectation that that agreement will
take place Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Hoekstra] is withdrawn.
Will the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] reoffer his amendment?
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:
[[Page H6638]]
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
$11,764,00)''.
{time} 1045
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June
19, 1996, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] will be recognized
for 10 minutes and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be offering this amendment, along with
its cosponsor, the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley]. The amendment is
very simple. It transfers $11.764 million from the Naval Petroleum
Reserve into the Low Income Weatherization Assistance Program. Last
year the weatherization program was hit very hard and was slashed
almost in half. Now this bill recommends an additional 10 percent cut
on top of last year's decimating cut. Please join us in sending a
message that the proposed cut is just too deep.
This is a compromise amendment. The administration requested an
increase of funding to $150 million. The committee recommends $100
million. This amendment puts it at about $112 million. The amendment is
supported by a broad and varied coalition, the American Public Power
Association, U.S. PIRG, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the
National Community Action Foundation.
Weatherization funds save money. That is the important point to make.
It is a very cost-effective program. Weatherization funds help pay for
updating decrepit heating and cooling systems. identifying deadly
carbon monoxide leaks and faulty fuel systems, insulating drafty homes,
and educating homeowners on energy efficiency. Weatherization funds
save money. It is a good, cost-effective investment.
Mr. Chairman, virtually every State in the Nation benefits from the
weatherization program. Colder States like Vermont, Maine, and
Wisconsin, where the weather gets 20 below zero, we save money and help
our people; and warmer States like Louisiana and California and every
place else in between also save money through the weatherization
program.
Mr. Chairman, I am seriously concerned about the magnitude of cuts
to low-income energy assistance. LIHEAP and weatherization have both
been under attack. The sad fact is that many hard-working, low-income
families and the elderly, many, many elderly people, utilize these
programs very effectively. Many of these people simply cannot afford to
pay their energy bills and certainly cannot afford to pay for
insulation or the needed repairs on their homes. These funds are
particularly important to the elderly, whose more fragile health often
cannot tolerate extreme temperature changes.
Let me say a few words about the Naval Petroleum Reserve. The NPR's
operating funds go to running three oil fields which are jointly
operated by the Government and Chevron. The productivity of these
fields has been steadily declining since its peak in 1976. The
President earmarked the NPR for sale in fiscal year 1997, indicating,
``Producing oil and gas is a commercial, not a governmental activity,
which is more appropriately performed by the private sector.''
That is something that many of my friends on the other side I am sure
agree with. Congress apparently agreed, because it passed legislation
authorizing the sale of NPR by 1998. The budget resolution that we
recently passed recommends that the sale occur as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. There are millions
of people in this country who simply do not have the resources to keep
warm in the wintertime. They need help. Taking the money from the NPR
is a good way to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I am not here to speak to the merits of weatherization
or where the gentleman from Vermont wants to spend his money. I believe
the chairman of the subcommittee may have some remarks directed to the
weatherization programs. Rather, I want to focus on where the gentleman
gets his money from.
Ever since I have been in Congress, I have represented Naval
Petroleum Reserve No. 1 at Elk Hills. Since the mid-1970's, on order of
then President Ford, the Naval Petroleum Reserve has been producing
petroleum at the maximum efficient rate. That is, the Government has
been trying to run it like a private oil field.
For years, beginning with the Reagan administration, there was
suggestion that we sell Elk Hills, since we are producing it as though
it were a private operation. We said then that we wanted to make sure
that the taxpayers got the maximum benefit of selling this very
important natural resource, and that it be sold, because we can
maximize the removal of petroleum from the reserve if it is coordinated
with all of the private sector holdings surrounding Elk Hills.
With the assistance of, in one of the better bipartisan efforts in
the 104th Congress, the two gentlemen from Virginia, Mr. Bateman and
Mr. Sisisky, we put together a procedure for selling Elk Hills. It
calls on experts, a maximum of five, to determine the value. There is a
procedure that we are going to go through that we all believe will
produce the maximum dollar to the taxpayer in the selling of this
asset.
There is a timeline we are operating under, and we have already cut
from the 1995 level $43 million, almost 25 percent of the total budget.
It is the additional $11 million that concerns us about our ability to
maximize for the taxpayers the dollars in the sale of Elk Hills.
I have told you I have represented Elk Hills, and some folks may
think I would be giving less than an objective view in analyzing what
this amendment would do. Therefore, I would like to read to you from a
Department of energy letter than I received late last night, signed by
the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. This is the Clinton
administration addressing the Sanders amendment.
``The Sanders amendment would severely compromise the prospects for
obtaining an appropriate sales price,'' The letter says.
``The proposed $11 million reduction would eliminate new drilling
activity in fiscal year 1997. That would produce $14 million in reduced
revenue in 1997 alone, and $31 million in reduced revenue in 1998.''
Now, let us say that you go ahead and spend that money for
production, and, if you do, the Department chooses then to continue
drilling at the field to preserve production. The letter says it will
have to take the cut from other activities at the field, such as
environmental compliance. If the field is not within its environmental
compliance guidelines, it will be of less value to a purchaser.
In short, the letter says, the proposed funding reduction would have
a cascading effect. The American taxpayers lose now in terms of
revenues to the Government, and they would lose later in terms of the
proceeds that go to the Federal treasury when this field is old.
In the old English saying, penny-wise and pound-foolish, the $11
million removed from the Naval Petroleum Reserve is a classic example
of that. Again, not speaking to the merits of weatherization, the
administration agrees with me that taking $11 million out of the Naval
Petroleum Reserve costs the taxpayers immediately next year $14
million, $31 million in 1998, and untold millions to the taxpayers in
sprucing up this property, getting it ready for a final sale.
I would tell the gentleman from Vermont that others could speak to
the merits of the weatherization, but as far as where he gets his
funding, I hope the House, if he proposes to offer this for a vote,
would soundly reject the source for his funding.
[[Page H6639]]
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver.]
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment by my
colleague from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, which would increase funding for
the weatherization program. This bill's cut in the weatherization
program does not seem so bad at first glance. It proposes an 11 percent
cut from last year. That is $12 million, from $112 million to $100
million.
But we have to go back and look at the program as it was in fiscal
year 1995, when it was $215 million. So it already took a 48-percent
cut in going from 1995 to 1996. Now you add another $12 million, 11
percent on top of that. That is quite enough. That is much more than a
fair share of cuts for a very important program.
Low-income households in Massachusetts depend heavily upon
weatherization. More than 1,700 families get weatherization in my
State, and these are working families. These are low-income working
families and low-income elderly families. If the program is funded at
$100 million, there are going to be hundreds of homes that cannot be
weatherized, and 90 percent of those households have incomes of less
than $15,000 a year. Proper weatherization of these homes saves these
families an average of $300 per year, and that is real money in the
hands and pockets of very needy people.
The weatherization is a successful energy conservation program. The
money spent pays for itself within 6 or 7 years, and from that time on
every penny is pure savings that goes into the pockets of low-income
elders and families in those communities.
In addition, this program complements the low-income home heating
assistance program, the LIHEAP program, where LIHEAP provides energy to
low-income households and weatherization conserves energy in those very
same households.
So I urge my colleagues to support this weatherization and support
the Sanders amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I hope that as you evaluate both this
amendment and the amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Parker], that you give some thought to the importance of these two
amendments to national policy. Weatherization is popular. It is popular
with the people who get to do the jobs, to do the weatherizing, it is
popular with the State administrators who get to parcel out the money,
because this weatherization money goes out to the State and the State
bureaucracy gets the pleasure of handing out our Federal dollars.
So it is popular, and it is billed as an environmental vote. But let
me give you the downside of all of this. In the case of the Parker
amendment on weatherization, it is going to hit the research that is
being done in conservation of fuel. That has got to be popular, too,
with the environmental groups. The technologies being developed will
reduce pollution. It will give us fuel efficiency. It will clean up
air. It will make our automobiles more fuel efficient and
environmentally benign. Part of that money goes to develop a new
generation of fuel-efficient automobiles, in partnership with the auto
industry, and they are spending far more dollars than we are. It will
give us turbines that are a lot more fuel efficient.
Do you want to trade those off for putting some storm doors on
properties? Long term, the conservation research program will be far
more beneficial, in terms of impact on all of the American people, as
opposed to a handful that benefit from weatherization. I know it is
popular, but we are talking about national public policy, and we should
be thinking long term.
Now, the amendment that is before us right now takes the money out of
the Naval Petroleum Reserve. We have decided to sell it. Well, if you
are going to sell the house, you do not let the boiler and the
electrical system deteriorate. You take care of the house until you
sell it. That is what we are talking about here. If we take this money
out of the Naval Petroleum Reserve, they will not be able to manage
that property efficiently, and it will result in a loss of perhaps $1
billion in the sale of this very, very valuable property.
Is that good management? No way. Keep in mind, we are the Board of
Directors of the USA, and we have to make decisions that are important
in terms of management of our resources, for all the people.
I do not want the taxpayers of this Nation to be deprived of a
possible $1 billion from the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve
because we, here to get an environmental vote, decided to take the
money out of that for weatherization for the next 12 months. Keep in
mind that we need to take care of this property. We do not have a lot
in here. We have the minimal amount to manage that property well until
it is put up for sale, a sale that was determined by this Congress
should be made.
So I think in both of these amendments we are running the risk of
very bad policy, one on Parker in the case of conservation research. We
have already taken a big cut out of it. We should not take more or we
are going to damage a lot of very important programs to the people of
the United States. In the case of the Sanders amendment, we are going
to potentially reduce the value of the Naval Petroleum Reserve when we
sell it in the near future by many millions of dollars.
{time} 1100
Bad public policy. I know it has a great appeal to go home and say, I
voted to put storm windows in for somebody or insulate the roof. That
is all fine, and we already have $100 million in this bill. It is not
as if we shortchanged weatherization; but to dump more money in it and,
at the same time, get bad public policy, would be damaging to the long-
term effort to develop fuel efficiency, to become independent of other
countries. We are already getting half of our petroleum from overseas.
This Congress may in the future have to vote again to send our
military people around the world to protect our oil supplies. Members
should think about that when they vote on the Parker amendment, and
think about the potential loss of value on the Naval Petroleum Reserve
when they vote on the Sanders amendment. These will be coming up. They
are rolled, and therefore, both of them, each in its own way, has a
real downside.
I recognize, of course, the political appeal on weatherization. The
administration said they strongly support weatherization but not at the
expense of other energy programs. Let me say again, we have taken a
real hit on energy. Let us not exacerbate the problem by voting for
either of these amendments.
Let me urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on both of the
weatherization amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I rise to support my colleague, the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], in his amendment.
Interestingly enough, he comes from way north and I come from the
State of Texas. Weatherization programs start and begin with saving
lives, and I appreciate my colleague's discussion of opposition on the
value of national policy, but I do think it is important to emphasize a
national policy of saving lives and, as well, ensuring that corrective
measures are taken to provide heat in the winter and cooling in the
summer.
Most of the weatherization dollars go into older communities, with
older housing stock that, in fact, do not have the wherewithal to
secure environmentally safe heating facilities as well as
environmentally safe cooling facilities. Do we want to wait and see
another long and harsh winter result in the terrible deaths that we saw
in Chicago a few short years ago; or the terrible heat loss in my
community a few short years ago as well?
This is an effective, fiscally responsible amendment. We should draw
together and make sure we support the weatherization program in the
best way possible to save lives.
[[Page H6640]]
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, 10,000 years ago the last glacier
retreated from the North American continent, but every fall it stages a
comeback and this year it lasted well into May, when we had 36 inches
of ice still on the border lakes in my district with temperatures
driven down to 60 below zero.
I want to say to my good friend from Ohio, who casually talked about
this money going to some bureaucracy, this money goes to real people,
people who are old and poor and hurt in the cold weather of northern
Minnesota. If the gentleman thinks that is fun, try living up there on
$600 a month in a poorly insulated house when an individual has to
choose between eating or heating.
I resent it. This program has been cut from $900 million in 1981 to a
bare $100 million today. The gentleman talks about saving some Elk
Hills Oil Petroleum Reserve and some national policy. National policy
is people, people who are old and poor and who deserve to be helped,
who deserve to have something better than a miserably cold winter and
the choice of heating, eating, or suffering to death. We should not
have that kind of choice in this society, and this is a paltry amount
to be shifting into this program of weatherization and home heating
assistance.
When we weatherize the home, we cut the heating assistance by 15
percent. We should support this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders
amendment, which will provide additional funding to the low-income
weatherization program.
It is my understanding with regard to the NPR that the private
industry sources say that they can cut operating costs between $30 and
$40 million. So this $11 million is indeed a paltry sum, as my
colleague from Minnesota has talked about. This is not going to break
the NPR. It is just not going to do that; that is a fallacy.
The weatherization program provides essential energy assistance, and
it provides that in my State of Connecticut to the working poor, to the
elderly, to the disabled, to low-income individuals. Without this help,
many residents could not afford to heat their homes through the winter,
and it gets cold in the State of Connecticut.
Weatherization projects protect the homes from elements and make them
more energy efficient. It reduces the costs for these individuals and
their families. Last year's support for the weatherization program took
a big hit from its regular funding level, and despite the President's
request to raise funding of this program to $150 million in 1997, this
bill would slash weatherization by 60 percent from 1995 levels.
Let us pass the Sanders amendment, let us help working families.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Hinchey].
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised that some bureaucrat in
the Energy Department, who is in charge of the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, would object to having a little money taken out of their
program. That does not come as a surprise to me. The question is
whether or not we ought to be spending that money a little more wisely.
I think that the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr.
Sanders] will provide us with the opportunity to do precisely that,
spend that money a little bit more wisely. This money would take money
out of that Naval Petroleum Reserve and put it into weatherization. For
every dollar we spend on this weatherization program, we realize about
$1.62 in savings. This saves energy by weatherizing homes.
Of course, on the humanitarian level, which I think is even more
critically important, it saves lives. It allows people who are living
in cold climates and in uncomfortable conditions to live more
comfortably by weatherizing their homes, and also increases their
personal security thereby.
So in spite of the fact that someone who is in charge of this
particular money now might object to having it go someplace else, I
think it is in the best interests of the people of the country to take
a little money out of NPR, put it into weatherization and thereby
provide a lot more comfort and save some energy for this country.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I will never forget running into a woman in
Stevens Point in my district. She was about 90 years old. The only
thing that kept her going was the fact that she was living in a home
that was built for her by her husband as a wedding present when she was
22 years old.
She lived in a living room, a kitchen, and a bathroom. Everything
else was boarded up. She slept on an old, beat-up couch. It was the
weatherization program that made it possible for that woman to have
some meaning in her life. For us to take that away, we ought to be
ashamed of ourselves.
This amendment should pass. It is about time we put people ahead of
theory. It is about time we put people ahead of nickles.
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side have
1 additional minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dooley].
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. Some of the prior speakers have said that they could
understand why a Department of Energy bureaucrat would object to the
cut of a little money. The bottom line is, there has already been $43
million cut out of this budget. That is 23 percent below 1995.
That Department of Energy official maybe made a wise decision. They
made a determination that by making this additional $11 million in cuts
it is going to reduce the value of a government asset that we are
committing to sell. Tell me what businessperson in America would make a
decision that would result in the diminishing of the economic value of
an asset that they know that they are going to dispose of in the
future.
That is the issue at hand here, that we might be finding $11 million
additional to go for heating assistance this year, but next year and
the following year, when we have seen the diminishing of the value and
fewer dollars that are going to be available for any program, we will
have even greater difficulty in providing for some of these needs.
Vote ``no'' on this amendment. It is a poor decision.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would remind my friend that Chevron has stated that
it could cut operating costs by a minimum of $30 to $40 million and
extend its producing life, which would ultimately boost revenues.
Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is that in
this great country, the United States of America, there are millions of
people who face cold in the wintertime. This is not a question of
putting storm windows on; this is a question of maintaining a shred of
dignity for low-income senior citizens who just do not have enough
money to keep their homes warm and who are living in houses where all
of the warmth is running out of deteriorating roofs and walls.
What kind of society are we when we cannot take care of and keep warm
the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us? We are talking about $11
million, that is all we are talking about, to keep people warm in
America, to keep people from dying in Chicago when the weather there
goes above 100 degrees. I do not think that is asking too much.
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders
amendment to increase funding for the Low-Income Weatherization
Program.
Everyone in this body agrees that Government works best when it helps
people solve problems in a cost-effective, commonsense way. Low-income
weatherization does that--helping people to conserve energy and
preserve their limited incomes.
Because of weatherization, millions of American families do not have
to choose between
[[Page H6641]]
paying high energy bills and paying for food and shelter. This program
is particularly important to Connecticut, which has some of the highest
heating costs in the Nation. For people in my State, weatherization is
proof that Government can make a positive difference in people's lives.
The Sanders amendment correctly recognizes that any national energy
policy must ensure that families are not forced to use more energy than
they need or can afford. And by keeping weatherization at last year's
levels, this amendment rightfully reflects the difficult funding
climate in which we operate.
When we are debating a $12 billion bill, $12 million may not sound
like a lot of money. But to the families in Connecticut who will
benefit from weatherization, this extra funding is precisely the
support they need.
I urge my colleagues to support the Sanders amendment to restore
funding for weatherization.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Sanders-Longley amendment to restore much-needed weatherization
assistance funds.
My constituents in northeastern Massachusetts and elsewhere in New
England suffer from brutal winters that sap household budgets, as they
seek to adequately heat their homes.
Two programs help keep low-income homes warm during these months,
LIHEAP and the Weatherization Assistance Program. Both have proven to
save not only energy dollars, but public health dollars. Studies
continue to show that low-imcome people, particularly the elderly, will
sacrifice food and other necessities to heat their homes in the winter.
The average income of those receiving weatherization assistance is
$7,641.
This amendment is not asking for an increase--just level funding. In
exchange, families in my district are able to remain self-sufficient,
keeping them off public assistance, out of hospital emergency rooms and
working at their jobs. In an era of shrinking Federal dollars, LIHEAP
and the Weatherization Assistance Program are cost-effective prevention
programs that deserve our continued support.
I urge my colleagues to support the Sanders-Longley amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Are there further amendments?
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I take this time in order to have a colloquy
with my good friend, the chairman of the committee, with respect to a
telecommunications issue in our bill.
The gentleman will recall that I offered an amendment in committee in
an effort to make sure that the huge antennas which are necessary for
telecommunications would not be constructed in national parks, wildlife
refuges, or national forests or places where the public finds
enjoyment.
I planned to reoffer this amendment today but, in the interest of
time, I will not offer that amendment if I can have the assurance of
the chairman that language will be placed in the statement of the
managers for this bill directing the Department of the Interior and the
Forest Service to promulgate rules assuring public comment on the
placement of telecommunications devices on park, refuge, and Forest
Service land. Will the chairman agree to that?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this language
would not be inconsistent with the telecommunications bill; that there
is a provision for public comment, and I think that we should have
language in the statement of managers that reinforces what I have been
advised is part of that bill.
I think what the gentleman is talking about is very important,
because these facilities can be placed on our public lands, parks, and
forests, grazing lands, wherever Fish and Wildlife facilities are, and
I think allowing for public comment ensures that it will not be
detrimental to the public's right to use those facilities.
I would certainly think we would consider that in conference.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
amendment offered by mr. shadegg
Mr. SHADEGG. 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. Shadegg: In the item relating to
``Other Related Agencies--National Foundation on the Arts and
the Humanities--National Endowment for the Humanities--Grants
and Administration''. strike ``$92,994,000'' and insert
``$80,000,000, of which at least $28,000,000 be used for
state grants.''
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member who wishes to be recognized in
opposition to the amendment?
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] will be
recognized for 15 minutes and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]
will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
{time} 1115
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last year this Congress made a commitment to fulfill its obligation
to balance the Federal budget. We face a $5.2 trillion debt and a $153
billion deficit. Our commitment was to reduce the subsidy that we
provide to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National
Endowment for the Humanities. I rise to offer an amendment which
fulfills that commitment.
Last year former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett testified before
this Congress that we should eliminate the funding for the National
Endowment for the Humanities. And former Secretary Lynne Cheney, who
headed the National Endowment for the Humanities, also has called for
an ending of this Federal subsidy of the humanities.
Many Members of this Congress, Mr. Chairman, campaigned on a promise
to balance the Federal budget and to end spending in areas where we
cannot afford to continue to spend. As worthy as support of the
humanities may be, and this is not about that issue, we simply can no
longer afford to continue to subsidize the humanities.
My amendment takes a modest step in that direction. It fulfills the
promise we made last year. The bill before us makes a mere 5 percent
cut in the funding for National Endowment for the Humanities. At that
rate, Mr. Chairman, it will take us 19 years to fulfill our promise to
end the subsidy to the National Endowment for the Humanities. Instead
of doing that, this amendment offers an increase in that figure. It is
a 12-percent reduction in the funding and the subsidy by the Federal
Government to the National Endowment for the Humanities. The current
subsidy is $110.5 million a year. The bill would reduce that by a mere
$6 million a year, taking the figure to $104.25 million. That is a
reduction of only, as I said, 5 percent. Instead of that, I suggested
we make more progress on fulfilling our promise to phase out this
Federal subsidy of the humanities. We cannot achieve it at the pace we
are pursuing. Therefore, this amendment cuts $12.9 million.
It is important, Mr. Chairman, to note that this cut of $12.9 million
is taken from administration and grants, but is not, Mr. Chairman,
taken from State grants. That is, it would come totally out of the
Federal portion and would not reduce the amount of the subsidy which
the Federal Government provides to the various States for the
humanities.
This is a modest proposal which, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, is
desperately needed. It fulfills a promise we made to the American
people to end the subsidization of the humanities.
I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that during the debate last year,
the concern was that the money would not be there to support the
humanities if the Federal Government did not do that. In fact, the
facts are quite to the contrary. Just within the last few months,
Philanthropy News Digest has reported more than $50 million given
[[Page H6642]]
by foundations to support the humanities in America.
Mr. Chairman, the debate is not about the importance of the
humanities to our culture. The debate is about whether or not we can
afford to continue to subsidize at the Federal level the National
Endowment for the Humanities when the private sector is clearly
fulfilling that obligation.
I urge my colleagues to join me and to support this modest amendment
to keep our promise, the promise agreed to that we would phase out
funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities, that is, the
Federal subsidy, over a period of 3 years.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is entirely wrong in connection with his
assertions about the lack of importance of the National Endowment for
the Humanities in our Government and in our social structure.
Cutting the NEH is the wrong place to balance the budget, may I say
to the gentleman. I would also say to the gentleman that the agreement
that was reached last year by the leaders of his party was with respect
to the National Endowment for the Arts. There was no agreement which
looked to the elimination of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
I have checked that very closely in the Congressional Record with
Members who were at the formation of that agreement in the meeting by
the leadership of the gentleman's committee. They inform me that their
agreement was limited to the National Endowment for the Arts.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, you are quite correct. No formal agreement
was instituted between the parties on precisely how we would phase out.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, not between the parties, within the
gentleman's own party. And there was no agreement with the Democratic
Party.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
the reference I make is to the fact that many members of this
committee, in opposing the Chabot amendment last year, which would have
zeroed the funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities, took
to the floor and said they supported the position of phasing out the
funding over a 3-year period. I have their testimony here from that
debate a year ago.
Those committee members stood and said, I agree, we should phase it
out over 3 years, I can read the gentleman their testimony, and on that
basis oppose the elimination over a 1-year period. For that reason my
amendment simply proposes to keep pace with a phaseout over three years
and not to eliminate in 1 year.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman respond to my question.
Where is the agreement? This is a statement by Members during the
course of the debate indicating they were opposed to the
continuation of the National Endowment for the Humanities. That
figures. There are a number of Members of the House who are opposed to
it.
But I would point out to the gentleman that with respect to his
amendment and the amendment offered last year by the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Chabot], who sought to eliminate the humanities in its
entirety, that this amendment was voted down by the House.
I suggest to the gentleman that the reason for that is because the
majority of the House, in both parties, believes that the humanities is
a necessary part, not only of our Government but of our social
structure. It is the leader of the culture, if my colleague will permit
me to use that phrase, for the study of the past.
I do not know that the gentleman has studied the works of the
National Endowment for the Humanities. It is an organization that I
think has a very necessary purpose. It trains teachers in history and
other social studies during the summer. Over 400,000 students in the
country received the benefit of the training that those teachers have
received.
The National Endowment for the Humanities is the leader in the effort
made by practically every university in the country and every library
in the country to save our very valuable books and newspapers, which
are in danger of dying as a result of the deterioration of the paper
upon which they are printed.
The humanities is the leader in the formation of studies of the
projects, of the papers of George Washington, the papers of Thomas
Jefferson, of Benjamin Franklin, of Adams, of Madison, of Ulysses S.
Grant, of Eisenhower, of Thomas Edison.
So I say to the gentleman that I would think it would be
catastrophic, and I use that word deliberately, I think it would be
catastrophic to the best interests of education in our country if the
humanities were to be cut further by the gentleman's amendment.
The humanities was cut by 36 percent last year. We were cognizant of
that in our committee when we established the level of appropriation
for the humanities this year. I would hope that the gentleman's
amendment does not succeed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, the National Endowment for the Humanities, although
initially started with well-intentioned goals, has become an agency
that caters to the liberal, academic elitists and to that end it wastes
taxpayers' money.
Lynne Cheney, former chairman of the National Endowment for the
Humanities under Presidents Reagan and Bush, has stated that the NEH
has become a political haven for the liberal and social elite by
funding studies that instead of searching for academic excellence, they
explore liberal social engineering.
I think that it is a worthy cause to study the papers of George
Washington and other great founders and great people of this country,
but I have to point out to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] that
George Washington's home, Mount Vernon, is operated completely under
private auspices. The Government is not involved in Mount Vernon. It
attracts innumerable visitors every year.
Aside from the solid constitutional arguments against congressional
authority to fund such agencies and the mere question, is this a proper
function of the Federal Government to involve itself in, it totally
unreasonable to expect the American taxpayer to pay for studies with
little or no practical application. We all must remember that the
Federal Government should not be in the business of funding those who
wish to promote a certain agenda.
However, the NEH has ignored this point by approving grants for
programs such as a $34,000 study of the representation of gender and
sexuality in opera and the $4.9 million program of Chairman Sheldon
Hackney's pet project entitled, ``A National Conversation on American
Pluralism and Diversity.''
Mr. Chairman, with the median family income in this country of
$40,000 and the median family income in the upper reaches of my
district of only $19,000 and with out children facing a massive debt in
the future, how can we, in good conscience, justify spending money on
studies in which the only purpose is a Federal feel good agenda?
We simply cannot do that, Mr. Chairman. The NEH clearly needs to be
sent a message. This amendment will do just that.
