[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.

                          ____________________