[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 97 (Thursday, July 10, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5049-H5128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1998

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 181 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 181

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2107) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order 
     against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with 
     section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are 
     waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: 
     beginning with ``: Provided'' on page 46, line 25, through 
     ``part 121'' on page 47, line 6; and page 76, line 10, 
     through line 13. Where points of order are waived against 
     part of a paragraph, points of order against a provision in 
     another part of such paragraph may be made only against such 
     provision and not against the entire paragraph. The 
     amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in 
     the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the 
     amendments printed in the report are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone 
     until a time during further consideration in the Committee of 
     the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and 
     (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic 
     voting on any postponed question that follows another 
     electronic vote without intervening business, provided that 
     the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. During 
     consideration of the bill, points of order against amendments 
     for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.


                 Request to Amend House Resolution 181

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment to House Resolution 181 that I have placed at the 
desk be considered as adopted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
       Page 2, line 14, after ``line 6;'' insert ``beginning with 
     `: Provided' on page 61, line 22 through `Reserve' on page 
     62, line 4;''.

                              {time}  1430

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from New York?
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 181 is an open rule. It provides for 
consideration of H.R. 2107, the Department of Interior and related 
agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. The rule provides an 
open amending process, allowing any Member of this House to offer 
cutting amendments or offsetting amendments, including limitation 
amendments normally allowed under an open rule. No additional 
restrictions are written into this rule. This is the open amendment 
process. It also offers an acceptable compromise for many Members on 
the contentious issue of funding the National Endowment for the Arts.
  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate divided equally between 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The rule also provides necessary waivers to allow the 
bill to be considered on the House floor here today. The rule waives 
section 306 of the Budget Act, which prohibits matters within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget in a measure not reported 
by that committee, against consideration of the bill.
  The Committee on Rules understands this waiver to be technical in 
nature and that it does not constitute a substantive violation of the 
Budget Act. Otherwise we would not be giving the waiver here today.
  The rule also provides certain waivers of points of order against the 
bill itself with certain exceptions as specified in the text of the 
rule. Members have copies on the desks in front of them.
  Specifically, the rule waives clause 2, prohibiting unauthorized and 
legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, and also clause 6, 
prohibiting reappropriations, of House rule XXI against the bill, 
except as noted in this rule.
  The first items in the bill left exposed to points of order for lack 
of authorization or legislating on an appropriations bill are two 
provisions relating to Forest Service credit issued for purchasers of 
timber for the construction of roads, and a limitation on the 
availability of timber purchaser road construction credits to small 
businesses. These provisions were objected to by the chairmen of the 
authorizing committees, the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee 
on Resources.
  The second item in the bill left exposed to a point of order for lack 
of authorization is a $10 million appropriation for necessary expenses 
of the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Mr. Speaker, the exposure of this agency to a point of order in this 
rule bears further explanation. As I mentioned earlier, clause 2 of 
House rule XXI prohibits unauthorized appropriations and legislation on 
an appropriations bill. Those are the rules of the House.
  General appropriations bills are privileged on this House floor. 
However, the Committee on Appropriations in modern practice has sought 
special rules from the Committee on Rules which provide for 
consideration of bills and waive appropriate points of order. Mr. 
Speaker, in the 104th Congress the Republican leadership established a 
protocol relating to waivers of unauthored programs or legislative 
language in general appropriations bills. Under this protocol, the 
Committee on Rules would provide the necessary waivers to enable the 
bill to come to the floor if the authorizing committee chairmen did not 
object to them. If the authorizing chairmen object to the waivers, then 
under the leadership's protocol, the Committee on Rules would leave the 
specific language in question exposed to a point of order on the floor.
  We attempted to do that a few minutes ago, before the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates], the ranking member, objected, because it was 
inadvertently protected for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which if 
we had received the letter in a timely manner from the Commerce 
Department, we would have certainly left that measure exposed, as we 
have others like the NEA.

[[Page H5050]]

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman I would not have 
objected to his amendment had he included as well protection for the 
National Endowment for the Arts.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Again there is absolutely nothing I would not do for the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. The gentleman is the most 
respected member of this body. I think we all agree to that on both 
sides of the aisle. But let me explain why.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
wrote to the Committee on Rules and recommended that the National 
Endowment for the Arts not be allowed to continue without an 
authorization from his committee and, hence, that the $10 million in 
the bill for the NEA be exposed to a point of order. We are again 
honoring the protocol, and we are honoring the request of that 
committee chairman of that very important committee.
  Mr. Speaker, the House has grappled with the issue of funding arts 
programs for many years now, and this year is no exception. The NEA, as 
we know it, is likely to be stricken from the bill by a point of order. 
As a matter of fact, it will be, we are told.
  After that occurrence, the rule provides that it shall be in order to 
consider an amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Ehlers] which represents a different approach to Federal arts funding. 
This amendment contains a block grant art proposal which provides a 
total of $80 million, 40 percent of which is dedicated to state art 
commissions in the individual States and 60 percent to local school 
boards for school-based art activities. In other words, we give 40 
percent of this $80 million to the local school districts in Members' 
congressional districts so that they can develop the art programs as 
they see fit and not as some bureaucrat here in Washington sees fit.
  Mr. Speaker, the House should explore various alternatives to address 
the Federal commitment to the arts. I have long believed that rather 
than take the money from the taxpayers, perhaps we should just pass the 
hat around at the next Academy Awards presentation. The amount that we 
collected at that award might double last year's NEA budget. Certainly 
those people can afford it with their tens of millions of dollars in 
salaries and their earnings.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules believes this compromise of 
exposing NEA to a point of order to respect the committee system while 
allowing a vote on the approach of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Ehlers] to Federal arts assistance is a fair and workable accommodation 
for all parties involved.
  Mr. Speaker, if I might continue to describe the rule, it also makes 
in order two additional amendments, one by the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Weldon] relating to the Canaveral National Seashore and the 
deficit reduction lockbox amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho 
[Mr. Crapo]. These amendments are debatable for 10 and 20 minutes 
respectively, are equally divided between a proponent and an opponent 
and are not subject to further amendment. The rule also waives all 
points of order against the amendments.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule waives clause 2(e) of rule XXI, which 
prohibits nonemergency amendments to be offered to a bill containing an 
emergency designation under the Budget Act against amendments to the 
bill.
  The rule also includes one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions, for the minority.
  Having finished describing this important rule, I might emphasize the 
importance of supporting the lockbox amendment made in order by this 
rule. There are many Members on the other side of the aisle, I think 
they call themselves the Blue Dogs, and they all have asked for this 
amendment to be made in order, along with the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. 
Crapo] and Republicans on this side. This amendment is made in order 
for them.

  The Crapo amendment will make the budget process more user friendly 
for Members who wish to offer spending cut amendments on the floor of 
the House and the Senate. When a spending cut amendment is adopted, 
savings from that amendment will be credited to deficit reduction and 
not left hanging there to be used for other spending purposes.
  This amendment is identical to the bill that was reported by the 
Committee on Rules during the last Congress and passed this House under 
an open rule on September 13, 1995, by a bipartisan vote of 364 to 59. 
We would expect that same vote today; as a matter of fact, an even 
stronger vote since a new Congress has been seated since that time and 
most of those are fiscally conservative Members. Similar lockbox 
language was also adopted by the House on two other occasions attached 
to bills like this, appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, with such vast support for the amendment during the last 
Congress, it follows that it should once again be included with these 
funding bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the 
customary one-half hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to be perfectly clear that the 
rule we are considering today will kill for all times the National 
Endowment for the Arts. My Republican colleagues might say that they 
are creating a smaller substitute program, which is like throwing an 
11-foot rope down a 12-foot well to rescue someone. The fact remains, 
Mr. Speaker, with this rule, they are killing Federal support for the 
arts.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not a congressional district in the entire 
country that has not benefited from the NEA. Even the district of my 
good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] got eight 
National Endowment for the Arts grants in fiscal year 1994, including 
the Crandall Library in Glens Falls, which put on folk and traditional 
art programs; the UNIMA-USA Theater in Hyde Park; arts awareness in 
Lexington, NY, which put on visual arts programs, and the Mettawee 
Theater Company in Salem; and Music for Salem.
  I recognize that in the past, there have been some bad decisions on 
the part of the NEA but their number was small, and today it is zero. 
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, less than four ten-
thousandths of NEA funds have been misdirected. Again, Mr. Speaker, 
less than four ten-thousandths of NEA funds have been misdirected. But 
even since then, Jane Alexander and her NEA staff have taken 
extraordinary steps to ensure that offensive programs are not funded.
  Mr. Speaker, artists supported by the National Endowment for the Arts 
have gone on to win Pulitzer Prizes, National Book Awards, Emmys, and 
Tonys. In fact, the man who wrote the play ``Driving Miss Daisy,'' 
Alfred Uhry, says that his play, and I quote, ``never would have gotten 
out of the garage if not for the support of the National Endowment for 
the Arts.''

                              {time}  1445

  Yet the Republican leadership wants to add this program to the 
increasing pile of popular Federal programs that they have already 
eliminated.
  Now I might add, Mr. Speaker, the National Endowment for the Arts is 
already operating under enormous cuts. Two years ago my Republican 
colleagues cut it by 39 percent. Today the total NEA budget amounts, 
and I wish the Members would listen, the total NEA budget today amounts 
to one one-thousandth of 1 percent, one one-thousandth of 1 percent of 
the entire Federal budget. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is not much.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this debate really is not about money, it is about 
philosophy. It is about ending arts experience for millions of 
Americans, all for the sake of taking a political stand.
  Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Art in all of its forms touches our 
souls in ways that just cannot be measured in political points, and 
despite the huge cuts the arts endowment still manages to bring 
Shakespeare to the inner cities, classical music to the Midwest and 
ballet to the suburbs. It improves children's basic skills, it improves 
their math ability, raises their SAT scores and enriches their lives, 
and the

[[Page H5051]]

Republican leadership has no business taking that away.
  President John Adams once said:
  ``I must study politics and war so that my sons may have the liberty 
to study mathematics and philosophy in order to give their children the 
right to study painting, poetry and music.''
  Mr. Speaker, John Adams was right.
  To my colleagues who by their support of this rule decide that we do 
not need the NEA, let me say that since the National Endowment for the 
Arts was created in 1966 there has been an explosion of community arts 
across the entire country. Thanks to the NEA, Mr. Speaker, we have 
eight times more nonprofit theaters, thanks to the NEA we have seven 
times more dance companies, and thanks to the NEA we have four times 
more orchestras and opera companies. Without the National Endowment for 
the Arts only people in big cities like Boston, Los Angeles, New York, 
and Houston would be able to enjoy the arts, but thanks to the NEA 
people all over the country of all ages now experience the joys of art.
  And these art experiences, Mr. Speaker, do more than just bring 
people joy or educate our children. American culture exports raise 
thousands upon thousands of dollars a year. Every dollar that the 
National Endowment for the Arts provides attracts an average of $12 
from other sources. The nonprofit arts industry represents 6 percent of 
our gross national product. According to the Ohio Hamilton Journal 
News, it is as big an industry as construction.
  Mr. Speaker, the arts are most definitely in our national interest. 
The excuse that this represents a singular unauthorized appropriation 
is not entirely true. There are 13 unauthorized appropriations in this 
bill, all of which got waivers, all except the National Endowment for 
the Arts.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not a State in this country that does not 
benefit from the National Endowment for the Arts. These are wonderful 
programs, and it would be a shame to see them suffer. Anyone who has 
gone to a children's festival, anyone who has experienced a small dance 
troop, anyone who has enjoyed folk art or seen the benefits of art-
based literacy programs should join me in keeping this program alive. 
Although we cannot measure the dollar benefits of art programs, school 
lunches, health care for poor children or home heating assistance, 
there is no reason to eliminate them.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting the National Endowment 
by opposing this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] quoted John Adams. As my colleagues know, over the Fourth of 
July I had the opportunity to respond to the President's Fourth of July 
message, and in my message to the American people I said:
  ``The Founding Fathers designed a government with limited defined 
powers, but that idea has been turned on its head,'' I said, ``because 
instead of the government doing only what the Constitution allows it to 
do, it does whatever the Constitution does not forbid it to do.''
  And let me tell my colleagues something: What our Founding Fathers 
could not even comprehend is the idea of paying more in taxes than they 
do for food and shelter. Do my colleagues know that? They could not 
even begin to comprehend the idea of the American people working 6 
months out of the year just to pay for the cost of government. Our 
Founding Fathers would have rolled over in their graves if they saw 
what has been happening here.
  And, yes, we have over the last 3 years, we have eliminated 270 
programs and bureaus and agencies and bureaucrats to bring this budget 
into balance. That is what this is all about today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dreier], a very valuable Member of this body, a 
member of the Committee on Rules, vice-chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, to expound on that thought a little bit.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls, the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, for yielding this time to me. 
This has obviously been an extraordinarily contentious debate, and I 
have to say first that to see the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] stand here and make his very eloquent arguments on the second 
anniversary of his liver transplant is a very important statement to 
this House, and I appreciate the fact that he has stepped forward.
  But now having said that, I have got to say that I completely 
disagree with virtually everything the gentleman from Massachusetts 
said. The fact is John Adams did envisage the time when we would see 
that third generation from politics and war to mathematics and 
philosophy to music and poetry. He envisaged the idea of young people 
in future generations being able to participate in the arts.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly about that. My father passed away 
this spring, and he had been chairman and president of the opera 
company in Kansas City, MO, and he was very involved, and he and I had 
many arguments about that. My dear friend, the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Yates] and I have discussed this before: My dad wanted me to be a 
strong supporter of the National Endowment for the Arts, but I told him 
that as we looked at establishing priorities it is very important for 
us to realize that there is Government subsidization of the arts 
because we provide a tax deduction for people to make these 
contributions.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] mentioned the fact that 
many of my constituents could in fact participate by contributing to 
the arts. Many large corporations have called for continued support for 
the National Endowment for the Arts. But I think we should do 
everything we can to encourage them to participate through even greater 
philanthropy.
  And I have to say that having supported the Crane amendment myself in 
the past, this compromise is going to allow those local communities to 
enjoy Shakespeare, poetry, other very, very important arts because 40 
percent of this funding will be going to State arts commissions and 60 
percent to local school districts as we look at this compromise. And 
during that period of time, if this can in fact become law, and 
obviously there is a big question about that based on what might happen 
in the other body and down on the other end on Pennsylvania Avenue, but 
if we were to put this package into place, it seems to me that we could 
continue down this road of encouraging more and more people to 
contribute.
  The arts are very, very important, and I am very proud that my family 
has spent many years as supporters of the arts. But it seems to me 
that, as we look at our priorities here, to claim that the sky is going 
to fall if the National Endowment for the Arts is not maintained 
exactly as it is today is a ludicrous argument because they are going 
to continue, the Government will continue to support them through 
providing opportunities for tax deductions to be out there, and I hope 
very much that we can move ahead with this balanced compromise 
approach.
  Support this rule, and let us move ahead with the bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York just said that 
this is about saving taxpayers money. That is not what it is about at 
all.
  Just last week, I would point out, this House voted for enough B-2 
bombers, which the Pentagon did not want, to pay for the National 
Endowment for the Arts for 108 years.
  In my judgment this rule, Mr. Speaker, is a sham and a fraud. It is a 
cynical abuse of power to prevent Members of both parties from voting 
to save the National Endowment for the Arts. That is all it is.
  The rule prevents the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] from 
offering a simple amendment to restore funding for the NEA on the 
grounds that it is not authorized, and then it allows an amendment 
which is 28 pages long which, in essence, is a complete and total 
rewrite of the NEA: No hearings, no public comment and not produced by 
any committee that I know. It is not a legislative product; it is a 
political product. It is a device which was designed by the committee 
simply to allow Congress to assassinate the NEA behind the smokescreen 
of this substitute amendment. It is a procedural

[[Page H5052]]

power play to prevent Members of both parties who went up in the 
Committee on Rules yesterday asking for the simple right to vote to 
continue the NEA as is. And it ought to be turned down because it is a 
smokescreen.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a sham substitute. It provides block grants to 
State agencies, but the agencies who are supposed to receive that money 
have themselves said they do not want this arrangement. They have said:

       State art agencies rely upon Federal leadership in funding 
     and identifying and addressing cultural needs that are truly 
     national. We need a partner agency at the Federal level to 
     play a leadership role in working with our organizations and 
     agencies.

  It also provides a tiny bit of funding to each school district in the 
country, probably about $500 per school. That is an amount so small 
that we have been urged by our Republican friends on the Subcommittee 
on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education to eliminate a 
number of programs because those provide such small grants that they 
are not worth having.
  Let us not kid ourselves. If we want to save the NEA, there is only 
one way to do it. It is not to buy into this phony smokescreen of a 
substitute amendment. It is purely and simply to vote ``no'' on this 
rule, take this back to the Committee on Rules, put the Yates amendment 
in order. That is the least destructive thing to do; it is the most 
fair-minded thing to do. If we were going to have the Ehlers amendment 
before us, at the very least we ought to have the Yates amendment 
before us also so that people can choose between conflicting 
substitutes.
  I urge people not to be taken in by this sham power play. Vote ``no'' 
on the rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula], one of the hard-working members of the Committee on 
Appropriations. He is the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Interior.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will vote for 
the rule. This will allow us to debate a bill of great significance. I 
think sometimes it ought to be called the enhanced quality of life bill 
rather than the Interior bill, because everything that we do in this 
bill literally enhances the quality of life for our people. It is the 
future.
  For example, the greatest single source of recreation in this Nation, 
and it cuts across all spectrums of society, is the national forests, 
the parks, the fish and wildlife refuges, the BLM lands. These 
resources are not only a source of recreation, but also a source of 
education, because many schools take their young people to fish and 
wildlife facilities, to the national forests, as part of an education 
process.

                              {time}  1500

  So that enhances the quality of life for all 260 million Americans. 
Likewise, this bill deals with our energy future.
  Just this past week I talked to a young lady in my family, who is 
14\1/2\. She cannot wait to get her driver's license. She is looking 
forward to getting out into the workaday world sometime and owning an 
automobile. We need to be concerned about energy, because energy means 
jobs, energy means growth in our economy, energy means a quality of 
life that people can get in their automobile and travel at a reasonable 
cost. We are blessed in this Nation with relatively cheap energy.
  We heard a lot about the tax bill in the recent debate. Of course, 
energy is very much a part of that, because the key to a balanced 
budget is growth, growth in the economy. To have growth you have to 
have energy at a modest cost. It is vital. We spent not only lives but 
a lot of money in Desert Storm to protect energy sources. This bill 
supports a lot of research to provide the technologies to assist with 
meeting our goals of an improved environment and a growing economy as 
we look forward to the future into the next century. It truly is a 
bridge to a better quality of life in the century ahead.
  It also deals with other things. One of the subjects that is under 
discussion is the National Endowment for the Arts. Mr. Speaker, I would 
not begin to denigrate the NEA. I think they have done some excellent 
work. We had a symphony group that went out to the schools in my 
district. If Members watched the concert on the Mall on July 4 when 
they ran the tag lines, we noticed there was support by the NEA. I 
think it was a great thing. PBS said it is the most watched program 
they have. I could go on with others.
  But likewise I would point out that perhaps the most graphic piece of 
artwork in this city is at the Holocaust Museum, what is called 
Remember the Children. There are the little plates, ceramics, that have 
incorporated the artwork of children from all across this Nation as to 
what the Holocaust means to them. That was done without an NEA grant. 
Let me mention also, if we take the passageway from here to the Cannon 
Building, we see the artwork from schools across the country. Many of 
us participate in that arts program. There is no NEA grant, they did it 
without an NEA grant.
  What do we do in this bill? We provide that $80 million, that is $100 
million that we have provided over each of the last 2 years minus the 
administrative costs, because we are going to send it back to the 
communities. We are going to send it back to the State arts agencies. 
The arts agencies in my State get a budget from the legislature that 
they increase every year. Why? Because they have had a very successful 
administration. They actually get three times as much from the Ohio 
Arts Agency than they do from here. We want to give them some 
additional help, because they are out there on the ground.
  Last, it provides for sending money back to the schools, back to the 
children, where we really teach arts education, where we really teach 
an appreciation of the cultural heritage of this Nation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis], the minority whip of the Democratic Party.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the 
artists, the writers, the actors, the musicians, the schoolchildren, 
and the thousands upon thousands of people in Georgia and around the 
Nation who benefit from the National Endowment for the Arts. I rise on 
behalf of all of these people to plead with all of my colleagues, 
Democrats and Republicans, to defeat this rule, this rule which 
abolished the National Endowment for the Arts without so much as a 
vote.
  It was President Lyndon Johnson who said:

       Art is a Nation's most precious heritage, for it is in our 
     works of art that we reveal to ourselves and to others the 
     inner vision which guides us as a Nation. And where there is 
     no vision, the people will perish.