Let us follow the leadership of Lynne Cheney and tell the NEH, if
they cannot responsibly spend taxpayer money, then they should know
that this type of behavior will not be tolerated. I urge a ``yes'' vote
on this amendment.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
Mr. Chairman, we are being sold a basic intellectual fallacy in the
gentleman's argument this morning, that because private philanthropy is
doing a lot, we should assume that it can do it all. That does not
follow.
What really is at issue in this amendment, which by its own author's
description is merely the next step down
[[Page H6643]]
the road to eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities, is
the absurd proposition that this great Nation of ours will commit
cultural suicide, that we will completely eliminate Federal support for
one of the most fundamental needs of an informed democratic society,
which is to understand its past.
If that has no practical application, God help us. If we really
propose to enter the next century having burned the records almost
literally by not attending to their preservation, where are our roots?
Where is our grasp of the ideas that are important to this land? That
is what is at stake here. Are we going to take the next step to divorce
ourselves from the heritage of ideas on which the Nation is built and
must grow?
It makes absolutely no sense to talk about practicality here. If it
did, why fund the National Science Foundation in basic research? The
programs at NEA are the basic research ingredients of the ability of
the American people to know where they have come from and, in knowing
where they have come from, to have a better idea of where we should be
headed. To intentionally, consciously, deliberately, knowingly try to
undermine that core need of any civilization, should shock our sense of
what is right, our sense of values about our country.
Now, I am delighted at the willingness of private philanthropy to do
a little bit more, but no one should be under any illusion that the
kinds of things that the National Endowment for the Humanities has as
its core responsibility can possibly be undertaken by private
philanthropy in this country.
As the gentleman from Illinois has pointed out, the preservation of
the records of the country, our newspapers, our books, the bringing
together of the papers of the founders and the leaders of our country,
politically, culturally, scientifically, this is what this is about.
{time} 1130
Mr. Chairman, for us to go further, we should be adding funds for the
Endowment. We are impoverished in this country in our ability to really
understand what this civilization, what this great Nation, is about. We
are not overfunded. We see that every day in our lives in our districts
where there is less and less interest and attention being paid to the
ongoing public business of America, in part because we do not
understand how we got here.
Mr. Chairman, let us not make that problem worse. Defeat this ill-
conceived amendment.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I think the testimony of the last speaker points out a
fundamental disagreement. His premise is that without government
funding of this National Endowment, we will forget our history and we
will forget our ideas. That is simply wrong, and it is a fundamental
disagreement between this side and that side.
I would remind the gentleman that before 1965, when the National
Endowment for the Humanities was established, we were not forgetting
our ideas or our history, nor were we underfunding the research in
those areas. I suggest the gentleman's assertion that we need to do
this in the Federal Government is simply wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Regula], the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to point out to our
colleagues on our side of the aisle that I have received a letter from
31 of the Republican Members supporting the $110 million that is in the
bill, and I think in fairness we just want to make that information
known to the Members on our side.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute in order to read to
the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] and to the gentlewoman from
Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] a statement that was made by Bill Bennett when
he was chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. He said
this:
I would say the same Founding Fathers, although they did
not have or sponsor a National Endowment for the Humanities,
would support the notion of a modest endowment that truly
recognized the importance of the humanities to national life.
James Madison says that he sees the vision of the future as
that of learning and liberty leaning on each other. Learned
institutions are the favorite objects of free people, says
Madison. That is the justification I want to go back to: An
endowment that really does help its citizenry appreciate the
intellectual roots of this country, that fosters creativity,
imagination, critical thinking about issues that matter, that
brings them to an appreciation of art, literature,
philosophy. That does have a place in Federal Government and
a modest role. It has to do its job. It can't be sloppy. But
if it takes its responsibilities seriously, it is well worth
supporting, because that is one of the sources of our
strength as a Nation, and a Nation, and a source of great
pride.
That was the statement by Bill Bennett while he was chairman of the
Endowment. He did change his mind when he was out of office and the
Democrats were in control, I would say to the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr.
Dicks].
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong opposition. I have
been a strong supporter of the humanities. This is one of those
programs where basically most of the activity occurs out at the State
level, and we thought the new majority party was interested in
restoring power and restoring programs to our local areas, and if we
cannot spend this small amount of money compared to what other
countries spend, on our history, our civilization, our culture; I mean
I think it is just a tremendous mistake.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, to
support the money in the bill which is there for humantities, and to
support the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Regula]. I think we have worked out a good agreement.
I do not like the cut that has been made thus far. I think it is too
severe. But, please, do not adopt this amendment.
Mr. SHADEGG. Perhaps the gentleman was absent from the floor and does
not understand the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hostettler].
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of all of the
people in my district who repeatedly are left scratching their heads
over some of the ridiculous things the Federal Government spends their
tax dollars on.
I am talking about the National Endowment for Humanities and I am in
support of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, how, when faced
with a $5 trillion national debt that continues to grow, can we
continue to spend money on projects like these:
Sex and gender in the middle ages, 1150-1450. This course received
$135,000. Let me give a free lesson here and save the money--there were
men--and there were women. The fact that we are here today lets us
assume some of them had conjugal relations.
Representation of gender and sexuality in opera. This course received
$34,000. There's another hint: The sopranos are usually women. The bass
voices are men--no charge.
Here is another example of NEH handiwork. The organization decided to
grant taxpayer dollars to fund a proposal by the National Center for
History in the Schools. Here is some of what this proposal, which is
part of Goals 2000, does:
It has plenty of references to Madonna and MTV, but leaves out any
mention of George Washington, D-day, the Moon landing and the
Gettysburg Address. Diversity is the main theme of the standards, while
liberty and prosperity are not even mentioned.
A few years back, Madonna stayed in Evansville, which is in my
district. She was filming ``A League of Their Own.'' Madonna decided to
repay the city's hospitality by criticizing it apparently because it
was not racy enough for her tastes. Not only does Madonna insult
Evansville, she insults all standards of decency and good taste. Yet
this NEH proposal mentions her more than George Washington. Historical
standards that elevate Madonna over Thomas Edison present an inaccurate
and distorted characterization of U.S. history. She should not be
promoted at taxpayer expense, let alone at the expense of Thomas
Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and Paul Revere.
Our children deserve standards that instill in them a sense of their
country's unique place in history, both as a
[[Page H6644]]
model of freedom aspired to by peoples around the world and as a magnet
for those seeking freedom and prosperity. There is nothing wrong with
learning about mistakes of the past, but these standards would do
nothing more than establish a revisionist history. And that is what the
NEH is pushing, a revisionist ``I am sorry for being American'' world
view. That is not what the taxpayers of this country want. We should do
away with this liberal icon, dedicated to the proposition of promoting
shallow pop culture and political correctness to the exclusion of
substantive, foundational American history.
Mr. Chairman, I do not doubt that these topics are of interest to
some people, and I don't mean to belittle their academic interest, but
this is the entire point. The means to determine the merit of such
things is entirely subjective, so you have a situation where you are
guaranteed to be spending taxpayer dollars on things that huge numbers
of taxpayers want nothing to do with. When we have to make the tough
decisions about how to deal with a more than $5 trillion national debt,
we had better be able to see that places like this are where we must
start. There are so many private foundations and other private donors
who give money for worthy causes. If no one can be found who thinks a
particular project is worthwhile, why should the U.S. taxpayer then
have to pay for it? We need to be fiscally responsible. We need to
balance the budget.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by my friend from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg. It is consistent with
the assurances given during last year's debate that we will take the
appropriate steps to phase out taxpayer funding in the National
Endowment for the Humanities over a 3-year period. The rather modest
reduction proposed in the bill does not appear to be consistent with
that assurance that this would be phased out over 3 years.
During last year's consideration of the Interior appropriation bill,
I had offered an amendment that would have zeroed out funding for the
NEH, but a lot of Members did not support that with an assurance that
this would be phased out in 3 years, and that 3-year phaseout seems to
be, at best, stalled, and that is one of the reasons we should support
Mr. Shadegg's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let us take a look at the National Endowment for the
Humanities, and I am not going to argue that it does not do anything
that is good, but there are an awful lot of wasteful things done with
the American people's tax dollars. It is important to note some of the
things.
For example, who can forget the Endowment's $1.7 million national
conversation kit designed to teach Americans how to talk to one
another? That was a kit that encouraged all of us to watch this little
known movie called ``Casablanca.'' It was a good movie, but most of us
had figured out long before the NEH told us about it that
``Casablanca'' was a good movie.
And how about the $135,000 handout to a couple of dozen college
professors so that they could take a summer trip to Chicago to talk
about sex and gender in the middle ages?
Or that $400,000 grant to a UCLA academic who produced something
called the Art of Being Cuna, which I am told is an expressive culture
of some islands down in Panama? Fine. But do not take the money out of
the hardworking pockets of the American people and the people of my
district in Cincinnati to pay for that stuff. If people want to fund it
privately, fine, but do not take our hardearned tax dollars to do this.
Mr. Chairman, there are an awful lot of things we need to fund. We
are serious about balancing the budget. Support Mr. Shadegg' amendment.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Corburn].
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to something that the
gentleman from Washington had to say. The question was asked whether or
not we could afford this. Of course, we can afford this. But that is
not the question. The question is: Can our children afford it? The ones
that are going to pay back the debt?
Even if there was nothing controversial within NEH, we should not
spend money we do not have on a program that is not of human necessity,
and that is the question. We lose sight of the fact that we are
spending our children and grandchildren's money on something the
majority of which, throughout the rest of this country, is done through
philanthropy.
Can we afford it? Absolutely we can afford it. Can we do it? Yes.
Should we do it? Absolutely not.
I support the amendment and would ask my colleagues to support it as
their vote.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding this
time to me, and I want to correct myself. The gentleman, Mr. Shadegg's,
amendment does not eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the
Humanities, it just reduces it by $13 million. But we have already
dramatically reduced this program, I think almost by 50 percent, and I
think to cut it further would be a very serious mistake.
I would say to the gentleman who was just in the well: I am not sure;
he said the National Endowment for the Arts. I assume he meant the
National Endowment for the Humanities.
But if we cannot spend a small amount of money to understand our
history and civilization, I think that is a tragic mistake.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for
setting the record straight with regard to the amendment. It does
propose simply a modest cut.
Mr. Chairman, it appalls me. Too many people on the floor of this
Congress fail to understand the power of taxation. The power of
taxation is the power to put a gun at the heads of the American people
and take money from them.
{time} 1145
The average American in this Nation earns somewhere between $20,000
and $30,000 a year. For us to be taking money from them to subsidize
the National Endowment for the Humanities, when we face a $153 billion
deficit and a $5.2 trillion deficit and when funding from the private
sector is abundant, $50 million in funding just in the last few years,
Mr. Chairman; by 1992 there were 36,000 philanthropic foundations with
$176.8 billion in assets and $10.2 billion in grants in this country
for the humanities.
I suggest we cannot continue to subsidize the humanities, and this is
a reasonable proposal that keeps us on schedule with a 3-year phaseout,
the kind of agreement we made with this Nation. It is not a radical
proposal to aliminate the funding for this, even though a case can be
made for that. It is, rather, a suggestion that we keep faith with the
American people and we quit using the gun at their head to redistribute
income for worthy purposes like the humanities, when the private sector
can, Mr. Chairman, and is doing it. I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Willimas].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] is recognized
for 4 minutes.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, 31 years ago the Congress of the United
States created the National Endowment for the Humanities for a grateful
public. On behalf of that public the Congress said this: ``An advanced
civilization must not limit its efforts to science and technology
alone, but must give full value and support to the other great branches
of scholarly and cultural activity in order to achieve a better
understanding of the past, a better analysis of the present, and a
better view of the future. To fulfill its mission, achieve an orderly
continuation of a free society, and provide models of excellence to the
American people, the Federal Government must transmit the achievement
and values of civilization from the past to the future.''
Thirty years ago the Congress gave that charge to the National
Endowment for the Humanities, and the endowment has met that charge
faithfully, thoughtfully, and innovatively. The National Endowment for
the Humanities is a national success.
[[Page H6645]]
Mr. Chairman, many Members recognize things quickly for which the
national endowment is responsible: Ken Burns' series on the Civil War
and Baseball, the TV series ``Eyes on the Prize.'' The former chairman
of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], has talked
about how the National Endowment for the Humanities has moved to
preserve the presidential papers of Madison, Jefferson, and Adams, of
Jackson and Grant and Dwight Eisenhower.
It has funded such things as the Center for the Rocky Mountain West,
the Delaware History Museum the Academy of Religion in Atlanta, GA. In
the last Congress this agency was slashed by 40 percent, more than any
other. In this Congress this bill would cut it $5 million more, and now
this amendment would cut $13 million more for an $18 million cut,
savaging this successful Federal effort.
The current chair of the humanities endowment, Sheldon Hackney, has
said this: ``I like to think of the humanities as human beings,
recording and thinking about human experience and the human condition,
preserving the best of the past and deriving new insights in the
present.
This country has never needed the humanities more. We not only face
the challenges of a new geopolitical situation and the problems of
adjusting to economic competition in a new global marketplace, but we
face a crisis of values here at home. And, said Chairman Hackney, ``The
more we know, the more meaningful life is. Such is the gift of the
National Endowment of the Humanities to the American people.''
This is an important effort. It is small funding. It has been cut 40
percent. Do we not care enough about passing on the scholarly and
intellectual achievements of yesterday and today through this tiny
Federal effort to our children and their grandchildren?
The National Endowment for the Humanities is a national success
story. Reject the gentleman's amendment to cripple this important and
critical national effort.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I
think it is vital that we look at the total context of what the
National Endowment for the Arts does, and the total benefit it provides
for the American people.
In fiscal year 1995, the NEA approved 3,656 grants, out of over
14,000 applications. With those numbers, it is always easy, after the
fact, to find one grant to criticize.
Let's look at some of the clear benefits the American people receive
from the NEA. These thousands of projects help enrich the cultural life
of all Americans. The NEA helps nurture promising artists and promising
artists and promising artists and performers from all parts of this
Nation, from all 50 States and the territories, from urban centers and
from small towns.
The NEA costs each American only 38 cents a year. This investment
makes possible a whole world of culture, such as symphonies, chamber
music, operas, poetry readings, children's festivals, Shakespeare
festivals, museum exhibitions, dance performances, children's museums,
and folk festivals.
Modest NEA funding helps leverage additional contributions from other
sources. Indeed, each NEA dollar attracts an average of $12 from other
sources.
The NEA has played a crucial role in fostering African-American
artists and performers. For example, in fiscal year 1995, almost 14
percent of Endowment funding went to fund organizations or projects
designed to serve or be relevant to minorities. Furthermore, the
success rate of minority-run organizations has been consistently higher
than that of the total applicant pool.
Let me also note that NEA Chairman Jane Alexander has recently made a
number of management changes. These changes should help ensure more
effective use of limited Federal funds.
The NEA has a vital role to play in the cultural life of our Nation.
It provides opportunities for artists, including African-American
artists, that might not otherwise be available. Let's look at the big
picture and not let criticism of one film detract us from the clear
benefits of NEA funding.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to this amendment. The National Endowment for the Arts is one of the
finest institutions in our Federal Government--and sifting through the
trash heap to find grants that some narrow-minded people may take
offense at does not change this fact.
Mr. Chairman, this year's alleged controversy revolves around a film
entitled ``Watermelon Woman'' funded in part by the NEA. But if it was
not this grant, the Endowment's critics would have dreamed up some
other project that outraged them.
The specifics of these grants do not seem to be important to the
Endowment's critics. The fact that ``Watermelon Woman'' was a highly
acclaimed film that dealt seriously and realistically with the
challenges facing black women in the entertainment industry does not
stop the Endowment's critics from issuing unfounded charges that it
promotes alternative lifestyles. I wonder how many Members here today
have actually watched ``Watermelon Woman''? I wonder how many Members
realize that the aspects of the film that caused so much controversy
are nothing more graphic than one would find in any ``R'' rated film?
But these facts do not seem to matter. Neither does the fact that the
Endowment brings art education into the lives of rural and
underprivileged children who would otherwise never be able to
participate in the arts.
Or the fact that community theaters throughout the country will be
forced to close if their NEA grants are cut even further; or the fact
that symphony orchestras will be forced to cancel performances for
school groups because of reduced NEA funding; or the fact that every
cut to the NEA means less funding for arts education programs in every
State in the Union; or the fact that the nonprofit arts community
generates $3.4 billion in Federal tax revenue each year; or the fact
that the NEA's budget has already been cut by $62 million, nearly 40
percent, from fiscal year 1995.
In my district recently in the community of Acres Homes, the Houston
Symphony visited our community center and performed before hundreds of
children. That is the benefit of the NEA.
I wonder how many of my colleagues are aware of a recent poll
conducted by Lou Harris which showed that 61 percent of Americans would
pay an additional $5 in taxes to fund the arts. Right now the average
person pays less than 40 cents a year in taxes to support the NEA.
Mr. Chairman, I won't use up more time discussing this dubious
amendment, I know other Members would like to be heard. I simply would
like to urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, if offered,
and vote for our Nation's culture.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
As a lover of the arts, a New Yorker, and proud Representative of a
district which is a center of creativity and innovation, I rise in
strong opposition to this amendment which cuts the NEH by $12 million,
and I also want to voice my deep concern over the intention of this
Congress to phase out the NEA and NEH over the next 2 years.
Far too few Members of this body protested the $11 billion unwanted
increase we gave the Pentagon, but we are hard-pressed to let the NEA
and NEH function on their meager budgets of $99.5 million and $110
million, which were already reduced 40 percent this year.
This is a dangerous time for all educational establishments as
current congressional leadership seeks to slash what Americans pride
ourselves on, by placing the NEH and NEA on the chopping block.
A recent Harris poll showed that 61 percent of Americans would be
willing to pay $5 or more in taxes to support our cultural
institutions. Knowing this, I am certain the public would be delighted
to continue paying the 38 cents a year it is asked to fund the NEA and
NEH at their current levels.
Federal support for the NEA and NEH, although a mere token, makes the
arts and humanities more accessible to all Americans.
Other developed countries in the world understand how cultural
institutions impact on the lives of their citizens and their
advancement as a nation. Comparatively, Britain spends 3 times, France
10 times, and Germany over 12 times what the United States does.
The arts give meaning to our lives while reminding us of our common
history as a nation and as a world.
Cutting funds to the NEA and NEH closes off access for the people who
might stand to benefit the most, including at-risk youth.
This relatively small Government investment generates $12 for every
$1 it spends, stimulating the economy and creating jobs and at the same
time offering our children one less reason to fall prey to despair.
The President of the United States, Members from both sides of the
aisle, and mayors from all across the country agree on the importance
of the arts and humanities. In fact, 187 mayors sent a letter reminding
Congress and the President, that, quote, ``funding this country's
cultural resources is clearly woven into the federal government's broad
national mandate'' and that the ``arts are critical to the quality of
life and livability of our cities.''
Have the courage and insight to stop the further slashing of funds
for these essential
[[Page H6646]]
cultural organizations which we all know benefit our children while
benefiting our economy in numerous ways.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. Over the past 2 years, the National Endowment for the
Humanities has withstood a 40-percent cut in funding. Yet, it continues
to provide services to teachers, students, and the general public to
promote the humanities.
There is no controversy as to the morality or quality of the
services, provided by the NEH. In 1 year alone, the NEH sponsored 29
teacher institutes and 69 seminars for over 3,000 school teachers from
49 States, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the District of Columbia. These
teachers in turn reached over 500,000 students in just one academic
year. The NEH media awards will culminate in 70 hours of television and
69 hours of radio reaching close to 244 million Americans.
Cutting the NEH budget even further would exacerbate the assault on
public education we have witnessed in this Congress. Hundreds of
thousands of school children will suffer from the lack of educational
materials normally provided by the NEH. Teachers will not benefit from
the seminars offered by the NEH. This House has passed legislation for
the V-chip and the Telecommunication Decency Act because people in this
body believe there is too much violence and pornography reaching
American homes. But now, the millions of people who turn to programming
funded by the NEH as an alternative to commercial television and
radio--the kind of programming to which Members of this House give lip
service--would be denied this valuable programming because of this
amendment.
Voting against this amendment is an opportunity to demonstrate a real
commitment to better education and family friendly programming. This
amendment should be defeated.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
opposition to the amendment that would literally eviscerate the
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Eliminating $12 million from the grants and administration account
for the NEH with the expectation that private-sector donors will make
up the difference is a misinformed position and a naive proposal.
Corporate giving has declined steadily since 1985, and from 1984 to
1994, donations decreased by about one-sixth in real dollars.
Corporate giving is very market-driven. While I certainly believe
businesses have the right to watch out for their bottom lines, we have
to acknowledge that the consequences of this are that grants are
determined by location and benefit to employees.
This means that that a relatively small number of institutions in a
limited number of geographic areas receive a disproportionate share of
the funds.
The NEH makes the humanities available to all Americans. Only a
Federal agency like the NEH has the size, scope, and expertise to bring
the humanities into the lives of all Americans.
Federal funding serves as a catalyst for corporate contributions.
Many NEH grants require from $1 to $4 in non-Federal money for every
NEH dollar.
Since the NEH began, these grants have attracted $1\1/2\ billion in
private funds, which demonstrates that the seed money provided at the
Federal level stimulates huge increases in private giving.
Moreover, private corporations know that the NEH has the
institutional knowledge about disciplines and they rely heavily on the
NEH to identify organizations that have a sound organizational
structure, as well as the scholastic excellence worthy of further
corporate support.
An NEH imprimatur is a stamp of quality and that is what spurs
private-sector donations. Without the NEH, there will be no private
dollars to be distributed. It is that simple.
In our country's poorest and most isolated areas, cultural and
scholastic activities do not attract private-sector donors. Thankfully,
the NEH has taken the lead in serving these areas and has wisely
invested in the education, the lives, and the futures of the children
living in these communities, whose abilities are too often overlooked.
Given that the cost to each American is only 42 cents a year and that
the humanities--history, literature, languages, philosophy--are fully
two-thirds of America's school curriculum, the NEH is a bargain for
taxpayers.
Finally, the local economies of small towns and big cities are
stimulated by NEH sponsored exhibits and projects. Supporting the NEH
is good business sense and good historical sense. It is as much a sound
economic policy as the Government building interstate highways, funding
airports, or paying for basic research in agriculture, energy, health,
or any other area.
Given that the NEH suffered a 36-percent cut last year alone and that
many worthy projects have already been canceled due to this reduction,
reducing funds even further would be foolish and shortsighted. Everyone
from children just beginning school to the country's greatest scholars
depend on these funds.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today in opposition to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] to
decrease funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] by
$12 million. This appropriations bill provides $104.5 million for NEH,
which is consistent with the agreement to eliminate Federal funding of
NEH within 3 years. As you know, the amount appropriated by the
committee is a 40-percent cut from fiscal year 1995 funding. An
additional 11-percent cut would seriously undermine NEH and, most
importantly, the State humanities councils that are already working
diligently to replace decreasing Federal funds with private
contributions.
This Member is most familiar with the National Endowment for the
Humanities in the form of the Nebraska Humanities Council which
consistently provides high-quality humanities programming at very
little cost to citizens of all walks of life in my State. Since 1973,
they have funded programs in more than 200 different communities in all
of Nebraska's 93 counties--reaching more communities each year. Some of
those counties have fewer than 500 residents and have meager cultural
resources.
The Nebraska Humanities Council has been especially effective at
reaching residents in the 1st Congressional District of Nebraska. This
Member's district encompasses Lincoln with its universities, colleges,
and museums as well as small towns whose only educational assets are
their consolidated schools. The council has developed a humanities
resource center with a large speakers bureau, exhibits, films, and
videos that enable the smallest communities to benefit from the
cultural resources of Nebraska's metropolitan areas. The speakers
bureau has been particularly helpful to Nebraska's schools as they
comply with a new requirement for multicultural education. Of course,
the humanities council does not charge the schools for this valuable
educational service.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, this Member urges the defeat of the Shadegg
amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Shadegg amendment. This amendment is representative of the continuous
assault on the arts by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Frankly, I am amazed at my colleagues' attempts to rob our citizens of
one of the most precious aspects of our society.
The National Endowment for the Humanities is the single largest
source of support for the humanities. While humanities activities in
our Nation would still exist without the NEH, they would not longer be
accessible to the entire country. They would in all likelihood be
reserved only for the rich who could afford them. What would the
constituents of our districts say when there is no NEH to support
museums or libraries or to preserve historical documents; when there is
no longer an NEH to teach generations to come about history,
literature, and philosophy, about who we are as Americans? Last year,
NEH was cut by a massive 36 percent. This required the NEH to reduce
from 6 grant divisions to 3; from 31 grant programs to 9; and from 276
staff positions to 120. In addition, some grant programs were hurt more
than others. The Research and Education Division--including teacher
training programs and Presidential papers--was cut by 60 percent.
Through the NEH, in fiscal year 1995, more than 2,600 high school and
college teachers attended summer seminars and institutes. Over 400,000
students were taught by these teachers who had better mastery of the
subject area, and greater enthusiasm for teaching after participating
in this program. With fiscal year 1996 funds, NEH will only be able to
support 1,400 teachers, reaching 220,000 students--almost half as many
as before. Obviously these facts do not impress my colleagues as
evidenced by their attempts to cut funding for the NEH even further.
The NEH has long been attentive to the educational needs of our
Nation's children. The public programming made available to children
through NEH funding has been wonderful. Sadly, funding for the NEH's
public programs have been cut by 40 percent, which means there will be
fewer dollars available for children's programming.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this ill-conceived
amendment.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment,
and in strong support of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Think about what would be lost if funding for the Endowment were
further cut: The papers of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin; 230,000 disintegrating pages of
newspaper and 628,000 brittle books; 26 million archaeological and
historical objects important to our culture; and scholarships and
stipends for students conducting research, and training and institutes
for teachers.
If this amendment passes, these programs may simply disappear.
Federal support for
[[Page H6647]]
these projects is central to their survival because past efforts have
shown they are not glamorous enough to attract enough private dollars.
The private sector can't do it alone.
The 1988 Republican Party platform:
Republicans consider the resurgence of the arts and
humanities a vital part of getting back to basics in
education * * * To that end, we will: Support the National
Endowments for the Arts and Humanities * * * in their efforts
to support America's cultural institutions, artists and
scholars.
I urge my colleagues to support this Republican program and vote
against this amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my
strong opposition to an amendment offered by Representative Shadegg
which would further reduce funding for the National Endowment for
Humanities. In fiscal year 1996, the Interior appropriations bill cut
the NEH budget nearly in half; a cut which I believe will devastate
many existing educational programs nationwide. Unfortunately, the
Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997 maintains that
inadequate funding level, with the end goal of elimination of the NEH
by 1998. As the only voice for South Dakota in the House of
Representatives, I must speak out against the elimination of programs
which help the people of my State preserve the rich and unique cultural
heritage of South Dakota and the surrounding great plains States.
NEH programs exemplify the type of public-private partnerships that
have traditionally fostered a collective dedication to cultural and
historical education. The NEH gives State humanities councils the
necessary freedoms to meet local educational needs. In the last 5
years, institutions in South Dakota have received $2.7 million from the
NEH and the South Dakota Humanities Council for library programs and
exhibits, literary publications, and cultural heritage visitor centers.
The South Dakota Humanities Council relies on the NEH for 90 percent
of its funding. That support goes directly to schools and small
communities for projects like the ``Women Missionaries and Teachers in
South Dakota'' Program at the Siouxland Heritage Museum, and ``Lakota
Culture; Interactive MultiMedia'' at the South Dakota School of Mines
and Technology. At the same time, broader educational projects continue
the literary legacy of many of this Nation's most acclaimed authors and
long time South Dakota residents, including Laura Ingalls Wilder, who
gave us the ``Little House'' series, and L. Frank Baum, author of the
classic ``The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.'' The many NEH-funded heritage
fairs and events held throughout my State every year are endorsed by
the South Dakota State Arts and Humanities Councils, as well as State
and local tourism authorities.
These and countless other worthy public education programs will
disappear in my rural State, and the creativity behind this type of
education programming will be thwarted if efforts to gut or eliminate
the NEH continue.
In the face of severe cuts to the Institute for Museum Services, the
only other Federal funding mechanism specifically chartered to work
with States in recording, preserving, and educating our children on the
American experience, we cannot stand by and allow the complete
elimination of the programs vital to public education that are funded
through the National Endowment for Humanities.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg]
will be postponed.
Are there further amendments?
Amendment offered by Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Faleomavaega: Insert after
section 320 the following new section:
Sec. 321. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to permit or facilitate the
planning, construction, or operation of a third telescope on
Mt. Graham in the Coronado National Forest unless it is made
known that the planning, construction, or operation of that
telescope first complies with all applicable laws,
notwithstanding section 335 of Public Law 104-134.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment regarding the construction
of the third telescope on the top of Mount Graham in Arizona. The
amendment adds new language limiting the appropriation of funds for the
further construction of the Mount Graham telescope project until such
time as the project complies with all environmental and historic
preservation laws. This amendment is also intended to override the
provisions of section 317 of this bill, which deems the alternative
site for the third telescope to be in compliance with all the
environmental laws, even though it isn't. The alternative site that
section 317 refers to lies outside of the original boundaries set by
Congress.
The reason the Mount Graham project is so controversial is because
Mount Graham has been a sacred place of worship for the Apache Indians
for thousands of years and because the mount is home to an
irreplaceable ecosystem, including the red squirrel.
Section 317 is yet a third attempt to exempt the Mount Graham
observatory project from the National Environmental Policy Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and
other laws. The project was partially exempted from complying with
studies under these laws by a 1988 law. The reason these studies were
not completed in 1988 was that the proponents were unwilling to list
the many alternatives to the project to the American public. A 1984
study listed 38 sites in the continental U.S. superior to Mount Graham.
A 1987 study demonstrated that Mauna Kea in Hawaii was a better site
than Mount Graham.
The other alternatives are so important because Mount Graham is host
to over 18 plants and animals found nowhere else in the world and is a
mountain most sacred to the Apache people. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service studies show that the 7 telescopes authorized in the 1988 law
would permanently destroy 25 percent of the best habitat of the
endangered Mt. Graham red squirrel. Furthermore, the telescopes
descecrate sacred religious ground. The San Carlos Apache Tribe calls
this project, ``a display of profound disrespect for a cherished
feature of our original homeland as well as a serious violation of our
traditional religious beliefs.'' Protecting the religious rights of our
people, including Indians, is part of the National Historic
Preservation Act. Section 317 would simply waive those protections.
Subsequent University of Arizona studies showed the University had
placed its project on the worst spot on Mt. Graham. Its studies also
found another observatory site in southern Arizona with clearly
superior visibility. The point is that if the university had just
waited to finish its homework it would have chosen another site.
Instead, in their haste, they committed a monumental scientific siting
blunder. The U.S. Courts ruled in 1994 and 1995, that its December 1988
law, as well as NEPA and the ESA.
Similarly, this House, in 1990, held hearings chaired by Congressmen
Gerry Studds and Bruce Vento in which the Fish and Wildlife Service
admitted that the ``no jeopardy'' opinion on which Congress relied in
passing the 1988 exemption was carried out in probable violation of
law. The point I am making is that the very assumptions we have been
basing our actions upon regarding the construction of this project have
been wrong. If that is the case, then is it really to much to ask to
have someone scientifically review this project, and let the university
follow the law like everyone else?
There have been complaints that if we require the university to
complete the necessary environmental studies then it will grately delay
the project. That is not true. Even if we could begin construction
today, the fact of the matter is that it will still take over 3 years
to complete the two mirrors for the telescope, more than the amount of
time it will take to complete the long-overdue environmental studies
the university objects to.
The National Congress of American Indians, representing over 200
tribes in the United States opposes this project. All of the tribes in
Arizona, including the Hopi and Navajo support the Apache's opposition.
The racial justice working group of the National Council
[[Page H6648]]
of Churches, representing some 48 million U.S. citizens and some 50
Christian denominations oppose this desecration.
As a final point, I would like to note that since passage of the 1996
omnibus appropriations bill, which contained a similar rider, a 6,000
acre fire burned large portions of the mountain. Perhaps this was a
sign from God. At any rate, the fire seriously damaged the remaining
habitat of the endangered species living on the mountain. If for no
other reason than this, we need to make sure that all of the
environmental protections are in place and are followed before we
further destroy the top of the mountain.
The American public holds our precious religious freedoms dearly.
These are what our country was founded on. I cannot think of another
instance where we have been asked to so callously disregard the
religious rights of our own citizens. This is intolerable and I urge my
colleagues to vote for my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a listing of groups opposed to
the Mt. Graham International Observatory, and a letter from the San
Carlos Apache Tribe regarding the Mt. Graham Observatory telescope
project.
The material referred to is as follows:
Groups Opposed to the Mt. Graham International Observatory
native american groups
American Indian Resource Institute.
Apache Survival Coalition.
Association on American Indian Affairs.
Council of Energy Resource Tribes.
Morning Star Foundation.
National Congress of American Indians.
National Indian Policy Center.
National Tribal Environmental Council.
Native American Rights Fund.
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
Red Indian Society of the Americas.
San Carlos Apache Tribe and Council.
international groups
Associated Students for Environmental and Economic
Development.
Big Mountain Action Group (Germany).
Campagna Nord-Sud (Italy).
Greenpeace (Germany).
Institute of Ecology and Action Anthropology (INFOE,
Europe).
International Working Groups for Indigenous People
(Denmark).
KOLA (Belgium).
KWLA (Belgium).
Naturschutzbund (Germany).
Pax Christi (Germany).
Robinwood (Germany).
Society for Threatened People (Austria, Switzerland, Italy,
and Germany).
Soconas Incomindios (Italy).
Survival International.
Working Group for Indigenous People (Europe).
national groups
Animal Defense Council.
Biodiversity Legal Foundation.
Center for Resource Management.
Defenders of Wildlife.
Earth First!
Environmental Defense Fund.
Friends of the Earth.
Great Bear Foundation.
Greenpeace.
Humane Society of America.
Hollywood Women's Political Caucus.
National Audubon Society.
National Bear Society.
National Parks and Conservation Association.
National Wildlife Federation.
National Wildlife Society.
Natural Resources Defense Council.
Preserve Appalachian Wilderness.
Safari Club International.
Save America's Forests.
Scientists for the Preservation of Mt. Graham.
Sierra Club.
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.
Student Environmental Action Coalition.
Wilderness Society.
Wildlife Society.
arizona groups
Arizona Arms Association.
Arizona Audubon Council; (Huachuca, Maricopa, Northern
Arizona, Prescott, Tucson and Yuma).
Arizona Bear Society.
Arizona Bowhunter's Association.
Arizona Flycaster's Association.
Arizona Game and Fish Commission.
Arizona Muzzleloader's Association.
Arizona Native Plants Society.
Arizona Wilderness Coalition.
Arizona Wilderness Society.
Arizona Wildlife Federation.
Arizona Wildlife Society.
Cochise Conservation Council.
Desert Whitetailers.
Flagstaff Archers.
Friends of Mt. Graham.
Gila Biodiversity Project.
Gray Panthers Partners.
Greenpeace (Arizona).
Mt. Graham Conservation Project.
Rod and Gun Clubs: (Sierra Vista, Sportsman's, Tucson and
Yuma Valley).
Sierra Club (Rincon Chapter and Grand Canyon Chapter).
Southern Arizona Hiking Club.
Southwest Center for Biodiversity.
Sportsman's Voice.
Student Environmental Action Coalition (University of
Arizona and Arizona State University).
The Great Bear Foundation.
The Nature Conservancy.
Trout Unlimited, Zane Gray Chapter.
Resolutions Opposing the Mt. Graham International Observatory
europe
City Council of Florence, Italy, June 1, 1992.
City Council of Rome, Italy, April 28, 1992.
Council of the Region of Piedmont (Italy), May 5, 1992.
Green Party of Italy.
North American Indian Support Groups, European Meeting,
July 18, 1991 and July 25, 1992.
conservation groups
Arizona Game and Fish Commission.
Nature Conservancy.
Society for Conservation Biology, June 21, 1991.
san carlos apache
Petition signed by 15 San Carlos Apache Spiritual Leaders,
April 1992.
San Carlos Apache Tribal Council, December 10, 1991.
San Carlos Apache Tribal Council, July 10, 1990.
native american tribes and representatives
Hui malama i na kupuna 'o hawai'i nei, August 12, 1992.
International Indian Treaty Council.
Kaibab--Paiute Indian Tribal Council, May 21, 1992.
Keepers of the Treasures, November 15, 1991.
Mohawk Nation, April 19, 1992.
National Congress of American Indians, January 18, 1993.
Native American/Environmentalist Roundtable, November 8,
1991.
Native Lands Institute, May 31, 1992.
Petition Signed by members of 20 Native Nations, during
Holy Places Conference, May 30, 1992.
Refugio del Rio Grande Board of Directors, February 23,
1992.
Salt River Pima--Maricopa Indian Community Council, June
24, 1992.
Tohono O' Odham Legislative Council, May 5, 1992.
____
The Cultural & Natural
Heritage Project,
Portland, OR, December 10, 1995.
Re H.R. 1997 (Interior appropriations) and Rep. Kolbe (R-AZ)
Rider to exempt Mt. Graham astrophysical project from all
environmental and cultural resource laws.
President William J. Clinton,
c/o Katie McGinty, Council on Environmental Quality, The
White House.
Dear Mr. President: On April 29, 1994, you met with some
200 leaders of American Indian tribes at the White House and
made the following statements and commitment: ``I promise to
continue my efforts to protect your right to fully exercise
your religion as you wish. Let me talk a minute about the
issue of religious freedom because I feel strongly about it .
. . For many of you, traditional religions and ceremonies are
the essence of your culture and existence . . . No agenda for
religious freedom will be complete until traditional Native
American religious practices have received the protections
that they deserve.''
President Clinton, you must keep your promise. The trust
responsibilities incumbent on the United States government
absolutely require rejection of any attempt to further harm
the Apaches' human rights and religious freedom that would
unavoidably result from any further developments on Mt.
Graham (the Apache long-ago named the mountain dzil nchaa si
an, or ``big seated mountain''). See also, e.g., Mary
Christina Wood, ``Fulfilling the Executive's Trust
Responsibility Toward the Native Nations on Environmental
Issues: A Partial Critique of the Clinton Administration's
Promises and Performance,'' 25 ENVTL L 733 (1995).
The President and your office must act immediately to
thwart Rep. Kolbe's malignant efforts on behalf of the
University of Arizona and a small, exclusive cadre of special
interests to exempt the Columbus Project (aka ``the Large
Binocular Telescope'' or ``LBT'') from environmental and
cultural resource protection laws. The University of Arizona
insists on installing this facility on Mt. Graham, despite
objective scientific data proving that there are dozens of
terrestrial sites better suited for this type of optional
astronomy. Don't make the same mistake you made on the timber
salvage in July.
The traditional religious and ceremonial uses of Mt. Graham
have been documented since as early as the 1930's by noted
anthropologist Grenville Goodwin, whose works are published
by the University of Arizona Press. The irony is shameful.
The Kolbe rider and any others like it should render any
legislation fatally defective and require a presidential veto
whenever necessary. Please take special note of the
unprecedented and historic Inter-Apache Policy on the
Protection of Apache Cultures and the accompanying December
1, 1995 inter-tribal letter to the House Appropriations
Committee (copy enclosed).
Michael V. Nixon, Esq.
Enclosures.
[[Page H6649]]
The San Carlos Apache Tribe,
San Carlos, AZ, September 25, 1995.
Re update of tribe's position on mount graham.
To Whom It May Concern: On June 13, 1995, the San Carlos
Apache Tribal Council passed a resolution to reaffirm their
position on its support of the Native American Free Exercise
of Religion Act and wholeheartedly opposed the construction
of the Mount Graham International Observatory telescope
project.
During the January 18-19, 1993, National Congress of
American Indians Annual Convention (NCAI) unanimously passed
a resolution in opposition of the construction of telescoped
on Mount Graham. NCAI is the largest intertribal organization
nationwide which represents over 500 tribes and advocates for
national regional and local tribal concerns.
The National Council of Churches (NCC) through a resolution
passed on March 27, 1995, opposed any construction of new
developments on Mount Graham. NCC comprises of over 300
religious denominations in the Country.
It is our understanding the University of Arizona lobbyists
are proposing to introduce new legislation which will exempt
the University of Arizona for the second time in their
attempt to build the Large Binocolar Telecscope on Mount
Graham. In July of 1995, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled against the University of Arizona for violation of
Endangered Species Act.
We are, therefore, requesting that you, as our legislators
and working body of the United States Government, oppose any
riders or exemptions of the 1988 Arizona--Idaho Conservation
Act P.L. 100-696 on behalf of the University of Arizona's
proposed telescope on Mount Graham.
Sincerely yours,
Marvin Mull, Jr.
Tribal Vice-Chairman.
point of order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] insist on
his point of order?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding my great respect for the
gentleman from American Samoa, and notwithstanding the fact that this
issue was debated and considered on last year's Interior appropriations
bill, I do make a point of order against the amendment because it
proposes to change existing law, and therefore constitutes legislation
on an appropriation bill, which, of course, violates clause 2 of House
Rule XXI.
That rule states in part: ``No amendment to a general appropriation
bill shall be in order if changing existing law. * * *'' This amendment
would, first, give affirmative direction in its effect; second, impose
additional duties on Cabinet and executive officials; third, modify
existing powers and duties; fourth, does not apply solely to the
appropriation under consideration; and fifth, it modifies existing law.
For those reasons, I ask that the Chair give me a ruling on my point
of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] makes a point of order that
the amendment offered by the gentleman from American Samoa constitutes
legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule
21. The amendment limits funds in the bill for the planning,
construction, or operation of a third telescope on Mt. Graham in the
Coronado National Forest unless it is made known that the planning,
construction, or operation of that telescope complies with all
applicable laws, notwithstanding section 335 of Public Law 104-134. The
inclusion of the language ``notwithstanding section 335 of Public Law
104-134'' in the amendment is a waiver of law that would otherwise
apply to the operation of this telescope. As such, the amendment
changes existing law in violation of clause 2 of rule 21 and is not in
order. The Chair sustains the point of order.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate to ask that
we have a recorded vote on the point of order?
The CHAIRMAN. No, not at this point. The amendment has been ruled out
of order on a point of order, and this amendment is not pending.
Are there further amendments?
{time} 1200
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, am I correct in understanding that the
votes will now occur on those amendments that have been rolled up to
this point including the one from last night of the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]?
The CHAIRMAN. That was the intent, but the Chair understands that the
gentleman has a unanimous-consent request.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that before the
Committee of the Whole resumes its unfinished business on the demand
for recorded votes on the amendments regarding weatherization offered
by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Parker] that there be an additional 10 minutes of
debate on each amendment equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
amendment no. 23 offered by mr. parker
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker] and the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Regula] will each control 5 minutes.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment 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)'';
(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)''.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi
[Mr. Parker].
Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for
working out this agreement so we could cornet some of the confusion
that has occurred and make sure all the Members understand what is
coming before the body.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to discuss with my
colleagues the importance of the amendment that I offered last night
with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] and acknowledge the
floor statements in support of this amendment by the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], the
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Volkmer], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
I want to once again emphasize that this is a bipartisan effort to
restore equity to this program and to shift only $18 million to low-
income weatherization and the State energy programs from other energy
conservation programs. The simple truth is these programs have taken a
disproportionate share of the cuts.
This amendment is good for the environment by reducing pollution, it
is good for low-income Americans because it allows weatherization of
homes, and it is welfare reform because it increases independence of
low-income Americans. It helps our States and local governments by
allowing them flexibility to leverage other funding sources to do good
and effective energy projects.
I would like to clear up some confusion on this amendment and to
correct an error that was in the Legislative Digest. First of all, we
do not remove money from fossil fuel accounts. Second, these State
energy programs and the low-income weatherization programs are energy
conservation programs. An impression was given that only energy
research and development is energy conservation. This is simply not
correct. A broad look at energy conservation shows that in addition to
research, we must employ technologies and work with States, local
governments, businesses and low-income Americans to get energy
efficiency implemented. In fact, the State energy programs and the low-
income weatherization program have implemented the largest percentage
of energy efficiency programs during the past 20 years of any other
energy conservation program in this country. They are clearly the most
successful and cost-effective programs at the Department of Energy and
they help people directly.
[[Page H6650]]
If your goal is to send money back to the States and remove money
which supports the bureaucracy in Washington, the logical vote is a
``yes'' on the Parker-Fox amendment. It helps to create equity in the
program at the DOE, it is a commonsense approach, and I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Fox], the coauthor of this amendment.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss the
importance of this bipartisan Parker-Fox amendment which concerns the
low-income weatherization and State energy programs.
Last night a number of Members made very eloquent floor statements in
support of these programs. Make no mistake about it, these programs are
energy conservation programs. They help people from the homes to the
farms to small businesses.
Our amendment is supported by the States and by the community action
agencies and by Democrats and Republicans alike because it is good
public policy that puts increased amounts of money into weatherizing
homes of poor Americans so that they can be independent and not choose
between heating and eating.
We are here on the floor of the House to reduce the deficit, to
continue to fund only those programs that really matter and help our
country move forward. These are key priorities because they help us
compete and they reduce cost. These programs put the results of our R&D
into the field and create real partnerships.
In summation, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that it restores funding to
weatherization and it is also revenue neutral, a very important key
point.
Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Energy made a decision that what they
would do is they would protect the bureaucracy in Washington and they
would put the major cuts, the largest percentage of cuts, on the
States. Within the categories, the accounts that are in the Interior
bill dealing with the DOE, the only moneys which go to the States where
the States can actually utilize that money, that goes directly to our
constituents, are the ones that go to the State energy officials and
the weatherization programs. Everything else stays in Washington in the
bureaucracy. Most of it, I must say, is corporate welfare at its worst.
All we are talking about is having some equity. Most of the cuts have
been put into these accounts going to the States, they have cut them
over 50 percent. Around 25 percent of the cuts have stayed in
Washington.
We are just talking about equity. We are trying to get more money
back to people, to low-income people where we actually can get money
back to those individuals and it can do some good. I urge support for
the Parker-Fox amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown].
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I have gained this honor because I spoke out against
these amendments when they were first debated on the floor, and I
probably will repeat a little bit of what I said previously.
The cuts that are proposed to be made in order to fund the increases
in the weatherization program are out of the energy research and
development account in which I have a very strong interest. This is not
to say I am opposed to weatherization. I think weatherization has been
cut more than I would like, and I would support any move to increase it
that does not cut into energy R&D.
What has happened in energy R&D. We have with this bill a 20-percent
cut from the levels of 1995, using that as a benchmark, a 10-percent
cut from 1996, the current year's figures, and what we have, of course,
is a request from the President to increase the 1995 figures by 20
percent or the 1996 figures by 30 percent in order to achieve the great
values which occur as a result of this program.
What are these values? I should just mention one or two, for example.
The energy conservation research and development program has produced
things like the energy efficient windows that have saved taxpayers $1.8
billion in energy costs; energy efficient building design that saved
consumers $1.9 billion in energy costs; and energy efficient freezers
and refrigerators that have saved consumers $6 billion in the 10 years
from 1980 to 1990.
In effect, these are programs which are making this country more
efficient both industrially and in terms of homes and appliances and
things of that sort, and making us more competitive in the world. It is
a poor choice to propose this cut to fund the weatherization program. I
ask that the amendment be defeated.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I know this has some attraction, but let me point out
we are choosing in a sense whether we want to send the money to the
State bureaucracy or whether we want to support energy efficiency
research and development. Let me read from a letter from the
administration:
Notwithstanding that, we are concerned that the reductions
proposed in the Parker-Fox amendment would severely
compromise vital research and development programs, which
have already taken substantial cuts,
as was pointed out by the gentleman from California.
As the gentleman said, the weatherization programs are good. We put
$125 million into weatherization and state grants. Let me also add,
because we have heard some tales of woe about the impact on low-income
individuals, that this morning, as I understand it, the full
Appropriations Committee approved the Labor, Health and Human Services
bill that includes $1.2 billion for low-income heating assistance.
It is not as if we do not have money to provide warmth for those who
are in financial difficulties. We put $1.2 billion in to pay their fuel
bills. In addition, we have $100 million in our bill for
weatherization. So I think we are very sensitive to the problems of the
low-income in terms of providing heating, because the total would be
$1.3 billion.
As was pointed out by the gentleman from California, we have already
cut energy conservation severely over the last 2 years. These are
programs that provide for pollution control, for clean air, for energy
efficiency, for making automobiles more fuel efficient, programs that
are absolutely vital to the future. If you improve energy efficiency,
the LIHEAP money that we spend will go further in terms of home
heating, in terms of the automobiles for those low-income people that
need to get to work.
In the long-term benefits to society, energy conservation research is
vitally important to every American. It gives us independence from
other energy sources outside the United States. It gives us cleaner
air. It will give us more fuel efficient automobiles.
It is not as if all this money is coming from the Federal Government.
A great amount of it is coming from the private sector. This is a case
of the Government providing a helping hand, and this is consistent with
what many of our Members talk about: Let us get the Government out of
100 percent. We have done that. We have said on these programs they
have to be matched at least 50 percent, in some cases more, by the
private sector.
Mr. Chairman, I think in terms of national policy and even for the
poor that it would be much better to approach it the way the committee
has. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Parker-Fox amendment.
amendment offered by mr. sanders
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] will be recognized for 5 minutes
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will be recognized for 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It transfers $11,764,000
from the naval petroleum reserve into the low-income weatherization
assistance programs.
What we should understand is that last year the weatherization
program was hit very hard. In fact, it was almost slashed in half. This
bill today recommends an additional 10-percent
[[Page H6651]]
cut on top of last year's decimating cut.
Let us stand with the millions of people in this country who go cold
in the winter, people who stifle in certain climates in the summer,
whose health is endangered. This is the United States of America and
elderly people should not be forced to go cold in America.
{time} 1215
Mr. Chairman, I should point out that this is a compromise amendment.
The administration properly requested an increase in funding to $150
million. The committee recommends $100 million, and this amendment
simply raises that to $112 million.
Mr. Chairman, let me say a word about the Naval Petroleum Reserve
from which we take the money. The NPR's operating funds go to running
three oil fields which are jointly operated by the Government and
Chevron. The productivity of these fields has steadily declined since
its peak in 1976. The President earmarked the NPR for sale in fiscal
year 1997, indicating, and I quote: ``Producing oil and gas is a
commercial, not a governmental activity, which is more properly
performed by the private sector.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from
Maine [Mr. Longley].
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for
yielding me the time.
It has been a pleasure to work with both the gentleman from Vermont
[Mr. Sanders] as well as the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker]
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] on this amendment. I
guess I want to emphasize the nature of the compromise that we feel
should be reached, which would be to maintain funding at the current
level and restore the additional cut over cuts that had been made in
prior years.
I think the point that I would like to make that is very important is
that the weatherization assistance program is used to increase the
energy efficiency of residences occupied by low-income individuals. It
is not merely a transfer of money to a State bureaucracy. In the case
of the State of Maine, the funds are received by the Maine State
Housing Authority, which then is the agency in Maine charged with
operating the program, distributes the funds to regional community
action programs, CCAP agencies which take and process the applications
and make the payments.
Now, as I indicated, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of issues that
we have been debating over the last year and a half about how to
improve and streamline the system. For whatever reason, those
innovations and changes have not occurred. We are dealing with the
existing distribution system and on that basis, I think it would be
terribly unfortunate that those who need this assistance get caught in
the crossfire between the administration and the Congress over
precisely how we do it. The fact of the matter is, the system has been
established, it is functioning, as in this case we are talking about
protecting a level of funding for those who need the weatherization
assistance, and I think that the most effective way of doing that is
through the amendments that have been introduced by both gentlemen. So
the question, if there is one, is between how we pay for it, not the
fact that we need to do it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has 5
minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it,
I have the right to close.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I think that the issue is a very
important one and one that is not only in New Hampshire and Maine but
certainly in the city of Chicago. The energy assistance program will
help a lot, and I just wanted to remind my colleagues that last summer,
over 500 people died during the heat wave in the city of Chicago. Over
500 people, the immense majority of them low-income poor, senior
citizens who rely heavily on this program and could really use a
tightening up of their windows and their doors, because one of the
major reasons, of course, is how do you pay for the electricity to run
the air-conditioning and the fans?
Please support this for the heat in Chicago and the cold in New
Hampshire.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Gutierrez] reminded us. Last year in the city of Chicago, as I
understand it, 500 people died in a sweltering summer. That is not what
America is supposed to be. In my State of Vermont and throughout the
northern part of our country, there are millions of people, including
low-income people, who simply do not have the money to adequately heat
their homes. They are living in homes where when they put heat out, the
heat is going through the windows, it is going through the roof, it is
going through the cracks in the wall. The homes are not insulated.
The weatherization concept is a cost-effective program. What is the
sense of putting heat into a house when it is simply going to leak out?
Mr. Chairman, over 4.4 million homes have been weatherized with these
funds. Over 90 percent of the recipients make less than $15,000 a year
and they spend an average of $1,100 on their energy bills.