  We cannot and we should not and we must not abandon the role of the 
Federal Government in supporting the arts. Bombs, not books; planes, 
but not poems; missiles, but not music: Is this the legacy we will 
leave for our children? I say no, and the American people say no. There 
is a role for our government to play in supporting the arts, and that 
role is through the National Endowment for the Arts.
  This rule abolishes the NEA. It does not even permit a vote. This 
rule is a travesty. It is an insult to our democracy. Mr. Speaker, let 
us defeat this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, the poet Shelley once wrote that the greatest force for 
moral good was imagination. God knows, our children and the people of 
America, but especially our children, need all of the imagination they 
can get to face the challenges of the future. Yet, the rule before us 
today serves to stifle imagination and stifle debate by eliminating the 
National Endowment for the Arts without even the formality of a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the music and the arts are their own excuse for being, 
but they also help our children learn to gain confidence, to reduce 
barriers to communication, and to enrich the lives of the American 
people.
  Despite a 32-year history of the NEA of bringing the arts to 
communities all across America, to almost every congressional district, 
funding over 100,000 grants, and despite the overwhelming support of 
the American people, and

[[Page H5053]]

despite the economic benefits pointed out by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the rule today eliminates the NEA without 
even the formality of a vote.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this uncivil rule and 
uncivilizing rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, at the outset I certainly want to commend the gentleman, 
our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for the fine work 
he has done on this Interior appropriations bill. I regret that his 
subcommittee has been put in this untenable position. I understand that 
the emotions are running very high on both sides of this issue.
  But although the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and I and many 
others of us went before the committee yesterday and asked for 
democracy, that is all we asked for, we sought protection for an up-or-
down vote on this very important issue, and what did we get? We got a 
rule that is rigged for a legislative procedure that deprives the body 
of an up-or-down vote on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I must tell the Members that therefore, I must, 
regretfully, oppose this rule. We should allow a vote on the Yates 
amendment with the waiver. This would give us adequate funding for the 
coming year, and this is very important, Mr. Speaker, not a rule that 
permits an unexamined block grant, so-called block grant, to substitute 
for the authorization process of the authorization committee. I am a 
member of that committee, and we should have a deliberate, proper, 
intelligent procedure in the committee which is consistent with a 
world-class democracy. That is the American way.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule--fully understanding 
that it is difficult to oppose a so-called open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula] for his fine work on this Interior appropriations bill. 
And I regret that his subcommittee has been put in this untenable 
position. However, I nevertheless must rise this afternoon in 
opposition to this rule and in support of the National Endowment for 
the Arts.
  I understand that emotions run high on this very sensitive issue. 
Some people, probably a majority in this House, feel that support for 
the arts is a cause worth fighting for and that the NEA is a worthwhile 
endeavor. I also understand that there are those in this House that 
want to eliminate all Federal support for the arts.
  I disagree with them but recognize their right to their position.
  So Mr. Yates and I, and many of our colleagues, went to the Rules 
Committee yesterday and asked for democracy. We sought protection for a 
simple up-or-down vote on the Yates amendment to restore funding to the 
NEA.
  And what did we get in this rule? A rigged legislative procedure that 
deprives this body of a vote--up or down--on this issue.
  I understand that the NEA has not been authorized in years. I submit 
that is not the fault of the supporters of the NEA. As a member of the 
authorizing committee, I would be happy to vote for a properly 
structured bill that reforms, restructures, and preserves the NEA.
  So we asked for the routine waivers for Mr. Yates' amendment, 
something that is done all the time around here, and incidently, the 
same protections granted to Mr. Ehlers' block grant amendment. We were 
simply asking the Rules Committee to allow the democratic process--
that's democratic with a lower-case ``d''--to work.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if the NEA amendment is offered and defeated, I 
can live with that. Because the process has been allowed to work. The 
principle of majority rule should have been recognized.
  That's the American way.
  But the House should have the right to work its will on this issue 
after a complete and open debate.
  While I am here, allow me to address the Ehlers-Hunter block grant 
approach.
  I applaud these well-intentioned efforts. However, I submit that this 
is not the time and the Interior appropriations bill is not the place 
to undertake a complete overhaul of our arts funding process.
  We simply do not have the time to fully analyze these new proposals. 
Indeed, this is a job for the authorizing committee--the Education and 
Workforce Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, you know my position on the NEA. I have worked for years 
to reform, strengthen, and protect the NEA.
  Since its formation over 30 years ago, the National Endowment of the 
Arts has provided the public side of a very valuable public-private 
partnership to foster the arts. The people in this room represent the 
private side of that partnership.
  Since the NEA's birth, the number of community orchestras has grown 
from 22 to 422. The number of professional dance companies has risen 
from 37 to 300. Community orchestras have jumped from 58 to over 1,000.
  The NEA has provided the critical support which allowed production of 
such American classics as the original ``Driving Miss Daisy,'' ``The 
Great White Hope,'' and a ``Chorus Line.'' The NEA has brought us the 
television programs ``Live from the Lincoln Center'' and ``American 
Playhouse.''
  All told, over 11,000 artists have received fellowships from the 
endowment. They've won dozens upon dozens of Pulitzer Prizes, MacArthur 
Awards, and National Book Club Awards.
  The arts have been found to be an important part of a child's 
development. Exposure to the arts nourishes imagination and creativity. 
It develops collaborative and teamwork skills, in addition to flexible 
thinking and an appreciation for diversity.
  A University of California study has shown that after 6 months of 
piano lessons, preschoolers demonstrated significant improvement in the 
types of reasoning required to excel in math and science.
  It has been the NEA's role to leverage--not replace--the private 
funding that is so necessary to allow this type of growth and 
achievement to occur.
  Aside from the creative benefits of the arts industry to the 
community are the financial benefits to the community. The nonprofit 
arts industry generates $36.8 billion annually in economic activity, 
supports 1.3 million jobs, and produces $790 million in local 
government revenue and $1.2 billion in State revenue.
  So why then is the NEA under fire?
  I think everyone in this room would agree: A balanced budget is a 
laudable goal. The NEA, like every other agency of the Federal 
Government including the Pentagon and NASA, should contribute to that 
effort. However, the reduction should be proportionate and fair and 
even-handed.
  But there has been nothing even-handed and fair about the proposals 
to eliminate the NEA. And that's what I have been fighting for several 
years now to both reform and renew the NEA.
  Funding for the NEA stood at $165 million 2 years ago. This year it 
stands at $99 million. If the NEA's opponents win this round this year, 
funding will be down to the $10 million range for the sole purpose of 
shutting it down.
  So I must oppose this rule. We should allow a vote on the Yates 
amendment--with the waiver. This would give us adequate funding for the 
coming year--thereby giving the authorizing committee the time to 
reform and renew the NEA in a proper, deliberate, and intelligent 
manner that is consistent with a world-class democracy.
  That, my colleagues, is the American way.
  Oppose the rule. Support the arts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Houghton].
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I rarely speak from the well of the House, 
and I even more rarely speak about a procedural issue, but in this case 
I feel I must. This is a bad rule and it should be defeated. If we 
stand for anything, we stand for openness.
  Frankly, that is why I am here, to be able to use this voting card, 
to be able to express my opinion. We are going to be prevented from 
doing that. It is the heart of this Congress, it is the heart of the 
forum, where we express our feelings as Republicans and Democrats. This 
rule suppresses that discussion. If the NEA cannot stand on its own and 
stand the test of debate, it should go down, but let us have a vote on 
it.
  I am a Republican, I am a proud Republican, and we Republicans, when 
we assumed leadership in the House, promised we would not shut off 
debate on critical issues. We preach this. Now let us practice it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to object in the strongest possible 
terms to this rule. The action of the House leadership to deny a vote 
on the floor of the House on whether to retain or to

[[Page H5054]]

abolish the National Endowment for the Arts is unconscionable and is an 
act of cowardice. It is an insult to democracy and a great disservice 
to the American public. The rule specifically targets the NEA for 
extinction. It waives points of order against every other amendment but 
one. Why? Because they are not confident they have the votes to defeat 
the NEA in a fair and open vote.
  The rule is a cynical attempt to prevent the elected representatives 
of the American people from even voting for or against abolishing a 
major Government agency. Instead, the rule permits the Ehlers 
amendment, which is nothing but a snare and a delusion. That amendment 
would abolish the NEA and instead distribute $600, on average, to every 
school district for the arts, $600 to all school districts. To what use 
could they put that?
  What is really at stake is the availability of art to the American 
people across the country. Before the NEA there were 58 orchestras in 
the country. Today there are more than 1,000. Before the NEA there were 
37 professional dance companies. Now there are 300. Before the NEA, 
there were 1 million people who attended the theater each year. Today 
more than 55 million attend.
  Do we want to go back to that era, when art was available only in 
large cities, and only to those who could afford large sums of money? 
That is what is at stake. Vote against this rule. Do not be deluded.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that those artistic surgeon's hands that saved 
the gentleman's liver are the ones that got some training from the NEA.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, because the Committee 
on Rules has failed to allow this House to vote for the continued 
funding of the National Endowment for the Arts. Instead, it gives us 
the Ehlers amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to read that 
amendment, because it first abolishes the National Endowment for the 
Arts. This is a bad idea. Members might ask why, why is it bad for 
America?
  It is bad for the schools, it is bad for our communities, and most of 
all, it is bad for business, so bad that the presidents and CEO's of 
America's largest corporations have written the Speaker asking him to 
sustain the funding for the arts. Companies likes Pepsi-Cola, Dean 
Witter, Procter & Gamble, B.F. Goodrich, Chase Manhattan Bank have 
joined 70 other Fortune 500 companies in requesting the support of the 
NEA. Why? Because the structure of the NEA serves as a clearinghouse 
for giving grant money.
  Most importantly, creativity is America's greatest gift. Preserve 
creativity, preserve the NEA.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Forbes].
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad time for me as a Republican Member of 
this House, because for 40 years when the Republicans were in the 
minority we made it clear that we would not do things this way. We 
would always have the sunshine and daylight allow us to bring an issue 
up on the floor and have an up-or-down vote. That is what should happen 
for the National Endowment for the Arts. This critical program has done 
so much good. It is the Republican Congress, the 104th Congress, that 
clamped down on the atrocities that had come to symbolize unfairly this 
agency.
  We need to move forward. There have been 121 instances in the last 
Congress where we appropriated unauthorized programs, and there is no 
reason why this program and the Yates amendment could not have a vote. 
I would suggest to my colleagues that we need an up-or-down vote on the 
NEA. Absent that, I regret that we are going to have to vote against 
the rule. That is something I truly regret having to do.
  On the so-called compromise, if Members love the Department of 
Education and they love the Department of the Interior, they are going 
to love sending $80 million more through that bureaucracy, which is not 
sensitive to the arts in America.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules abuses the rights 
of Members by not allowing an amendment supported by Republicans and 
Democrats alike to keep the National Endowment for the Arts alive. That 
is undemocratic, and the President will veto it if it comes to him in 
that way.
  I know the value of the arts to my communities in New Jersey, in 
Jersey City, Hoboken, Newark. They have revitalized downtown 
businesses, attracting conferences, conventions, increased tourism, new 
business, boosting the value of commercial and residential real estate.
  They are a powerful, positive economic ripple effect in our 
communities. To eliminate that funding hurts our communities. They are 
important for the education of our children. They move beyond math and 
science to something equally important, imagination and creativity, 
allowing students to interpret their community and the world around 
them. And the arts are a bridge to cross-cultural understanding, 
bringing us together as a nation. The NEA brings the richness of our 
people to the poorest in our communities. So vote no on the rule. Vote 
to save the arts and vote to preserve our rights as Members in this 
House.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  [Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.]
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not about the merits of the NEA. We already know 
that a majority of the House supports the NEA and if we had a vote it 
would pass. It is about the process. It is a continuing pattern in this 
Congress and in the last Congress. In the last Congress we saw when a 
majority of the Congress wanted to keep the Government open, the 
majority would not allow the vote. We saw in this Congress when a 
majority of the Congress wanted to end the debacle with the flood 
disaster in the Midwest, the majority in the Congress would not allow a 
vote.
  We saw in the B-2, and I voted for the B-2, that the majority in this 
Congress tried to strip the amendment and caused us to wait 10 hours to 
consider that bill. We are going to do the same thing today because no 
matter what happens with this rule, the NEA will get funded because 
that is the will of the majority, the real majority of the House and 
not the ruling majority.
  Just this week in Mexico, last Sunday, we saw the ruling party 
allowed free and fair elections and respected the will of the people, 
but the majority party of this House does not respect the majority will 
of the House itself. What a shame that is. Defeat the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  [Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.]
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the 
children. I rise against the attack on the NEA because it is summarily 
unacceptable.
  SOS: The Fourth of July will have to be canceled in Washington, DC, 
for the NEA sponsored last week, the NEA sponsored last week the Fourth 
of July celebration for this Nation. How unfortunate that the Yates 
amendment and other amendments to restore NEA funding in the Committee 
on Rules were not allowed.
  Quality of life issues: Less than 0.6 percent of the Federal budget 
is spent on our children and the arts. Representing most of the arts 
community in Houston, let me say to you that this is a ridiculous 
trampling on the arts, the culture and the history of this Nation. What 
a tragedy that this Nation does not recognize what the real quality of 
life is all about. We are going to win this. We are not going to see 
the clocks turned back. We are going to

[[Page H5055]]

stand up for the children so they know what art is about, they know 
their culture and they know their history. We are going to stand up and 
make sure this rule is defeated.
  I ask my colleagues to join me. Bring up the quality of life and let 
us keep the Fourth of July celebrated in the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker; I speak in order to express my vehement intent to oppose 
this rule for H.R. 2107--the Department of the Interior and related 
agencies appropriations bill of 1968. The related agency that this rule 
seeks to eliminate is the National Endowment for the Arts.
  The current funding level of $10 million appropriated in H.R. 2107 
for the NEA is summarily unacceptable and needed to be changed. My 
amendment restored funding for the NEA to $99.5 million.
  The difference between my amendment and the amendment of my 
colleague, Representative Yates, was that my restoration was offset by 
a reduction in the Forest Service--forest and rangeland research 
appropriation; while his restoration was offset by using the strategic 
petroleum reserve.
  I am outraged that the Rules Committee has decided to stop the 
democratic process by not allowing the Congress to do its job. The 
Rules Committee had decided to use Gestapo maneuvering in not allowing 
the House of Representatives to vote on such an important issue as 
preserving an important part of American culture through the arts.
  How is it that the chairman of the Rules Committee can completely 
stop the democratic process. Why are we all here? The Rules Committee 
was never used to stop the democratic process. Under the dictator type 
leadership of the Republicans, the democratic process is not taking 
place.
  If the House of Representatives to hold its title as the people's 
House, then Democrats and Republicans should work together in openness 
and fairness. But that is simply not the case. The Republican majority 
of the House has the power to decide which legislation will be brought 
to the floor and what will be voted on. However, under the Republican 
dictatorship of the Rules Committee, the full House is completely 
stopped from voting on important legislation of the American people.
  I am outraged at where this debate on funding for the NEA is heading. 
The opponents of funding for the NEA are quick to trot out the 
occasional bad choices made by the NEA. However, it is important to 
highlight and inform the American public of the vast majority of 
activities funded by the NEA.
  In Houston, TX, the Alley Theater is an excellent representation of 
the value of the NEA and the arts in Texas. The Alley Theater is family 
oriented with over 200,000 persons attending productions annually. To 
quote Paul Tetreault, the managing director of the Alley Theater in 
Houston, ``the NEA has given meaning support to the Alley and its 
audiences for many years.'' However, this year, the Alley was denied 
funding for a production as a result of reduced budgets. He states 
that, ``it was a great surprise and disappointment to see that support 
interrupted at a time when the Alley is realizing its greatest artistic 
achievements.'' Mr. Tetreault goes on to say that, ``many other 
deserving theaters, museums, dance and opera companies have been even 
more deeply affected by having their grant requests denied. Their 
losses, like that of the Alley's, will have a collateral effect on the 
quality of life in the communities they serve, to the detriment of arts 
education, commerce, and tourism.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is what this debate is about. The quality of life 
for Americans and their families and children throughout this country. 
This is not about the few bad choices made by the NEA in the past. This 
is about the ability of children and families to view productions of 
plays and musicals; the ability of children and families to experience 
art and art education; the ability of a child to travel across town to 
an outdoor play with his father and mother and share in a meaningful 
family outing where the love of a family can be shared; where a 
community can come together in place; where the quality of life for 
residents in a city can be improved by an arts event that both educates 
and entertains.
  What is the need to summarily eliminate an area of the Federal 
Government that is working. Funding for the NEA represents less than 
six-ten-thousandths--0.0006 percent--of the entire Federal budget. With 
that six-ten-thousandths percent--0.0006 percent, the NEA is still the 
largest single source of funding for the nonprofit arts in the United 
States. This investment of the U.S. Government is an investment in the 
quality of life for families and children. It spawns investment and 
giving to the arts by the American people, private and corporate 
donors. However, increased demands on all sectors of private giving 
have recently presented corporate and individual donors with tough 
choices. How can we expect private donations to the arts to increase, 
when we do not keep our commitment to the NEA. This is the time that 
the Federal Government should be making an investment in the NEA; not 
closing it.
  Who are we really hurting if we do not fund and support the arts. We 
are hurting middle class and poor America. Seven point five--7.5 
percent--of funding for the NEA goes directly to projects in under-
served communities. Through access and outreach related grants, the NEA 
has helped to make the arts accessible to millions of Americans who 
could not otherwise afford them. What does that mean? It means that 
children in poor communities will not have access to plays, musicals, 
stage productions, and arts education that serve to increase the 
quality of life and overall educational value of American children. We 
are hurting the very people that we are sent here to help. We are 
hurting families who are trying to raise their children to respect the 
community. Mr. Speaker, we are hurting America.