Our amendment is a sensible amendment. It is an environmental
amendment. It is a conservation amendment. Most important, it is a
humane amendment. People in the United States should not go cold in the
wintertime.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Thomas].
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I was here in the well earlier and I
assumed that the time that we had allotted was the time that was going
to be used and apparently we now have more time. I will be more direct
than I was earlier.
The idea of taking money out of the Naval Petroleum Reserve, $11
million on top of the $43 million that has been removed on a project
which the President has signed that we are going to sell this
Government property, is a dumb idea. The Department of Energy itself
has said if you take the $11 million, we have two choices. We do not
drill like we need to drill to continue the production. That will cost
the American taxpayers next year $14 million. He takes $11 million out.
Next year, it costs the taxpayers $14 million. In 1998, it costs the
taxpayers $31 million because they did not have the money to drill the
wells they need to continue to improve the largest Government holding
of oil resources in the lower 48.
If they decide they are going to spend money they would have
otherwise spent on other projects, it would come out of the
environmental fund, which means it may not meet the standards that
these people impose for the environment.
Now, you are damned if you do and you are damned if you do not.
Weatherization is important, but keeping a natural resource that we are
going to sell for potentially $1 billion up the private sector levels
to get the maximum taxpayer dollar out of it simply is not a smart
thing to do when they have taken $43 million out and now he wants to
take $11 million out. Notwithstanding whatever the merits of your
weatherization, the idea of going after this is typical fuzzy-headed
thinking. Why, at the time you are getting your house ready to sell and
the contractor says you have a hole in the roof, it will cost $5,000 to
fix, but you will have to lower the price of the House by $10,000, you
do not spend the money to make sure that you can get the full market
value for the House?
He is taking what we are going to sell and refusing to spruce it up
so we can get the highest dollar possible for the taxpayer.
As far as the weatherization program is concerned, there are a number
of other areas to find the funds. There are amendments that have
approached it in other areas to find the funds. Why he is absolutely
insistent upon going after this particular fund, at a time when the
Congress--the House and the Senate--and the President have agreed to
spruce up this property to get the highest possible taxpayer dollar out
of selling that property, is beyond me. Except I remember then that he
is on
[[Page H6652]]
the ballot in Vermont and when he reached this body, his ballot
designation was Socialist.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Excuse me, Mr. Thomas. You made a falsehood and I would
like an apology. I was on the ballot in the State of Vermont as an
independent, always have been, and I would like an apology from you,
sir.
Mr. THOMAS. I certainly apologize if the gentleman has never, ever
represented himself as representing a socialist point of view.
Mr. SANDERS. I am a democratic socialist. That is very different from
what you just said.
Mr. THOMAS. I apologize. The gentleman wishes to be called a
democratic socialist.
Mr. SANDERS. Excuse me, I was on the ballot as an independent.
The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled by the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to correct my
statement. The gentleman was not on the ballot as a socialist. He was
on the ballot in Vermont, as he indicates, as an independent but that
he proudly claims he is a democratic socialist.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not need to be told what I proudly
claim.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Thomas]?
Mr. VOLKMER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I think
that the debates thus far all day and yesterday on this bill have not
been very rancorous. We have just seen the gentleman from California
use some words that I think are not properly descriptive of the
gentleman from Vermont. I would hope, under my reservation, to say that
this would not continue and that the gentleman from California who used
those words would refrain in the future from doing so. I do not think
it is appropriate for any Member of the House to try to erroneously
designate someone for what they are not.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, so that the Members understand what is
going to happen, we are going to have three votes that have been
rolled. The first vote will be on the Parker amendment, which adds $18
million to weatherization and it cuts $18 million from conservation
research.
The second vote will be on the Sanders amendment, which adds $11.7
million to weatherization and takes $11.7 million from the Naval
Petroleum Reserve.
The third vote will be on the Shadegg amendment, which cuts the
National Endowment for the Humanities by $12 million.
Let me say to my colleagues if you vote for both weatherization add-
ons, you would be adding a very substantial amount to this program over
last year's level. I would urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on Parker
and to vote ``no'' on Sanders.
On Parker, I think that taking money from conservation research to
put into weatherization is not a good long-term national policy. Let me
point out again, I am not hard-hearted at all, but we have $1.2 billion
in LIHEAP. This is low-income heating assistance. So the people who
need this help will get their fuel bills paid, be it electricity, gas,
oil, whatever is the case. We also have $100 million in weatherization,
and under our budget constraints, I think these are very fair and very
reasonable amounts. Energy conservation is extremely important to this
nation's future.
On the Sanders amendment, I think the problem there is we are going
to sell the Naval Petroleum Reserve. It is worth billions of dollars.
On the short term, the administration advises us that they will lose
$14 million in revenues. So we are going to take out $11 million and
lose $14 million. Not very good management, and we are the managers of
this enterprise.
Second, it will be detrimental to the value of the property which
will be sold in the near future. To do that is not good management. To
put additional money into weatherization, which already has $100
million, and do it in a way that is detrimental to the sale of this
property which will generate billions of dollars that could then be
available for these programs in the future is not good policy in either
the short or long term.
For this reason, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Parker amendment,
a ``no'' vote on the Sanders amendment, and there will be the three
votes that have been rolled over.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: The amendment offered by the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Parker]; the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders]; and the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
amendment offered by mr. parker
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Parker] 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 204,
noes 218, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 259]
AYES--204
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baldacci
Bartlett
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Browder
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Crane
Cremeans
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goodling
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hastert
Hayes
Hayworth
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kleczka
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lightfoot
Linder
LoBiondo
Longley
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Matsui
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Orton
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Riggs
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Sanders
Scarborough
Scott
Shadegg
Shays
Sisisky
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Stearns
Stokes
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Volkmer
Walker
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--218
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Archer
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
[[Page H6653]]
DeFazio
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Durbin
Ehlers
Ensign
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilliard
Holden
Hoyer
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kim
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Livingston
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McDermott
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pickett
Porter
Poshard
Quillen
Radanovich
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stockman
Studds
Tanner
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornton
Torres
Towns
Vento
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
White
Whitfield
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Yates
NOT VOTING--12
Emerson
Fields (TX)
Gephardt
Harman
Johnson (SD)
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Ramstad
Schumer
Tauzin
Torkildsen
{time} 1255
Messrs. McINTOSH, HYDE, OLVER, NADLER, and CLAY, Ms. WATERS, Messrs.
FIELDS of Louisiana, HEFNER, GALLEGLY, and ARCHER, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD,
Messrs. DORNAN, MICA, DREIER, COX of California, SANFORD, ROYCE, RUSH,
and BISHOP changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. GUTIERREZ, SOLOMON, GILCHREST, BEREUTER, and STOKES, Mrs.
CHENOWETH, Messrs. ROBERTS, LARGENT, BONO, PALLONE, and DeLAY, Mrs.
JOHNSON of Connecticut, and Messrs. GILMAN, CUNNINGHAM, and WILLIAMS
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. sanders
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] 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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215,
noes 206, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 260]
AYES--215
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Beilenson
Bevill
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Duncan
Durbin
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Evans
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Furse
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefner
Heineman
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Houghton
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spratt
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Williams
Wise
Wynn
Yates
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--206
Abercrombie
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Foley
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lantos
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lofgren
Lucas
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Salmon
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torres
Vucanovich
Walker
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Brewster
Emerson
Fields (TX)
Gephardt
Harman
Johnson (SD)
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Ramstad
Schumer
Tauzin
Torkildsen
{time} 1304
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Gephardt for, with Ms. Harman against.
Messrs. LANTOS, PAXON, and POMBO changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. MORAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 260, I
inadvertently voted ``yes.'' I intended to vote ``no.''
[[Page H6654]]
amendment offered by mr. shadegg
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] 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 168,
noes 254, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 261]
AYES--168
Allard
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ewing
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
King
Kingston
Klug
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Linder
Lipinski
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
McHale
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Royce
Salmon
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Visclosky
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOES--254
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Calvert
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
White
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--12
Emerson
Fields (TX)
Gephardt
Harman
Johnson (SD)
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Ramstad
Schumer
Tauzin
Torkildsen
{time} 1312
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Emerson for, with Ms. Harman against.
Mr. YATES changed his vote form ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, this morning I was in my district on
official business. Had I been present, I would have voted on three
rollcalls: ``yea'' on rollcall 259, ``yea'' on rollcall 260, and
``nay'' on rollcall 261.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Poshard] is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, the committee report includes language
indicating an expectation that the Forest Service will not engage in
any below cost timber sales. Does the chairman agree that this
provision should be applied to hardwood timber stands but should not
preclude the Forest Service from taking out pine stands in order to
reforest the Shawnee with native hardwoods.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POSHARD. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it is the committee's belief that we should
avoid below cost timber sales on the Shawnee, but the removal of pine
to restore hardwoods may be done at the lowest cost possible.
{time} 1315
Mr. POSHARD. It is my understanding from forest management that
taking out the pines will actually enhance habitat for the Indiana Bat
and other species with which the committee is concerned. Does the
committee believe that it would be appropriate to remove pine stands
and replace them with hardwoods in order to protect that habitat and
those species?
Mr. REGULA. That is the committee's view.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, there is further direction regarding
clearcutting. Is it the committee's intent to keep the Forest Service
from clearcutting hardwood stands?
Mr. REGULA. That is the committee's position.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the committee's indulgence.
amendment offered by ms. furse
Ms. FURSE. 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 Ms. Furse: At the end of the bill,
insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the
following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act (including funds appropriated or
otherwise made available for salaries and expenses of
employees of the Department of Agriculture or the Department
of the Interior) may be used to prepare, advertise, offer, or
award any contract under any provision of the emergency
salvage timber sale program established under section 2001 of
Public Law 104-19 (109 Stat. 240; 16 U.S.C. 1611 note).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June
19, 1996, the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] and a Member opposed,
the
[[Page H6655]]
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], will each control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to participate in a
bipartisan amendment which will fix the biggest environmental mistake
of the 104th Congress. That mistake is the so-called emergency salvage
timber program, passed as a rider last July, which suspended all
environmental laws in every national forest in the country.
Now, America is a nation of laws. Americans are law-abiding citizens.
But the salvage rider has put logging outside the law. No other
industry in this country is allowed to operate outside the law. By
circumventing the normal avenues of public input, the rider has
reignited a war in the woods.
I do not oppose logging, no one who has cosponsored this amendment
opposes logging, as long as it is done in compliance with our
environmental laws.
Let me be very clear. State and private citizens must comply with
State forest lands on their property. Why should the Federal Government
not do the same on Federal lands?
This amendment is a modest amendment. It just asks that we not spend
money outside the law.
The salvage rider was not what it seemed. Although touted as an
emergency measure to cut dead and dying timber, the rider has been used
to clearcut healthy forests, including some hundreds of years old. For
example, less than 40 percent of the trees in the Shanty salvage sale
in California had any signs of mortality.
I have with me a picture, and my colleagues can see that there is a
blue X on this very large, very old tree. This is going to be cut under
salvage, not these skimpy little ones on the side. The big one.
Cutting without consideration for environmental law also harms
wildlife and fish populations. That is why this rider was opposed by
commercial and sports fishing organizations nationwide. This includes
the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen, the largest commercial
fishery organization in the west.
Now, as I say, this is a picture of what these so-called salvage
riders are. This is a healthy, 350-year-old ponderosa pine. It is not
dead, it is not dying, and yet it would be cut without compliance to
environmental laws.
The salvage rider has also been costly to the American taxpayer. It
will end up costing the American taxpayer millions of dollars by
requiring it to subsidize bargain-basement logging in our
national forests.
What our amendment does is fairly modest. It just says that no money
can be used by the Forest Service from this appropriation outside of
the law. In other words, the Forest Service must log under the
environmental laws which were put in by this Congress and other
Congresses to say we need some oversight.
One of the problems about giving enormous power to a Federal
bureaucracy, which is what the rider did, is that can we really trust
that they can do this without some oversight? Our amendment says that
there will be oversight, there will be environmental protection, but
there will still be logging. We do not oppose logging; we just oppose
lawless logging.
Mr. Chairman, I should say right now that hundreds and thousands of
Americans support that. In fact, a nationwide poll found that three-
quarters of all Americans asked opposed lawless logging, and I urge a
``yes'' vote on the Porter-Yates-Furse-Morella amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield to me?
Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I just want to clarify a couple things about the
amendment.
Is it the intent of the sponsors of this amendment that it would
affect only timber salvage sales that would be offered after October 1,
1996? In other words, it is not going back retroactively?
Ms. FURSE. That is absolutely correct, I say to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
Mr. DICKS. Is it the sponsor's understanding that the so-called
section 318 sales authority would expire on September 30, 1996?
Ms. FURSE. Yes, they unfortunately would not be affected by this
amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Is it also true that the salvage provision enacted last
year would expire on December 31, 1996, but for your amendment?
Ms. FURSE. That is correct. That is correct, Mr. Dicks.
Mr. DICKS. Is it the sponsor's understanding that salvage sales
offered under her amendment after October 1, 1996, would be conducted
under all existing environmental law?
Ms. FURSE. All existing environmental law.
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding to me on this issue.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on Resources.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
this amendment. First, let us understand it is being offered primarily
for window dressing for the President of the United States because this
was objected to by the environmental community saying this was an awful
rip-off to the taxpayers. Let us just think for a moment what this
does.
This amendment would halt all of President Clinton option 9 sales
relief by the rescission law. Now keep this in mind: Even President
Clinton sales would be halted. This is what he signed off in the
Northwest. He agreed to this. I believe the author of the amendment
agreed to it. It would halt all salvage sales and force expensive,
time-consuming reprocessing of dead tree sales.
This means sales that should have happened, that timber will rot and
burn, rot and burn, and some would say this is natural. Well, I just
want to ask my colleagues how many of them have ever gone to a forest
fire or fought a forest fire. Alaska has just gone through two big
ones, primarily because most of the timber burned that should have been
harvested because it was dead. And that is going to happen all over the
United States of America wherever there is national forest.
The forest health is in jeopardy because we have a philosophy today
that trees will live forever. The idea that 350-year-old ponderosa pine
would be healthy is ridiculous. If we cut that tree down, we find it is
rotten at least 85 feet into the tree, at least 3 feet across. It is a
dying, dead tree. But there will be a new tree if that tree is to be
removed in a sound, environmental way. If we let it burn, it will not.
Let it burn twice, which it can, there will be no growth for a period
of years. In fact there will be about 40 to 50 percent, if this
amendment is adopted, of what remaining sales we have left in national
forests will be lost.
On top of that, this probably will be litigated, costing the taxpayer
money and actually eliminating what chance these small communities have
to survive.
Now, we heard a lot about the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]
yesterday and his small farmers, his small ranchers because of the
murelette. Small mills in the northwest, mills that have been
harvesting these timber trees, these salvage trees, will be stopped
dead in their tracks. No timber means more mills will be closed in
Washington, Oregon, and California.
Jobs. American people will be put out of work. Already now, and think
about this, 239 mills employing thousands of Americans have been closed
in Washington, Oregon, and California since 1989, a period of 7 years.
We have lost an industry. We are importing our fiber today. We have
lost an industry, and the jobs are important to this Nation.
But more than that, the taxpayer will pay. We talked yesterday about
subsidized roads. We talked the other day about subsidized timber
harvesting. We talked about the taxpayer paying. Well, think about it a
moment. Already we put thousands, approximately over 100,000, jobs,
related taxpaying jobs, out of business because of actions of this
Congress, this administration, and those interest groups that decide
logging is not part of our society. A renewable resource is no longer
to be utilized as it is used around the world. It will also expose this
government to millions of dollars in contract breach claims for timber
harvested during the last 3 months of the period during the salvage law
in effect.
[[Page H6656]]
This salvage law will expire December 1996. That is only 6 months
away. All we are asking in reality is to implement the act as it was
placed in the last session, let it be fulfilled, review it as that
time, and if we can show that the salvage act itself has provided jobs,
it has increased the health of the forests, we can then address it. But
now to politically offer an amendment to make the President look well
and good in the environmental community I think is uncalled for.
What has happened with the concept of sound scientific information
about the timber? And I have talked to the forest industry scientists
and will tell my colleagues today that right now the private
timberland, not the Federal timberland, one-third of the land mass is
producing two-thirds of our fiber today because it is managed
appropriately. The national forest is not being managed. We are
allowing that forest to decay, to rot, to fall and, in fact, to burn,
and that is not called for.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time, and I compliment her on the great leadership she has shown on
this and other important environmental issues.
With the greatest respect for the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young],
I think he is got it exactly backwards. Last year in the rescission
package in the full Committee on Appropriations, the amendment on
salvaged timber was offered. No one, to my knowledge, had any notice
that it was going to be offered. It was 7 or 8 or 10 pages long; 13
pages long, I am told. It had never had a hearing anywhere in the
Congress, and suddenly it was offered as an amendment to an
appropriation bill without anybody realizing the implications of what
was involved.
{time} 1330
There have been tremendous problems ever since, Mr. Chairman. The
salvage timber rider, so-called, has caused a much greater problem than
was originally envisioned, and that was a great problem, indeed. As I
have learned from my constituents, local and national environmental
groups, and local and national news reports, the provision has been
interpreted by the logging companies and enforced by the courts much
differently than was apparently originally intended. This is a flawed
provision that we approved before knowing its full consequences, before
any hearings, as I say, before understanding what was being done.
When these problems were realized, we should have addressed them. Now
we have waited almost 1 year, and it is certainly time to fix the
mistakes that have been caused. As Members will recall, the provision
attached to the emergency rescission bill which provides aid to victims
of the California earthquake and the Oklahoma City bombing, was to
provide for the removal of dead and dying trees for the overall
improvement of forest health on Federal lands.
As indicated by the national news, much more is being cut than
salvage timber. In fact, I have learned from many sources, including
local loggers in the Pacific Northwest, that dead and dying trees are
in some cases not being touched, it is the old growth forest that is
being harvested under this law. The salvage timber provision is
superseding the carefully crafted environmental and natural resource
laws that previously regulated logging in the Pacific Northwest.
One of the greatest problems with this provision is the broad-range
definition of salvage timber. The definition includes dead, dying,
diseased or associated trees. Basically, this definition allows loggers
to use their own judgment in determining which timber stands to cut.
I support, Mr. Chairman, the need to keep our great forests healthy,
but the salvage timber rider is not attaining this goal. We are
misleading ourselves to think otherwise, and it is time to correct this
serious problem. I hope Members will support this amendment so we can
move into constructing good legislation that will promote the original
intention of healthy forest management.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert].
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would
prohibit the expenditure of funds to implement the so-called salvage
rider.
I use the term ``so-called'' advisedly because the salvage rider has
turned out to have very little to do with salvage logging--that is,
with taking dead trees out of forests. In fact, true salvage logging
was already permitted before passage of the rider, which was sold to
this body under what can most generously be considered false pretenses.
We were told the salvage rider would apply only to dead trees. In
reality, healthy, green trees, account for up to 50 percent of some
salvage sales.
We were told the salvage rider would increase Federal revenues. In
reality, the rider has cost taxpayers millions of dollars by mandating
subsidized timber sales.
We were told the salvage rider would have a minimal impact on the
environment. In reality, the rider has damaged our Nation's forests
while preventing any citizen suits to redress the situation.
In passing this rider, the House was sold a bill of goods. The public
interest demands that the salvage rider be reversed so that we stop
damaging our forests, sapping our treasury, and silencing public input.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Bunn], an excellent member of our subcommittee.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Furst
amendment. I would like to correct a few things that I believe were
inaccurate when they were stated before. I heard it mentioned that
there had not been a single hearing. In fact, on February 28, 1995,
before this was taken up, there was a hearing. There have been seven
oversight hearings since then, four in the field, two in Washington,
DC, and one with the Senate.
Also, I think there needs to be a clear understanding that this does
not exclude environmental concerns. An environmental assessment is
required, a biological evaluation is required, and it is solely at the
discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the
Interior, as appropriate, to decide whether or not to allow these sales
to go forward.
So, Mr. Chairman, there may be some concern about whether or not the
administration is adequately following the concerns; but it is
interesting to me, this is something that we had a hearing on, we have
had a series of hearings on. We debated this in the House. We have
debated in the Senate. The administration initially vetoed it, came
back, worked through the process again. Then the administration went to
court to try to block what they signed, apparently saying they did not
understand what they signed. Maybe they should pay a little more
attention to it.
In fact, it is a good law that is working. Never have we claimed that
there would only be dead trees. The idea of dead and dying trees, when
there are diseased and dying trees, the needles may not be off, but
that tree may be dying and may infest other trees. You may see a green
tree or a number of green trees that are, in fact, diseased and need to
be harvested to protect others. It is a good bill. This amendment is
opposed by the United Paperworkers International Union, the Western
Council of Industrial Workers, and the American Forest and Paper
Association, among others, because we need the ability to get in and
harvest these trees.
The Clinton administration has absolutely dismally failed to deliver
on the Northwest forest plan. This has given us some hope that there
would be timber in the supply line until we can get that straightened
out. It is important to understand that the appeals have been abused in
the past, to simply endlessly appeal the salvage logging until those
logs have rotted and it becomes a moot point.
We can no longer allow that. We have to expedite those sales, because
these are not healthy standing trees that we can debate for the next 5
years and harvest or not harvest. these are trees that are dead or
dying, and will rot without this expedited appeal, so I urge
[[Page H6657]]
Members' opposition to the Furse amendment.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
illinois [Mr. Yates], the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] and the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. I had intended to offer a similar
amendment, but I defer to my distinguished colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would finally end the disaster of the
salvage timber rider that was attached to last year's rescissions bill.
with respect to what my good friend and colleague on my subcommittee
said about having held hearings, there were no hearings by the
Committee on Appropriations before this amendment was presented to the
Committee on Appropriations as an amendment to the rescissions bill.
There may have been hearings later, but none were held, to my
knowledge, by the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, the rider contains so-called sufficiently language
which shuts out the general public by barring legal challenges and
preventing public comment periods. The salvage rider has caused
enormous damage to rivers and streams in the Northwest, leading to the
death of thousands of trout and salmon.
It is now painfully clear that in short-circuiting the process and
exempting timber sales from the environmental laws, which is what the
amendment does, which is what the Taylor amendment did, irreparable
harm to the fragile ecosystems was caused to our national forests.
This is what some of the newspapers in the area have said. Salem, OR:
The streams that supply Salem's water run brown with silt
and mud--much of it from logging roads and clear cuts. We're
drinking, or trying to drink, the mucky runoff from sloppily
built logging roads that crisscross our mountains and from
forest clear cuts.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. What is the date of that newspaper article, if I
may ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. YATES. It is February 21, 1996.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Was that article talking about the floods in the
Northwest that had nothing to do with the salvage logging, or was it in
fact speaking directly about the salvage logging?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], a distinguished member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the
gentleman from Illinois, Sid Yates, and I have served together on the
committee and gone back and forth on questions of forestry. There is
enormous pressure in this country from organizations that take in
hundreds of millions of dollars, scaring people, and they want to
continue to do that. That is why a lot of misinformation has been put
out. I am afraid some of my colleagues have gotten hold of it and
believed it.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague who got up a moment ago and said that we
had cut green trees in salvage, it is absolutely misinformed. I will
pay $1,000 cash today if anyone can bring me evidence of any green tree
that has been cut under the salvage bill. We are not talking about the
3-18 amendment that was made taking older sales that were set aside
long ago and had been under appeal, we are talking about the salvage
bill.
For instance, I have seen a piece of information here showing
pictures put out by folks who said, ``The tree below is more than 700
years ago. It was cut down because Congress passed a salvage rider
which has allowed large-scale harvesting of America's oldest and most
valuable trees.''
I presume that is talking about the 3-18 sales which Mr. Clinton
endorsed under his option 9. It has to be, because the picture was made
in March of 1995, about 4 months before the salvage legislation passed.
So it would be impossible for salvage and difficult for that to be
involved in 3-18.
Mr. Chairman, the situation that we find with other pictures, last
night we were shown a picture on the floor that purportedly was damaged
by logging roads. In the Senate, that picture was used months ago, and
it was supposed to be salvage damage. It looks like something out of
the 1890's, with tailings from a mine. Soon it will be used in the
debate for the Johnstown flood.
I do not know what we are proving by bringing up photographs that
purport to show damage in forests that were taken months and sometimes
years before the bills were even passed. But clearly this is
misrepresentation. The timber salvage legislation that was passed is
doing its job. It is doing it slowly, because there is much resistance
from the administration; not inside the Forest Service, but from the
administration.
We are finding in the South as to disease-infected timber, it is
already being put on for sale, and it is important that that be done,
because if we have 100 acres of insect-infested timber inside the
Forest Service, if you do not take out the host trees, and that
includes some green trees, because trees that are dead or the insect
has already left, they are hosting in the periphery green trees around
it.
So when the forest silviculturist goes in, he has to determine those
trees where the host is. Some of those trees are still green, but they
will be dead in a matter of weeks or months, so he cuts out the area
where the disease, where the insect is, and he harvests that.
The Forest Service has been very careful, being under the watchful
spotlight of Congress, it has been very careful to see that nowhere has
it abused it, and we cannot find a single example of that abuse that
has been presented to Congress, either in our hearings on salvage or in
any other area.
We are beginning to remove diseased, dead, and dying timber from the
forest. It is being done profitably at the individual sales, and it is
being done in a way that is good for the environment. Nowhere can I
find these people who rave and rant because of the pressure from
environmental organizations that they are saving the forest, can they
say what are they going to do when they destroy the use of wood.
The Sierra Club voted 2 to 1, no cutting in the national forests.
When we kill the jobs, kill the harvesting of our forests, when we no
longer have wood for the tables and the multitude of chemicals and
other things we use it for, they do not tell you that we have to
replace it with finite, finite materials such as plastic, where the oil
has to be imported, where the toxicity and spills in manufacturing as
much greater than it is in wood processing, and that is harmful to the
environment.
No. The information being put out that I just mentioned, that is
false information and misleading information, is what is being used,
and serves as environmentalism today. We need honest debate on this
question, and we need to keep the timber salvage bill.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, the photo that was referred to has no affiliation to
this amendment and no relevance to the debate. I am holding in my hand
a list of salvage rider sales--107 of these have substantial green tree
components. I am not going to hold the gentleman to his $1,000, but
there are many, many sales that have a significant amount of green
timber.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Maryland. [Mr. Gilchrest].
{time} 1345
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make sure that I am not here defending
any special interest environmental group who may or may not he against
all logging or against salvage logging. But I am here as a result of
trying to make some sense out of a very complicated issue, logging on
our Nation's forests.
It is my understanding that in 1987 there were 11.3 billion board
feet harvested off of America's national forests. In 1994 that dropped
to 3.4 billion board feet. Perhaps in 1987, 11.3 billion board feet was
too much. In 1994, as a result of the forest health problems that we
are seeing, the 3.4 billion was not enough. As a result of that, we see
some pretty severe problems in our Nation's forests.
What I would like to say, though, which is my problem with the timber
[[Page H6658]]
salvage sale, is that I realize we have to get the dead and dying trees
out, we have to get the insect-ridden trees out, and we have to create
a management scheme that is going to make sure that we manage our
national forests so that they can recycle themselves and we can get the
wood for America, people can have jobs, and we can still have a
suitable environmental condition so that our forests will be
sustainable for the future.
But the crux of this legislation, the timber salvage legislation,
included in it a requirement from Congress that you can virtually
eliminate some of those safeguards and best management practices for a
healthy forest as far as environmental conditions are concerned.
It was said earlier by the gentleman that the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior have some discretion about
how to manage these things, but let me read from a directive. Here is
what a Federal court said about the amount of discretion that both of
those Secretaries have:
The Kentucky court noted that sales were exempt from all
Federal environmental and natural resource laws, something
Congress unquestionably has the power to do.
And then the court went on to say:
As Congress is the fountainhead for all environmental and
natural resource laws, it clearly has the power to create
blanket exemptions from those same laws. Although the wisdom
of such exemptions might be debated, the authority to exempt
is incontrovertible.
That sends a powerful message to the Secretaries of both of those
departments to pull back from more suitable, manageable environmental
procedures.
I know we have to take those logs out of those forests and we better
do it as fast as we possibly can, but we do not want to do it at the
damage of other habitat concerns, other environmental concerns, stream
concerns, spawning areas for fish. What about other people in those
areas and the way they make their living?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the act said, and I quote:
The scope and content of the documentation and information
prepared, considered and relied on under this paragraph is at
the sole discretion of the Secretary concerned.
If I read that correctly, the Secretary has sole discretion to
approve or disapprove a sale.
Mr. GILCHREST. If I could reclaim my time, when this is evaluated
that statement sounds pretty promising, but when it is evaluated as far
as the interpretation of the courts is concerned, the ramifications of
that are not the same from your interpretation of the language to the
court's interpretation of the language.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the fact is when this was taken to court, the
Secretary was forbidden to use his discretion. He said that this
waiver, he could not apply any of these standards, and his attorneys,
the attorneys for both the Secretary of Interior and Agriculture,
advised them, unless they wanted to go to jail, that they had better
meet the volume numbers and the prescriptions of these salvage sales.
The fact is that they tried. That is, Secretary Babbitt and Secretary
Glickman both made extraordinary efforts to the point that they were
being criticized in some of those hearings as not complying with the
timber rider.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think, just from
my judgment, we have managed the National Forest Service over the years
in a way that certainly needs improvement. We all know that there are
extreme environmentalists out there certainly that do not want any
logging in any national forest. I certainly am not for that. What we
need is some commonsense, reasonable management practices injected into
the whole process.
I urge support for the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. I thank the vice chairman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, first of all the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter],
who I guess had to leave, claimed that the timber salvage legislation
was some sort of clandestine measure forced upon the Congress in the
dead of the night.
I would like him to note that the legislation was the result of 5
months of open legislative debate, lots of give and take, because some
of us were involved in those meetings between the administration and
the Congress. It expedites the procedures by which agencies, the Bureau
of Land Management and the Forest Service, salvage dead and dying trees
nationwide and it insulates from judicial challenge green timber sales
prepared under the President's own forest plan, the Northwest Forest
Plan, which has already been found by the courts to comply with
environmental laws.
So what is going on here? The most liberal allies of the
administration, those who pander to the extreme fringe of the
environmental movement, are applying pressure on the President to
reconsider the legislation he signed into law and renege on the
commitment he has made to the people of the Northwest in our timber-
reliant towns and our timber-reliant counties. That is what is going on
here.
So we are talking about now potentially, just as we begin to get
salvage sales into the pipeline, shutting down the program altogether,
stopping a program that helps with fire suppression, promotes good
forest health by removing diseased trees and most importantly puts our
people back to work.
I want to go back to that give-and-take, those negotiations between
the administration and the Congress, and I want to introduce for the
record a letter on White House stationery dated June 29, signed by the
President of the United States. It is to the Speaker of the House, Newt
Gingrich, and it says: ``I want to make it clear that my administration
will carry out this program,'' referring to the timber salvage program,
``with its full resources and a strong commitment to achieving the
goals of the program. I do appreciate the changes'' I am speaking
directly now to the people who are arguing for this limitation
amendment or to repeal the program altogether ``that the Congress has
made to provide the administration with the flexibility and authority
to carry this program out in a manner that conforms to our existing
environmental laws and standards. These changes are also important to
preserve our ability to implement the current forest plans and their
standards and to protect other natural resources.''
``The agencies responsible for this program'' again BLM and the
Forest Service ``will, under my direction,'' says the President of the
United States, ``carry the program out to achieve the timber sales
volume goals in the legislation to the fullest possible extent. The
financial resources to do that are already available through the timber
salvage sale fund.''
That is June 29 of last year.
Less then two months later, August 11, again on White House
stationery signed by the President of the United States:
As you know, I signed the rescissions bill because it helps
to reduce the deficit further. However, I opposed the salvage
logging provision as it threatens to impair, rather than
promote, sustainable economic activity.
In other words, the devil made me do it. It is a little bit like
going to Houston and telling an audience of prominent Democratic fund
raisers that House Republicans forced the President of the United
States to impose the largest tax increase in the history of this
country. It is a little bit like the same thing.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak for a moment on this amendment
because it is absolutely unnecessary. The administration has enough
flexibility to address environmental concerns under the legislation as
the President pointed out in his June 29 letter.
So while we have timber-dependent communities throughout the West
that remain one step from the unemployment line and while the health of
our forests in California and across the West continue to decline
because they are not managed properly, and that is what this is, it is
a forest management program that is good for fire suppression purposes
and good for the health of the forest, we now have those out here on
the floor calling irrationally for the termination or the repeal of
this new program.
[[Page H6659]]
Here is why this call is irrelevant. First of all, regarding salvage
sales. The administration has the sole discretion to offer salvage
sales. Salvage sales are composed by doing an internal administrative
environmental review under NEPA and under the Endangered Species Act.
To illustrate this point for the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse],
on April 3, a few months ago, the region 5 forester, Lynn Sprague, whom
the gentlewoman probably knows and has dealt with, canceled a large
salvage sale in northeast California of 2.5 million board feet in the
Lassen National Forest.
I have spoken to Mr. Sprague and Mr. Sprague has publicly commented
that he cancelled this sale because of, quote, ``escalating public
concerns in an area that was scorched by a 1994 fire.''
There is no reason to terminate this funding or repeal the program
that is in fact working. It is environmentally responsible. For 9
months this administration has claimed it is without flexibility when
addressing areas affected by the timber salvage law and have demanded
that Congress rectify the damaging effect of this legislation, and now
it seems the administration does have the flexibility it has so long
demanded to enforce this program.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. McDermott].
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
(Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, this is truly an interesting day
because we had the last speaker saying trust the bureaucrats. That is
the first time I have ever heard anything like that come from that
distinguished gentleman. But the issue here is very simple. The Forest
Service has two kinds of sales. One are green sales, one are salvage
sales. They have a salvage program that in 1994 amounted to one-third
of the sales done, was almost 1.5 billion board feet under that salvage
sale. What this rider did, which was without hearings, was to take away
any environmental legislation concerns about those salvage sales. It
simply said, do whatever you want, disregard every other law on the
books with respect to the forest.
The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn] says there was a hearing. Yes,
there was a hearing, I say to the gentleman. It was in the Committee on
Agriculture, it was on the health of the forests. This language that
was adopted on the floor of the House was never heard in any committee,
was never discussed, it was brought out here, dropped on us and it
passed.
So the gentleman must not mislead the people in that respect. This
language was never before a committee.
The President said that this language that was passed out here, at
first he thought he had the capacity to deal with the problems. But the
fact was it went to court and he lost that kind of flexibility.
The most recent letter from the White House, March 13, 1996, and this
is to one of the Members of the other body, says:
I write to convey my strong support for your amendment to
repeal the timber rider attached to the 1995 Rescissions Act.
Judicial interpretation of the timber rider, as it has been
applied to old growth forests, has broadened the Act's
requirements to the point that it undermines our balanced
approach to ensuring continued economic growth and reliable
timber supply in concert with responsible management and
protection of our natural resources for future generations.
The timber rider must be repealed as soon as possible.
It was done because when it went to court, he lost the capacity to
say, this sale cannot happen. What it allowed was the bureaucrats in
the Forest Service to take an old green sale, redraw the lines and make
it a salvage sale and, therefore, it has no environmental protection.
The green sales still have environmental protection but salvage sales
do not. So if you draw the lines on the map, add a few trees with a few
worm holes in then, you can take away any environmental protection for
the forest. This is the essence of this and that is why it should be
repealed.
{time} 1400
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, before yielding
to the next speaker, to correct a statement of the last speaker when he
said that there was no requirement to follow the law. The law is fairly
clear here that the Secretary has to prepare a document for each
salvage sale that combines an environmental assessment under the NEPA,
the National Environmental Policy Act, and a biological evaluation
under the Endangered Species Act. The Secretary must follow the law.
Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time there is on both sides
here?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] has 12 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman
from Oregon [Ms. Furse] has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a distinguished member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to put this into perspective. This amendment as
it relates to Oregon and Washington, I am a member of the Subcommittee
on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations. We had a hearing
earlier this year with Jack Thomas, the head of the Forest Service
testifying. I raised an issue with Mr. Thomas about the Loomis State
Forest in Washington State. It has gone from an infestation of mountain
pine beetle starting at 50 acres; it is now about 55,000 acres. It is
spreading rapidly east toward the Okanogan National Forest.
I said: Mr. Thomas, how do we solve this problem? How do we stop this
infestation and the spread of this infestation that is ruining our
State forests and is going to threaten our national forests?
This is what he said. He said: This infestation has swept across
eastern Oregon, I say to my friend from Oregon, from one end to the
other, and stopped when it got to the Cascades and ran out of lodge
pole pine.
Basically, I want to draw the attention of this quote to the
gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Furse, and the gentleman from Washington,
my friend, Mr. McDermott. Basically it is a salvage operation in
silviculture. And then he says for the people that are into this, and
this is a little hard, a little bit hard to sell publicly, once you
have an infestation moving at epidemic proportions and start to see the
beetle hits, you will see the pinch tubes on the trees a year or 2
years before a stand starts to go in total. Salvage is the answer, or
move ahead of the infestation with green sales.
It is a little hard to sell to the public that we really know that
this is going to happen. They do not believe it until they see the dead
trees.
Now, let us put this into perspective. This debate that has taken on
a flavor of, if you are in favor of salvage timber, saving forests,
then you are antienvironmental; and I am offended by that. I think that
is incredible for the other side to argue this because that is not
fair.
The point is you have got the Loomis State Forest heading east
infesting possibly the Okanogan National Forest, the Colville National
Forest in my district, and we are now making the lumber and timber
communities powerless to do anything about it. This salvage amendment
again, it is either green sales to get ahead of the disease or it is
salvage timber operations. This is a bad amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. This is one thing I think that is widely misunderstood.
People talk about the fact when you do a salvage sale and you have
these dead trees laying there, well, they took some green trees. What
they forget is that the bug infestation has gone from the dead trees
into the surrounding green trees. So, some of those have to be taken in
order to stop the infestation from spreading further.
It is not because they are trying to undermine the environmental laws
or doing something awful. It is because of honorable silvicultural
practices.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. The gentleman is correct. We are trying to save the
system.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
We still have laws that can do salvage. I am sure the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt] knows
[[Page H6660]]
that. What the salvage rider does is it lifts the laws.
I am all for doing salvage. I think that is a good idea with dead and
dying. However, let us not forget that there are laws in the forest to
do that salvage environmentally. The salvage rider lifts those laws.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana [Mr.
Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time.
As my colleagues know, I represent Montana. One of our great
industries out there is logging. So, let me be clear, I am for salvage
sale logging. I am for it done appropriately. It means a lot to the
health of our forests and to our economy. So, I was intrigued when this
Congress passed this fast track salvage sale bill, and I have watched
it plan by plan, tree by tree. I am here to tell Members we made a
mistake and we ought to change it.
Now, let me give a couple of examples on the ground in Montana, in
the Northern Rockies, in some of the wildest forest land left in this
country.
This House, just 2 years ago, voted to put 1.7 million acres of that
land in wilderness. This salvage sale logging bill proposed to harvest
trees in that very area, and it was so egregious that for the first
time in history, a President of the United States and the Secretary of
Agriculture had to reach in and lift this 1.7 million acres of Federal
wildland so that it would not be under the chain saw of the salvage
sale bill. Both green and salvage, dead, dying, diseased timber was to
be harvested in the 1.7 million acres that many Members on both sides
voted to put in wilderness.
Let me give another example. There is an area in the Gallatin called
the Hyalite. Montanans know the name, H-y-a-l-i-t-e. For years the
Forest Service ran through the process in their plans, getting public
reaction as to whether or not harvests should go forward in that place,
and the Forest Service decided not to do it. Now, with this salvage
sale bill, the Forest Service has put the Hyalite back up for harvest.
If the Hyalite is harvested, more than 50 percent of the timber will be
healthy, green timber that is not about to be diseased, because the
diseased and dying trees have stopped being diseased. That disease is
over.
In the Flathead Forest up near Glacier National Park is some of the
great wildland left in this country. During this planning process, the
Forest Service has brought harvest plans. I do not mean under the
salvage sale bill. But, during the last 10 years of the cycle, the
Forest Service has brought harvest plans, tree-cutting plans through
the process and at the highest level of the Forest Service in past
years rejected those harvests in certain areas. Now, under the salvage
sale bill, that green lumber is going back up for harvest.
Does the Forest Service think it ought to be harvested? Of course
not. They rejected those plans over the last 10 years. Now under this
bill, because the Forest Service is required, particularly by action in
the Senate, to meet a certain volume of timber, they are cutting in
places in the wildest land left in this country in an egregious manner.
Let me say it again. I am for salvage sales, but enough is enough.
The gentlewoman is right about her amendment. We should stop this while
we have the chance.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] for a quick response.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I hear time and time
again from the other side they are for salvage sales. We had salvage
sales. Then we had an appeals process that rendered salvage sales
useless because the appeals would go on for years. Most of us know this
timber has to be cut within 6 to 24 months. So it rendered the whole
question of salvage moot, and they know that, because they want no
lumber cut, no timber cut in forests.
Today in the Committee on Resources there was a host of people from
Montana. The gentleman says he watches tree by tree. Commissioners and
foresters were there testifying saying salvage is the greatest thing
that has happened to Montana. I would suggest the gentleman talk to
those people. They are probably still in town.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Herger].
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support to the Furse
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me remind my colleagues that currently over 21
billion board feet of dead and dying timber litter our national
forests--enough to build 2 million homes. In some areas 70 to 80
percent of the forests are dead or dying. These deplorable conditions
exploded in 1994, as wildfires destroyed 4 million acres of national
forest throughout the country including over a half million acres in my
own State of California. Common sense demanded enactment of the salvage
law to stop this massive destruction of our forests. The salvage law
was an emergency, short-term measure intended to jump-start efforts to
restore long-term forest health by expediting the removal of dead and
dying trees from our forests.
It is the extreme environmentalists, led by the Sierra Club--the
richest environmental litigation machine in the world--who are leading
the charge to repeal this law and ultimately stop all timber harvests
on Federal land--even the harvesting of dead trees.
Mr. Chairman, it is not responsible forest management to let millions
of acres of forest rot and die on the stump. I urge my colleagues to
act responsibly, to reject the extremism that would rather see a forest
burn to the ground than manage it wisely, and help preserve our forests
as a healthy, natural legacy for generations to come.
Vote ``no'' on the Furse amendment.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland [Mrs. Morella], a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, just a little bit of history as a backdrop. It has been
over 6 months that my colleague, the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms.
Furse], launched a campaign and I joined with her, as did many others
on both sides of the aisle, to cancel the emergency salvage timber sale
rider, aptly named Logging Without Laws. It was signed into law last
summer, attached to the fiscal year 1995 supplemental appropriations
bill providing emergency relief to Oklahoma City bombing victims.
The rider never received a hearing or a separate vote. It suspends
environmental laws pertaining to the cutting of timber on public lands
and the results have been expensive to both the taxpayer and the
environment. So why do we need to continue it? The Forest Service
already has ample authority to do salvage logging without the rider. In
1994, the year before the rider, the age and deceased salvage, 1.5
billion board feet, which is one-third of all Federal timber logged.
Then, too, a judicial decision escalated the sales by requiring
immediate logging of all previous uncompleted timber sales in the
Northwest since 1990.
I certainly have received many letters from people not only in that
part of the country but right in Montgomery County, MD. I have one
constituent who said he moved to Oregon, could look out his window and
he could see these ancient forests being cut. There is a bill that was
introduced with 147-plus colleagues to repeal this law gone amok.
Passage of the bill would allow forestry issues to be brought up in the
proper way before the authorizing House and Senate committees.
I urge my colleagues to allow the Forest Service and Congress to deal
with the many important issues involving salvage timber and Forest
Service sales, address them with the best science available, with
consideration of the environmental economic issues.
Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to something I heard earlier, the so-
called forest health justification for suspending laws.
The so-called forest health justification for suspending laws is a
sham. Some of these sales are completely green sales in healthy
forests; in several other cases, sales which had been regular sales
were redesigned--retaining their green component--to be salvage sales.
In no case among these sales is there a legitimate rationale based on
improving forest health. On the contrary, scientists--including
government scientists--repeatedly criticize these sales for their
adverse impacts on fisheries, wildlife habitat, soils, and other true
measures of forest and aquatic ecosystem integrity. Salvage operations
have gone on in our national forests for years and do not depend on
suspending the laws.
[[Page H6661]]
These sales are money-losers. Except for the sales in the rainforests
west of the Cascades, timber sales from very few national forests cover
their costs. A recent report by the Government Accounting Office
revealed that the National Forest timber sales program lost over $1.0
billion over the period 1992-94. Economics are disregarded with these
forest health sales, so as a group they are worse money-losers than
normal. Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas has made it clear that
there is no way the agency can produce the volume of timber that the
forest health rider requires without major sales in roadless areas. But
there is a reason roadless areas have not been logged in the past: they
are remote, steep, inaccessible, often high elevation, and usually with
poor growing conditions. And by definition, they either require the
major expense of constructing a road, or helicopter logging which is
also costly. It would be hard to design a plan which would more
predictably lose money.
economic impacts
While a potential boon doggle for large timber companies, PL 104-19
poses a significant threat to local businesses.
Private timber owners are seeing their revenue decline because the
new lumber glut stemming from increased subsidized logging on Federal
lands.
Commercial and sport fishermen are threatened by impacts unregulated
logging will have on fisheries.
Tourism and recreationist businesses which depend on access to
national forests people want to see and visit.
Shakespeare said, ``To nature none more bound,'' and Theodore
Roosevelt said, ``A real conservative will conserve the environment.''
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire again about the time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] has 3
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Arizona has the right to close.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct some misinformation that I
believe was just delivered. The fact is that if there is a lumber glut
in the market in America, it is because we are experiencing so much
dumping by Canada of lumber.
{time} 1415
Canada is matching 29 percent of the entire market demand in this
country, while our forests are subject to fire and disease and insect
infestation.
I also want to clear up the fact that this has been brought up for a
separate vote. Last September, the Yates amendment was defeated by a
vote of 275 to 150. There was a clear vote on this, and indeed just a
few weeks ago the Senate voted on the salvage bill to protect the
salvage bill.
We sometimes lose common sense in this debate. We talk about ancient
forests, but do people not realize that trees have a life cycle just
like human beings? They start from a seed. They mature, they grow and
breathe, and then they mature and die and fall to the forest floor, and
we have what is so aptly called now fuel load. Fuel load means fuel for
a lot of fires. Just last year in the Northwest alone, the year before
last in the Northwest alone, we experienced 67,000 fires.
Mr. Chairman, if we are not able to treat our forests with the kind
of loving care that we treat our gardens and that we prune that which
is unhealthy and remove that which does not contribute to the health of
the ecosystem, then we are sincerely being negligent of the gem of the
Nation, which I believe are our national forests.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Cooley].
Mr. COOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the
Furse amendment.
As chairman of the Timber Salvage Task Force, we had 7 public
hearings on this particular bill. I continue to be amazed by the
rhetoric surrounding last year's timber salvage amendment. So, for a
balanced perspective on this issue, let me quote President Clinton from
a letter dated June 29, 1995:
I do appreciate the changes that the Congress has made to
provide the Administration with the flexibility and authority
to carry this program out in a manner that conforms to our
existing environmental laws and standards.
Mr. Chairman, the President could not have said it better, nor
myself. There has been a lot of talk about logging without laws, which
is absolutely not true. Let us set the record straight.
First, the timber salvage amendment created an expeditious salvage
sale procedure for harvesting dead and dying trees. All dead tree sales
still must receive an environmental assessment and a biological
evaluation.
Second, the amendment requires the release of about 750,000 board
feet of section 318 timber sales in Oregon and Washington. The 750
million board feet is well within the 1.1 billion board feet level of
President Clinton's own option 9 in the Northwest for the plan laid
out. Most of these 318 sales were the product of negotiation between
Government, professional environmentalists, and timber salvage during
the 1990 appropriation process and were again approved through
biological review in the President's own Northwest forest plan.
These 318 sales have already met the appropriate environmental
standards. So let us not talk about this. They have already met those.
Finally, the salvage program insulates the President's option 9
forest plan from further judicial challenges. This plan has already
been upheld by the courts and meets existing environmental standards.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remark, I am amazed at
the trust that the former speaker has put into a huge Federal
bureaurcracy with no oversight.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
[Mrs. Clayton].
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Furse amendment and
to say we should find ways to sustain our forests. We should not find
ways to rapidly disregard our environmental standards. This does not
mean there are not opportunities to salvage dead and dying timber. But
it does suggest that we should not have a salvage program that ignores
ecological standards that will sustain our forests.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from
California, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Blumenauer].
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to add my support for the
efforts of my colleague, the gentlewoman from Oregon. One comment I
want to make, it seems sort of bizarre for my colleague from Oregon,
Mr. Cooley, to suggest that there were hearings on this. Seven
hearings, yes, after the rider was signed into law, after it was
passed. That is not how the rest of us in Oregon regard participation.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this bipartisan
amendment to repeal one of the most far-reaching and environmentally
destructive assaults on our national forests in decades.
Last year the Republican majority unleashed a concerted attack on a
host of critical environmental protections: Over many objections,
including my own, this body voted to allow oil and gas drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska; to gut the Clean Water Act;
to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from low-interest loans to local
communities that help keep drinking water safe and beaches swimmable;
to slash funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, hazardous
waste cleanups, and land acquisition for national parks; and to impose
a moratorium on programs that prevent the extinction of endangered
species.
Included in this shameful list is the so-called timber salvage
provision, which was misleadingly touted as being necessary to reduce
forest fires by harvesting dead and dying timber. The sad truth is that
it is now being used to clearcut healthy forests in the Pacific
Northwest.
Hundreds of acres of irreplaceable old-growth forests have been
logged in recent months in Oregon and Washington. Because the measure
suspends several environmental laws that help minimize potential
degradation of our natural resources, this logging is damaging wildlife
habitat and fouling rivers and streams, including spawning grounds for
endangered salmon.
[[Page H6662]]
And, as if the destruction of acre after acre of forests were not
enough, the logging rider is going to cost American taxpayers millions
of dollars because mandating subsidized timber sales cost the Federal
Treasury more than the revenues they bring in. The Congressional
Research Service has estimated that this logging will cost $50 million
this year alone.
This amendment simply will ensure that timber sales comply with
environmental safeguards. It's hardly a radical idea, and it's good for
the environment and good for the American taxpayer. I urge its
adoption.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, on this subject of timber
salvage, I believe there is a unity of purpose. Those of us from the
West and those of us who represent States where this is a serious issue
have met time and again with the Forest Service about having a robust
and necessary salvage program. But this rider took us far beyond that
purpose.
This rider took us far beyond a program that was designed around
forest health, because this rider went from forest salvage, to timber
health, to logging without laws. This is not about expediting the
procedures. This is not about the appeals process. In fact, we heard in
the hearing this morning that as timber salvage has gone up to 1.5
billion feet over the last couple years, appeals have been coming down.
So it was going in the right direction. But impatience and the
ingenuity of the Forest Service working together designed these riders
so it would eviscerate all of the environmental laws that you have to
deal with in providing for the protections of our forest. It did away
with the Endangered Species Act, the National Forest Management Act,
the Multiple Use Sustained Use Act, the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act, the Forest and Range Wood Renewable Resources Act.
Those were wiped out with respect to those sales.
And what happened? The foresters got in there, they found a few trees
that needed salvage, they found a few acres in trouble, and they
started reconfiguring the sales. As the gentleman from Montana pointed
out, pretty soon what we had were green sales that were not previously
allowed now being allowed under the rubric of salvage, because no
environmental laws were provided. So communities lost control over the
forest, communities lost control over the scenic areas, communities
lost control over mountainsides important to them for tourism,
commerce, and for all of those reasons. Why? Because the laws did not
have to be applied, because you could identify some salvage.
Salvage is important and salvage is something that we have generally
worked on on a bipartisan basis. The purpose of that was for forest
health. This is about doing away with logging without laws.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues from Arizona for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I listened with great astonishment as once again
rhetoric replaces reality. We should strive for a genuine balance of
the environment and legitimate economic enterprises. It is well
documented that a fire corridor exists from Idaho to Mexico, and yes,
even beyond. But there will be new fires prompted by these new
prohibitions, by not allowing the salvage of dead and decaying timber.
It is as if the new prohibitionists were lighting entire small
communities ablaze. It is an outrage. No on this. Yes to economic
vitality, yes to a true economic balance. We can coexist, and we need
to eliminate the fire hazard.
Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. OBEY
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves that the Committees rise and reported the
bill back to the House with a recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take the 5 minutes, but I
do simply want to express my frustration about the fact that this
amendment need be here at all. I supported the proposal last year which
allowed timber companies to get at what we were told was salvage, and I
think it was a rational thing to try to do.
My problem is that, as has been indicated by a number of speakers
today, that proposal wound up allowing a lot more than was advertised,
and a lot more than it was explained as doing, because in addition to
allowing legitimate salvage, it also would up allowing about 50 percent
of the timber that was taken from those areas to in fact be green
timber. That creates a dilemma for people like me who want to see to it
that we do not simply allow timber to rot on the ground, and yet we
also do not want to see every environmental law in the country waived
in order to enable people to get at live trees.