  Most grants of the NEA help support community outreach projects, free 
and touring concerns, and educational initiatives that make our major 
institutions accessible to all Americans. How many children will not 
hear the sweet and magnificent sounds of the symphony and orchestra 
because of this bill. How many families that cannot afford to by 
tickets to the symphony will be left out of valuable and quality 
appreciation of the performing arts.
  Cutting funding for the NEA will not only negatively affect cities, 
but it will also negatively affect rural, small town communities. NEA 
grants serve communities in both urban and rural areas. In most small 
towns across the country, traveling tours, exhibits, and concerts are 
the major exposure to the live performing arts that children receive. 
The small town and rural communities cannot afford to support a full 
symphony, orchestra, or museum.
  Funding for the NEA is not a Republicans versus Democrats issue. 
There are even Republicans that support level funding for the NEA. It 
is not a conservative versus liberal issue. Funding for the NEA is a 
cultural issue. Important cultural, educational, and artistic programs 
are funded by the NEA. Business leaders, educators, cities, States, and 
even law enforcement officials support funding for the NEA. After 
schools arts programs keep kids off the streets. We have all heard the 
phrase ``an idle mind is the devil's workshop.'' If we are able to 
reach kids and take them off of the streets via an after school arts 
program, then why don't we. Funding for the NEA exposes inner city 
minority children to Hamlet and the Othello.
  The Cultural Arts Council of Houston/Harris County receives funding 
from the NEA. They have over 115 members that receive funding from 
them. These organizations would be dramatically hurt by the 
destablization of funding due to cuts in the NEA.
  The NEA stimulates local and national economies and helps to create 
jobs. It is estimated that nationally, the NEA generates $37 billion in 
economic activity and returns $3.4 billion in Federal income taxes to 
the U.S. Treasury each year. The estimated impact to the Houston 
community because of funding cuts to the NEA was a negative $1.5 
million across all manners of organizations both great and small. 
Houston's diversity of institutions makes it a great city. We do not 
believe in elitism. Cultural diversity is keen. If funding for the NEA 
is drastically cut, then the negative impact in Houston will be 
devastating, estimating that it will cost the city over $3 million in 
economic gains.
  The Houston Ballet is internationally known. C.C. Conner, the 
managing director of the Houston Ballet expressed that, ``private 
support cannot replace the role of the Government cultural funding.'' 
He states that, ``funding from the NEA has played a significant role in 
Houston Ballet's growth from a small regional company to what is today, 
according to many dance critics, one of the premier dance companies in 
the United States * * * however, one can safely say that Texas' 
citizens and taxpayers are losing jobs and income as a result of NEA 
cutbacks.''
  The NEA makes the arts accessible to all Americans. There is no doubt 
that a people and culture without a preservation of the arts in history 
are doomed. I urge my colleagues to oppose this dictatorial rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss] a very valuable member of the Committee on Rules and 
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Glens 
Falls, NY, for yielding me the time and I rise in support of this 
mainly open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations bill, which is what this is, 
provides important funding to protect our

[[Page H5056]]

natural resources for future generations, including our children. The 
underlying bill is an excellent example of doing more with less.
  We are going to save money by focusing our limited resource in 
priority areas. Even though this bill spends $100 million less than 
last year's appropriation, it still provides important funding 
increases for our national parks, the National Forest System, and the 
National Wilderness Refuges, which many Americans and American children 
use.
  Especially important for my home State of Florida, this is a vehicle 
for the crucial Everglades restoration funds. These funds permit us to 
meet the Federal commitment in our ongoing effort to restore and 
preserve for future generations, especially our children, the unique 
river of grass.
  Another important provision is the extension of the Outer Continental 
Shelf oil and gas exploration moratorium, which protects Florida's 
fragile coastline from oil slicks and pollution. Each year for the last 
13 years Congress has passed this moratorium, and I am pleased that the 
committee has once again seen fit to include this commonsense measure. 
So many people enjoy our beaches and shores, including, of course, all 
Americans, many visitors, and especially our children.
  As always, there are some issues in this bill that remain 
controversial and probably always will be. But the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula] has done an outstanding job balancing the very diverse 
views of this body.
  This rule likewise reflects a genuine workable compromise. I think it 
is a good process. I think the rule is a good rule, and I think it is a 
good bill.
  If the NEA is the only way to culture in America, then we have got a 
problem. This rule provides for us to look at other ways to get public 
money, tax dollars, to the public for the purpose of the arts. Those 
who suggest the sky is falling on the arts if the NEA is cut back or 
curtailed do not understand that there are many ways and many aspects 
to the arts. I believe that the block grant opportunity is one we 
should examine, and will under this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the rule and in 
support of one of America's greatest treasures, the National Endowment 
for the Arts.
  My colleagues, who want to slash the NEA budget, say it is elitist 
and controversial. Some claim that eliminating the NEA will help cut 
the deficit. But their numbers do not add up. The NEA budget represents 
only 0.01 percent of the Federal budget. That translates into 35 cents 
a person, little more than the cost of one postage stamp. In fact the 
NEA actually brings in money. The arts generate $36 billion in revenue 
and pay $3.4 billion in Federal income taxes.
  In New York State, the NEA is a boon to the economy. The arts employ 
approximately 174,000 New Yorkers and attract millions of tourists 
annually, producing an estimated $13 billion in revenue. Without the 
NEA, local theater and educational groups that introduce children to 
the arts will be forced to dim their lights. That would be a serious 
loss to this country.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this rule needs to be defeated 
because if it passes, the National Endowment for the Arts and all the 
great work that it does will be defeated.
  During our hearing on the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee 
on Appropriations, we heard from a young lady by the name of Denyce 
Graves. She grew up just a very few miles from here, right next to the 
Kennedy Center, but the Kennedy Center could have been a world away. 
She never had the money to go to the Kennedy Center.
  But because of an NEA grant, there was a community opera production 
that she went to when she was a teenager. She was inspired by it. She 
went on to devote her career to being an opera singer. She now plays 
Carmen at the Met. That may not seem important to the Members of this 
body, but I know it is important to millions of young families and 
children around the country who would like that similar opportunity and 
will not have that opportunity if it is only the elitist organizations 
that are funded. NEA works on behalf of the real people of America. 
Give their talent an opportunity to express itself. We are all richer 
because of it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Pryce], a very distinguished member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the committee for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of 
this fair rule. This is about the NEA, but it is only a small part of 
this legislation. This appropriations bill is also about preserving our 
Nation's rich heritage, our natural resources like our national forests 
and parks; our human resources, like improving native American 
education and the many museums and cultural centers all around the 
country.
  This bill is about keeping our history and heritage alive for people 
of all ages and all walks of life to see and to enjoy. What we do today 
in this bill will not just preserve our past for the record books, it 
will also enable us to educate our children and grandchildren about who 
we are and where we came from and the events that shaped our Nation's 
history. By caring for these precious resources, we honor the legacy of 
our land and the struggles and the accomplishments of those who came 
before us.
  Mr. Speaker, summer is a time when many of our constituents pack up 
the family and head off to vacation, maybe to the Nation's Capital to 
take advantage of the diverse cultural institutions that Washington has 
to offer. I am pleased to note that the bill provides priority funding 
for the Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery of Art, the John 
F. Kennedy Center and the National Holocaust Museum.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules worked very hard to find a way to 
resolve the controversies surrounding the funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts. This has been a difficult emotional issue for 
Members on both sides of the debate, and many thoughtful arguments have 
been made for why the NEA should or should not continue as it is today. 
I believe this rule offers a very fair approach to debating the 
question of whether the Federal Government should be engaged in 
promoting the arts in America and to what degree.
  This rule permits the House to debate an amendment which will 
transform the current NEA to a block grant program funded at $80 
million, to be administered by the States. This may not be the 
preferred option for those who strongly support the NEA, but in my view 
it is an honest, good faith attempt to resolve this difficult situation 
and to maintain an appropriate Federal commitment to promoting the arts 
and the culture in American society.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing let me say that I deeply appreciate the hard 
work of my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  We all recognize the tight constraints of the Federal budget and the 
contentiousness of many of these issues. He has crafted a bill that 
balances good government choices with a paramount need to restore, 
preserve, and protect our Nation's natural and cultural resources. This 
is a responsible bill. And under this rule we will have a chance for an 
open debate. I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to 
vote for this fair and open rule and to support the Interior 
appropriations bill that it supports.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, we look back over history and we see that 
the great civilizations are not remembered for the wars that they 
fought. They are not remembered for the people that they killed in 
those wars.
  The great civilizations of history are remembered for the arts that 
they provided for their people: music, art, sculpture, and literature. 
But throughout those ages, it was not always easy for those who 
advocated the arts. There were always those in government who wanted to 
prevent the arts from progressing.
  When Rodin developed the great sculpture of the Burghers of Calais,

[[Page H5057]]

they would not pay him for that. Michelangelo was thrown in jail. The 
impressionists were prevented from presenting their art. So all through 
history we had those who have objected to the arts.
  I may be soon visiting Rome. When I go to Rome and I go to La Scala 
or I go to the National Gallery in Naples or I go to the Pitti Palace 
or the Uffizi, allow me to say to those Italians that we, the greatest 
Nation in the world, also preserve and support the arts. Vote no on 
this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of serving on the 
Subcommittee on Interior for 21 years, both under the chairmanship of 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula]. To me this is one of the saddest days that I can 
remember.
  I believe that the National Endowment for the Arts deserves the 
support of the Congress and of the American people. I believe that if 
we go back to 1964 and we see the Endowment created and we look at the 
growth in funding from the private sector, it matches the growth of our 
Federal support for the endowment.

                              {time}  1530

  I believe that over 100,000 grants have been made and less than 50 
have been controversial. When we think of the arts, we think of 
controversy. I think that is an incredible record.
  I urge my colleagues today to support the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates]. Let us defeat this rule. Let us send them back to the Committee 
on Rules and come out here with an amendment that allows us to vote up 
or down on the NEA. This block grant thing is nothing but a fraud, in 
my opinion.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Capps].
  (Mr. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in fierce opposition to the rule. In 
my district in California the National Endowment for the Arts has 
supported such valuable programs as the Children's Creative Project, 
the Santa Barbara Museum of Art, Cal Poly Arts, the Santa Barbara 
Symphony Orchestra, UC Santa Barbara Arts and Lectures, Cuesta College 
Public Events, and the list goes on and on.
  The National Endowment for the Arts also contributes to the economy 
of California. Funding for NEA is only a mere 0.001 percent of our 
Nation's $1.7 trillion dollar Federal budget, but this seed money 
snowballs when private and nonprofit sectors see the government's 
endorsement and then add to it.
  Small amounts of public arts support leverages immense amounts of 
outside funding, which have the net result of creating more jobs, 
greater profits, and more taxes. The work of NEA can be justified 
simply on the basis of what it does to advance the arts, but it also 
contributes to the vitality as well as to the economy of our 
communities. It is a positive, positive national force. Let us defeat 
the rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Crane], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Unfortunately, we only have 1 minute we can allocate to him, but he 
deserves it.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I will try to compress a lot in 1 minute.
  One of the things that struck my mind is there was $10 million 
provided for of continued funding for NEA, and with their 20 percent 
overhead costs, that leaves $8 million for distribution. That $8 
million for distribution I think we can probably raise out of the 
pockets at least of those colleagues here who are such staunch 
supporters of the NEA.
  One of the things that concerns me about it is the maldistribution of 
NEA funds. The majority of those funds go to D.C., New York, and L.A. 
My district is significantly larger than D.C. in population. We got 
$5,000. But Washington, DC, got double what my whole State of Illinois 
got.
  It is a good old boy network. It is time to terminate that and depend 
upon the voluntary contributions totaling $9.5 billion a year out of 
the pockets voluntarily of citizens.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that that good old boy network my friend just referred to is run 
by a woman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley] has 5 minutes remaining and the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maine [Mr. Allen].
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the National 
Endowment for the Arts. Maine is a small State but there the NEA has 
helped us achieve innovative arts programming.
  As a former president of the Portland Stage Co., I have seen 
firsthand how a very small amount of Federal funding helps to support 
local efforts. It spurs the local economy. In Portland, for example, 
over 150,000 people a year visit the Children's Museum, and while there 
they eat in our restaurants, they shop in our stores and they 
revitalize our economy.
  In rural Maine, small amounts of NEA funds help musical, theatrical, 
and other performing groups brighten our communities.
  Leslie Abrams, one of Maine's best comediennes, put it well: ``A 
world without art is gray, lifeless, dull. The musicians, the actors, 
the dancers, the sculptors, the composers, the painters, the 
photographers, the choreographers, the writers and, yes, even the 
comediennes like myself, are there to bring color and joyful noise to 
the world. We help others find what is universal in our experience.''
  Support the NEA. Vote against this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Duke Cunningham], a very valuable Member of this body.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if we want to save the arts and save the 
arts for children, $80 million goes to all States, not the majority to 
New York or my State of California. There was a Republican compromise 
back in 1995. As the chairman of the subcommittee, along with the 
majority leader, we brought moderate Republicans, conservatives, in an 
agreement to save the arts for 3 years. Give them $99 million, let them 
establish their own endowment, their own endowment, and take it off of 
taxpayers.
  Twenty million dollars in administrative fees, the rest of it going 
to New York and California, very little to many of the States, we 
decided to get rid of that. Let us put the money down to the States, 
down to the children, and take it out of the liberal hands of the NEA.
  What this rule does is eliminate the organization, not the arts. If 
we want our rhetoric to go where it is and save the arts, let us put 
the money down there. When we talk about policy, when the Democrats 
were in the majority they eliminated this amendment on an up or down 
vote because they knew it would pass, that the money would get to the 
children, not to the liberal NEA itself.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit troubled by this. I would 
say to my good friend that this rule is absolutely a gag rule.
  Now, we have had some examples in the Committee on Appropriations 
about some of the abuses in the NEA. Certainly we do not like the 
abuses that have occurred in this NEA. But let me remind my colleagues 
of this: There are abuses that occur in all programs. We do not close 
down our military academies simply because we have had scandals. In the 
Naval Academy, all the academies, we have had scandals.
  We have funded on this floor over $20 billion for a B-1 bomber, which 
I supported, that has never flown a mission and took no part in the 
Persian Gulf. It has never flown a mission. We do not stop building 
airplanes.

[[Page H5058]]

  One of the greatest things for my kids, when they were going to 
school in this little country school, was when the local symphony from 
Charlotte or Raleigh or someplace would come and do a skit for them. 
They were absolutely enraptured by it.
  This is a good program. We want to weed out the bad things but, in my 
view, this rule is absolutely a gag rule to keep us from doing what is 
the democratic way in this House. Vote down this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  We have heard a lot about a gag rule on this floor today. Let us be 
perfectly clear. This rule is an open rule. Any Member can stand up 
here and offer any amendment under an open rule that is allowed under 
the rules of this House. That is clear.
  Several years ago I wrote a book, ``Before Its Time,'' which dealt 
with balancing the Federal budget. In that, dealing with the arts, I 
said then the central question is whether or not the Federal Government 
should be subsidizing art and humanities, and went on to say, ``As 
George Will points out, we had the poetry of Walt Whitman and the 
paintings of Grandma Moses''--from my district--``without this kind of 
aid.''
  I went on to say that, ``While it may be true that reducing funding 
would result in fewer of these activities, private funding can and 
should be able to fill the gap. In fact, subsidies account for a mere 
fraction of what the actual amount spent on the arts is. In 1990, 
Americans donated nearly $8 billion to the arts, culture, and the 
humanities. The commitment to the arts goes far beyond the NEA.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], a dear friend, a fellow who has 
done so much for the NEA, and whose amendment should be made in order 
but it is not.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, as we have heard in this debate, the fundamental 
question that is involved is the one that we had with respect to the 
Crane amendment. This is a vote to determine whether or not we kill the 
NEA. This is a vote that will deprive me of the opportunity of offering 
an amendment that will allow the House to determine the question as to 
whether funds should be allowed to keep NEA in operation.
  One point should be made, Mr. Speaker. If this rule is approved, it 
is inevitable that NEA will be stricken from the bill on a point of 
order and nobody will be allowed to offer an amendment with respect to 
NEA.
  One point is indisputable. If this rule goes down, this rule will 
come back with only one change, the opportunity to offer an amendment 
for NEA. That is all that will be required. Therefore, if we are for 
the National Endowment for the Arts, as I know many of my friends on 
the Republican side are, then we must vote against this rule. It is 
that simple.
  More than that, if we think that Members of the House should be 
allowed to vote on this question and not be required to accept it as an 
imprimatur from the Committee on Rules, we should vote against this 
rule.
  The gentleman from California, Mr. David Dreier, my good friend, 
talked about the fact that if NEA is killed, we will have the same kind 
of an arts community throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, nothing is 
further from the truth. NEA brings the arts to every American 
community, not just to the big cities.
  Oh, we will have the big cities with their arts, as they always have. 
We will have Chicago and New York and we will have Houston and Los 
Angeles. All of them will have the same kinds of wonderful arts 
companies that they have had. But the cities, small cities like Jessup, 
IA, or Gilpin, GA, populations of 2,500, will not be able to get the 
benefits of the arts.
  I should read to my colleagues, and I do not know whether I will have 
enough time, but I want to point out there was a witness who appeared 
before our committee from Jessup, IA, who pointed out what a grant to 
that small farm community meant to the people who were there. When they 
heard that they were going to have a quartet come to Jessup, IA, the 
local furniture store supplied the beds, another family would sacrifice 
a TV.
  I would refer my colleagues to page 3 of the hearings for 1994 if 
they want to see what happened to this small community which had this 
grant. It was a wonderful, wonderful experience for which it would be 
deprived in the future if the arts go down. I hope we will vote down 
this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to just say that out of respect for the gentleman from Illinois, we let 
him go a little beyond his time. We hope our colleagues will allow the 
majority leader to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey], our distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
for yielding me this time.
  Let me begin by extending my compliments to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] 
and the other members of what I might dare characterize as the long 
suffering Committee on Rules for completing their work again late last 
night to bring this rule to the floor today.
  I would also like to give my compliments to the chairman of the 
Interior appropriations bill, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], a 
fine gentleman and a decent and honorable man respected by the whole 
body.
  And my particular compliments to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates].

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Yates and I have labored over this issue throughout all the years 
I have been here, and he, even years before I came; and I have found 
him in every instance to be a gentleman, a compassionate, a concerned, 
a sharing and a caring man, stubbornly holding to his point of view, 
but I appreciated him then and I appreciate him now.
  Mr. Speaker, every year, in every summer that I have been in 
Congress, we have dealt with the Interior appropriations bill, and in 
each of these times the debate has been, more than anything else, about 
the National Endowment for the Arts.
  In some respects I think that has been unfortunate because of all the 
good things that are covered in this bill that too often get 
overlooked. The National Endowment for the Arts has always been, in 
this case, bigger than life. It has always been a very small fraction 
of the total spending of the bill, in this case less than $100 million 
in a $14 billion bill.
  The National Endowment for the Arts is small with respect to the 
extent to which the Nation supports the arts, $100 million or less as 
over and against the $10 billion that the American people put out. It 
is certainly small relative to the people's business, which is a $1.6 
trillion budget that will be brought into balance as we complete all of 
this year's work.
  What makes it so big? What makes it so big? It is made big by the 
concerted, well-funded, well-motivated efforts of the art elite in 
America, who want the focus to be not on whether or not there will be 
funding over the arts, but whether or not they will be in control of 
the funding of the arts.
  This rule, I said, makes in order the Interior appropriations bill, 
which has within it $10 million for support of the arts from the 
Federal Government; $10 million not protected by an exception to the 
rules of the House. The rule also makes in order an amendment that 
would give $80 million to support for the arts if passed.
  So what we find here is people who mobilize their efforts to protect 
their control over $10 million as opposed to having local control over 
$80 million. My colleagues do not think this is about control? My 
colleagues do not think this is about power? My colleagues do not want 
to confess it is about an elite that says let us keep the money in our 
arts community centers across the country and within our control so we 
can decide what is art and what is not art?
  That is precisely what it is about. Should we, in fact, have the good 
people of Iowa decide for themselves at the local level what they would 
support, or should they send off an application to a