So I would simply use this motion to say to anyone interested in the
issue on the floor, that in the future when issues like this arise, it
would be very good for both sides if legislation which is proposed
actually does what it is advertised as doing, because I am confident if
that proposition in fact had been limited simply to straight salvage,
as the House was told it was, we would not have had much of the
controversy that has surrounded this ever since.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, we certainly would not have done this. We
did have a time agreement. Since we added some time on this, there have
been some requests for statements to be made on this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Taylor], the gentleman in the subcommittee who is responsible for much
of this last year.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciated the support
of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for this bill, and I would
tell him today that he has been misinformed about green timber being
cut in the salvage area. The Senate included 318 language for the
Pacific Northwest. The President endorsed 318 in his option 9,318, by
the way, will expire September 30. Therefore, it is really moot,
because this bill probably will not be passed much before September 30.
So 318, whether it was good, bad or indifferent, will be moot in a few
weeks.
The salvage bill has not had green healthy timber cut. As has been
explained by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], and I explain
also, when you have disease, you cut a periphery area where the insects
are in a given tree. I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey], when you were not on the floor I laid out a challenge offering
$1,000 if someone could show us a green tree that had been cut in the
salvage areas that was not infected or was not part of that proposal.
The thought that we have had 50 percent of the timber that has been
cut so far in the salvage areas has been healthy green timber,
unfortunately, has not been the case. The Forest Service is under such
pressure, they are watching this stick by stick. Nothing came out in
the hearings we had across the country. No accusation was made that a
single stem of green timber had been cut in the salvage operation. Much
of that has been confused with the trees that were cut in the 318
program in Oregon, which had nothing to do with the timber salvage.
{time} 1430
So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that this amendment be defeated.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, we hear a lot of talk about logging
without laws. I want to show an example of two sales in my district
that took place as a result of this law. There are a lot of laws. Here
are contracts with the studies that went into these sales.
We are not logging without laws. We are logging before the logs rot.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the vice chairman for
yielding to
[[Page H6663]]
me, and I want to reiterate again that the President wrote the Speaker
on June 29 saying that the changes the Congress had made during the
course of negotiations on this legislation would allow his
administration to, quote, ``carry the program out in a manner that
conforms to our existing environmental laws and standards.''
Another letter signed by the President, August 11:
The House and the Senate were unwilling to abandon the
salvage timber rider, but Congress did accept important
changes that will preserve my administration's ability to
adhere to the standards and guidelines in our current forest
plans.
A letter from Secretary Glickman, dated June 29:
I want to make clear that the Forest Service will not offer
any timber sales under this authority that violate existing
environmental standards or the spirit or intent of any
environmental laws.
And lastly, March 29 of this year, Secretary Glickman announced an
interim rule that provides the Forest Service with the flexibility to
offer substitute timber located outside an original sale area on the
so-called controversial northwest forest green sales.
This legislation has the necessary flexibility. The Furse amendment
is absolutely unnecessary.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank
the gentleman for his comments, and I want to state under this motion
that there have been comments made that there were no hearings on this
salvage timber legislation. There were hearings in the authorizing
committee. While there may not have been other hearings in the
Committee on Appropriations, we debated this extensively in the
subcommittee, we debated it extensively in the committee, we debated it
extensively on the floor, and we debated it extensively in the
conference. This issue has been thoroughly considered.
I would also like to point out this does not affect green timber.
This affects only 3 months; 3 months is the only thing affected here,
from September to October, of the salvage timber. We have made plans
and it is working the way it is supposed to work.
It seems to me to be absolutely the wrong thing to do to try to take
it away at this late stage for those final 3 months.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). Without
objection, the preferential motion is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] has
2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, for the Members, I would advise we plan
to roll this vote and the next three for a total of four votes. We are
doing this to expedite the bill and the time, so we can get finished in
a timely manner. So there will not be any more votes until we have had
three more amendments in addition to this one.
Quickly, I want to emphasize that the language in the bill says:
The scope and content of the documentation and information
prepared, considered and relied on under this paragraph is at
the sole discretion of the Secretary concerned.
This was a compromise when this legislation was passed to give the
Secretary sole discretion to determine what sales would move ahead
under the salvage provisions. I think that is a great safeguard that
should allay fears that some have and that precipitate this amendment.
Second, here is a 2 by 4 that was sent to me. In 1989, this 2 by 4,
per foot, cost 22 cents; 1995, 38 cents. Today, it is probably 45
cents. Now, what does that mean? That means that young people that want
to build a home are paying double, almost double for a 2 by 4. It
drives up the cost of housing and housing is vital to Americans. That
is why it is important that we salvage this timber.
Let me lastly say, I went out, I took a trip and went into a forest
in the district of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], and
actually went up and looked at salvage operations, and they were
working exactly as we anticipated in the legislation. They had devices
to stake out the dead trees, which I was advised were worth about
$1,000 to the taxpayers because that is the sale price of a Douglas
fir, and that means that that will help to hold down the prices of
these 2 by 4's, although this is pine, for the homebuyers and,
particularly, young people that want to get into a new home.
So I urge Members to defeat this amendment. I think that it flies in
the face of what we have tried to do to help people and to salvage
something of great value to the American public.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, as we speak, gigantic environmentally
devastating salvage timber sales are planned or are now taking place in
virtually every national forest in the country from Virginia to
California, New Hampshire to New Mexico, Alabama to Alaska.
This is not only a Pacific Northwest issue. In fact, 90 percent of
the logging through the salvage rider is occurring outside the
Northwest.
Mr. Chairman, we are faced with one of the biggest environmental
disasters in decades. Under the salvage program, loggers have cut down
healthy green trees in old growth forests. To make matters worse,
illegal timber theft has compounded this problem.
A March 1996, Los Angeles Times investigation exposed rampant timber
theft throughout the salvage logging program.
We must stop this lawless logging now and save our national forests.
Support the Porter amendment. We must stop this environmental
catastrophe.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Furse amendment
to prohibit the Forest Service from spending any fiscal year 1997 funds
on the implementation of the timber salvage rider. If passed,
Representative Furse's amendment would not limit the amount of green
tree or salvage logging on our national forests. The Furse amendment
simply would ensure that timber sales in our Nation's forests comply
with the Nation's environmental laws.
As many of you are well aware, the timber salvage rider passed the
House in 1995 under the guise of improving the health of the Nation's
forests by harvesting dead and dying trees. Unfortunately, the rider
was purposely engineered to circumvent existing environmental standards
so as to allow the clearcutting of old-growth trees.
By circumventing existing environmental, health, and safety
standards, the timber salvage rider jeopardizes the critical habitat
areas of endangered wildlife. Other negative impacts resulting from the
environmentally negligent rider include the harming of already ailing
fisheries and the threatening of the water quality of our Nation's
streams and rivers.
The timber salvage rider has economic consequences as well. By
threatening the health of the forests and the fisheries, the rider is
in turn threatening the sports, commercial fishing, and the tourism
industries, all of which are economically important to the Pacific
Northwest.
Since January 1995, this Congress repeatedly has attempted to roll
back the Nation's environmental, health, and safety standards. Passage
of the Furse amendment will help reverse this destructive trend.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Furse amendment to
prohibit the use of funds for the Forest Service Salvage Timber Sale
Program that was enacted in the rescissions bill.
The timber rider has placed a for sale sign in front of our forest
resources.
The rider was an ill-conceived, destructive logging plan that has
caused devastation to healthy timber and, in some cases, entire
forests. The rider was not about selective logging, but logging that
often affects a wide landscape of rivers, fish, and wildlife dependent
on a forest for survival.
Representative Furse is to be commended for her fight against this
controversial, antienvironment rider. She has been steadfast in the
battle and has successfully engaged the attention of over 100 Members
in the House to cosponsor her rider-repeal bill.
The indiscriminate scarring of our Nation's forests, some of them old
growth, in the Northwest cannot be sustained. This is the same short-
term thinking that brought us the clear-cutting solution years ago
where entire mountains of forests were obliterated.
We must approach forest management with a view of sustainability and
longevity. Anything less than this will only result in further
destruction of lands and habitats that, once lost, cannot be restored.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I
[[Page H6664]]
make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon
[Ms. Furse] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
amendment offered by mr. istook
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Istook: At the end of the bill,
insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the
following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to transfer any land
into trust under section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act
(25 U.S.C. 465), or any other Federal statute that does not
explicitly denominate and identify a specific tribe or
specific property, except when it is made known to the
Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such
funds that--
(1) a binding agreement is in place between the tribe that
will have jurisdiction over the land to the taken into trust
and the appropriate State and local officials; and
(2) such agreement provides, for as long as the land is
held in trust, for the collection and payment, by any retail
establishment located on the land to be taken into trust, of
State and local sales and excise taxes, including any special
tax on motor fuel, tobacco, or alcohol, on any retail item
sold to any nonmember of the tribe for which the land is held
in trust, or an agreed upon payment in lieu of such taxes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook]
and a Member opposed, each will control 10 minutes.
Is there a Member who wishes to be recognized in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
would ask unanimous consent that I might yield 5 of the 10 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], and that he may
control that time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook]
will be recognized for 10 minutes, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Kolbe] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will each be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important amendment
that has broad support all across the Nation, especially from
communities that have found just how direly they are being affected. It
is based upon the principle that the Federal Government should not
subsidize tax evasion, and certainly should not help some people to
make megamillions of dollars by offering a way to others to avoid
paying State and local taxes.
Specifically, what is happening, through the Secretary of the
Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and their ability, with no
restrictions, to transfer land to Indian tribes in trust at prime
locations along interstate highways and busy intersections, is
establishing a way that the Indian tribes are enriching themselves
totally at the expense of the State and local governments, which lose
the tax revenue by selling goods to non-Indians, who thereby escape
having to pay their sales tax, their gasoline and diesel taxes, and
their excise taxes, such as cigarette taxes.
Mr. Chairman, especially because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision
last year, the problem is accelerating and soon it will reach beyond
the point of no return. The Supreme Court rules that although State and
local governments have the authority to tax these sales to nontribal
members on the tribal lands, they do not have the authority to enforce
it through the usual method of having the seller, the retailer, collect
and remit to the local tax collector the taxes that were due.
Because they cannot require this, the tribes are able to freely sell
with huge margins between themselves and all competitors. Since the
Bureau of Indian Affairs is giving them the way to relocate to prime
locations, they can thereby drive competors out of business and the
State and local government lose the tax base.
Here is an example, Mr. Chairman. Across this country, on motor fuel
sales, the average tax is 20 cents per gallon. A regular dealer would
have to sell it for about $1.14 a gallon. The tribe can sell it for 94
cents. If people had the chance to go to one station or the other, and
one is 20 cents less a gallon, where would they go?
On cigarettes, for example, the national average tax, or the State
tax, is 32 cents a pack. If people had to pay the State taxes, it is
$1.91; if they did not, it is $1.59. If people are out to buy a few
cartons, where will they go if they have a clear choice?
In addition to that, there is the sales tax gap, on average, about 5
cents a dollar for all purchases. It does not take many sales like this
to add up, and that is what is happening. That is why governors across
the country have been urging their Members to support this amendment.
New York State calculates it is losing about $100 million a year. My
State of Oklahoma, from only 18 tribal gasoline stations, already is
losing $13 million a year, and they have not even begun to put in the
new locations because of the transfer of the trust lands.
The amendment is very simple. It says the Bureau of Indian Affairs
will not make further discretionary grants to tribes unless they show
they have an agreement with the State and local government regarding
the collection and payment of taxes or in-lieu payments for what their
customers owe in those taxes.
Mr. Chairman, I ask adoption of the amendment and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to say I oppose the
Istook amendment for a number of reasons: No hearings on this sweeping
change in Indian policy, and for that matter, it has not been referred
to the Committee on Resources for consideration or review. No tribes
have had the opportunity to comment on this major change in Federal
Indian policy. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this language is
legislating on an appropriations bill.
Once again, we are setting ourselves up for the problems we
experienced last year with legislative-type riders. This may
technically be a limitation, but it certainly has policy implications
to go far beyond what we in the Committee on Appropriations have
considered this year, and that got the bill in trouble last year.
Indian tribes have always been recognized as sovereign nations. The
U.S. Government recognizes Indian tribes as independent nations and has
encouraged self-determination. This legislation is not only a breach of
our trust responsibility to the Indians but a violation of the right of
self-governance.
Indian tribes, under treaties and agreements with the United States,
were guaranteed the right of self-government within their own
territory. This includes the right to regulate and tax or not to tax
commercial activity which takes place on Indian land. At the same time,
the Congress is reducing Federal spending for Indian programs and
encouraging tribes to become more economically self-sufficient. We
should not be enacting legislation that clearly would discourage such
economic development.
The Istook amendment prohibits BIA from transferring any land into
trust for a tribe unless the Secretary of the Interior has been
informed that a binding agreement is in place between the tribe and the
State that the tribe will collect and pay sales and excise taxes on
purchases made by nonreservation members for as long as the land is
held in trust. The language would apply to lands already in trust
status. As independent nations, tribes are exempt from State laws,
including payment of State sales and excise taxes.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this amendment. This is
a major civil rights act and should be done much more carefully.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I would just note briefly that the home State of the gentleman who
just
[[Page H6665]]
spoke, Washington State, has advised us they are already losing $55
million a year in State taxes because of cigarette sales alone on
tribal lands.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Visclosky], the cosponsor of the amendment.
(Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
{time} 1445
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Istook-
Visclosky amendment. The amendment is a bipartisan solution to a
growing national problem which is the inability of our States to
collect sales taxes from individuals who purchase retail items on
Indian trust property. This amendment will protect State revenue by
ending a Federal policy which erodes a number of States tax bases.
Rather than contributing to the current problem by granting new lands
to tribes that refuse to collect State taxes on sales of non-Indians,
our amendment will guarantee that the Federal Government does not take
any action to further erode a tax base in a State.
As this Congress continues to shift additional responsibilities onto
the States, I feel it is imperative that the Federal Government not
actively work to reduce the tax base of individual States.
This amendment will also promote fair competition and a level playing
field, as the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] has also pointed out
in his remarks. Because these taxes comprise such a large percentage of
the product's cost, it is absolutely unfair to ask non-Indian retailers
to compete against an Indian retailer that does not collect the sales
tax.
I also think it is very important to emphasize, as my colleague on
the other side has just done, what we do not do. This amendment does
not impose any State or local tax on Indians. This amendment would not
impact on the sovereignty of Indian tribes. This amendment would not
affect the ability of tribes to operate businesses on any Indian
reservation lands, nor any lands currently held in trust status.
In closing, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this well-defined limitation amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alaska [Mr. Young].
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alaska.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] is recognized for
3 minutes.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
this Istook amendment.
Since I have been chairman of the Committee on Resources, not a
single Member of Congress has introduced a single bill on this subject.
What is more, I cannot remember a single bill that has ever been
introduced on this subject in the years I have served in the body. That
is 24 years.
Since I have been chairman, we have never had a single hearing on
this subject. No witnesses have offered any testimony on this subject.
No Indian tribe has been given the opportunity to testify. No State has
been given the opportunity to testify. In fact, Indian law experts, and
I know a lot of them, have raised constitutional questions about this
amendment, yet none of them had an opportunity to testify. This is not
the way to do legislation.
In short, the Members of this House are being asked to vote on an
extremely important change in Federal policy without any advice from
anybody. The change in Federal policy is just about as big as you can
get. We are talking about granting a taxation jurisdiction over
dependent sovereign nations to the States and even to counties. That is
something this Congress, we argued this a few weeks ago in the adoption
process, this is a congressional responsiblity. We have never done this
in 250 years.
Indian tribes are now and always have been a creation of this Nation,
dependent sovereign nations. May I suggest, our Founding Fathers
recognized these tribes as separate and distinct nations. They entered
into treaties with them pursuant to that recognition and created our
Constitution so as to continue that recognition throughout the life of
our Nation.
States have never specifically been granted taxing jurisdiction over
Indian tribes. For Congress to take this gigantic step would be a
significant and extreme change in the government-to-government
relationship which currently exists, through treaties, in many
instances, between the Federal Government and each federally recognized
Indian tribe.
The surprise enactment of the Istook language, as far as I am
concerned, is a direct violation of this Nation's trust responsibility,
I want to stress that, constitutional responsibility to the Indian
tribes of this Nation.
It is a violation of the right of self-government of these tribes.
Most Indian tribes exist because of treaties entered into between the
United States Government and each tribe. These treaties guarantee the
rights of the tribes of self-government which, according to numerous
judicial decisions rendered over the years, includes the right of each
tribe to regulate and tax or not tax commercial activity on Indian
lands. The Istook language represents a major change in this
longstanding Federal position.
Very frankly, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we ought to uphold our
obligation, our commitment. Let us not have any more broken promises.
No more trail of tears. No more going back on our word. No more use of
the forked tongue.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to join in my
chairman's statement about the nature of this agreement between the
United States and the sovereign nations of the Indian nations of this
country. To understand what this amendment does, this is not about
negotiating with these tribes, as we do under the Indian Gaming Act or
other such. This is to give the States a veto over the operation and
the bringing in of after-acquired lands.
What we now have is the ability to negotiate the terms and
conditions, should the secretary end up deciding to bring those lands
into trust. This completely upsets the balance.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
On this amendment, we are entering the thicket of Indian sovereignty,
a very delicate issue. I have read the treaties. I would ask other
Members of this body to read those treaties. We are in negotiations. We
are trying to work things out. This is in the purview of the Committee
on Resources. I would certainly hope that this floor not act
precipitously today to enter into an intrusion upon that sovereignty.
Let the Committee on Resources study this issue.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman from
Alaska, I would certainly say that the U.S. Supreme Court, in a
decision 1 year and 1 week ago, specified that they do, the States and
communities do have the authority to tax sales on tribal lands to non-
Indians. It is just the enforcement problem. We are not interfering
with tribal sovereignty. Certainly, if the gentleman would like to have
hearings, it takes a few months for this bill to work its way through
and hearings would be welcomed during that time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Upton].
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues that this
amendment is new. It applies only to new lands. What do you tell a
small community that may have an Indian tribe reserve land in their
community and tell those folks, the small business folks and others,
whether they will sell gasoline or cigarettes, that I am sorry, they
are exempt. You are not. That is not right.
What this amendment tries to do is to level the playing field between
legitimate small businesses and businesses that Indians establish and,
by the way, it applies only to the sales of non-Indians. It does not
apply to within the reservation to their own people.
So I would ask my colleagues to support this. It is a step in the
right direction to try and level the playing field for new lands that
are so designated so
[[Page H6666]]
that those businesses, whether they sell cigarettes or gasoline or any
other State and local taxes that they may have to comply with, they are
on an equal footing with their new competitors. That is why I think
that this amendment is a good one. I urge my colleagues to vote
``yes.''
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 \1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Resources
and the ranking member are complaining that this amendment never went
through their committee. The problem is, when it comes to Indian
affairs, we cannot move gambling legislation, which is ruining America
with these Indian reservations. We cannot move adoption legislation
because of it. We cannot move this one.
In my home State of New York alone, we are losing over $100 million
in revenue. Small businessmen are being discriminated against who own
gas stations right next to these Indian reservations. That is wrong,
wrong, wrong. We ought to pass this amendment and deal with it. It will
never get out of committee anyway. So come over here and vote for it,
especially all of you New Yorkers, all 31 of you.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I came to the floor to oppose
this amendment. I always do that when I feel there is a hint of
discrimination or lack of trust, a lack of fairness in an amendment. I
saw it as I came in the door.
I think that we do not want to keep the pattern that America has
established before where we take the rights away from the Indians that
we promised them. I do not care what kind of rights you are taking away
or established, you made treaties with them. Leave it there so there
will not be this mistrust which they have already had of the white man.
Do something right for the Indians.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, this process is unfair.
First of all, this legislation is authorizing legislation, and it is
not going through the committee that authorizes this legislation.
Second, what we are talking about here is a balanced approach between
States rights and respect for the sovereignty of Indian nations. This
legislation disrespects Indian nations with sovereign rights and you
are setting up an unfair system that violates the whole nature of the
U.S. Government with native American nations. So I ask Members to vote
against the Istook amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the committee, I rise in
opposition to this amendment. We have to deal with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the native American problems. Let me read to you from the
law of the United States.
Title to any lands or rights acquired pursuant to this act
shall be taken in the name of the United States in trust for
the Indian tribe or individual Indian for which the land is
acquired, and such lands or rights shall be exempt from State
and local taxation.
The point is, we should deal with this in the authorizing process.
There should be hearings. There have been no hearings. The 557
recognized tribes have had no opportunity to present their case. They
should. I think it is a serious problem. The problem of gaming, the
problem of taxation in these places of business are serious problems
for a lot of States. I would urge the authorizing committee to hold
hearings, let everybody have their say, and then decide what the policy
of the United States should be.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, there is a way to work this out by a compact
between the tribe and the States. That is what should be done.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let us not talk about level playing fields. There is no more
discriminated people in this country than the Indian people have been
and still remain discriminated against.
They talk about, some of the speakers who have spoken before talked
about fair competition. This is fair competition. The Indians are a
sovereign nation. They are entitled to their businesses. They are
entitled to make their livings as they can. They should continue to do
anything they can to make their businesses good.
I urge defeat of this amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I have native Americans in my district.
I say this respectfully to them and the opponents of this amendment: I
really think this is a question of fairness.
We have a 23-cent gas tax in my State. And to allow a native American
gas station to collect gas sales from non-native Americans and not pay
the tax right next to a gas station that is non-native American that
has to collect that tax does not seem fair.
Mr. Dicks mentioned an agreement between the States and the tribes.
That is a good thing. We have that in my State. The Yakimas and the
Colvilles both have agreements with the State of Washington to collect
those taxes and pay them to the State. It is not fair to do otherwise.
I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be
granted an additional minute of debate time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
Mr. DICKS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, what about
this side over here?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, that is what I said.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it looked like the gentleman was going to
add to his over there.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, may I say to
the gentleman from Oklahoma, we are really under a tight timetable. We
have to get this bill done.
I could certainly use an additional minute, but I feel constrained to
object.
{time} 1500
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). Objection is
heard.
The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] has 45 seconds remaining.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the objection consumed probably a minute in and of
itself.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the statute which
the gentleman read before applies to property taxes. We are not
touching property taxes. We are not touching the rights of the tribes
on the lands that they already have. We are only saying,
If you want the U.S. Government to take new land that you
buy and give it this protected status, then you just don't
talk, you make an agreement with the State and local
governments about their rights.
What happens when all these businesses go under?
I have got a letter from a supplier in Oklahoma that has 40 stations.
They have talked with the tribal attorney. They say, ``We can exempt
you from so many taxes you'll make an extra $3 million a year.'' The
business can defend itself that way; but when the tax base is gone,
funds for schools, for education, for public safety, for highways, they
evaporate. It is happening all over the country.
I urge adoption of this simple moratorium amendment to keep the
problem under control.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] has
raised an important issue, and I
[[Page H6667]]
think we have had a good discussion on the floor today.
The Indian tribes, under the treaties and agreements that they have
with the United States, have been given the right of self-government
within their own territory. Each tribe has a somewhat different
arrangement, but in a very significant way the Istook amendment turns
this on its head. Under the guise of tax fairness, the Istook amendment
would give State and local governments the ability to restrict
placement of land in trust status for tribes, but the reality of this
provision is that it precludes any economic development Indian tribes
would want to pursue on these lands unless it is approved by State and
local governments. This flies in the face of every agreement, every
commitment we have made with tribal leaders.
Each of these treaties is a little bit like the enabling acts that
brought our States into the union. They are the basic governing law,
and we should not with this amendment on an appropriation bill make
such a fundamental change to those enabling acts or to those treaties.
Another point that needs to be made is that under the Istook
amendment there is no requirement or assumption that States and local
governments have to negotiate in good faith. In other words, simply
stated, the States have a veto power over the Indian tribes' future.
Subjecting sovereign Indian tribes to the whims of State and local
government officials is not in accord with prevailing Federal Indian
law and policy. It violates the principles of fairness, it violates the
principles of the United States Government.
This amendment stands 200 years of Indian law on its head. It does so
without hearing, without consultation or input from the tribes, without
tax law experts, without understanding the possible ramifications of
this major change to Indian law.
My colleagues, the Istook amendment is an unfortunate attempt to
undermine Indian ability to govern themselves and achieve economic
self-sufficiency. We should defeat this amendment.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I also rise to speak out against this
ill-advised amendment. One of the things that we have to keep in mind
is that not only is this bad law, from a legal perspective, but it is
bad law from a commonsense perspective as well.
First, for all the talk that I have heard this Congress about the
needs and the desperate living conditions of the Indians, we have not
done anything of any real consequence this Congress to help them out.
And, the one tool for economic survival that they do have--casino
gambling--we want to take away from them. But, perhaps even more
incredible is the fact that I have heard time and time again from other
Members that Indians have to start looking for other avenues of
economic growth other than gaming. But what happens when they find one?
What do we do? We try and close that down too. At some point this
simply becomes a matter of fairness. We cannot close off all of their
options.
Second, the point is made that these tax moneys are being taken out
of the State coffers and that eventually the States are going to have
to come to the Federal Government for assistance and that this will
cost the U.S. taxpayers. Well guess what? If we do not help out the
Indian tribes grow financially, whom do you think pays for it? The same
Federal Government. The point is that by cutting off the tribe's
economic avenues, we are not saving any money at all.
Third, this is not an issue that I am not familiar with. This is a
big issue in my State. But let me be clear, this is something that had
been blown out of proportion in terms of revenues lost to the State. My
biggest concern is that we do what we can here to help people help
themselves--Indians included. If it was the case that Indian tribes
were taking the money and spending it on powerboats, trips to the south
of France then we would have cause for alarm. But the Indian tribes are
smarter than that. They spend this money on the same things that the
State spends it on--roads, water, sewer, and schools.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
[Mr. Istook] will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio: In section 319 (relating
to timber), strike the first, second, and third sentences.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Wednesday, June 19, 1996, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] will
be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is on the issue of log exports. Log exports are
the timber industry's best kept secret. While the industry stands
united in its attempt to pass riders to appropriation bills that will
accelerate Federal timber harvests, they have maintained an informal
truce within their ranks on the continued practice of raw log exports
from the Pacific Northwest even though the export of raw logs clearly
hurts the nonexporting lumber and timber manufacturing companies in the
Northwest.
Last year, 1.6 billion board feet of logs were exported from Oregon
and Washington to mills in Japan and the Far East. That is more than
twice the amount of timber sold on Federal forests during this time.
Most of those logs went to supply some of Japan's 16,000 lumber mills,
mills that are protected from competition by a dense fabric of trade
barriers and subsidies.
In 1990 Congress overwhelmingly approved a permanent ban on the
export of unprocessed timber from national forests, BLM and State-owned
lands. I was one of the primary authors of that legislation. An
important part of that law prohibited a law against an exporting
company from purchasing Federal timber for its mills as a replacement
for private timber the company is exporting.
Let me repeat that. The law says a company that exports logs and owns
domestic timber mills cannot purchase Federal timber as a replacement
for private timber it exports. The practice is known as substitution;
it is nothing more than a back-door export of Federal timber.
There is one exception, which is called a sourcing area. The
Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service, was supposed to upgrade
and determine new sourcing areas for the Pacific Northwest with the
changes in the forest economy and the prices bid on logs.
Unfortunately, last year in the appropriation bill and this year in the
appropriation bill is a prohibition on new regulations to implement
changes in the sourcing areas.
Now, I will admit, I will be one of the first to admit, the Forest
Service is not perfect. I think there are some problems with their
proposed regulations, but we have seen no progress since last year, and
I am afraid that this year, if another prohibition is adopted, the
Forest Service will take it as another opportunity to not act and to
further promulgate regulations or improve the regulations that they
have proposed.
So it is my hope, in standing to offer this amendment today, that we
can begin to get some movement downtown, and hopefully they are
listening at the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service, on
reasonable new sourcing regulations to prevent the back-door export of
logs from the Pacific Northwest, where it is prohibited under existing
law.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to engage my colleague from
Oregon. The provision in the bill he seeks to address stems from the
Forest Resource Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990. The
gentleman and I both had extensive involvement in the development and
passage of that legislation, which had bipartisan support in both the
Oregon and Washington delegations.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for
entering into this colloquy.
Would the gentleman agree to work with me and other members of the
Northwest congressional delegation to seek an agreement that will allow
the
[[Page H6668]]
Forest Service to move ahead within the next year on regulations that
fully implement the ban and deal with the issue of sourcing areas in a
reasonable manner?
Mr. DICKS. I would be happy to work with the gentleman and other
members of the Northwest delegation toward that end.
One of the objectives of this provision of the bill is to prompt the
administration to make a serious effort to address the concern of the
exporting segment of the industry.
I would also ask the gentleman to help me to engage the
administration in this discussion and hopefully find a solution that
satisfies congressional intent and the legitimate concerns of the
industry.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I am hopeful
that we will not be back a year from today with the committee
attempting to prevent promulgation of regulation, and at that point I
will have to go forward with a vote and would have to go ahead, if I
succeed, and implement the problematic regulations now pending.
So I am happy to work with the gentleman and try and prod the
administration into action on this.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment of the gentleman from Oregon
[Mr. DeFazio] is withdrawn.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for
1 minute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the only point I wanted to make that I could
not make in the colloquy is that we have had kind of a tradition in the
Pacific Northwest where we prohibit exporting off of our Federal lands
and exporting off of our State lands, and one of the positive aspects
of the amendment that is in this bill is that we have 100 percent ban
on log exports from the State of Washington, and I would remind my good
friend from Oregon that because of that ban companies in Oregon are
able to buy timber sales in Washington State, which I sometimes regret,
but that is the reality of this amendment.
Now, I would also point out that working out this issue is a very
complicated one, but I am committed to trying to work it out. But the
policy has been, let us not export off of public lands and let the
private companies make a decision about exporting off of their private
lands, and we will work out the substitution problem. We have always
been able to work these things out in the past.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gutknecht
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gutknecht: At the end of the bill
before the short title, insert the following new section:
Sec. . Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by 1.9 percent.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Wednesday, June 19, 1996, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht]
will be recognized for 10 minutes and a Member opposed, the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Regula], will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that in the last election cycle the people of
the United States sent a pretty clear message. I think they wanted us
to go to Washington to put the Federal Government on a diet, to balance
their budget and to make the Federal Government live within its means,
and I want to congratulate the Committee on Appropriations and the
chairman of the Interior Subcommittee for all the work they have done
in terms of trying to bring the Federal budget under balance, and I
congratulate them, for example, in this bill, by reducing spending by
$482 million over last year.
Overall I think this is a good bill, but I think we have to refocus
on the big picture, and what we did a few weeks ago when we passed the
budget resolution conference report is we in fact said that we are
going to increase spending by about $4.1 billion over what we had
agreed to spend in last year's budget resolution; $4.1 billion.
What we are offering today is an amendment which will reduce spending
1.9 percent across the board, and I intend to offer this amendment on
all of the appropriation bills from this point forward, not because
they are bad bills, but if we can actually recover that 1.9 percent, we
can get back to the budget targets that we set for ourselves a year
ago.
We cannot, Mr. Chairman and Members, in good conscience increase the
debt load on our children. That has to stop. If we reduce spending just
1.9 percent across the board on the remaining appropriation bills, we
can reclaim that $4.1 billion.
I think through shared sacrifice we can go a long way to create a
better future for our children, and that is what this is all about.
This is not a mean-spirited amendment. It is about keeping our faith
with what we said last year, and, Mr. Chairman and Members, remember
what some of the debate was about, the budget resolution. Some of our
friends on the other side were saying, ``You're increasing spending too
much.''
This is a chance for people on both sides of the aisle to say what we
mean, mean what we say, to actually force the Federal Government to
stay on that glide path toward a balanced budget. When we talk about
putting the Federal Government on a diet, if we compare that to a belt,
we are actually asking the Federal Government, through this 1.9-percent
cut, to tighten its belt less than one notch.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we have already done much better than this amendment
proposes. We have cut the budget 4 percent from last year, and we have
cut the budget 8 percent from the previous year. Just look at it. We
are down $500 million from 1996. In 1996 we were down $1 billion from
1995. That is a total cut on very, very popular programs: parks,
forests, grazing lands, fish and wildlife facilities, Smithsonian,
National Gallery of Art, Kennedy Center, Bureau of Indian Affairs; all
very important programs to people. And we have cut from the 1995
appropriation level $1.5 billion. If every committee did that well, we
would be well on our way to reducing the deficit. And a very important
feature in what we have done is not only have we cut $1.5 billion, but
we have eliminated programs that would cost us money down the road
because we want to put this country on a glidepath to a balanced
budget.
{time} 1515
We eliminated, totally eliminated the Bureau of Mines. We were
spending about $150 million a year on it. We have eliminated a lot of
other popular programs because I recognize, and my colleagues on the
subcommittee recognize that the way to get to the balanced budget is to
do the things that will reduce costs in the future. That is why we went
down $1 billion. Now we are down another half a billion dollars.
The problem with this is it takes a slashing cut across the board. It
means, of course, that for example in the native Americans' case, this
would cut the ability to open Indian health services. These are treaty
obligations that we would provide health services to the native
Americans.
Mr. Chairman, these are coming on line. We have the hospitals built,
and we would not have the money to staff them. That is not good
management. It would eliminate funding in the Bureau of Indian Affairs
for children in the school system; 50,000 Indian children would be cut
off from their opportunities for education.
Mr. Chairman, all I am saying to my colleagues, this sounds good,
and I know that what the gentlemen are trying to do is to replace the
money that was lost in budget conference. As I understand it, they are
going to offer this amendment to every appropriation bill henceforth.
It just happens that we are the first one in which the opportunity has
arisen. But it is a poor one to start on, because we have already done
the
[[Page H6669]]
job. We took the 4 percent this year, we took about 8 percent last
year. We have been trying to do exactly what the gentleman wants us to
do. We have responded to the House budget numbers, not the Senate, but
the House budget numbers.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
While I understand the intent is good, it has a devastating impact on
people, on people programs, such as the native Americans, such as the
ability of people to access the parks.
We have tried to do self-help. In our bill last year, in the bill
this year, we have provided that the agencies, Fish and Wildlife,
Forestry, Parks, that they can levy fees. We have worked toward
partnerships on the HCP's in partnership. It is a partnership of State
and local to deal with endangered species. We are pushing in the
directions you want to go, believe me, as rapidly as we can, but we
have treaty obligations. We have obligations to keep the parks open. We
do not want people going out to Yosemite and have the sign hanging out,
``Sorry, closed.'' So we are trying to do a responsible job.
I hope my colleagues would vote this amendment down, recognizing that
we are making every attempt to address the concerns that the sponsors
of this amendment have. We will continue to do so.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Souder].
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first I want to congratulate the gentleman
from Minnesota for his amendment. I want to reiterate what both he and
the distinguished chairman of the committee said, in that this is not
targeted in particular at the Committee on the Interior. I do not
believe Yosemite will close with a 1.9 percent budget cut, but he has
done one admirable job of trying to manage the reduction in the growth
of the budget. He has done an admirable job in being fair in his
process. I am sorry that we are starting on his bill.
The fact is, however, many of us felt there should not be a bump-up.
We did not come here to increase the deficit in our second year. With a
change of 1.9 percent in the remaining bills, and if we go back and
recoup 1.9 percent in the bills we already passed, in effect we would
not have a bump-up. This amendment is a start toward a meaningful
reduction. Even if we do this is all the remaining, it does not get all
of it back but it moves toward it.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, after the Republican
budget passed, did a lot of whining and talking on the floor about the
deficit going up. I would like to read a few quotes.
The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] in the Congressional
Record said:
Here we are considering a deficit that is going to be
higher than the one we have next year. How can we have a
higher one next year than the one we have this year, and then
stand there and say it passes the straight face test, to
stand around and look at people and say we are really for
balancing the budget? This does not work. The real issue is
not whether or not you are for the amendment, it is whether
or not you can get the deficit under control.
The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] said:
Mr. Speaker, they are more interested in reducing taxes for
the wealthy than they are in reducing the deficit. I may, let
us reduce the deficit before we give any tax cuts for
anybody. That is my position. Let's get a balanced budget
first.
The gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] said:
The Republican budget resolution passed last night actually
increases the deficit. Republican leaders shut down the
government twice just so they could increase the deficit by
$40 billion, leaving real deficit reduction to future
Congresses.
The fact is, here is the amendment. Here is the way to do it. There
would be no bump-up in the deficit; 1.9 percent from here on out, 1.9
percent, less than 2 percent gets rid of what all the talk has been on
this floor in Congress about the bump-up. I say we should do it and not
just talk about it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to tell my
colleagues that many of us have had serious reservations about the cuts
that have already been made. I think if we look at it, it has been
something like $1.5 billion and $2 billion in a $12 billion bill over
the last 2 years. This year the committee has cut by 4 percent. We are
talking about parks, we are talking about wildlife refuges, we are
talking about the Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, we are talking
about some of the most important programs.
I would say to my colleagues, I have a real problem knowing that the
reason we are going to have to make these cuts is to finance a big tax
cut, which nobody in my district wants. I do not think we should have
to cut these sensitive programs further. I do not see any of these
people coming here and saying, let us do something about entitlements.
Why do we want to continue to go after discretionary spending to solve
the entire problem of the deficit?
I am with the gentleman from Missouri, Harold Volkmer, last night
when he got up and said, you know, we would not have to do this if it
was not for the big tax cut. That is what it is. We are going to have
to cut into some of the most sensitive programs, Indian health, in
order to finance a tax cut that nobody in my district wants. They want
us to balance the budget. We are on the course to balancing the budget.
I regret the fact, and I know others will mention defense and other
things of that nature. But we have done zip on entitlements, and we
continue to pound away on discretionary spending.
I wish some of the people who are always up here wanting to do
across-the-board cuts, who do not come to the hearings, do not testify
before the committee, want to take a meat-axe approach, would put a
little of that effort into some of the areas of other Government
spending. I think we have done our job here, as we have done every
single year I have been on this committee. It is not discretionary
spending that is the problem, it is the entitlements and the tax cut.
That is what the gentleman is not focusing on.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] for the purpose of response.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman
that in fact we are $15 billion over our discretionary targets this
year, and in fact it is not the tax cuts that are causing the problems,
but an increase in discretionary spending of $15 billion.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would congratulate our chairman for
the job he has done. I agree that they have done great work. But I
think his point proves the point by his very own testimony. Last year
they cut $1 billion. This year they cut another $500 million. Where did
the $500 million come from? They cut $1 billion last year and they can
cut $500 million more this year? Why not two pennies' worth? Why not 2
cents more?
It is the same thing in every Government agency: There is so much
waste, there is so much to get, that we will find more next year. There
will be more next year. There will be more than this $500 million next
year, because it is there.
The question comes, it is like the guy on TV in Oklahoma says,
``What's the deal?'' The deal is we promised to balance this budget. We
promised to live within our means and quit sacrificing the future of
our children and grandchildren. We have to have the discipline to do
that. The true fact of the matter is, as the gentleman from Wisconsin
stated, we are spending $14 billion more than what we said we were
going to spend a mere 9 months ago. It proves that there is not the
discipline in this House to live up to its obligations in terms of the
budget and in terms of spending.
All we are saying is cut every additional appropriations program a
minimum of $1.9 percent, 2 cents. Everyone knows we have 2 cents worth
of waste in the Federal Government. We can, we should, and most of all,
we owe that obligation to the future generations whose money we are
spending today. It is easy for us to spend it because we are not going
to pay it back. It is not easy for them to spend it and it is not easy
for them to pay it back. They are going to pay it back by not owning a
home, not being able to buy a car, having hyperinflation, and not
achieving the living standard anywhere close to what we have.
[[Page H6670]]
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert].
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment. This
reminds me of the last time I went to donate blood, and they were
really short. I donated a pint, they wanted a pint, and then they
wanted another pint, but I just could not give anymore. It would do
great damage to my health. I think if we did this, it would do great
damage to this bill. We have cut $1.5 billion since 1995.
We are moving in the right direction. But look at what we are
providing funding for. Is there anything more precious to our heritage
than the national parks? I think not. Some great environmental
initiatives in here we are treating in a very responsible way: the
Everglades, dealing with the clean streams program, dealing with
habitat and conservation areas. I think everyone in America who hunts,
who bikes, who fishes, who loves this great land of ours, should be
very supportive of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I think the committee, under very difficult
circumstances, has come up with a good package. We have made some
adjustments on the floor, as I think we should, because the people's
House is working its will. This is good legislation. We have cut. To
cut further is counterproductive.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would say to my friend, the gentleman from New York, we are not
going asking for a pint, we are asking for a few more drops.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, last week we passed a budget that allows
the deficit to go back up again. I heard lots of people talk about why
that is wrong and why we should not be doing that. Here is an
opportunity to fix the problem. We are going to bring an amendment like
this with each one of the remaining appropriation bills. Let us fix the
problem. Here is our chance.
Why is the deficit going back up? Because we spent $15 billion in
discretionary spending that we were not supposed to spend. Let me put
that in English. This Congress, the House of Representatives, literally
controls about one-third of the budget. It is called discretionary
spending. It is in that part of the budget that we have problems right
now. It is in that part of the budget, that is why the deficit went up.
That is why we need to correct it in this manner.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about 1.9 percent. Listen to the
cries we are hearing here on the floor: It is going to hurt this or
that or the next thing. Is there anyone outside the city of Washington,
DC, that honestly believes there is not 1.9 percent of waste in every
Government program? I guarantee Members, standing here today, that
there is more than 1.9 cents out of every dollar in wasteful Government
spending in this bill that could be cut out without hurting the
national parks and without hurting the things that are so near and dear
to this country.
I do not believe that a 1.9-percent cut, and this is not a 19-percent
cut, this is not even a 2-percent cut, a 1.9-percent cut is actually
going to do all of those detrimental things they are talking about. I
do not buy it. We can find 1.9 percent of wasteful spending in this
appropriation bill and in every one of the remaining appropriation
bills. When we do, that is going to put us back on a glide path to a
balanced budget.
Mr. Chairman, we owe it to our children and we owe it to our
grandchildren to do what is right for the future of the country, and
what is right for the future of the country has to be put ahead of our
desire to spend more money here in Washington, DC. That is really what
this is all about. Let us do what is right for the future, what is
right for our children. Let us get ourselves back on a glide path to a
balanced budget.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Yates], the distinguished ranking member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin talked about a
$15 billion excess in discretionary spending. The Defense
appropriations bill is $13 billion over the President's budget. There
is $13 billion of the gentleman's $15 billion, because defense is a
part of discretionary spending. Why did the proponents of this
amendment not offer their amendment to the Defense bill when the bill
was on the floor? They could have achieved a much greater amount of
money than they do with a bill of this kind.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the Defense appropriations bill was voted
on at the time at which we voted on the budget resolution, the joint
conference.
Mr. YATES. I would say to the gentleman, he still could have offered
an amendment.
Mr. COBURN. We certainly would have been happy to, had it come to the
floor beforehand.
Mr. YATES. I would say to the gentleman that that is the fault of his
leadership, it is not anybody else's.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that we did
bring an amendment to the floor that did bring defense spending back to
last year's level.
Mr. YATES. I voted for the gentleman's amendment.
{time} 1530
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know if anybody read this morning's Washington
Post, but there is a great story in there about a doctor who is paid
$117,000 a year to sit in an office and see no patients. He is paid by
the Federal Government, by the Federal taxpayers.
It seems like every day if we study or look enough, we will find in
newspapers, in the national magazines, the media and so forth are
telling these stories about the waste of Federal spending. For people
to come to this floor and say that we cannot find an additional 1.9
percent, well, I doubt if many people in this room really believe that.
I know the people of America do not believe that.
I believe that the chairman has operated in good faith. This is a
good faith amendment. It is about keeping faith with our kids. After we
passed the budget resolution conference report just a few weeks ago,
the Appropriations Committee added $718 million to this bill. We are
simply asking to reduce that expenditure by $230 million. That money
can be found, it must be found, if we are to keep faith with our kids,
if we are to keep faith with our word, if we are to keep faith with the
promise that we made last year.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment. It is supported by the
Citizens for a Sound Economy, and I suspect many other organizations
out there will be studying this vote. I hope Members will keep faith
with what they said last year. Please support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], the vice chairman of the committee, who has done a
great job as a member of our committee.
Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments I have heard about we can
surely find 2 pennies of waste, and reduce this bill by 1.9 percent
across-the-board. I have been there, I have offered these amendments on
the floor before on appropriation bills. But I would point out that
when I offered those amendments, it was in years when we were
increasing appropriations by 3 percent, 5 percent, as much as 7, 8, or
10 percent. We heard about a 1.9-percent cut, that anybody should be
able to do that. But, Mr. Chairman, we have cut this bill by 12 percent
in the last 2 years. Let me repeat that: We've made a 12-percent
reduction.
The last speaker just talked about how there is an individual, a
doctor working for a Federal agency. I read that article, about the
doctor who is getting paid for doing no work. Does anybody think that
by cutting 1.9 percent we are going to solve that problem? No, we have
got to go in and
[[Page H6671]]
change the law, the Federal employment laws. We have got to make it
possible for managers to fire people, to get rid of people that are
deadwood, to do what managers are supposed to do.
That is the basic problem we have got. We have to change a lot of
other laws to get the systemic changes we need. It is not just about
changing or reducing the level of funding. This is not the answer. We
have made cuts. Twelve percent we have reduced this bill, $500 million
this year alone.
Look at how the parks have gone up in the number of visitors. Does
anybody believe that we do not need to provide for those crown jewels
of our national heritage? We do, and we need to have the funds for
that. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I know that this amendment is made in good
faith but, as the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] pointed out, we
have cut not 1.9 percent, we have cut 12 percent.
The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] talked about keeping
faith with our kids. Keeping faith with out kids also means preserving
the heritage of America, the parks, the forests, the public lands, the
cultural treasures downtown, in good shape. That is keeping faith, so
that they can enjoy the Yosemites and the Yellowstones, so that they do
not have to worry about their safety or inadequate facilities.
Keeping faith means managing these facilities well. We have tried to
do that while at the same time saving the taxpayers $1.5 billion. That
is keeping faith with the future. We have done it with a lot of hard
work, and we have not only done it for now but we have done it for the
future, by eliminating programs, by not building facilities that will
cost a lot of money down the road, but we have put extra money in to
fix buildings, to repair roads, to ensure that these kids have a safe
environment when they go to visit these national treasures.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Gutknecht] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
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 No. 27 offered by Mr. Sanders: In the item
relating to ``Bureau of Land Management--payments in lieu of
taxes'', after the first dollar amount, insert the following:
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY--fossil
energy research and development, after the dollar amount,
insert the following: ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN, Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June
19, 1996, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Regula] each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half of my time to the
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], the coauthor of this
amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to control
that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Vermont?
There was no objection.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment that is being introduced by the
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] and myself does two important
things that most Members of this body agree with:
First it deals with the very serious problem of unfunded mandates, of
forcing citizens in close to 2,000 counties in 49 of our States to pay
more in local property taxes than they should be paying because the
Federal Government has fallen very far behind in its payment in lieu of
taxes on federally owned land.
Mr. Chairman, despite an increase that was granted 2 years ago in the
PILT authorization levels, the actual appropriations have been kept
nearly level, resulting in a revenue shortfall to local communities in
real terms. For fiscal year 1996, for example, local governments will
receive only 60 to 70 percent of the payment level which was set in the
authorization. This amendment would begin to address this unfunded
mandate by increasing the payment in lieu of taxes program by $10
million. Currently the PILT Program provides $113 million. If this
amendment passes, we bring the total up to $123 million. The formula by
which payments in lieu of taxes are made is a complicated one and each
property is treated differently. But, on average, if this amendment is
passed, there would be a 9-percent increase in PILT funding for our
States and communities.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal of discussion recently about
devolution and our concerns for local communities and local government.
I know something about that as the mayor of the city of Burlington, VT
for 8 years. In Vermont, many of our communities are hard pressed to
pay escalating property taxes. Fifty-one communities in Vermont, close
to 2,000 nationally, would benefit by an increase in PILT payments. It
is high time that the Federal Government accepted its responsibility to
do right by local communities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan Sanders-Chenoweth
amendment that would not only help restore the payment in lieu of taxes
concept to the authorized levels but would also contribute to deficit
reduction. This amount would cut $25 million of unnecessary dollars
from R&D of fossil fuels, add $10 million to the underfunded PILT
Program, and then set aside $15 million for deficit reduction.
Mr. Chairman, the concept and need for PILT is very simple. Rural
communities in this country that are heavily made up of Federal lands
do not have the benefit of collecting property taxes from private
lands. The Federal Government just simply does not pay taxes to
counties or local units of government. PILT was established to help
fill this gap of the missing revenues in order to keep the counties'
ability to supply the necessary and essential services, such as
hospitals and roads and bridges and schools and emergency medical
treatment and so forth, all of these functions that are vital to our
communities, and which are demanded by the citizens of those
communities.
Just to emphasize how very important PILT is to districts in the
West, let me remind my colleagues of the extraordinarily heavy
concentration of Federal lands in the West. For instance, in Idaho, my
State, the Federal Government manages and controls 70 percent of the
land. This 70 percent of land is therefore removed from the property
tax base. That means that the States and counties are unable to collect
taxes from this land. Yet our county commissioners are facing a greater
demand to provide necessary services. Over the years these counties
have come to rely on PILT and now PILT has been cut, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let me point out to my colleagues that we have funded
PILT at the same level as last year. We did not cut it. It is $135.5
million. We are $12 million over the President's request for PILT. I
think we have been as generous as we could given the balances that we
have to achieve to get the deficit reductions.
I know this is put in to attract a certain amount of votes, but keep
in mind that we are at last year's level which is $12 million over the
President's request.
The energy account is $58 million below the President's request. I
have spoken to this several times today and yesterday that fossil
energy has been cut, and it has been cut dramatically in the last 2
years. These are very important programs. We have contractual
[[Page H6672]]
obligations where we have said to private sector companies, ``We will
put up some money, you put up some money to achieve innovative
breakthroughs in technology.''
Energy is vital to the future of this Nation. You cannot farm those
fields if you do not have gasoline that you can buy at a reasonable
price. We saw the impact a few weeks ago when suddenly gasoline, I
noticed out in my area it was $1.39 a gallon, up probably 20 cents.
That is just the forerunner of what could happen. That is why fossil
energy research is so vitally important to this Nation's future.
Let us not throw away the long-term need to develop new and
innovative technology in the use of energy that is nonpolluting, that
will reduce the air emissions, that will give us energy independence. I
have been over this record before, but it is extremely important in
terms of this Nation's future for all the people. We would have to
oppose this amendment strenuously.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] has 3 minutes
remaining, the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] has 3 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has 8 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this payment in lieu of taxes program is
about basic fairness. The Federal Government holds large tracts of land
in public trust for all Americans, land that is taken out of the local
tax base and in return for maintaining this land in the public
interest, we make a modest little payment to those local units of
government. That payment has not increased in 20 years.
Let me just take Cook County in my district that is 94 percent in
public land ownership and off that 6 percent of the remaining land of
900,000 acres, that county has to provide for roads, for search and
rescue, for emergency medical care, for surface water, ground water for
all the people who come and travel through the area.
St. Louis County has 3,000 miles of county roads. This is a county
about the size of the State of Massachusetts. It has to provide
emergency medical services, rescue the people who travel from other
parts of the United States to see Voyageurs National Park and Superior
National Forest. They have accidents and they have health problems and
the county has to take care of them, but the rest of the country is not
providing an increase in funding.
We have not had an increase in 20 years. We need to have an increase
in the funding for the payment in lieu of taxes program to be fair to
the people of this country.
{time} 1545
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle].
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.
Once again, here we are for the fourth, fifth, maybe sixth time in
which we see amendments which seek to plus up accounts at the expense
of the Fossil Energy Program. While I do not stand here on this
particular amendment or on any of the others, Mr. Chairman, to say that
I oppose the funds which they propose to plus up, once again I am here
to urge Members that this cannot be done at the expense of the Fossil
Energy R&D Program.
We have taken our hits, Mr. Chairman, over a 20-percent cut, in
fossil energy R&D in the last 2 years. Every year we are seeing that
amount go down in real numbers. We just cannot afford to give anymore
from the fossil energy R&D budget. While these programs that are being
proposed in this amendment and others may be worthy programs, to fund
them at the expense of our long-term energy interests, at the expense
of fossil energy R&D, is simply not acceptable.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to
oppose this amendment, as we have all the other amendments which put
fossil energy R&D in jeopardy.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the $25 million that we are using for these purposes,
in other words, deficit reduction and increasing PILT payments to local
communities all over America, comes from the fossil energy research and
development fund. According to the report of the fiscal year 1997
budget resolution, which passed the House, this is the Republican
resolution, let me quote:
The Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars on
research and development since the oil crisis in 1973
triggered this activity. Returns on this investment have not
been cost effective, particularly for applied research and
development which industry has ample incentive to undertake.
Some of this activity is simply corporate welfare for the
oil, gas and utility industries. Much of it duplicates what
industry is already doing. Some has gone to fund technologies
in which the market has no interest.