[[Page H5059]]

board of art censors in the East who know better what is or is not art 
suitable for the people in Iowa? Should we have the local control? 
Should we have a fair disbursement of the money so everybody in this 
Nation on a per capita basis gets a fair share of the art? Or should we 
have it sent to the arts centers like Soho in New York City?
  Should we make it more possible for more children to have more 
Crayolas in their hands by virtue of local control where they can do 
art, or should we have already privileged artists and privileged troops 
and privileged organizations in our major cities have additional money 
that supports the already rich budgets they have?
  This is not about whether or not there is Federal funding for the 
arts supported by the Congress. This is about whether or not the 
Congress will let that funding be controlled and disbursed by an elite 
group or whether it will be controlled and disbursed by the local 
community.
  If my colleagues want more funding for the arts than what is in the 
bill, if they want fair distribution of the funding for the arts that 
is in the bill, if they want local communities to determine for 
themselves what is or is not art that they would like to see in their 
communities from this bill, vote ``yes'' for this rule and make this in 
order.
  If, on the other hand, they want to perpetuate a system of art 
censorship held in the hands of a group of elite activists sponsored by 
the Federal Government of the United States for the express purpose of 
deciding this is or this is not art, then vote for control, vote 
against freedom, vote against fairness, vote for the status quo, and 
they can have that.
  If my colleagues truly, in their heart, can reach down and say it is 
fair to continue the National Endowment for the Arts, which has been 
the single most visible and deplorable black eye on the arts in America 
that I have seen in my lifetime, as opposed to what real people and 
their real communities did to celebrate the arts, music, classics in 
their own communities for 200 years before there was a National 
Endowment for the Arts, I say vote for this rule, vote for freedom, 
vote for the children, vote for the parents, and vote against elite 
control of art in America.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 five legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Resolution 181.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to this rule that would set the terms of the debate for the 
fiscal year 1998 Interior appropriations bill. I must oppose this rule 
because it is a gag rule--it denies those of us in the House who 
support continued funding for the National Endowment for the Arts the 
opportunity to make our case, and instead makes in order an NEA-killing 
amendment.
  The bill as reported by the Appropriations Committee reduces funding 
for the NEA to $10 million from the current year's funding level of 
$99.5 million. And that's on top of a 40 percent cut already inflicted 
on the NEA 2 years ago. I understand that Members of the Republican 
leadership have been spearheading the effort to eliminate the NEA--
reminiscent of a Republican-led effort to get rid of Big Bird a few 
years ago--and that's why we have this rule before us. What I fail to 
understand is why.
  The NEA plays an extremely important role in educating our children 
about art and promoting the arts. Not only is this a worthwhile 
endeavor in and of itself--the arts enrich our lives and are an 
integral part of our culture--but the arts also contribute to a vibrant 
economy all across our country. In fact, to those who say the NEA is a 
waste of taxpayers money or a luxury we can't afford in era of tight 
budgets, I say the NEA is a wise investment. While the NEA comprises 
only a tiny fraction of the total Federal budget--approximately 1/
1000th--for this small investment millions of nonfederal dollars are 
matched to further promote the arts, and the arts return more than $3 
billion to the Federal treasury in arts-related commerce.
  Through the NEA, the arts are supported in every State, reaching 
people in small towns and rural areas who otherwise may have no 
opportunity to enjoy music, dance, or theater. Eliminating the NEA and 
replacing it with a new bureaucracy that would be required to 
administer this untested unproven block grant system would jeopardize 
those opportunities and would end the Endowment's grants for lifelong 
learning programs such as those that serve our Nation's adults, senior 
citizens, and disabled citizens. Access to the arts that young people 
and adults now enjoy through public radio and television and touring 
cultural programs would be canceled.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. Let 
us stand with the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National 
Association of Counties who believe there is a Federal role in the arts 
and with the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies which opposes 
block granting all Federal arts dollars. Let us stand up for nurturing 
our children and our country's cultural heritage. This rule is wrong, 
it is antidemocratic, and it should be defeated.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
rule. This rule can work to ruin the livelihoods of numerous splendid 
artists in my district; halt the regeneration of the city of Peekskill, 
village of Cold Spring and several other struggling communities; and to 
deny many of my constituents theater, dance, opera, painting, and other 
artistic mediums.
  This shortsighted decision to severely cripple our Nation's 
preservation of culture will haunt us in the near future. All of us 
like to think of the United States of America as a civilized country, 
but how civilized is a country that abandons their commitment to the 
arts. How civilized is a country that does not prioritized art and 
culture as the inevitable measurement of our society? When we look for 
signs of early and ancient man, where do we find it? In the arts that 
ancient cultures left behind.
  Absent the argument of whether or not the NEA should continue, there 
is a yet a bigger concern being debated here--Democracy. This rule 
denies this Chamber a straight up and down vote on funding the NEA. It 
allows an attempt to reach compromise by block granting arts funds 
without any hearings. This amendment, while supposedly sympathetic to 
the arts, operates on the premise of eliminating the NEA--a premise 
with which I cannot agree.
  Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote that:

     ``Art is the child of Nature; yes,
     Her darling child, in whom we trace
     The features of the mother's face,
     Her aspect and her attitude.''

  That quote leads me to ask one question. What kind of mother are we 
then if we devalue the arts? Allow a vote on NEA funding. Defeat this 
rule.
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unfair and 
damaging rule. The future of the National Endowment for the Arts lies 
to the balance. The important programs funded through the NEA play an 
integral part in our communities and schools, in turn, having a 
tremendous positive impact on the future of our children and society as 
a whole. As a member of the Congressional Arts Caucus, I take a special 
interest in protecting the future of the NEA.
  The NEA plays a crucial role in providing the tools necessary to 
enhance the arts programs of our Nation. Without it, access to museums, 
theaters, festivals, and other celebrations of the arts would be 
greatly limited. We cannot allow this to happen.
  The arts play a vital role in education and enhance our communities. 
By promoting art programs in our schools, we create more well-rounded, 
self-confident students who excel in their studies. Art programs 
benefit our communities by bringing together a wide range of cultural 
activities for all our citizens while also strengthening local 
economies.
  New York City is home to numerous museums, theaters, and dance groups 
who rely on funding from the NEA. These attractions draw millions of 
tourists each year to our city, generating billions of dollars for the 
New York City economy while creating thousands of jobs for its 
residents. In my District of Queens, numerous art programs rely on 
funding from the NEA. I was proud to have 12 cultural groups from my 
district benefit from the NEA during fiscal year 1997. If their funding 
were discontinued, it would have a devastating effect on their future 
and the Queens community.
  Mr. Speaker, it would be a tragic mistake to destroy the National 
Endowment for the Arts. The positive influences it has had on our 
schools and communities are numerous and far-reaching. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this unfair rule and save the future of the 
National Endowments for the Arts.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and to 
express my disappointment that the whole House will not have the 
opportunity to decide the fate of the National Endowment for the Arts 
[NEA].
  The arguments in favor of limited funding for the NEA are hollow and 
without merit.
  Government support for the arts is not a program for the elite.
  Eliminating the endowment will do almost nothing to reduce the 
deficit.
  The private sector cannot and will not provide sufficient funding to 
make up this loss.

[[Page H5060]]

  Let me tell you the many reasons that most Americans believe in 
government support for the arts:
  The arts stimulate economic growth. For every dollar the NEA invests 
in communities, there is a 20-fold return in jobs services, and 
contracts.
  The arts invest in our communities. The arts develop in our citizens 
a sense of community, and contribute to the livability for families in 
that community.
  The arts are basic to a thorough education. Student achievement and 
test scores in academic subjects can improve when the arts are used to 
assist learning in mathematics, social studies, creative writing, and 
communication skills.
  I invite anyone who thinks the NEA is not needed to visit the Puppet 
Company Playhouse in Glen Echo Park, just a few miles from the Capitol.
  It's a 200 seat theater created out of a portion of an historic 
ballroom at Glen Echo Park. The audience is usually made up of children 
accompanied by their families and teachers, representing the cultural 
and economic diversity of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of 
Columbia. An NEA grant allows the Puppet Co. to keep the ticket prices 
low so that many young families can attend the performances. The 
associates who run the company work hard for modest salaries in the 
true spirit of keeping their company nonprofit.
  I think most taxpayers would be pleased to know that they support 
such a worthwhile project.
  Mr. Speaker, our legislative agenda could have far-reaching 
implications for the cultural vitality of our Nation. Therefore, I 
cannot support this rule.
  Art is how we remember. It is important, even vital, that we support 
and encourage the promotion of the arts so that the rich and cultural 
story of our past can be made available to future generations.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I will not be present for 
this important debate, due to a death in my family. However, I strongly 
oppose this rule because it fails to waive points of order on the 
section of the bill that provides funding for the National Endowment 
for the Arts. Waiving points of order on this section would protect the 
Appropriations Committee's work, and allow the issue of Federal funding 
for the arts to reach the House floor.
  Numerous Members from both sides of the aisle testified yesterday 
before the Rules Committee in favor of allowing a straight up or down 
vote on the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA] on the House floor. 
But instead, the Rules Committee decided to deny the Members of this 
body an opportunity to vote on this issue, which affects millions of 
people across the country.
  Our Federal investment in the NEA is an investment in our children's 
educational development and in our Nation's economic growth. The $99.5 
million we invest in the NEA yields a return of $3.4 billion to the 
Federal Treasury. I know of no other investment we make that yields so 
great a return.
  Studies have shown that investments in arts education yields other 
dividends as well. For example, we now know that playing the piano 
helps students better learn math and science. It is ``penny wise and 
pound foolish'' for us to sacrifice the investment in arts education 
that we have been making in our children and our communities--
particularly without an up-or-down vote by this democratic Congress.
  As a majoritarian body, the House has an obligation to ensure that 
members of Congress have the opportunity to determine the future of the 
NEA by voting on it, rather than being blocked by a procedural issue. 
The NEA has played an essential role in our society for over 30 years. 
It is simply unfair to make any decision affecting its continuation--
and in turn affecting the millions of citizens who benefit from NEA-
funded programs--without the benefit of a vote by the entire House of 
Representatives.
  This is not a parochial issue. All Members of this House recently 
received a letter from Americans United to Save the Arts and 
Humanities, an organization of business leaders, expressing their 
strong support for the NEA. The CEO of the Xerox Corp., the chairman 
and CEO of Sun America, Inc., the chairman and CEO of the Sara Lee 
Corp., and over 100 other business leaders endorsed continued Federal 
funding for the NEA as well as the National Endowment for the 
Humanities [NEH]. As their letter explained, ``The NEA and the NEH have 
each been valuable components in creating a healthy business climate. 
We value employees with a solid education in the arts and humanities. * 
* * Exposure to an arts education produces workers with such skills as 
analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical judgement--key elements to 
success in today's competitive global economy.'' The letter went on to 
say, ``We recognize the tight constraints of the Federal budget. 
However, it is evident that there is a clear parallel between the 
Federal investment in culture and the willingness of corporations, 
foundations and individuals to support cultural activity.'' Business 
leaders know how important the NEA's contribution to the arts is to the 
success of our Nation in the global economy.
  The Rules Committee's failure to protect the NEA against points of 
order is simply a ruse to prevent a majority of House Members from 
exercising their will on this issue. Arguments that the NEA should not 
be funded because it is unauthorized are disingenuous. As we all know, 
a lack of authorization never prevents this body from appropriating 
funds for any program, unless opponents of that funding need a handy 
excuse. In fact, a Congressional Budget Office report from January 1997 
states, ``The CBO is unaware of any case in which appropriations have 
not been provided for a program solely because its authorization has 
expired.'' In fiscal year 1997, this House passed appropriations for 
121 programs which were unauthorized. Obviously, authorization is not 
an absolute requirement, but one that the majority applies selectively.
  The Ehlers/Hunter amendment to retain funding for the arts in the 
form of State block grants is an unacceptable substitute. Federal 
leadership and funding play the essential role in the effort to make 
arts available in every community to every citizen. The State arts 
agencies rely upon Federal leadership and direct funding of national 
initiatives to attract private, corporate, and foundation support to 
the arts, especially from funders who can be encouraged to provide 
matching support on a regional or national basis. The National Assembly 
of State Arts Agencies [NASAA], which represents the State and special 
jurisdictional government arts agencies of the United States, strongly 
opposes block grants to States.
  Under a block grant system, there would be great difficulty in 
creating a fair formula for allocating arts funding among the States. 
In addition, NEA grants that go to one district often benefit numerous 
other communities and States. This is particularly true in the case of 
exhibits or performance groups that travel to various locations. Block 
grants would eliminate the incentive that currently exists under our 
system of direct Federal funding to give money to fund arts programs 
with interstate benefits.
  The full House of Representatives deserves the opportunity to vote on 
the NEA, not on block grants which are unacceptable to the State arts 
agencies, to our constituents, and to most Members of Congress.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule on the 
Interior appropriations bill.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for 
the Interior appropriations bill because it doesn't waive points of 
order on funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Unless this rule is defeated, the House will never have a straight up 
or down vote on funding for this vitally important agency--a vote that 
NEA supporters would clearly win.
  A majority of the House is ready to offer the American people a full 
chorus of beautiful art, but opponents want them to settle for someone 
singing solo in the shower.
  I support the NEA because it's a solid financial investment, helping 
to generate $3.4 billion in Federal income taxes.
  I support the NEA because it's a solid educational investment, 
lifting America to new levels of cultural endeavors and bettering our 
nation immeasurably.
  And I support the NEA because it's a solid investment in America's 
cultural heritage, bringing art to communities throughout the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the arts and the NEA by 
voting to defeat the rule before us.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule and support 
the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA is a great investment for 
the American people and, quite frankly, I think that our time would be 
better spent debating an issue other than a program which costs each 
American a grand total of 38 cents a year.
  I would like to specifically highlight one of these propaganda 
newsletters that came to my office denouncing the NEA as ``offensive'' 
and ``elitist''. Imagine my surprise when I saw that one of these 
objectionable grants was Dances for Wave Hill a program which is held 
in my district.
  Most of the Members of this body may not be familiar with Wave Hill 
but the residents of the Bronx are proud of this facility which 
encompasses 28 acres of gardens and woodlands overlooking the Hudson 
River. Dances for Wave Hill is a series of outdoor performances 
produced by Dancing in the Streets, a group specifically founded with 
the intention of introducing dance to new audiences.
  You might wonder what is so objectionable about the program. 
Strangely enough, some groups are angry that there is no subway stop in 
the garden so they have labeled Dances for Wave Hill as an elitist 
program.

[[Page H5061]]

  It is time we took a good look at the campaign of misinformation 
which has been aimed at the NEA. The funding for the NEA is money well 
spent and I urge all of my colleagues to defeat the rule.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as the House considers legislation 
which does not allow a fair and open debate, and vote, on the National 
Endowment for the Arts, I urge my colleagues to consider the words of 
Elliott Levitas, writer, attorney, former member of the Georgia House 
of Representatives and former United States Congressman representing 
the Fourth Congressional District of Georgia:

Cultural War Rages in America--All Great Civilizations of The Past Have 
                  Provided Public Support For The Arts

                          (By Elliott Levitas)

       Proposals in Congress to abolish the relatively minuscule 
     public funding for the arts, humanities and noncommercial 
     public TV and radio lie at the heart of a cultural war raging 
     in America.
       In the face of charges of elitism, budget deficits and 
     controversial subject matter, the real issue is whether there 
     is a vital role for government to seed and supplement the 
     private sector in promoting, preserving and transmitting 
     American culture.
       Every great civilization has provided public support for 
     its arts and culture. Whether it was Egyptian, Babylonian, 
     Greek, Roman, Spanish, French, British or whatever, these 
     towering forebears of our culture all provided essential 
     support for their artists, writers, thinkers, architects and 
     dramatists, in addition to funds made available through 
     private sponsorship by patrons.
       The great art traditions of China, Japan, India and the 
     ancient civilizations of Central and South America, all 
     derived support and encouragement from the governments.
       Societies which did not provide this institutionalized 
     support did not attain the heights of great artistic 
     creativity, nor pass it on. We look at the Visigoths, the 
     Huns, the Tartars and other societies long forgotten because 
     they did not do so.
       Do we believe our American cultures, which enrich the 
     spiritual life of our people, should be cultivated? If so, 
     history teaches us that there is an essential role for 
     government, albeit small. Whom do we wish to emulate, the 
     Visigoths or the Greeks?
       The suggestion that budget deficits can be fought by 
     eliminating cultural funding is a blatant fraud on an anxious 
     and credulous public. The total amount of budget support for 
     the National Endowment for the Arts is less than .009 percent 
     of governmental expenditures. To eliminate that amount does 
     not even meet the test of ``every little bit helps.''
       Should the arts share across-the-board budget reductions? 
     Yes. Eliminate the arts funding? No.
       Indeed, if we apply the ``cost-benefit'' test, the small 
     cost returns great benefit to cultural creativity.
       No, this issue is not budget deficits, but cultural war. 
     Groups of modern-day ``know-nothings,'' advocates of thought 
     control and would-be cultural dictators would just as soon 
     see the richness of American culture disappear with a new 
     Dark Age. Their fear of cultural diversity and their demand 
     for uniformity of mind is what the cultural war is all about.
       Nor is elitism a serious argument. Government support for 
     American culture not only reflects Shakespeare, Beethoven and 
     Picasso, but also provides for Howard Fenster, folk music, 
     cowboy poets, Native American crafts and jazz. The issue of 
     elitism is phony.
       Even though in recent years the endowments have vastly 
     expanded the audiences in the countryside, it has never been 
     a mass audience, even among the Romans and Greeks. But the 
     few have usually preserved the gifts of culture for the many. 
     Those few, who may be more numerous than some politicians 
     believe, can distill and pass on the essence of our national 
     cultural treasures.
       If we want to avoid the errors of the past and benefit from 
     its achievement, let us follow the path that all great 
     civilizations traveled. Let our government continue its 
     small, but essential, role in providing the seed to ensure 
     that our diverse American cultures will continue to find 
     greatness and will be there for future generations as they 
     enrich our lives today.
       Let us follow the Greeks and not the Visigoths.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and 
to advocate on behalf of full funding for the National Endowment for 
the Arts (NEA).
  Mr. Chairman, the arts are the heart of our Nation and the NEA is the 
heart of the arts. Today, there are those who would rip out the heart 
of the artistic community.
  Current funding for the The National Endowment for the Arts is 
certainly a modest effort. It accounts for less than 1/1000 of 1% of 
our Federal budget.
  The impact of this small program is immeasurable. Today, more 
Americans have access to the arts than ever before.
  Each year, the Arts Endowment opens the door to the arts for millions 
of school children, including many at-risk youth.
  The few isolated cases of controversial art work are not an accurate 
representation of the thousands of grants the NEA gives out each year.
  Must we burn the entire orchard if there are a few apples that are 
not to our liking?
  Join me to help lend a voice to the painters and the sculptors, the 
singers and the musicians and the actors--the artists of this country.
  Esteemed colleagues, I urge you to join me in opposing this rule.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, 
and in opposition to H.R. 2107 without the changes necessary to bring 
it into accordance with the Budget agreement worked out between the 
White House and Congressional Republicans. I will not support a measure 
that goes back on the promises made to the American people to protect 
our remaining open spaces through the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
or protect our limited assistance to the arts through the National 
Endowment.
  As a proud member of the Blue Dog Coalition, I have focused on 
balancing the Federal budget while protecting our national priorities, 
including the environment, the arts, and humanities. As we have seen, 
many of our colleagues claim that we cannot justify continuing to fund 
the Endowments for social and fiscal reasons. Yet it is specifically 
for these reasons that we must continue support. Despite a 40% cut in 
funding over the past two years, the NEA continues to make a great 
investment in the economic growth in every community in America. The 
nonprofit arts industry alone generates $37 billion annually in 
economic activity, supports over 1.3 million jobs and returns $3.4 
billion to the Federal Government in income taxes. That is a huge 
return on a small investment.
  When this economic gain of the arts and humanities is added to the 
educational benefits, the increase in quality of life that they 
provide, and the public support for the Endowments, it is obvious that 
we must continue to fund the arts. Each year, more people attend 
performing arts events than all professional sports events combined. 
The study of the arts and humanities helps students think critically 
and creatively, while working across traditional disciplines--skills 
that workers need to progress into the twenty-first century. Also, the 
Endowments preserve America's heritage by funding libraries, museums, 
folk festivals, theaters, arts centers, and dance studios which draw 
families and businesses to participate in the cultural life of their 
communities. Ultimately, the NEA economically brings diverse people 
together and builds bridges of understanding.
  I urge you to join me in creating a more productive America by 
supporting the National Endowments. Vote no on the rule; support the 
NEA. Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 216, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 259]

                               YEAS--217

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette

[[Page H5062]]


     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Schiff
     Slaughter
       

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE and Mr. RAHALL changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. McHUGH changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). Pursuant to House Resolution 181 
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2107.

                              {time}  1613


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2107) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.

                              {time}  1615

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Yates] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a spirited debate on the rule. I think for 
those that are watching from the gallery it has to be quite evident, 
and those that are watching on C-SPAN, that this is a democracy, that 
each person who is a Member here representing 600,000 people has an 
opportunity to be heard and present a point of view. But, after we have 
had these discussions, we go forward.
  I hope that as we take this bill forward that each Member will look 
at it on its merits, determine as we deal with the amendments what is 
in the best interests of the 260 million people we represent.
  This truly is a quality-of-life bill because much of what we do in 
this bill touches the lives of Americans, and I want to say at the 
outset I hope that in our dealing with this legislation that it will 
have the same great spirit of cooperation that I have had with the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] over the years that we have served 
on this committee. He has been a partner, as I was to him in the years 
we have worked together, and he has been a great individual to work 
with, and, most importantly, to call my friend. And while occasionally 
we would have a difference, in every instance what we did reflected 
what we felt was in the best interests of this Nation.
  This bill represents important accomplishments on a lot of common 
objectives. Much of what is in here, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates] and I have supported not only this year but in years past, and I 
think on balance, over the years, we have developed legislation that 
has been productive for this Nation.
  The bill totals $13.1 billion. It is a few million dollars less than 
last year. But essentially it goes forward with the programs that are 
important to the people and that is to enhance the quality of life in 
these United States. The bill provides significant funding for all the 
agencies under our jurisdiction, but I think basically we have tried to 
accomplish a couple of critical objectives.
  One is to meet a backlog in maintenance. We have had the Secretary of 
the Interior and Agriculture and the directors of the land management 
agencies and many others, testify about the enormous backlog of 
problems that need to be addressed in our parks, in our forests, in our 
fish and wildlife facilities, in the Bureau of Land Management.
  Here we see a chart that outlines the enormous maintenance needs. I 
think it is very important that we make every effort to address that in 
legislation, and we have done so, and we have done this as a team 
effort, both with myself and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. 
This includes things like the Smithsonian, $250 million that needs to 
be spent there for maintenance; the Fish and Wildlife Service, $536 
million, and my colleagues can see all the different agencies. But we 
have done it in a fiscally sound and an environmentally responsible 
way. Much of this maintenance is important to the protection of the 
environment in this Nation.
  For example, in the Everglades we have fully funded the 
administration's request for the restoration of the Everglades. This is 
something that is important to all people, and certainly it is a team 
effort because the State of Florida is making a very strenuous effort. 
They have financially the help in bringing the Everglades back to what 
they have been in the past, to be a very important part of our Nation's 
ecosystem, a very important part of our Nation's environment.
  We have continued and enhanced the recreation fee demonstration for 
the land management agencies. This started 2 years ago. Prior to that 
time, fees that were collected in the Park Service, the forests, the 
Fish and Wildlife

[[Page H5063]]

Service, went to the Treasury and consequently there was no incentive 
to do so. Last year, with the support of this body, we gave authority 
to the various agencies to collect fees, but the important difference 
was they got to keep them, and this has been a very successful program.
  We have had support not only from the agencies, but the public. They 
like the idea that if they pay a few dollars to enter a park, that the 
money is going to stay there and not be sent to the U.S. Treasury.
  The program is working out very well. This year we have added a new 
change, and that is that fees that were under the old program, 
collected prior to the inception of the new program, still went to the 
Treasury. We changed that. So now a hundred percent of what is 
collected at the agencies like the parks and forests and so on will be 
kept in that service. Eighty percent will stay right where it is 
collected, and I think this will help a great deal. For example, in the 
national parks it is estimated that in 3 years it will amount to $400 
million.
  Now we have encouraged the agencies in the language of the bill to 
use this money to address some of the maintenance problems that I have 
outlined here.
  We began last year an emphasis on forest health because that is 
important; the suppression of disease, forest fuel reduction, 
vegetation management, wildlife habitat and watershed improvements. The 
testimony in our committee was clearly in support of the enhancement of 
the forest health program, a couple hundred million acres, a vast 
resource and asset of this Nation, and we have addressed that problem 
in many ways throughout this bill.
  Fire management has been given priority. We see it on our 
televisions, the forest fires, and of course to avoid this problem we 
have to manage the forests carefully.
  We have required the Forest Service to operate under a multiple-use 
mandate. That means forestlands are available for grazing, for mineral 
exploration. The multiple-use mandate covers, as I mentioned, grazing, 
mineral exploration.
  It is an interesting thing that this bill is $13 billion, but the 
activities that are funded in this bill generate $9 billion in 
receipts. So we only have a net cost of $4 billion, and those are 
resources that belong to all the people that are being developed in the 
mineral exploration, offshore oil, many different sources that are part 
of producing $9 billion for the Treasury of the United States and for 
the people.
  I visited the Angeles National Forest just outside of Los Angeles, 
and to see families out there, who are in part of a city of something 
like 20 million people, have an opportunity to recreate outdoors. The 
kids can see a deer, can see other forms of wildlife, perhaps drop a 
line in the creek and fish. One of the beauties of the national forests 
is that they are available for the multiple use, and if my colleagues 
go to a place like Angeles National Forest, right on the edge of this 
city, they will realize how important this is. And this is true all 
across the country; Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania and many 
others that are available for people to use.

  Now we are going to have an amendment to cut the Forest Service road 
program. We will talk more about that at the time, but let me say to 
Members that are listening or watching this, do not be too quick to 
commit on that. I think there are some very compelling reasons to not 
vote for this cutting amendment because it goes to our ability to 
rebuild and maintain existing roads. It is a very important 
environmental use of these funds. We have been very careful in the way 
that we have allocated resources to the Forest Service, and the dollars 
that are there are important for particularly the recreation user. 
Something like 77 percent of the roads are used for recreation. And 
when individuals and families go out on these roads, we need to ensure 
that they are safe, that they are comfortable, that they can get access 
to the facilities. There are 18,000 different recreational facilities 
in the national forest, and people need access to those facilities.
  The bill provides for the construction of very limited new timber 
roads, less than 2 miles to be exact, not very much. Ninety-five 
percent of the appropriated construction dollars for roads go for 
safety, for environmental improvements to existing roads and to close 
roads.

                              {time}  1630

  We obliterate, wipe out, more roads than would be built. We are 
trying to make the roads that are there usable to the public for the 
many multipurposes.
  I would point out that the forests have tripled the visitor days of 
the Park Service, three times as much, because people can participate 
on a wide variety of activities on forest lands. The forests are a 
family recreation facility, so a steelworker in Johnstown, PA, can load 
up the family on his 2 weeks' vacation, go to Allegheny National 
Forest, know when he follows a road that the bridge is going to be 
safe, that the road is going to be safe, that his camper is not going 
to go over the side of the hill and that he is going to enjoy that 
experience, as 87 million other Americans are doing each year. Mr. 
Chairman, I hope Members will look at this amendment with caution and 
carefully consider these points.
  We have over 121,000 miles of hiking trails in the national forests. 
Money in the roads budget also maintains those trails so people are 
safe, so people can enjoy them. Again, I would urge all Members to look 
carefully before they take away this ability to carefully manage our 
forests, to provide the recreation user, the people of this Nation, a 
good experience, before we do something that will inhibit people's 
ability to use this land, which belongs to all 260 million Americans.
  Much of the roads budget is for maintenance. We want to ensure that 
these roads are safe, and things like guardrails are just one example. 
We recognize that there is a greater interest in maintaining the forest 
for recreation purposes. Ten years ago, in fact, less than that, in 
1990, in this bill, we provided for over 11 billion board feet of 
timber harvest. The bill today is a little over 3 billion board feet. 
We have had a reduction of 66 percent, from 11 to 3.8 billion, because 
we are trying to balance the timber program and other multipurpose uses 
of these lands.
  I would also point out, because of the practices, and they started 
under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] of 
maintaining forest health, that we are growing each year in the 
national forest 17 billion board feet. So we have a net gain of 14 
billion. We are growing 14 billion more board feet than we are cutting. 
I think that is good management. That is what we have tried to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little bit about energy, because right 
now energy prices are relatively low. I was in Europe not long ago, and 
when we see prices there of $4 or $5 a gallon, we really appreciate 
what it is in the United States to be able to pull up to a pump and get 
gasoline for maybe $1.20 a gallon. But we need to be diligent and 
vigilant in continuing energy research and in continuing to manage our 
energy resources wisely. Energy, as I mentioned in the debate on the 
rule, is vital to a nation. Just think about it. Clothing is just one 
example. A lot of it comes out of a barrel of oil, but that is a small 
item. Think about how our industries are impacted.
  I remember some of the Members were here in the late 1970's when we 
had petroleum shortages, and how jobs were lost, how schools had to 
close down. We do not want that to happen again. Therefore, it is 
important that we manage our energy resources carefully. We fund the 
research. We do not do this carelessly. Our energy research programs 
require matching funds from the private sector. If we are going to have 
a technological development program, we want the private sector to 
contribute their fair share, because that means that they believe in 
what we are doing.
  As a result of this research, we are getting new energy sources. I 
think, looking down the road, this becomes very important for this 
Nation. For us to have the kind of growth that will get that deficit 
down to zero, we have to have available a lot of energy. That means 
that we need to continue the R&D in our programs.
  We have an enormous supply of coal. I know there will be some who 
oppose and we have rescinded, in this bill, $100 million of clean coal 
money, but we

[[Page H5064]]

also keep what is required to fulfill our contractual obligations to 
those who have committed to participate on a 50-50 matching basis, or 
even a greater private share. The average has been 60 private, 40 
public to develop clean coal technology.
  What does it mean? It means that this technology will be sold not 
only in the United States but all around the world. We hear a lot about 
China these days. China today is burning more coal than the United 
States, and we burn a lot in this country. The electricity that lights 
this Chamber is coming from a pound of coal or a ton of coal, but in 
spite of the amount that we use, China is using more coal today than we 
are. Therefore, as we develop the clean coal technology we can sell 
this to China, because they are developing also an environmental 
movement.
  Likewise I would point out that we have an interest in this, because 
if they do not develop and use this kind of technology, those emissions 
are going into the atmosphere and will have an impact on all of us.
  I think what we are trying to do in this bill, to encourage research 
in alternate fuels, and the use of coal in a clean burning way, and the 
Department of Energy tells us that by 2010 we will have technologies 
that will allow us to burn coal that emits 10 times less sulfur and 
nitrogen than is allowed under the current law, that is twice as 
efficient as conventional power plants, and emits less than half as 
much carbon dioxide.
  For example, this bill provides for research into low emission 
boilers. What does that mean? It means that the boilers that will be 
developed, and this is all in partnership with the private sector, will 
be far more efficient than the ones we use today in our utility 
industry. That means we can burn the coal in a clean way, and at the 
same time have a high degree of efficiency.
  The programs leverage a lot of support from the private sector.
  I want to mention a little bit about the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I 
know this does not have a wide range of interest, but the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs is vitally important to the over 2 million American 
Indians. We have a responsibility, a treaty responsibility and a 
responsibility as a nation that cares, to do what is right by the 
native Americans. We increase the tribal priority allocation by $76 
million over last year. Why is that important? Because this promotes 
and encourages local control. We are trying to encourage the Indian 
tribes to become self-sufficient, to develop their own economy, to 
provide ways in which they help themselves in education, in jobs, and 
become part of the American dream. So we say to the tribes who manage 
their own affairs, we are going to give you more money to make your own 
priority judgments as to what is important to the people that you 
represent.
  We have had the debate on the NEA. I do not think we need to talk 
anymore about that. I would just say to all Members, this is a good 
bill. We have been very fair in what we have done on projects. We had 
2,000 requests from all of the Members, from literally, I suppose, 
almost every Member, 2,000 different items that were requested by our 
colleagues to be put in the bill. We have done a lot of these. We have 
done as many as we could. We have done them on a totally nonpartisan 
basis. I did not count, but I suspect if we added up the 
administration's requests plus the requests from our friends in the 
minority, we have funded more of those than we have on the majority 
side.
  We valued projects on their merits and not as to the source of the 
request. We wanted to make sure that we did what was fair and what was 
good for this Nation, what was good for the people; trails, for 
example, in the Continental Divide out in the Western part of the 
country, and I could go on and on in pointing out some of the very 
constructive projects that have been funded in this bill that will, 
again, as I mentioned earlier, enhance the quality of life of the 
people of this Nation.
  I hope all Members will take some time to study the bill and 
understand what we have tried to achieve. We have tried to achieve 
better management, we have tried to achieve things that will be good 
for this Nation that make a lot of sense in terms of expending taxpayer 
dollars.
  For the record I would like to note two technical corrections to the 
report as follows: on page 67 and page 74 of the committee report--
House Report 105-163, insert the word ``International'' before ``Arid 
Lands Consortium'' and on page 37 of the committee report--House Report 
105-163, the committee bill funding level in the table for ``cultural 
programs'' should be $18,699,000 and the language on page 38 of the 
report for ``Cultural programs'' should say ``The Committee has 
provided an additional $135,000 for uncontrollable expenses.''
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a table detailing the various 
accounts.
  The table referred to is as follows:

[[Page H5065]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY97.000


[[Page H5066]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY97.001


[[Page H5067]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY97.002


[[Page H5068]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY97.003


[[Page H5069]]


  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to substitute, I was always a 
substitute, it seems like, for the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], 
and to talk a little bit about this Interior appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly want everyone here to know that I have 
enjoyed the 21 years that I have had an opportunity to work with the 
gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Ralph Regula], who is the new chairman on 
this committee and has served for many years, and worked under the 
gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Sid Yates] when he was chairman. We have 
a very good bipartisan committee that tries to work together on these 
important natural resource issues.
  Obviously, many on our side today are quite unhappy about the fact 
that we did not or will not get an opportunity to have an up-or-down 
vote on the National Endowment for the Arts, but we had a vote on the 
rule. We lost by one vote. Now we are going to consider this bill.
  I also believe that there is a lot of good that comes out of this 
bill. The Interior appropriations bill provides funding for the 
National Park Service. It does provide funding and has in the past for 
the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, for the Forest 
Service, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for the Bureau of Mines, for 
many of the energy conservation programs and alternative energy 
programs of the Department of Energy. So this is a very positive piece 
of legislation.
  It also provides funding, as I mentioned, for the Indian tribes in 
this country. We do have a trust responsibility to those tribes. It is 
a serious responsibility. We also fund the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Of course, we have had debates on this floor over the Endangered 
Species Act. I would say to my colleagues here, there is probably not a 
congressional district in America that has been more affected by the 
Endangered Species Act than the Sixth District in the State of 
Washington. I have seen the harvest on our forests there go down by 
about 95 percent, maybe 98 percent, because of the requirements of 
protection for the spotted owl and the marbled murrelet.
  The President's forest plan is in place in the Northwest. We have 
received funding under this plan to try and do something about 
watershed restoration, watershed analysis, ecosystem protection and 
management. All of that comes out of the Interior appropriations bill.
  I want Members to know that I think that we have an outstanding 
chairman and an outstanding ranking member in the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates], and an excellent staff that has done a lot of 
very good and positive work on this legislation.
  One of the issues that will come up today is the question of forest 
roads. This is a very controversial issue. Last year we had a major 
debate on this issue on the floor of the House of Representatives. I 
want to tell my colleagues, I feel that I did not do as good a job on 
this issue last year as I needed to. We won, we prevailed, but I do not 
think I explained it as well as I should have explained it. I worked up 
a little chart here and I would like my colleagues to see it. It is a 
small chart. I think they will understand what it is.
  This program here lays out the Forest Road Program that we have for 
the country. Of that, of the money that is being spent this year on the 
Forest Road Program, there will be 2,000 miles of road reconstruction. 
This is going out and fixing up existing roads so they do not cause 
environmental problems, so that they do not cave in, so there is not 
siltation. They have to replace the culverts. They have to fix these 
roads.
  Then, there are only 480 miles, this is under purchase or credit, 
only 480 miles of new roads being built, and most of those roads are 
short roads into areas where there has already been timber harvesting.

                              {time}  1645

  I will bet no one in this place knows this number, 90 percent of the 
roads, 90 percent of what is happening on the roads is for recreational 
purposes. People go in and this is the access point to go into our 
wilderness areas, to go into our lakes, to go into our camping areas. 
It is recreation. And these roads are very, very important for that 
purpose.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate at this time, I 
want to read a statement from Secretary Glickman; the Forest Service is 
in his jurisdiction. It fits in with what the gentleman is saying.
  A letter from the Secretary to me today says:

       However, the $41.5 million reduction the amendment proposes 
     goes too far in eliminating important construction and 
     reconstruction efforts that provide public safety and 
     environmental benefits.

  Mr. DICKS. Another point, Mr. Chairman, if we do not have roads, if 
we have got forest fires out there, we have got to be able to get the 
men and women who fight these forest fires into those woods. And the 
road program is much less dense than it is on the BLM lands, much less 
dense than it is on private lands.
  This is done very carefully. This is not being done by James Watt. 
This is being done by the Clinton-Gore-Babbit-Glickman administration. 
Jim Lyons, former staff member here on the Committee on Agriculture, is 
in charge of the Forest Service program. He is a committed 
environmentalist. He has said that the amendment that will be offered 
by Mr. Kennedy and the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Porter] goes too 
far. It will cut into the reconstruction of roads. It will cause 
environmental damage, and it will require 400 to 500 people in the 
Forest Service to be laid off. It is a meat-ax approach to dealing with 
this problem.
  Then, of course, we have some small amount of roads that are built 
with appropriated funds, 165 miles of reconstruction. This is going out 
and fixing up those roads again, and only 8 miles with appropriated 
funds are used for new construction. And, in fact, down here at the 
bottom, we have the obliteration of roads; 1,500 miles of roads in 
those Forest Service lands are being taken out, the ones that are no 
longer necessary, and they are being taken out and replaced.
  To my friends and colleagues who think that we are doing too much in 
terms of timber harvesting, let me show them what is happening in this 
country in terms of harvesting of timber off the Federal timberlands. 
This is the miles of roads. This is the historical Federal Road 
Program. And we used to do, here was 8,870 miles. That was in 1985. 
Then we went down to 6,545 miles. Here it is, in 1995, we are down to 
2,868 miles. We are down to 2,652 miles, of which only 18 percent are 
new construction.
  What has happened on timber sales in this country, we used to do 10 
billion board feet off the Federal timberlands. This year the 
administration budget request is for 3.7 billion board feet. That is 
over the entire country. If the Kennedy-Porter amendment is adopted, 
that will be reduced down to 1.7 billion board feet.
  What does that mean? That means what we have done in essence is 
create a shortage, a shortage of timber, a shortage of lumber. What 
that means is when people go out to build a house or build an 
apartment, the cost of that goes up. That is why the home builders have 
been urging the Congress to at least do the 3.7 billion in the Clinton 
administration budget, but not to cut it back to 1.7, which is the 
effect of this amendment.
  So this is a very major issue. I hope Members will be not stampeded. 
I know that the environmental community is making this their No. 1 
priority. But please listen to the members on the committee who have 
had some experience, who know something about it, who know a little bit 
about this issue.
  I want Members to know that we have cut back about as far as I think 
we should cut back in terms of timber harvesting. As I said, in my 
forest at the Olympic National Forest in the State of Washington, we 
have gone from 250 million board feet down to 10 million. This is all 
done by thinning sales now. So we have taken a huge cut. But to kill 
the road program in my judgment is a terrible mistake.