That is not Bernie Sanders, that is the budget resolution of the
Republican majority. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has much to do with
honoring our commitment to local communities all over America,
including 51 towns in the State of Vermont who are not receiving their
fair share of PILT payments from the Federal Government.
We have heard a lot of talk in recent years about devolution, about
giving responsibility back to local communities, about our respect for
local government. If we respect local government, then we should not
cheat them. We should provide the type of payments to which they are
due.
As I mentioned earlier, right now the PILT payments come to about 60
to 70 percent of what has been authorized. We are asking, the
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] and I are asking for $25
million. Of that, $15 million goes straight to deficit reduction, 10
million goes back to the local communities
Mr. Chairman, I would end simply by saying this. If all of the
Members who agree with the philosophy of the gentlewoman from Idaho
[Mrs. Chenoweth] would support it, all those who agree with my
philosophy would support it, and all of those in-between would support
it, we would end up with 435 votes and we would be very happy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in strong support of her and the gentleman from
Vermont's amendment.
This is a serious problem all across the country. We can see it in
New England, we can see it in the far west, we can see it in Minnesota.
It is also a problem in the south. In my congressional district, one-
third of all the land in the district is owned by the Federal
Government. Some of the counties in my district, more than 50 percent
of all the land in those counties is owned by the Federal Government.
The Federal Government pays zero to those local counties in the form
of taxes to help support all of the infrastructure that is needed to
support the use of that land. The employees who work for the Forest
Service, the National Park Service, other Federal Government facilities
utilize the local school system, utilize the roads. The visitors do the
same thing and yet they do not get anything.
Over the past few years, we have worked very hard to increase the
authorized level of support for the Payment In Lieu of Taxes Program.
The bill in 1994 amended it to address the revenue shortfall and
increase the previous authorization, which right now is 75 cents to 93
cents per acre in 1995, $1.11 in 1996, and $1.29 in 1997.
But the Committee on Appropriations has not increased those payments
in accordance with what the authorizing committee has and what this
entire Congress has approved, and I would urge this Congress to adopt
this amendment and provide the additional support that these
communities need.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has 6
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has the right to close.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member of the Committee on Science.
[[Page H6673]]
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
I think some of you may be asking why I am standing up here so
frequently to defend a budget, an appropriation bill which cuts rather
severely into some of my favorite programs, and I think all of you know
my concern about research and development programs. The outlook for
national research and development over the next 6 years, until 2002, is
for a 25-percent cut. In my view, this will be catastrophic for the
future of America.
It is going to deprive us of the investments necessary for economic
success and world competitiveness. This bill is making a small effort
to prevent the faster erosion of this capability, and I commend the
chairman for what he is doing to protect some of the key areas of
research and development.
Now, some of the areas that the gentleman is protecting are under
attack from others who attack them not because they are not good
research but because they do not like the fact that it is a partnership
arrangement between a mature industry and the Federal Government. I
have spoken on this before and pointed out how important it is that we
have these partnerships, because there is no incentive for these
companies to invest when they are making a profit and their business is
good and they really do not need it. But by having the Government pay
part of the cost, you leverage that and you encourage them to make the
additional investment that they would not make.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, on this committee, we have been building
those programs not only for years but for decades, and to take money
that they want to take out of these funds would be catastrophic. I
agree with the gentleman.
Mr. BROWN of California. Reclaiming my time, my problem here is to
try and avoid having Members who have a worthy cause and, frankly, the
payment in lieu of taxes is a worthy cause, continually pick away at
these programs which are already on a downward trend, that is going to
be disastrous for the Nation.
I believe in payments in lieu of taxes. I support them. They benefit
my county. But I cannot sit idly by, as you look at the various
programs and you see this deep pocket or that deep pocket, which almost
invariably ends up being a research program, and you do not understand
what is happening to our national research investments over the next 5
years. We are headed in a disastrous direction, and I want to try and
stop it, if I can.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman for the efforts that he is
making to assist in this.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Oregon, my good friend, Mr. Cooley.
(Mr. COOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have 20 counties in the district I
represent. Over 60 percent of the land in those counties is owned by
the Federal Government. Needless to say, these counties which are
trying to make heads or tails out of their declining budgets are
struggling to survive. Unlike other counties, they have no way of
raising revenue through property taxes. They rely on payments in lieu
of taxes to make ends meet. Unfortunately, for the second year in a
row, they have seen these payments frozen by the Federal Government.
In addition, these counties rely on revenues raised by Federal timber
salvage to supplement their budgets. But these lands have been locked
up by obstructionists and the environmental communities. These groups
claim to speak for the conservationists, but they would rather see
millions of acres of forestland burn due to poor forest health and not
implementing sound forest management practices.
If the Federal Government is gong to insist there be no timber
harvests on Federal lands, they must do one of two things: One,
increase PILT payments; or two, turn these lands back over to the
States for their management.
Mr. Chairman, our counties are having tough choices to make about
vital services. It is time for the Federal Government to recognize its
responsibility and grant a much needed increase in the PILT payments. I
urge tremendous support of this bill.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me say it was the Subcommittee on the Interior that
created PILT. If Mr. Yates recalls, the gentleman from Colorado, Frank
Evans, was on the subcommittee, offered the language. We did a little
authorizing in those days. On our appropriation bill, we created PILT.
It is a good program. There is not any question about that, and both
Mr. Yates and I support it.
We have continued to fund it on an increased basis year after year
and we kept it whole this year, even though the President recommended a
$12 million cut. But we likewise, as Mr. Yates pointed out, have been
concerned about the energy security of this Nation. Admittedly, there
has been money wasted. That is one of the reasons we are downsizing 10
percent a year. In terms of our committee, one of the areas we have
taken the biggest hits, is on fossil energy. But by the same token, as
we were reminded a few weeks ago, the energy security of this Nation at
best is fragile.
It is fragile because we depend on offshore resources. It means, of
course, that our military could be at risk if we do not have access to
adequate energy. But more importantly than that is our jobs in this
country are tied, every facet of our life is heavily energy dependent,
perhaps more than any other nation in the world. We have to find out
ways to burn energy and use energy in a more efficient way. We have to
find ways to use energy that is nonpolluting.
We are dedicated to clean air, to clean water, to enhance our
environment, to do that and still use the energy we need to provide the
jobs, to provide economic growth, which is vital to a nation. If you
read the literature, without exception economists say the most
important thing we can do in the United States to address the deficit
problem, to address the problems of unemployment is to have economic
growth. Well, what does economic growth mean? It means using more
electricity. It means using more natural gas, more coal, more
petroleum, and yet at the same time, we want to protect our
environment.
We have made great strides. To say that the millions of dollars was
wasted is erroneous. The air today is cleaner. The water is cleaner. We
have automobiles that get 30 miles to the gallon that a few short years
ago were getting 20 or less. So we have made great strides as a result
of the money we have invested in technology coming out of this
subcommittee, and we have tried to very carefully reduce those
expenditures.
Mr. Chairman, I think our funding for fossil energy resources is at a
minimum if we care about achieving economic growth, while at the same
time protecting our environment. We have had a number of efforts made
to reduce our fossil energy. It has become somewhat of an easy target.
Let me say, Members, that PILT payments in the future depend on a
strong economy to provide the taxes to do so, and all of the other
things that we cherish depend on economic growth and the clean
environment we want.
So let us not destroy what we have achieved. Many companies have
invested a lot of money, along with the Government. We are close to
breakthroughs. We have tried to be very careful in keeping alive these
programs that we have contractual commitments, and I urge a vote
against this amendment.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the amendment of
Representative Sanders which would increase the payment in lieu of
taxes [PILT] for local governments. Unfortunately, this amendment is
structured to provide a $10 million increase to PILT and $15 million
return to the Treasury--all funded out of a reduction in fossil energy
research and development.
Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly that the $114 million PILT
appropriation provided in this bill does not adequately address the
needs of our counties. PILT is vitally important
[[Page H6674]]
to help fund schools, roads, and firefighters in counties with large
tracts of Federal lands. In fiscal year 1995, North Dakota received
$822,952 for its PILT payments. This amendment would likely increase
that amount by about $80,000.
However, the minimal increase in PILT does not come close to
offsetting the economic impact of the lignite industry in our State.
Federal support for fossil energy research is critical to the economy
of North Dakota. The funding this amendment targets--fossil fuel
research and development--leads to more efficient use of fossil fuels
and benefits all of North Dakota's economy.
What's more this funding is pivotal in finding solutions to
environmental problems arising out of the use of these fuels. The
Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks, ND, provides
practical solutions to these critical barrier issues. Some of the
innovative projects underway at EERC include the control of air toxins,
cleanup of mercury-contaminated gas industry sites, cleanup of
hydrocarbon contaminated soil and water, emissions control technologies
for nearly everything that enters the atmosphere, development of cost-
effective analytical techniques for waste site cleanup, and the
development of cost-effective small electric generating units for
Native villages in Alaska.
The United States, and North Dakota, have an abundance of fossil
fuels and will continue to utilize these fuels for our energy needs.
The question facing Congress is whether we make the necessary
investments to improve our use of these critical fuels.
I firmly believe it is incumbent upon this Congress to provide
adequate funding for local governments who are adversely affected by
the presence of Federal land. Unfortunately, this amendment's funding
offset left me no choice but to oppose it.
{time} 1600
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]
will be postponed.
amendment offered by mr. stupak
Mr. STUPAK. 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. Stupak: At the end of the bill
(proceeding the short title) add the following new section:
Sec. . None of the amounts made available by this Act may
be used for design, planning, implementation, engineering,
construction, or any other activity in connection with a
scenic shoreline drive in Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] will be recognized for 5 minutes,
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will be recognized for 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, No. 32, as printed
in the Record. This amendment is a win-win situation which saves the
Government and taxpayers $13 million while also saving precious
environmental resources. Since we have been debating this bill for
quite a while, and this is hopefully a noncontroversial amendment, and
I believe it is, I will be brief.
When the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore was created in 1966,
Congress adopted a provision requiring the National Park Service to
build a new road through the park along the lake. Such a road would
destroy hundreds of beautiful acres of forest, fauna, and precious
fragile ecosystem while costing taxpayers an estimated $13 million.
Since 1966, park visitors have been using Alger County Road H-58,
which runs through the eastern side of the park and skirts around to
the south and west of the park.
I have introduced this legislation and this amendment, if you will,
to delete the mandate for the Park Service to build a new road through
the park. Instead, I would ask that the Park Service be allowed up
upgrade the existing county road, H-58, which runs through part of the
park and currently provides adequate access for all park visitors.
This proposal has the support of both local officials and the
National Parks and Conservation Association. However, until we can
secure passage of this legislation, it is important to prevent the Park
Service from moving forward with plans to build a totally unnecessary
road at a cost of $13 million and also harm our environment.
Mr. Chairman, I am joined by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers]
who has helped me on this legislation. I regret he is not on the floor
at this time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to advise the gentleman we are
always happy to save $13 million, and we are prepared to accept this
amendment and congratulate the gentleman for his statesmanship.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, our side, too, will be happy to accept the
amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the both the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Regula] for their acceptance and for helping us out.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Ohio in a
colloquy about this.
I want to thank my friend fro Ohio, the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Interior, for accepting this amendment. Due to the rules of the
House, I could not offer this amendment on another part of the proposal
that I have, and that proposal would allow the Park Service to expend
funds to upgrade the existing road, H-58, which I spoke of. I am
currently working with the Committee on Resources to provide for that
authority. I would hope, and would ask, the gentleman from Ohio would
be willing to work with me in providing funding for this much-needed
upgrade of H-58.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, while I have the floor, I want to advise my
colleagues that we are very close to votes on the four amendments that
have been rolled over. When those are completed, we are moving toward
final passage. So thanks to a lot of cooperation today, we are getting
along in pretty good shape.
Now, for the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], I would be glad to
work with the gentleman on this proposal.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Ohio.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. olver
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Olver: On page 59, line 24, after
the dollar amount insert: ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June
19, 1996, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver] will be
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will
be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] who, as the previous speaker said, he is probably
on the way at the very moment. I hope is on the way.
In any case, the amendment that we are offering would add $4 million
to the Energy Conservation Program in this bill. These funds are to be
used in the codes and standards section within the energy conservation
component of the bill, and at least $3 million of those dollars are
intended to be used in what I think and what I think very many of
[[Page H6675]]
us believe is a very important effort to update the State codes, to
assist the States in the updating of the energy codes among the 50
States.
These funds are intended to continue implementing the cooperative
cofunded incentive grant program of technical assistance that actively
assists the States in the process of updating and implementing their
residential and commercial codes.
I would point out to the body that none of the programs related to
this update of State codes via the cooperative cofunded incentive
grants falls under what has been expressed strongly by the committee in
the committee report, the concerns of the committee related to the
creation of any new standards. There are no new standards in that
component at all.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we recognize that the DOE is working diligently to
revamp its codes and standards programs. I know both the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers]
have worked on this. This is a bipartisan amendment. We have no
objections to the modest increases.
I have talked with our colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Parker], who is interested in this subject. He advises me he is
supportive of getting money into the States to establish their
standards, and most of this increase would be to help the States
implement the consensus building program outlined in the committee
report.
For all of those reasons, we are happy to accept this amendment.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, our side believes this is a good amendment,
too, and we are accepting it.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that it has been a pleasure to
work with my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, and to work with the
chairman and the ranking member and the staffs on both sides of the
aisle.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
The amendment was agreed to.
sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order:
Amendment No. 11 offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse];
amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook];
amendment No. 15 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Gutknecht]; and amendment No. 27 offered by the gentleman from Vermont
[Mr. Sanders].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Furse
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] 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 209,
noes 211, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 262]
AYES--209
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TX)
Buyer
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Horn
Hoyer
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--211
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bishop
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Istook
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kim
King
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Salmon
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--14
Emerson
Fields (TX)
Houghton
Hyde
Lincoln
McDade
McIntosh
Parker
Peterson (FL)
Ramstad
Rangel
Roth
Tauzin
Torricelli
{time} 1628
Messrs. FATTAH, WILSON, and PETRI changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
[[Page H6676]]
So the agreement was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote 262, the first amendment, I
inadvertently voted ``yea.'' I meant to vote ``nay.'' I ask that the
Record reflect a ``no'' vote on rollcall vote 262.
amendment offered by mr. istook
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212,
noes 206, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 263]
AYES--212
Abercrombie
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Boucher
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Costello
Cox
Crane
Cremeans
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
Dickey
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ewing
Flanagan
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Greene (UT)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Oxley
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--206
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Barrett (NE)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burton
Callahan
Camp
Castle
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooley
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Davis
de la Garza
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Durbin
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goss
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefner
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Horn
Hoyer
Hunter
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lantos
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Rahall
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Shaw
Skaggs
Skeen
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--16
Bono
Emerson
Fields (TX)
Hansen
Houghton
Hyde
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Porter
Ramstad
Rangel
Roth
Tauzin
Torricelli
Waters
{time} 1635
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Emerson for, with Mr. Rangel against.
Mr. Moorhead and Mr. Hobson changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 263, I was present on the
floor and was engaged in conversation with another Member about my
subcommittee's bill funding the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education and inadvertently neglected to vote.
Had I voted, I would have voted ``aye.''
amendment offered by mr. gutknecht
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Gutknecht] 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 128,
noes 291, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 264]
AYES--128
Allard
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bateman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Boehner
Brewster
Brownback
Bunning
Burton
Camp
Campbell
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Doolittle
Dreier
Edwards
English
Ensign
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Franks (NJ)
Funderburk
Gekas
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Graham
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Hancock
Hastert
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kleczka
Klug
LaHood
Largent
Laughlin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
McInnis
McIntosh
Metcalf
Meyers
Minge
Montgomery
Myrick
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Poshard
Radanovich
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Watts (OK)
Zimmer
NOES--291
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Archer
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
[[Page H6677]]
Bevill
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cremeans
Cummings
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dornan
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefner
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Holden
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Shaw
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--15
Bereuter
Dickey
Emerson
Fields (TX)
Hansen
Houghton
Hyde
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Ramstad
Rangel
Roth
Tauzin
Torricelli
{time} 1642
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Tauzin for, with Mr. Rangel against.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD and Mr. KIM changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. THOMAS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice note.
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 186,
noes 237, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 265]
AYES--186
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bass
Becerra
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Bono
Burton
Camp
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
Dellums
Deutsch
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Ensign
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Lofgren
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Minge
Mink
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Orton
Owens
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Riggs
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Scarborough
Schroeder
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stockman
Stokes
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Towns
Vucanovich
Walker
White
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--237
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Chapman
Clinger
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Combest
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Davis
de la Garza
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fawell
Flanagan
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hastert
Hayes
Heineman
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Klink
Knollenberg
Lantos
Largent
Laughlin
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCrery
McHale
McIntosh
McNulty
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Olver
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Pryce
Quillen
Reed
Regula
Rivers
Roberts
Rogers
Roukema
Sabo
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Stark
Stenholm
Studds
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Emerson
Fields (TX)
Hansen
Houghton
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Ramstad
Roth
Tauzin
Torricelli
[[Page H6678]]
{time} 1651
Ms. SLAUGHTER and Messrs. MOORHEAD, GRAHAM, and FATTAH changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. STOCKMAN, Mr. NUSSLE, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. TOWNS, and Mr.
YOUNG of Alaska changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, smuggling in the border region
of eastern San Diego County has reached epidemic proportions. A large
portion of the border region consists of lands managed by the BLM and
National Forest System.
To stem this tide of smuggling, the Border Patrol needs additional
border fencing and access to roads on these Federal lands.
I know the gentleman is familiar with the committee's report, which
identifies this border region as an area of high priority. It is my
hope that it is the chairman's intention to urge strong measures to
help stem the massive flow of illegal aliens and narcotics plaguing
this area.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the committee is aware of the smuggling
epidemic existing on the Federal lands within this region of eastern
San Diego County. It is certainly our intention that the BLM and
National Forest Service should accommodate Federal law enforcement
agencies by allowing those agencies to construct fences and roads along
our international border with Mexico.
Further, please be aware of the committee's intent to strongly
monitor the BLM and Forest Service toward these ends.
Mr. HUNTER. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for
his support for the building of roads and fences to assist our border
patrol agents in California.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly rise in opposition to
this bill in its final form. I am pleased that the committee increased
funding above the President's request for fossil energy research and
development. It is in the national economic interest to fund this
research to ensure use of these resources is both more efficient and
environmentally friendly.
One project funded in my State, the Energy and Environmental Research
Center in Grand Forks, ND, is a model for providing practical solutions
to critical barrier issues.
I believe many areas of this bill have been improved since the House
considered the bill for fiscal year 1996. However, the cuts in this
bill to the Bureau of Indian Affairs left me with no choice but to
oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I opposed both the House bill and the conference report
of the versions of the fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations. The
deep cuts contained in those bills for Native American programs were
unjustified and were an abandonment of the Federal Government's trust
responsibility to the tribes. The Omnibus Appropriations bill signed
into law in April was an improvement, but it still cut funding for the
operation of Indian programs by 8 percent from 1995 levels. This bill
compounds that hit by cutting funding for these critical programs by
another 3 percent.
Mr. Chairman, representing four reservations in my State, I know
first hand about the unmet needs of these tribes. Funding in fiscal
year 1995 was inadequate to meet the health, education, and training
needs of these individuals. To make deep cuts in these programs will
leave many tribes with no option but to suspend programs, cut services,
and shut their tribal office doors. This is absolutely unacceptable.
I am hopeful that deliberations with the Senate will provide a more
acceptable level of funding to our Nation's first Americans.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to advocate changes to our funding
priorities within the Forest Service [FS]. As the appropriations for FS
programs continue to decline, Congress and the FS need to reevaluate
the uses of our Federal dollars.
Currently the return of revenue to the Treasury plays absolutely no
role in determining where Federal resources are spent. Therefore, many
profitmaking areas do not receive enough money to operate at full
capacity, thus minimizing the total revenue to the Treasury. If
revenue-generating facilities were able to run at full capacity, they
could also help support other Forest Service activities that are
important, but that do not return much revenue to the Federal
Government.
I have personally witnessed the impact of funding cuts on the
operations of facilities in the First Congressional District of
Arkansas. Recently, Blanchard Springs Caverns [BSC] in the Ozark
National Forest was forced to consider proposals to close the facility
2 days a week during its most heavily used times. BSC, which boasts
beautiful stalactite and stalagmite formations, is the jewel of the
forest. This limited schedule proposal would have saved around $40,000,
but would have resulted in a total loss of approximately $120,330 in
revenue to the Treasury. I'm not an economist, but according to these
figures, the Treasury would have lost a total of $80,330 in revenue
from the limited schedule. These figures do not even factor in the
adverse impact on the local community, which is heavily reliant on
tourism dollars. This proposal did not ultimately go forward, but with
the estimated continued decline in BSC's funding, this will be an ever
present problem.
Congress must also refocus on investing in recreational areas.
Estimates from the Forest Service conclude that FS facilities
contribute a total of $134 billion to the gross domestic product. Of
that amount, around $98 billion comes from recreation activities and $7
billion comes from timber sales. However, despite these figures,
funding for recreation continues to decline while funding to
accommodate timber sales is on the rise. Additionally, we must
recognize the ancillary tourism benefits arising from Federal
recreational facilities. Tourism is the second largest industry in this
country, creating 6 million jobs directly and 5 million jobs
indirectly. This results in $380 billion in expenditures and a $22
billion trade surplus. Our Federal lands and facilities are essential
components of this industry.
The recent cuts in the Forest Service [FS] accounts have forced
forest supervisors to reduce public access to many popular facilities.
While funding in this bill slightly increases the funding for the FS's
recreational programs, it still will not cover the backlog of
maintenance that needs to be done.
Mr. Speaker, as the demand for Federal dollars continues to increase
and the availability continues to decline, we must also reevaluate our
current budget priorities. While I am a budget hawk and consistently
seek ways to reduce wasteful Federal spending, I believe that budget
cuts must be fair, particularly to those programs that work. This year,
defense appropriations exceeded the administration's request by $11.1
billion--5 percent--and the fiscal year 1996 level by $3.7 billion. A
relatively small portion of these increases could have been used by the
National Forest Service to fund more trail and facility maintenance,
needed facility construction, and basic operations. People in this
country use our public lands and resources and they deserve adequate
access.
Mr. Speaker, again, I question the wisdom of continually reducing
funding for public facilities that are used, enjoyed and actually
return money to the U.S. Treasury. Congress must recognize the value of
maintaining our public lands.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3662, the Interior
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. I would like to thank
Chairman Regula and Representative Yates for their work, which has been
all the more difficult because of misguided Republican budget
priorities.
I realize that this measure has many serious shortcomings. H.R. 3662
makes excessive cuts in important energy initiatives. In addition, the
bill's allocation for our national parks falls short of meeting the
increasing demand for visitor services, park maintenance, and resource
protection. I am disappointed that the Republican majority created
these problems by insisting on budget plans that fail to recognize the
importance of our parks.
However, this debate has substantially improved this legislation. By
approving the Dicks amendment, the House preserved the integrity of the
Endangered Species Act. By adopting the Sanders amendment, the House
restored needed funds for the low-income home weatherization program,
which conserves energy and provides vital assistance to low-income
Americans.
Furthermore, this measure helps to preserve a vital part of our
Nation's heritage. H.R. 3662 renews the Federal commitment to the
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, the birthplace of
the American industrial revolution. Drawing on the hard work and
ingenuity of the region's people, this affiliated area of the National
Park System is a model partnership between the private and public
sectors that deserves our strong support.
I take pride in the great strides that we are making in the
Blackstone Valley, and I will
[[Page H6679]]
vote to preserve the Federal commitment to these endeavors. I look
forward to working with Chairman Regula, Representative Yates, and our
colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the final version of this
legislation more effectively protects all of our Nation's environmental
resources.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to the Department of
Interior funding bill before the House today. Once again, the
Republican majority has brought a bill to the floor that shortchanges
our nation's Natural resources and attacks the environment.
The priorities of the majority party never cease to amaze me. Just
last week, the House approved a defense appropriation bill that
provides $11 billion more for military spending than even the Pentagon
requested. At the same time, critical nondefense programs such as our
national parks are underfunded.
The Interior bill before us today cuts $285 million from the
President's request for the National Park Service. Years of lean
budgets have forced the park system to defer maintenance and cut staff.
As a result, our parks are increasingly falling into disrepair.
Ironically, resources for the park system continue to decline at a
time when more and more Americans are visiting our national parks. This
year, the number of visits to national parks will rise to 270 million.
One national park superintendent put it this way: ``Visitors [to the
nation's national parks] will notice a major difference in park
operations this year. I the years ahead . . . protecting resources and
providing for visitor use will be increasingly compromised.''
I likewise am concerned that this bill reduces funding for energy
conservation programs $235 million below the administration's request.
Such a reduction is short-sighted given our Nation's dangerous
dependence on foreign sources of energy. These energy conservation
programs not only work to improve our country's energy efficiency; they
also provide a successful means of reducing pollution.
Because of these and other deficiences in the bill, I urge my
colleagues to reject this legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other amendments, under the rule the
Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Goodlatte) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 455, he reported the bill
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Under the rule, the previous
question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the so-called
Kennedy of Massachusetts amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment on
which a separate vote has been demanded.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment: 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)''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 211,
noes 211, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 266]
AYES--211
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
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
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Talent
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walker
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Woolsey
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--211
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fazio
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
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
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Traficant
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--13
Emerson
Fields (TX)
Hansen
Hayes
Houghton
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Ramstad
Roth
Sabo
Tauzin
Torricelli
{time} 1715
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H6680]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
motion to recommit offered by mr. yates
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. YATES. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Yates moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3662, to the
Committee on Appropriations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 176,
nays 241, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 267]
YEAS--176
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--241
Allard
Archer
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--17
Armey
Baker (LA)
Callahan
Emerson
Fields (TX)
Foley
Hansen
Houghton
Lincoln
McCrery
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Ramstad
Roth
Tauzin
Torricelli
Wilson
{time} 1734
Mr. SHAYS and Mr. GORDON changed their votes from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. MINGE changed from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the
passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of the rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242,
nays 174, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 268]
YEAS--242
Allard
Archer
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Condit
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Rahall
Reed
Regula
Rivers
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
[[Page H6681]]
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stenholm
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walsh
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--174
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hancock
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hostettler
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Nadler
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quinn
Rangel
Richardson
Riggs
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Walker
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--18
Armey
Baker (LA)
Callahan
Emerson
Fields (TX)
Hansen
Houghton
Lincoln
McCrery
McDade
Meek
Olver
Peterson (FL)
Ramstad
Roth
Tauzin
Torricelli
Wilson
{time} 1754
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________