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H5070]]

  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
to me.
  He talked about the billions of board feet that we are going to lose 
in terms of timber production. That means also hundreds of thousands of 
logging families who are going to have no wherewithal to pay their 
mortgages, send their kids to college, and do all the other things that 
we like to do in America as part of the American dream. This will be a 
devastating blow to a lot of working folks in this country.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the other point is, we have to import about 
30 percent of our saw wood timber today from Canada. And what that 
means is they are going out and harvesting like crazy up in Canada to 
supply the American market, because we are not harvesting at historic 
levels off of our Federal lands.
  I think, frankly, we had to make some reductions in timber 
harvesting. I am not opposed to that. What I am opposed to is that we 
have it down now to a level that I think is clearly sustainable, and we 
are going to have this amendment today that will even take it down 
further, which is going to drive up the price of lumber. And it is not 
well thought out. It cuts into road reconstruction money in the name of 
cutting out money for new roads, and it just misrepresents the facts.
  I have never seen, in my entire career, and I have seen a lot of 
distortions in my entire career up here, believe me, but this one, what 
this amendment says it does and what it actually does, there is more 
distance between this and anything I have seen. It is not right. I 
think a lot of Members here have been misled, and if they actually knew 
the facts they would be voting against this amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  He has just made a very lucid, factually substantiated statement, the 
best I have heard in years on this floor about the issues involved in 
this question of timber harvesting and the relationship with the road 
program. The gentleman represents a great saw timber area of the 
country.
  In my district, we have pulp wood principally and we do not have the 
big saw timber trees, but it is as important a yield for our forests, 
for the pulp and paper industry and the particle board industry, as the 
saw timber is for the lumber and homeowner and home building sector of 
our economy.
  Something I think is very important to understand, we are talking 
about a sustainable yield, a renewable resource in forestry. We are 
also talking about roads that are used for other purposes than for 
timber harvesting. There are all sorts of recreational activities that 
take place on these roads, and they never get, those other uses rarely 
get charged for the cost of the road construction that is always 
attributed to timber harvesting.
  I know in the forests in my district and in northern Wisconsin and in 
the upper peninsula of Michigan that we now have an above-cost 
operation; that is, the cost of the road is more than amply paid back 
simply by the cost and the value of the timber harvesting. And there 
are all these recreational benefits that follow upon the road program.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct. Ninety 
percent of the utilization of these roads is for recreational purposes. 
I am sure the gentleman knows in the forests of Minnesota the same 
thing that I know in the Olympic Peninsula. This is where the people go 
to recreate, they go to the lake, they go to the wilderness, they go 
camping, hiking, they go hunting, fishing. They use this road system. 
This is not an evil, terrible thing.
  What is evil, what is terrible, what is environmentally dangerous is 
not to sustain those roads. What is misunderstood here today is that 
most of the money that is being taken out, most of that money would be 
used for road reconstruction to fix up problem roads and make them 
safer so that they do not wind up blowing out and going into the 
stream, and replacing culverts so that salmon can get back up and 
reproduce. That is a big part of the cut that is in this budget today.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has stated the case 
exceedingly well. And I just say that those who are advocating this 
amendment do not have in mind the roads and their utility or their 
significance. They really want to get at the timber harvesting program. 
I think we have a fair balance of sustainable yield management on the 
national forests of this country. We ought not to cut it or gut it by 
means of this amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman, out in 
region 6, used to be the No. 1 timber producing area in the Nation, we 
have gone from about 4\1/2\ billion board feet down to about less than 
1 billion board feet, an 80 percent reduction, an 80 percent reduction. 
Hundreds of mills have gone out of business.
  All we are saying is, can we not have a little balance here? Let us 
remember that this program provides recreation and opportunities that 
are different, and it is not just timber harvesting. I am asking my 
friends, many from across the country, look at the facts here, look at 
what Secretary Glickman said. Do not just be swept up because you are 
being pressured by certain groups. I just ask for a fair evaluation of 
the facts. Give us that. Look at it and hopefully we will have the 
right vote.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, along with what the gentleman said, another 
point is, here is a 2 by 4. Seven years ago it was 22 cents a foot. 
Today it is 44 cents a foot. What does that translate into? Two 
thousand dollars to $3,000 more for a frame house, and that means that 
young people will have an additional burden when they want to seek that 
first home, because the forest cut has been so reduced. This saw foot 
comes out, a lot of it, from our national forests.
  Mr. DICKS. That is why the home builders have made this one of their 
most important issues. They are very concerned about what the 
gentleman, the chairman has pointed out. We have created this shortage. 
When we create a shortage, we drive up the price. And so we are trying 
to do this fairly. We are trying to do it on a sustainable basis. We 
are trying to make sure that the money is used for demolition and for 
fixing up troubled roads. But with this amendment, we are going to take 
away a huge part of the money that is there to fix up troubled, 
environmentally dangerous roads, and this is just because I am afraid 
the people who are offering this amendment do not serve on this 
committee and do not talk to the Forest Service and do not understand 
the complete implications of what they are doing. Their intent may be 
pure but what happens is not.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a very distinguished and productive member 
of our subcommittee.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  I certainly want to congratulate him for a very hard effort, well-
deserved applause in connection with this bill and certainly to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Dicks] who worked very hard on this bill as well. And the staff. I 
think we too many times overlook how hardworking the staff is to try to 
put this all together and get it to the floor and keep track of it all.
  I am a member of this subcommittee, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to 
be part of it because it has been a pleasure to work on this bill. It 
protects our natural resources. Even though it is funded below last 
year's level, it keeps our Nation on track to achieve a balanced 
budget. So this was a difficult effort trying to put the numbers 
together, even though they are below last year's, to meet the 
priorities of our Nation and protect the environment but also protect 
our natural resources.
  So we were able to increase a number of programs in this bill that 
needed increase. I want to call particular attention to a few of the 
highlights of the

[[Page H5071]]

bill as they affect my region of the Pacific Northwest.
  The National Park Service is an important agency to many Americans. 
It is going to receive a $78 million increase in funding, making it the 
third straight year that this committee has increased park operations.
  The chairman also included a provision that allows parks and refuges 
and forests which participate in the recreational fee demonstration 
program to keep 100 percent of the fees, not to send them back here to 
Washington but to keep them in the location in which they will do the 
most good. This is going to benefit Lake Roosevelt National Recreation 
Area in my district. It is a new fee demonstration participant. We are 
going to keep a lot of those fees and use them to improve really the 
commercial activities and the maintenance activities that are necessary 
within the park itself.
  We are going to also achieve a tremendous backlog maintenance problem 
in our parks, and that program will assist in that regard.
  The native American programs in this bill are increased. The tribal 
priority allocation which was mentioned by the chairman is increased by 
$76 million. This funding goes directly to the tribes, directly affects 
my district in the Pacific Northwest and it bypasses the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, and I think that is a good approach.
  I am concerned that this bill does not meet the President's request 
in the area of Indian health because Indian health care's inflation is 
well above the normal inflationary rate, and for too long the native 
American population has been a low priority for the administration and 
the Congress and their health needs. I hope the other body will 
increase this funding level.
  What I want to say, too, most importantly, following up on the debate 
that we have just had here and the discussion regarding our national 
forests and public lands, over the last 3 years we have spent an 
unsustainable $2.3 billion fighting fires on our national forest lands.

                              {time}  1700

  That is unacceptable, but that is due, in my judgment, to the fact 
that we have diseased forests and we have unmanaged forests. That is 
unacceptable. Should be to all Americans.
  As a result of this, we have seriously addressed in this bill the 
issue of improving forest health. Disease suppression, forest fuel 
reduction, vegetation management, watershed improvements, research, and 
reforestation are all increased. This is a good environmental bill.
  With regard to the timber road issue that is coming up, I urge my 
colleagues do not be persuaded by some outside group that is going to 
score this bill on an environmental basis and be pushed into making the 
wrong judgment. Study the facts. This timber road reduction provision 
that is coming up is going to hurt the small operator. It will not hurt 
the big operator. It will hurt the small operator. And that will do 
damage to the forest health and the multiple use concept in our 
national forest.
  Remember that about 80 million visitors go into the national forests 
and use the forest roads that are currently in place. And we are 
obliterating forest roads by a ratio of 4 to 1. Four times as many are 
obliterated as those that are built.
  So Members should be very careful about this bill and look very 
carefully at this amendment because it is a red herring and we should 
not be persuaded by it.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee 
on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, I want to express my 
appreciation to the hard work and leadership of its chairman, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], and also to the very distinguished 
ranking member. Serving on this subcommittee, one gains an even greater 
appreciation for the great loss that this body will experience when the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] retires. So I thank him for his 
leadership.
  I also want to recognize the professionalism of the staff on this 
bill. Debbie Weatherley, Loretta Beaumont, Chris Topik, Joel Kaplan and 
Angie Perry. Barbara Wainman, the chairman's personal assistant, Curt 
Dodd, and of course Del Davis, who has to assume a Herculean load, 
given the fact that the minority staff are so few in number with so 
many responsibilities.
  Mr. Chairman, as the chairman has said, this is clearly one of the 
most important subcommittees in the entire Congress. We have some very 
controversial issues, though, and we are going to spend most of our 
time on those controversial issues. But it should be expressed that 
there are some very fine things in this bill. For example, $136 million 
increase for the Everglades; a $78 million increase for the national 
parks; $42 million more for operating the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  There are a great many needs within those organizations. I will not 
take the time to go into them, but we are addressing those needs. There 
is a $16 million increase for natural resource science research by the 
U.S. Geological Service. These things go unmentioned because we focus 
exclusively on the controversial issues.
  Thirty-one million in program increases go to native Americans. Very 
much deserved. The Indian Health Service will bring more Indian health 
care to communities. In fact, we are providing modular dental units on 
reservations where dental services are sorely lacking.
  But, of course, there are some deficiencies in this bill, at least in 
my opinion, and in the opinion of the ranking minority member. 
Weatherization assistance is an example. I wish we could do more in the 
way of weatherization assistance because we decrease it by over $30 
million.
  The automobile fuel cell research, I think, has a great deal of 
potential, which may not be realized because we are cutting back on 
that almost entirely. That has potential for meeting the clean air 
standards.
  But most importantly we are going to focus on the NEA and it needs to 
be focused on. It should be restored to its existing level of $99 
million.
  The value of the logging subsidy to private timber companies is over 
$250 million a year. The taxpayer foots this bill to build roads in 
forest areas 87 percent of which would otherwise be uneconomical. 
They've built 378,000 miles of road. Fifty percent more road than in 
nonforest service lands roads that cause landslides, erosion and 
siltation of our streams. The National Endowment for the Arts deserves 
to be funded. Private timber companies don't.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Resources.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting now that we have come 
into this interesting bill, which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] 
has done some super work on, and a lot of people, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates], have worked very hard on this particular piece of 
legislation. I think it is interesting that most of us who campaigned 
on the idea that we do not want any tax increases, we are against tax 
increases, if anything we are going to balance the budget this time, 
yet we seem to come up with an amendment that is pending that is called 
the Kennedy-Porter amendment which, in effect, is going to raise taxes 
indirectly on every American.
  How is it going to do that? Well, one thing, those of us who come 
from the West, I hope people realize that last year there were more 
fires in our public lands across America than any time in history, and 
that cost over $1.2 billion to fight them.
  I am a member of the Committee on National Security and we have 
requests from the Forest Service, BLM, and every firefighter: Give us 
some of those old airplanes; we want to convert them to tankers because 
we have to go in and fight those fires.
  So they are going to save $41,000, according to this amendment. At 
the same time we are going to spend billions and billions of dollars 
and we are going to decimate the West. There goes those beautiful 
forests. The folks from the East who fly over them and say, look at 
that green carpet, it is gorgeous, it is beautiful, I love it. And yet 
when we want to go in and kill the pine

[[Page H5072]]

beetle, which is taking them out, no, here comes these same 
environmental groups saying, oh no, you cannot do that, and they put 
injunctions on it.
  Now, the professional foresters came in before the committee I 
chaired for a few years and they say, if we do not kill the pine beetle 
by taking that section out, they will kill every tree in here. And if 
they kill every tree, that beautiful green forest becomes toothpicks. 
And then they say and we will have a sure bet that we will have a fire. 
And then they say we will have a sure bet we will have a flood. And 
then they say it will take Mother Nature 200 years to bring it back to 
the way it was.
  So why did we not just go in there when we had the opportunity and 
take care of that infestation of pine beetles? Now, because we could 
not go in there and do that, we now have what we call a fuel load. So 
now we have a fuel load in America heavier than we have ever had. Why 
do we have the fuel load? Because we cannot go in, we do not have the 
roads, and we cannot thin the forests. We cannot take down all these 
down fuels.
  So what do we have? We have fires. And we can count on it. The best 
people in America are saying that we will have more fires in America 
this year than we have ever had. So we are going to spend billions of 
dollars fighting the fires when we could have the roads that the people 
could go in.
  What about these young people that want to build homes? The gentleman 
from Ohio talked about the increase. I remember in 1967 when I built a 
home for me and my wife and my family that I thought was wonderful, and 
I looked at the 2 by 4's and they were 83 cents apiece. I bought some 2 
by 4's the other day and they were $4 apiece. Now, there goes the cost 
up.
  Keep in mind what we will do with this amendment from Porter and 
Kennedy. First, we are going to raise the taxes of Americans rather 
substantially; second, all the people who use the roads will not be 
able to use them, and 90 percent of it is used for recreation and, 
third, we will burn the West.
  So let it burn, my colleagues, and vote for this amendment they have 
here; do not let it burn and vote against the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey], a member of the committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to express my great 
respect for our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Regula] and our 
outstanding leader, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. And 
although he fought vigorously to defeat the rule, which would have 
given us an opportunity to support the National Endowment for the Arts, 
we lost, and I would like to direct my remarks to the Ehlers-Hunter 
amendment regarding the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Mr. Chairman, in a nation of such wealth and cultural diversity, it 
is a tragic commentary on our priorities that we are here today 
debating the elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts, an 
agency that spends less than 40 cents per American each year. One of 
the standards by which we judge a civilized society is the support it 
provides for the arts. In comparison to other industrialized nations, 
the United States falls woefully behind in this area, even with a fully 
funded NEA.
  But let us be honest, my colleagues. This is not a fight over money. 
The Republican leadership wants to eliminate the NEA because they are 
concerned about artistic expression in a free society. This battle is 
not about defending the values of mainstream America, this is about 
pandering to Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition. The Republican 
assault on the arts, on cultural expression itself, is an outrage and 
it must be defeated.
  Polls overwhelmingly show that the American public supports Federal 
funding for the arts because students, artists, teachers, musicians, 
orchestras, theaters, dance companies across the country benefit from 
the NEA. For many Americans, whether they live in the suburbs, our 
cities, or our rural areas, the NEA is critical in making the arts 
affordable and accessible.
  If those reasons are not compelling enough for some, let us just talk 
dollars and cents. Because for every $1 the NEA spends, it generates 
more than 11 times that in private donations and economic activity. 
That is a huge economic return on the Government's investment, and we 
certainly do not need to be from New York to see the impact of the arts 
on a region's economy.
  Instead of debating this issue on the merits, the NEA opponents 
delight in telling sensational stories about objectional projects. Let 
us be very clear on the facts. Out of more than 112,000 NEA funded 
grants over the past 32 years, only 45 were controversial. That is less 
than 0.04 percent of all grants.
  Moreover, under the very able leadership of Jane Alexander, the NEA 
has restructured the grant process to ensure the mistakes of the past 
cannot be repeated. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Ehlers-Hunter 
amendment and preserve the NEA.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to request a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] regarding the status of ongoing 
restoration work at the Independence National Historical Park in 
Philadelphia.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to address the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania's concerns about this important work. And I might add also 
that if the gentleman saw the chart of backlogged maintenance, this is 
a classic example of how we have neglected to maintain an extremely 
valuable resource of this Nation.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Independence Park 
has been known to have been undergoing a significant utilities 
restoration project. Several years back I walked through the halls of 
Congress with a corroded pipe because the sprinkler system in 
Independence Hall was completely inoperable. A fire could have 
destroyed that national treasure in 20 minutes.
  The chairman then, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], and the 
corresponding chairman in the other body came to my rescue and provided 
the money for emergency assistance. I appreciated that and I appreciate 
the subcommittee's provision of $4.3 million on the project to preserve 
Independence Hall and the other historic buildings surrounding it. This 
is generous, and I thank the chairman, but I am concerned because the 
administration had requested $6.3 million for this project. I 
understand these funds are absolutely required to implement the park's 
master plan for the next century.
  This country has existed for two centuries because of what happened 
in this park and Independence Hall. I am hoping that we can work 
together in conference on this funding so that this project can proceed 
on schedule.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
understand the gentleman's concerns and I share them. Let me assure him 
that the committee strongly supports this construction work.
  As the gentleman knows, this committee has provided more than $40 
million over the past several years to take care of the critical 
maintenance needs of Independence Hall.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. REGULA. Unfortunately, the Parks Service has a backlog. As I 
mentioned earlier, the Senate allocation is higher than the House 
number. Were the Senate to fund this project, and if other high 
priority needs for construction are met, then I would certainly give a 
lot of consideration to supporting increased funding for this project. 
It is a very important piece of work, and I am very strongly in favor 
of taking care of it. This is one of our Nation's great cherished 
monuments.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, it is also 
the heart of my district.
  Mr. REGULA. It is across the street, as I understand it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the committee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in great respect for the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula], the distinguished chairman of the

[[Page H5073]]

subcommittee. I appreciate his fine work in bringing this legislation 
to the floor. And I join my colleagues in expressing great esteem for 
our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], for the great 
tradition that he has brought to this Congress of support for the arts 
and support for preserving our national and natural heritage as well. 
It is indeed an honor for every one of us who serves in this body to 
call him ``colleague.''
  So it is with regret that I rise to oppose an amendment that will 
come up later, the Ehlers amendment, and hope it will not be part of 
this legislation at the end of the day.
  As I am fond of saying in this Chamber, there are so many fig leaves 
around here that it is beginning to look like the Garden of Eden. 
Today's fig leaf is the Ehlers amendment, which is supposed to give 
cover to those who voted to eliminate the National Endowment for the 
Arts, but alas, it is a transparent fig leaf.
  It is interesting to me that, in the course of the Committee on Rules 
debate and debate on the floor, our Republican colleagues said that we 
had to eliminate the $99 million in funding for the NEA because we need 
to reduce the deficit. Now, hiding behind the transparent fig leaf, the 
Republicans say that we can vote for $80 million through the Ehlers 
amendment. It is clear that this is not about reducing the deficit, it 
is about content restriction; it is about conformity instead of 
creativity.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the distinguished majority 
leader, when he spoke earlier, said that the Ehlers amendment would put 
more Crayolas in our children's hands. Yes, and that is just about it. 
The Ehlers amendment would amount to about $1 per child for the arts.
  Do we not want more for America's children? I am certain the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] wants more for his new grandson, who 
was born yesterday. I am pleased to welcome him to the grandparent's 
club, the best club there is. Let us hope that our grandchildren can 
express themselves freely. In order for that to happen, we should 
reject the Ehlers amendment and bring back the NEA.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Ehlers amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Capps].
  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleagues that there are 
many positive features in this bill. But I am particularly sensitive to 
its cultural institutional components, and here the bill deserves a 
mixed review.
  I am pleased that funding for the National Endowment for the 
Humanities is being sustained, not in abundance, but at current levels. 
On the other hand, I lament what is happening to the National Endowment 
for the Arts.
  What is most troubling about this, in my judgment, is that we here in 
the Congress have taken on the role of art critics who can make 
judgments about what is good or what is bad art, and the electorate has 
not asked us to do that.
  I am also extremely bothered by the large, devastating cuts to the 
Wilson Center down the street. The Wilson Center has done distinguished 
work. It would be extremely short-sighted if we were to destroy this 
very excellent research center.
  Mr. Chairman, my first contact with Congress came more than a decade 
ago when I testified on behalf of the arts and the humanities, and I 
gave my testimony to the committee directed by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates], who is now my colleague.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has given years of 
distinguished service in supporting our national cultural institutions, 
and I want to say that I am so honored to be working at his side.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], a very distinguished member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], for yielding me the time, and I rise 
in opposition to the Porter-Kennedy amendment.
  This amendment eliminates funding allocated to the forest road 
program. But this program builds, improves, and maintains forest roads. 
Those who support the amendment argue that the forest road program 
provides a subsidy. I respectfully disagree.
  I would like to take this opportunity to commend to my colleagues 
this piece of literature prepared by Price Waterhouse that says ``the 
forest roads program does not contain a subsidy for timber purchasers 
and provides an efficient and effective mechanism for financing road 
construction and reconstruction.''
  These roads are an important tool used to manage the resources in our 
national forests. Just last August, a staffer of mine spent 14 days 
fighting wildfires in Oregon. It was the forest roads that provided him 
and other fire-fighters with their sole access over land to the safety 
of their fire camp 6 miles away. Without such roads, access over land 
would have been next to impossible, causing a great loss of both time 
and energy.
  But it is not just access for our wildland firefighters that is 
important, these roads also provide access for our resource managers 
and foresters, hunters, fishermen, and those who just want to take a 
walk in the woods.
  I urge Members to look past the political rhetoric that many groups 
would have them believe. If you support promoting forest health and 
sound environmental stewardship, I urge you to support the forest roads 
program and defeat the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Yates], the distinguished ranking minority member.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to pay my tribute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula]. He and I worked on this bill for many, many years. He 
knows it thoroughly. And, for the most part, I think that this bill 
reflects good judgment on his part.
  In view of the fact that the bill and the rule have killed NEA, I 
will not support the bill. In many respects it is a good bill. It 
provides additional funds for building our parks, our natural 
resources, but it devastates almost equally important cultural 
programs.
  I mentioned what it had done to the National Endowment for the Arts. 
And although it gives its approval to appropriations for the National 
Endowment for the Humanities, it kills the Woodrow Wilson Center, which 
I think has done good work over the years, and it suspends work on the 
Museum for the American Indian. We have been waiting year after year 
after year for a museum to pay tribute to the great people who first 
inhabited this country.
  So, Mr. Chairman, again I pay my tribute to the gentleman from Ohio 
]Mr. Regula]. I look forward to working with the Senate to add some 
improvements to the bill, particularly in the cultural aspects of it; 
and I hope that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will work with me 
in that respect.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I will use my last minute to announce what 
I have been advised, and that is that the leadership advises that they 
would like to work to between 10 and 12 tonight. The objective would be 
to finish by 2 p.m. tomorrow, and I think we can easily do that if we 
work until that time tonight.
  We will probably roll votes until about 7 p.m., and then after we 
have done that group, we will roll again for a couple hours. So this, I 
think, will give the Members an idea of what the rest of the evening 
will be like as far as schedule and what we could anticipate for 
tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, I just close by saying this is a good bill. I hope all 
of our colleagues will look at it carefully as we go through the 
various amendments and then on final passage.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment 
to H.R. 2107. This amendment would increase funding for the payments in 
lieu of taxes [PILT] by $19 million. These payments are absolutely 
vital to our counties that have a decreased tax base due to federally 
owned land located within the county boundaries.
  These payments help defray the costs of law enforcement, fire 
prevention, search and rescue and infrastructure needs in those 
counties that must provide these essential services, yet do not have 
the revenue stream normally provided by private property tax 
collection.

[[Page H5074]]

  Coming from a State where 87 percent of the land is federally owned, 
you can imagine how strapped our rural counties are when it comes to 
providing these essential public services. The PILT Program was 
established to address the fact that the Federal Government does not 
pay taxes on its own land. Unfortunately, PILT payments have never 
approximated the revenue the local governments would otherwise generate 
through private property taxes.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Vermont offering this amendment and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong 
disappointment in the fact that the majority members of the 
Appropriations Committee refused to include, in the bill we are 
discussing today, the $700 million that was included in the bipartisan, 
5-year balanced budget agreement for Federal land acquisition.
  Over $300 million of the $700 million was slated to go to the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund [LWCF], the Federal trust fund, established 
to purchase private lands for outdoor recreation or for preservation 
for future generations.
  Last month, when we learned that this money might not be included in 
the bill, I joined 22 of my colleagues on the Resources Committee in 
sending a letter to Chairman Regula to remind him that the LWCF is 
currently owed about $11 billion which has accumulated because money 
meant for the fund has been directed for other uses, like balancing the 
Federal budget.
  This misdirection of LWCF funds has created a tremendous backlog of 
purchases of threatened land designed to protect the public health and 
the environment.
  I was overjoyed, Mr. Chairman, when I heard that the balanced budget 
agreement had provided an additional $700 million for Federal land 
acquisitions.
  This additional funding would have meant the possibility that funding 
could finally be realized to begin acquiring land at the Salt River 
National Park and Historical Preserve, on the island of St. Croix in my 
district, the Virgin Islands.
  Salt River National Park was authorized in 1992, creating an 
approximately 1,000 acre park offering a unique combination of 
biologically significant flora and fauna. Salt River is also best known 
as the only documented site where Christopher Columbus landed in what 
is now the United States.
  Tragically, since its authorization, there has not been any Federal 
land acquisitions at Salt River. This is a concern because a major 
hotel development had been proposed for the mouth of the Salt River 
Bay, including the area of the Columbus landing site.
  While the development permits for this project have been denied by 
the courts, the current owner of the property believes that an 
opportunity still exists to sell the property and re-initiate the hotel 
project. It is essential, in order to preserve this magnificent area, 
for LWCF funds to be appropriated for the Park Service to acquire key 
private tracts of land at Salt River.
  I urge my colleagues to continue to insist that the previously 
allocated $700 million be made available to address the threats faced 
at Salt River, as well as, for the other hundreds of priority Federal 
land acquisition and local recreation projects across the country.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Interior 
appropriations bill in its current form. It shortchanges the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund [LWCF]. It shuts down the National Endowment 
for the Arts. And it is packed with irresponsible government subsidies 
such as the timber roads credit and special breaks for clean coal 
technology. Thankfully, we have some opportunities today to fix some of 
these problems and send the President legislation he can sign.
  My colleague from California [Mr. Miller] plans upon offering an 
important amendment that will restore the commitments the leadership 
made to the President on funding for the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund [LWCF]. This amendment will provide for two critically important 
land exchanges: the New World Mine in Montana and Headwaters Forest in 
California. Some of my colleagues oppose these purchases, and I respect 
but disagree with their views. But that is not the point. The point is 
that this provision was part of the budget deal that this Congress 
agreed to with the President. There are a lot of aspects of this budget 
agreement with which I'm not in agreement with, but I, along with more 
than 300 of my colleagues, supported the budget agreement when it 
passed on this floor. As Members supported the budget deal the 
Congress/Clinton compromise, it is only reasonable to uphold the key 
provisions of the same. Specifically the commitment to increase the 
LWCF by some $700 million, that is the Miller amendment that will be 
offered in good faith and in accord with the budget agreement.
  Similarly, the bill in its current form shuts down the National 
Endowment of the Arts. A number of our colleagues insist on making 
inflammatory, and I'm sad to say inaccurate, statements about the NEA 
and its priorities. The fact remains that most of the money we spend on 
the arts goes to providing cultural experiences for children in 
communities across the Nation who would not otherwise enjoy such 
opportunity or experiences. The President, furthermore, has indicated 
that he will veto this bill if Congress does not restore funding for 
the NEA.

  Instead of more endless, partisan bickering, this House should 
continue funding the NEA at previous levels. This would have been a 
compromise. While I and a number of my colleagues would like to 
strengthen our commitment to the arts, I recognize that this is 
currently not likely. So I am willing to face reality and move forward 
with the legislative program for our Nation. I would have hoped that 
those who disagree would at some point be willing to do the same.
  In addition to these important amendments, we will debate an 
amendment to eliminate the special subsidy program for timber roads in 
our National Forests. I am not sure how many of my colleagues are aware 
of the fact that this bill includes $40 million so that the Federal 
Government can reimburse timber companies for their road construction 
costs, road graded so that the same entities can harvest the timber. 
That is $40 million less of tax dollars that we can spend on educating 
our kids, cleaning up the environment, providing heat assistance for 
the elderly, and any number of other worthy and important activities 
serving our communities.
  You will hear many claims that, according to Price Waterhouse, these 
millions of dollars do not amount to a subsidy. Please bear in mind 
that this Price Waterhouse analysis was the result of a timber industry 
funded study, frankly the results don't seem surprising. I'm 
underwhelmed by such industry produced fodder. Beware of a special 
interest financed study that supports the special interest access to 
the Federal taxpayer pocketbook. We should end this fiscally and 
environmentally unsound program today by voting for the Porter-Kennedy 
amendment.
  Like just about all of the legislation we consider in this House, 
this is a true question of priorities. I believe and I have long 
believed that we can effectively manage our National Parks and Forests, 
that we can preserve funding for the arts and humanities and that we 
can deal fairly with members of Native American Tribes while we at the 
same time spend money responsibly and eliminate programs and 
unwarranted subsidies that have failed their goal or that enrich 
special interests. We should use this Interior appropriation 
legislation to achieve such goal. Indeed, there are those that wish to 
preserve the subsidy program for logging roads, there are those who 
wish to preserve the so-called Clean Coal Technology Program, and there 
are those who want the Federal Government to extinguish the commitment 
to the arts. I disagree, these actions run counter to sound policy and 
are not supported by the American public.
  I have always viewed the Interior appropriations bill as an 
opportunity for Congress to both protect the environment and save 
taxpayer dollars--what has become recognized as the Green Scissors 
approach--and this year is no different. We should pass the Miller 
amendment, preserve our commitment to the arts, pass the Porter-Kennedy 
amendment, and pass the Klug-Miller-Foley amendment. Then we'll send 
the President a bill that he can sign and show the American people that 
sometimes, when given the opportunity, Congress is capable of real 
change and can do our decisionmaking task fairly, efficiently, and 
above all competently.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I know that today's debate on the fiscal year 1998 
Interior Appropriations will largely focus on funding for the arts and 
humanities, but I would like to take a moment to highlight several 
provisions included in the bill which I am very pleased to support.
  As you may know, citizens of the freely associated states of the 
Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 
and the Republic of Palau, can freely migrate to Guam under the 
provisions of the Compact of Free Association between the United States 
and these nations. Appropriations to reimburse Guam for the impact of 
the Compact are authorized under Public Law 99-239. In the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act of fiscal year 1997 [P.L. 104-134], 6 years of 
partial reimbursement for Guam was included for the social and 
educational costs of this migration. I am pleased that H.R. 2107 again 
includes $4.58 million as partial reimbursement to Guam. I would like 
to thank Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Yates for their leadership 
on this issue and for working to fulfill this important Federal 
obligation.
  H.R. 2107 also includes an additional $1 million for brown tree snake 
eradication research as requested by the administration. This funding 
is vital for the efforts to control this non-indigenous species which 
has decimated Guam's indigenous bird species and is the cause of 
countless power outages

[[Page H5075]]

throughout the island. I thank Chairman Regula and his staff for their 
willingness to take a serious look at this problem and understand the 
ongoing and potential impact of this uncontrolled non-indigenous 
species.
  I am also pleased that technical assistance to the territories has 
been increased by $1 million to approach a more adequate level and has 
remained separate and distinct from funding to control the brown tree 
snake. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues and the 
other body to see that all of these important provisions remain intact.
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise to note a matter 
which is of great concern to myself and the members of the Commerce 
Committee on both sides of the aisle. H.R. 2017, contains language 
which would allow the sale of approximately 10 million barrels of oil 
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  The legislative language in H.R. 2017 changes existing law regarding 
the drawdown of the SPR, and violates House Rule 21 which prohibits 
legislating in an appropriations bill. Yesterday, we asked the Rules 
Committee to issue a rule which did not waive points of order against 
this language. Unfortunately, because of some miscommunications, the 
rule waived the point of order and an objection was made to the 
unanimous-consent request to modify the rule.
  Thus, Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the point of order which 
would lie against this provision was waived. However, I have spoken 
with Mr. Regula and Mr. Solomon about this and I understand they will 
work with me to see that this language is removed at conference.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  Amendments printed in House Report 105-174 may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in 
the reading of the bill, are debatable for the time specified, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, are not 
subject to an amendment, and are not subject to a demand for division 
of the question.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment, and may reduce to not less than 5 
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device 
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by 
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be 
less than 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2107

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, namely:

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       Bureau of Land Management


                   management of lands and resources

       For expenses necessary for protection, use, improvement, 
     development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification, 
     acquisition of easements and other interests in lands, and 
     performance of other functions, including maintenance of 
     facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of lands 
     and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, including the general administration of the 
     Bureau, and assessment of mineral potential of public lands 
     pursuant to Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150(a)), 
     $581,591,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $2,043,000 shall be available for assessment of the mineral 
     potential of public lands in Alaska pursuant to section 1010 
     of Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150); and of which 
     $3,000,000 shall be derived from the special receipt account 
     established by the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, 
     as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)); and of which $1,500,000 
     shall be available in fiscal year 1998 subject to a match by 
     at least an equal amount by the National Fish and Wildlife 
     Foundation, to such Foundation for challenge cost share 
     projects supporting fish and wildlife conservation affecting 
     Bureau lands; in addition, $27,300,000 for Mining Law 
     Administration program operations, to remain available until 
     expended, to be reduced by amounts collected by the Bureau 
     and credited to this appropriation from annual mining claim 
     fees so as to result in a final appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $581,591,000; and in addition, not to exceed 
     $5,000,000, to remain available until expended, from annual 
     mining claim fees; which shall be credited to this account 
     for the costs of administering the mining claim fee program, 
     and $2,000,000 from communication site rental fees 
     established by the Bureau for the cost of administering 
     communication site activities: Provided, That appropriations 
     herein made shall not be available for the destruction of 
     healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the 
     Bureau or its contractors.


                        wildland fire management

       For necessary expenses for fire use and management, fire 
     preparedness, suppression operations, and emergency 
     rehabilitation by the Department of the Interior, 
     $280,103,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not to exceed $5,025,000 shall be for the renovation or 
     construction of fire facilities: Provided, That such funds 
     are also available for repayment of advances to other 
     appropriation accounts from which funds were previously 
     transferred for such purposes: Provided further, That persons 
     hired pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1469 may be furnished subsistence 
     and lodging without cost from funds available from this 
     appropriation.

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with my friend, 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  As the gateway for more than 12 million immigrants between 1892 and 
1954, Ellis Island holds a unique place in our Nation's history. More 
than 90 million Americans trace their roots to Ellis Island, and 1\1/2\ 
million visitors from around the world tour the island every year.
  Unfortunately, some parts of the island are not receiving the 
attention they deserve, and last month the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation included the south side of Ellis Island on its annual list 
of the 11 most endangered historic places in the United States.
  The south side of Ellis Island consists of more than two dozen 
buildings that served as hospital wards during the first part of this 
century. These buildings have great historical significance. In fact, 
the cure for pink eye was discovered there.
  Due to years of weather-related damage, however, the hospital complex 
is seriously decayed. Roofs are caved in, walls are crumbling, and in 
some buildings stalactites of lime hang from the ceiling. These 
buildings are literally falling apart, and allowing them to decay 
beyond repair would be a national disgrace.
  I am very pleased that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has 
included report language in the bill at my request that directs the 
Park Service to come up with an immediate plan to stabilize these 
buildings. I also want to reiterate my hope that, working with the 
Senate, we may be able to find a small amount of money in the bill to 
begin basic emergency repairs in the future.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Lowey] for her interest and efforts. Ellis Island truly is a national 
treasure that has desperate needs for construction repairs.
  Unfortunately, the Park Service construction budget is severely 
constrained by its overwhelming backlog of critical maintenance 
projects, $570 million, as our chart showed, which consists of serious 
public health and safety issues.
  Should the Senate provide funds for the project, and if the other 
priority construction needs are met, I will give serious consideration 
to supporting the project. It is a good project and deserves support. I 
look forward to working with the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] 
to ensure the project's successful completion.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman. We really owe it to the memory of 
our ancestors and for the benefit of future generations to preserve 
these buildings. I am very appreciative of the chairman's support for 
getting us on the path to do just that.

                              {time}  1730

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page H5076]]

                    central hazardous materials fund

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

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this time to, if I could, 
participate in a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] if 
that would be in order.
  Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding, at 
least in my mind, the funding level for the automotive fuel cell 
research and development program within the Energy Conservation 
Program. First, I want to clarify the funding level for the advanced 
automotive technology program. It is my understanding that the 
committee recommended more money for the advanced automotive technology 
program this year than was appropriated in the years 1996 and 1997.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is correct. The comparable program was 
funded at $104,640,000 in fiscal year 1997 and the committee 
recommendation for fiscal year 1998 is $104,796,000. This represents an 
increase of $156,000. It is an increase of over $4 million above the 
1996 level.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman for that. Although the total 
amount for the advance automotive technology program received an 
increased recommendation from the committee over the past 2 years, I 
have heard from the Department of Energy that the fuel cell program has 
received a significant reduction in funding, perhaps as much as $10 
million.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, the department is 
not correct. It is true that the committee has recommended a slight 
reduction from last year's appropriation to the fuel cell program due 
to the difficult choices we have had to make in trying to balance the 
budget.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. It is further my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that 
the Department of Energy approved grants within the fuel cell program 
and that these grants have had an impact on the market value of the 
companies that have been designated as grantees. A part of my confusion 
is how these grants could have been approved by the DOE, the Department 
of Energy, if the funding for these grants were dependent on future 
appropriations. I also am not clear whether the grant recipients can 
receive a portion of their grant even when the amount appropriated is 
not enough to fund all the department's approved grants.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand there is some good research being 
conducted within this program, including some research in my home State 
of Michigan, but the gentleman can see there still appears to me a lot 
of confusion surrounding the issue. I am asking the gentleman today to 
work with me to clarify some of this confusion surrounding the funding 
level for the automotive fuel cell program.
  Mr. REGULA. I would be glad to work with the gentleman from Michigan 
to help clarify any confusion he or others may have regarding the 
automotive fuel cell program.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I appreciate that from the gentleman, and I thank 
the gentleman for joining me in the colloquy.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to request a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula] regarding the fate of ongoing restoration work at the 
Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine in Baltimore.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. I am pleased to address the gentleman from Maryland's 
concerns about this important work.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the bill does not 
provide the $1.8 million needed by the Park Service for high priority 
construction work to complete the restoration of Fort McHenry. Last 
year Congress appropriated $800,000 for the work on the fort. This was 
part of a $2.6 million project designed to preserve the birthplace of 
our National Anthem. To date significant work has been undertaken to 
repair and repoint the fort's main exterior brick walls, dating back to 
the War of 1812. Additional funding is needed to complete preservation 
of underground bombproof rooms, powder magazines and Civil War period 
defense works at the site.
  I am concerned that the action of the committee threatens the timely 
and efficient completion of the necessary work. Finding sources of 
historically compatible bricks and artisans skilled at this restoration 
work has been difficult, but the project is now underway and we should 
complete it.
  Mr. REGULA. I understand the gentleman's concerns. Let me assure him 
that despite our decision not to include construction funding for Fort 
McHenry, the committee strongly supports this work. Unfortunately, the 
National Park Service has a $5.6 billion construction and repair 
backlog, $575 million of which deals with the critical maintenance 
needs regarding public health and safety issues.
  Mr. CARDIN. I understand the pressures the committee is under this 
year and particularly that the Park Service's fiscal year 1998 
construction budget included two extremely high cost projects, but the 
Fort McHenry project is also a priority and is in danger of being cut 
off in the middle. The Senate allocation is more generous than the 
House numbers. Should the Senate provide funds for this project, can I 
ask the gentleman to support the funding construction at Fort McHenry?
  Mr. REGULA. Fort McHenry is one of this Nation's great historic 
treasures. Were the Senate bill to fund this project and if the other 
high priority needs for construction are met, then I would give serious 
consideration to supporting the project. It is an important project and 
deserves funding. I look forward to working closely with the gentleman 
from Maryland to ensure the successful completion of this construction 
in a timely and efficient manner.
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman 
of the subcommittee in a colloquy, but before I do I want to commend 
the chairman and the subcommittee for placing a moratorium on the 
acceptance and processing of mining claim patent applications made 
under the Mining Law of 1872. By the continuation of this moratorium, I 
think the subcommittee expresses the view of the majority of the 
Members of this body, if given the opportunity, they would vote for a 
comprehensive reform of the Mining Law of 1872.
  While I do commend the Committee on Appropriations for continuing 
this patent moratorium, I think it is important that we be up front in 
recognizing that this provision is only a Band-Aid that will not 
staunch the hemorrhaging of the public's mineral wealth under the 
Mining Law of 1872. Radical surgery is what is required. I hope that 
one day we will get around to doing that.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee bill provides $4.5 million for grants to 
the eight heritage areas designated by the Omnibus Parks Act signed 
into law last year. Of this amount, three heritage areas are to receive 
the maximum amount allowed under that law, $1 million each, because the 
committee has determined they are further advanced. That leaves $1.5 
million for the remaining five heritage areas.
  Is it the committee's intent for the National Park Service to 
distribute this funding roughly evenly among those five heritage areas, 
with no area receiving less than $200,000?

[[Page H5077]]

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. That would be the intent of the committee.
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio and commend 
him for his work on this bill as well as the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Dicks], the ranking minority member.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for engaging in this 
colloquy with me regarding the heritage areas, an initiative that I 
know he and the members of the committee have long supported and 
supported very strongly.
  I would like to speak particularly of the Blackstone River Valley 
National Heritage Corridor in my State of Rhode Island as well as the 
bordering State of Massachusetts. This is one of the real examples of 
State partnership between Massachusetts and Rhode Island that we have. 
I also want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern] 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal] as well for their long 
work on this issue.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island 
for yielding. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for 
the manner over the years in which he has treated the Blackstone 
funding priorities. It has been very encouraging and he has been more 
than generous with his time as well as his support of this project. I 
know that since I represent the town of Blackstone that this really 
commemorates a remarkable part of the manufacturing history of America. 
I am delighted with his pronouncement today that he will support us on 
the Senate side when this legislation goes to conference.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Neal]. This is a real example of us working together on a bi-State 
issue, but one that pulls us all together because of the nature of the 
heritage corridor.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for 
yielding to me, and I want to associate myself with his remarks as well 
as the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal]. The 
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor is a crown jewel of 
the National Park Service and showcases our natural resources while 
preserving the history of that area. I want to also express my deep 
gratitude to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]. We genuinely 
appreciate his consideration of our comments regarding this subject, 
which is of tremendous importance to not only Rhode Island but 
Massachusetts, where I am from. I appreciate it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I want to thank both my colleagues from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize the difficult choices the chairman and the 
members of the committee are faced with, but I want to discuss with the 
gentleman the fact that this bill provides no construction funds in 
fiscal year 1998 for the Blackstone Corridor.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. I understand the gentleman's concerns. I would point out 
that the Blackstone River Valley Heritage Project is one of the 
flagships of our national program. It has set a standard. Let me assure 
the gentleman that our decision had nothing to do with the committee's 
support for the Blackstone Corridor. The National Park Service has a 
$5.6 billion backlog of major priority construction projects; $575 
million of that deals with critical backlog maintenance, needs such as 
failed water systems, broken sewer lines, deteriorating utilities, 
unsafe dams and other major health and safety projects. I might add, as 
I said in the opening statement, we are very sensitive about the 
backlog maintenance problems.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I appreciate the gentleman's position 
and I know the committee's support for the Blackstone Valley River 
Heritage Corridor. I know the chairman's sensitivity to the notion of 
passing the bill last year as we did during the last Congress and 
putting some of the construction funds in place, but then it is sort of 
analogous to building a house but not putting the furniture in it. We 
do not want to jeopardize this project by not following through on our 
commitment to it as we did through the authorization bill last year.
  Should the Senate allocation in this year's bill be more generous 
than the House number and should the Senate provide the funds for this 
project, can I ask the gentleman as chairman and the members of his 
committee to consider supporting this project once again as he has done 
in the past?
  Mr. REGULA. I would advise the gentleman were the Senate to fund this 
project for fiscal year 1998 and if the other priority needs for 
construction are met, I very much hope that we can provide the 
construction funding for the Blackstone Heritage Area. It is a good 
project and it deserves strong support. I do look forward to working 
closely with the gentleman from Rhode Island and the other two 
gentlemen that spoke to ensure the ongoing success of this project.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. We certainly appreciate the chairman's 
consideration and look forward to working with him for the success of 
this project, which means a great boon to our area in northern Rhode 
Island and Massachusetts as well, which has seen a great growth in jobs 
as a result of this wonderful model project in this country of what a 
heritage corridor can do for the economy of a given region. I want to 
thank the chairman for his work on this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                              construction

       For construction of buildings, recreation facilities, 
     roads, trails, and appurtenant facilities, $3,254,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                       payments in lieu of taxes

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20, 
     1976, as amended, (31 U.S.C. 6901-07), $113,500,000, of which 
     not to exceed $400,000 shall be available for administrative 
     expenses: Provided, That no payment shall be made to 
     otherwise eligible units of local government if the computed 
     amount of the payment is less than $100.


                Amendment No. 11 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. 11 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 5, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $19,000,000)''.
       Page 59, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $47,500,000)''.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment which is being 
introduced by the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass] and myself 
does two important things that most Members of this body agree with.
  First, it deals with the very serious problem of underfunded 
mandates, of forcing citizens in close to 2,000 counties in all 50 
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 lands. This amendment 
addresses this problem by increasing payments in lieu of taxes by $19 
million, from $113.5 million to $132.5 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I should add here that this amount is exactly the 
amount authorized for fiscal year 1995, when Congress passed the 
reauthorization for PILT in 1994. In other words, this amendment 
provides what the Congress promised cities and towns all over this 
country 3 years ago that we should be doing. We made a commitment, we 
should honor that commitment, and that is what this amendment does.
  Mr. Chairman, the PILT program was established to address the fact 
that the Federal Government does not pay taxes on its own land.

                              {time}  1745

  These Federal lands can include national forests, national parks, 
fish and wildlife refuges, and land owned by the

[[Page H5078]]

Bureau of Land Management. Like property taxes, PILT payments are used 
to pay the school budgets, law enforcement, and other municipal 
expenses. Communities all over this country are upset by the lack of 
fairness that they are receiving from the Federal Government, which is 
why this amendment is endorsed by the National Association of Counties.
  Mr. Chairman, despite an increase that was granted 3 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 1997, 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 to where it 
was in real terms 10 years ago.
  The formula by which payments in lieu of taxes are made is a 
complicated one, and each property is treated somewhat differently, but 
on average, on average, if this amendment passes, each local government 
would see a 17-percent increase in PILT money, and that is a 
significant advantage to thousands of communities all over this 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal of discussion recently about 
evolution and our concerns for local communities and local government. 
It is high time that the Federal Government accepted its responsibility 
to do right by local communities.
  Mr. Chairman, the $47.5 million that we are using for these purposes, 
in other words, deficit reduction and increasing PILT payments to local 
communities all over America, would be transferred from the Fossil 
Energy Research and Development Program. According to the report of the 
fiscal year 1997 budget resolution which passed the House last year, 
the Republican resolution, and let me quote from that, and I 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 
     the industry is already doing. Some has gone to fund 
     technologies in which the market has low interest.

  Mr. Chairman, these are not my words. These are the words from the 
report of the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution produced by the 
leadership of the Republican party. But obviously it is not only 
Republicans or conservatives who feel this way; progressives agree. 
Public Citizen has this to say about the Fossil Energy Research and 
Development Program, and I quote:

       Fossil energy programs have received over $15 billion in 
     Federal funding since 1974. The fossil energy industry is 
     prosperous and mature, and it is not deserving of a 
     continuing large share of taxpayer support.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is, progressives and conservatives 
support this concept. I would urge Members from both sides of the aisle 
to vote for it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the PILT Program is popular, but we have to make 
priority judgments. We have to decide what best serves the interests of 
the people of this Nation.
  What we have done in the fossil program is look at it very carefully, 
and we have reduced it over the past couple of years by 30 percent, and 
we want to avoid cutting any more.
  I think this term ``corporate welfare'' is used very carelessly, 
because we have established a policy that we do not fund these energy 
research projects unless the private sector puts in a substantial share 
of funding. These are very important partnerships.
  And I want to point out one other thing. We made a policy in the 
fossil research program that once the technology is developed, the 
Government is out of it. We do not spend any money on 
commercialization. Once it is proven that a low emission boiler works, 
then it is up to the private sector to take over from there.
  I simply say that to point out that we have tried to make these 
programs very efficient. We have restructured the programs so that we 
are not committed to large costly demonstration projects.
  But my colleagues have to remember that this country relies on fossil 
fuels for the majority of its energy requirements and will continue to 
do so for the foreseeable future. That is coal, oil, and natural gas. 
This is what makes this Nation great; this is what drives this economy.
  I think one of the great advantages our Nation has over our European 
competitors is low-cost energy. It is reflected in the fact that we 
have a 4 percent growth in the economy. In 1997, we hope that the 
deficit will be down under $50 billion. But to do that we have to keep 
research in fossil fuels, we have to ensure that in the future we are 
going to have the advanced technologies that will allow us to use our 
fossil energy sources in a very efficient and environmentally sensitive 
way.
  Of course some of the critics contend that we should put more money 
into alternative energy sources and abandon research on traditional 
energy, the energy resources that fuel our economy, but I think that 
does not make sense given the realities of today's economy and the 
importance of fossil fuel.
  I think that a lot of this research is designed to reduce the 
environmental impact of the use of fossil fuels because realistically 
that is going to be our energy source for as far as the eye can see. 
And if we want to leave for future generations the opportunity to have 
the same quality of life that we have had, we have to ensure that we 
can use fossil fuel in an energy-efficient way and that we can use it 
in an environmentally safe way.
  What does that add up to? It adds up to research which improves the 
technologies, which develops new fossil fuel technologies which reduce 
emissions, which use energy more efficiently, and it creates jobs at 
the same time we explore the alternative energy sources.
  We have done that in this bill, and I think it would be a serious 
mistake in terms of this Nation's economy to take money out of this 
fossil research program. It will cost $47.5 million from research to 
provide $19 million more for PILT. It would be nice to give these 
additional credits to local counties. We have done that while trying to 
stay within our allocation. But to cut our fossil energy research 
program would be very shortsighted in the long haul, and for that 
reason I have to strenuously object to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members will support us in defeating 
this amendment.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders-
Bass amendment which would restore much deserved funding to the PILT 
Program. PILT Program, payment in lieu of taxes.
  Each year thousands of counties across this Nation lose out on 
millions of dollars in property tax revenue simply because the Federal 
Government owns the property. While the PILT Program was established to 
compensate for this fact, it is woefully underfunded. Since it was 
adopted in 1976, the PILT Program has neither kept pace with its 
authorized funding levels, nor with the true costs of providing 
services in support of the Federal lands.
  We have repeatedly tried year after year to increase PILT payments, 
and unfortunately there is never any money for the PILT payments. And, 
as I said, it has not kept pace with the funding levels, the 
authorization levels, and that is why there is strong support of the 
Sanders-Bass amendment.
  But if my colleagues take a look at it from an equity point of view, 
local governments have a right to be compensated for untaxable land 
which is owned by the Federal Government within their jurisdiction, for 
providing services to Federal employees, their families, and to the 
users of the public lands. PILT funds are used by these communities for 
important programs such as education, law enforcement, emergency search 
and rescue, fire and emergency medical services, solid waste 
management, road maintenance, and other health and human services.
  In my district, Mr. Chairman, there are many counties where the 
Federal Government is the largest land owner, and our school districts 
cannot even bond to build a new school because most of the land is 
encumbered by the Federal Government and is nontaxable. Therefore we do 
not even have a tax

[[Page H5079]]

base to put forth a school system and to maintain a school system.
  Therefore I urge my colleagues to cast a vote for equity by voting in 
favor of the Sanders-Bass amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding the balance of his time to me, and I hate to disagree with my 
good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] especially since we 
are going to do a colloquy in a few moments. But bottom line is the 
program that we are talking about here is corporate welfare. That is 
what the Fossil Energy Research and Development Program is, and that is 
not just my opinion. I remind the Members that it was the 1997 budget 
resolution of the Republican party which said, and I want to repeat 
this:

       The Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars on 
     research and development since the oil crisis of 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 industry.

  Mr. Chairman, let me quote from the Congressional Budget Office:

       In the area of fossil research and development, commercial 
     firms already spend a great deal of money to develop new 
     technologies. The major new technologies for enhanced oil 
     recovery, for example, have come from private industry, not 
     DOE.

  Mr. Chairman, this is an important point to make, and I want the 
Members to hear this:

       Among the beneficiaries of the petroleum research and 
     development program are some of the largest multinational 
     energy conglomerates in the world, including: Exxon, Chevron, 
     Conoco, Texaco, Amoco, Phillips Petroleum, ARCO and Shell.

  When kids around the country cannot get an education because this 
land is their land, the public land is not paying taxes, payment in 
lieu of taxes, should these major multinational corporations be the 
industries that we are subsidizing? I think not.
  Mr. Chairman, this project, the fossil energy program, is being 
targeted as one of the dirty dozen corporate subsidies by the Stop 
Corporate Welfare Coalition, which includes National Taxpayers Union, 
Taxpayers For Common Sense, USPIRG, and Citizens Against Government 
Waste.
  Mr. Chairman, this concept is supported by progressives and 
conservatives and people in between. Let us stop subsidizing large 
multinational corporations who do not need taxpayers' money. Let us 
help local communities all over America get the payments in lieu of 
taxes that they need.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment before the committee 
this evening, and I want to certainly thank the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Interior for having crafted a bill that has created 
more headaches than I would ever want to have in a given week.
  The question here really is, as he puts it, a question of priorities. 
There are over 2,000 counties in this country in 49 States, the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] said 50 States, that suffer as a 
result of chronic underfunding of the payment in lieu of taxes system 
in this country. The amendment that my colleagues have before them 
today will contribute not only to the PILT issue but also the deficit 
reduction.
  Now, as other speakers have mentioned this evening, communities with 
significant Federal lands cannot collect the same kinds of property 
taxes as communities can that do not have Federal lands, and as has 
been mentioned before, the Federal Government moved to create a system 
whereby payments will be made in lieu of property taxes, but these 
authorizations and these commitments have been chronically underfunded.

                              {time}  1800

  In fact, today the Federal Government only pays a little more than 60 
percent of what they are obligated to pay. What is the result of this? 
The result is that we have for communities in the affected areas a 
Hobson's choice. Either they can disproportionately increase taxes in 
order to meet their funding obligations, or they can provide fewer 
services: education, fire, and other services that are so necessary for 
communities.
  I would not be standing before the Members today concerned with this 
amendment if it was not for the fact that this is a question of equity 
and fairness. We are talking about adding $19 million to the $132.5 
million, which would bring the funding level up to what it was supposed 
to have been in fiscal year 1995, when I entered Congress.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BASS. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to rise in support of 
this amendment and thank my colleague the gentleman from New Hampshire 
[Mr. Bass] and the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for the 
excellent work they have done with the amendment.
  I would just like to take a moment to underscore the important point 
the gentleman has made, that this is about inequity, it is about 
meeting our commitments, meeting the commitments that were made when 
Congress authorized the Payment In Lieu of Tax system. These are cities 
and towns that have national forests within their borders, and they are 
obligated at times for services, not just those of schools or municipal 
services that so many cities and towns have, but oftentimes services 
that take place in the boundaries of the national forest: rescue 
services, fire services.
  The burdens that we place on them is one that we need to recognize. 
We need to recognize that the PILT has failed to live up to the 
obligations that were originally made, and that by putting that 
forward, $19 million to make up some of this difference, we move with a 
system that is fairer, one that helps us meet our commitments, and one 
that provides a lot of these towns with property tax relief, because so 
many of them rely on their property base for the taxes that they use to 
pay for municipal services.
  So while I would like to commend the chairman for his work in putting 
together this bill, I would like to lend my support to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire and the gentleman from Vermont, and encourage my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague.
  Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that if we were 
to fully fund the PILT program in fiscal year 1998, we would have an 
obligation of $224 million. We are talking about $132.5 million, so we 
are certainly not asking for everything that is really due.
  I just want to conclude by saying that this is a bipartisan 
amendment. Any time the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and I are 
producing an amendment together, Members can be sure it is bipartisan. 
It is an issue of fairness, an issue of giving what is due the towns, 
giving the towns what they are due. It is not full funding, as I said a 
minute ago, but Mr. Chairman, it is a step in the right direction.
  If Members support equity, if they support help to communities that 
need assistance in funding for critical services in areas where there 
are Federal lands, please support the Sanders-Bass amendment.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. The 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is attempting to increase funding 
for Payment In Lieu of Taxes, which is not necessarily a bad 
initiative, but he seeks to do so in a very reckless manner. The fossil 
energy program is one of the least understood and most important at the 
Department of Energy, supporting important cost-shared research and 
development activities to make energy resources we use the most cleaner 
and cheaper.
  This also enhances our energy security as these resources are our 
most abundant domestic sources of energy. The Energy Information Agency 
has predicted that we will continue to rely on these resources and 
these sources of energy for over 85 percent of our energy needs well 
into the 21st century.
  Additionally, any commitments the United States makes in the area of 
global climate change will necessitate that we find ways of reducing 
emissions without crippling our economy. Thus, it is vital that we 
maintain this

[[Page H5080]]

modest commitment to cleaner and more efficient energy.
  Over the last several years fossil energy has undergone significant 
downsizing, roughly 10 percent each year. Now is not the time to seek 
additional savings from this program. This R&D work is conducted 
throughout the United States by a wide range of small and large 
companies. This amendment calls for an across-the-board cut, which in 
no way takes into account the needs of specific programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, in Minnesota if a private citizen fails to pay his or 
her property tax bill within 7 years, they lose their property. The 
Federal Government is 20 years behind in keeping up with its payments 
to the counties of northern Minnesota and elsewhere around this country 
under the terms of the Payment In Lieu of Taxes legislation.
  Twenty-five years ago, as a staff member for my predecessor, John 
Blatnik, who served in this body, I helped write the language that 
became the Payment In Lieu of Taxes law that is in place today. As a 
Member, I have worked to keep it in place, to expand it, to update it. 
But it has not kept pace with the needs of the counties in which these 
great Federal landholdings are located, and it has not kept pace, by 
any means, with inflation.
  These are lands held in public trust for all Americans to enjoy, and 
they do come from all over the United States to enjoy the land of 
northern Minnesota, the boundary waters, canoe area, the Voyageurs 
National Park, Superior National Forest, I can go on with several 
others, and I will not name them.
  But who is stuck with the bill? When the accident happens on the 
highway between Duluth and Grand Portage, MN, up in Cook County, it is 
the Cook County sheriff's department that has to come to scrape the 
bodies off the highway. It is the Cook County hospital that has to stay 
open 24 hours a day to accommodate them, in a little county of 3,600 
people, 94 percent of the land in public ownership, most of it Federal, 
and they do not have the resources. How can 6 percent of the land 
sustain the total needs of that area and all the tourists who come from 
all over America to enjoy this land, and then they say, well, take care 
of our health needs, take care of our safety needs, take care of our 
requirements, law enforcement requirements, while we are in your midst?
  All of America holds these lands in trust, and all of America should 
help pay the bill. We have not kept pace with the needs. That is what 
this amendment simply does.
  It is unfortunate, I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, that it 
comes out of a project or out of a resource or a fund that benefits a 
resource in his district. That is the budget economy we are dealing 
with. I also happen to have iron ore mining and manganese deposits in 
my district, and the research conducted by the Bureau of Mines was 
terminated. The Bureau of Mines was eliminated under this budget 
economy of ours. That is unfortunate.
  But this is an obligation of all Americans to those who live in the 
area where we took land and said we are going to hold it in public 
trust.
  Let us take St. Louis County. We could put the whole State of 
Massachusetts into St. Louis County; not all of the people, but the 
geography. Some people might say, that is a good thing; not the folks 
in northern Minnesota, however. That is how big this county is, 3,000 
miles of county roads that have to be maintained on this little county 
budget.
  All we are saying is increase, increase the funding under this 
Federal program to help this county take care of search and rescue, law 
enforcement costs, lost hikers who are out there in the Superior 
National Forest who need help. Someone has a fishhook in their eye in 
the Boundary Waters canoe area, they have to be treated in the Cook 
County Hospital, or in the Cook Hospital in St. Louis County.
  Sanitary enforcement, planning and zoning, health services, 
groundwater, surface water, all of those are needs that the county has 
to attend to, and they do not have the resources to deal with it. All 
we are saying is help them keep pace.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me pick up on a point that the 
gentleman has made. In 1980 in real dollars PILT payments were $180 
million. Today they are $113 million. It is the communities and the 
children and the citizens of those communities who are suffering. I 
just wanted to reiterate that point.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that 
elaboration.
  We are simply making an appeal for fairness, those of us who 
represent areas with large land jurisdictions in Federal holdings, for 
justice, decency, and respect for the people who are holding, who are 
the custodians of these lands held in public trust for all Americans. 
Help them pay the bill. Vote for the Sanders-Bass-Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking our chairman, the gentleman 
from Ohio, Mr. Ralph Regula, for the outstanding work he has done on 
this major piece of legislation and involvement in working with all of 
us. We commend him for that.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases payments in lieu of taxes 
funding for counties and schools by $19 million, to $132 million for 
fiscal year 1998, while at the same time reducing the Federal deficit 
by $29 million. More than 20 years ago this Congress recognized a 
serious inequity existed in areas containing a high percentage of 
Federal property. Since the Federal Government does not pay taxes on 
its own property, these areas were left without any source of funding 
to provide for local schools and county services.
  In 1976, we attempted to correct this inequity and provided funding 
in the form of payments in lieu of taxes, or PILT payments. However, 
since providing these payments, this Congress has failed to fully fund 
the PILT Program. Each year 1,789 communities in each of the 50 States 
lose needed Federal payments due to the failure of the Federal 
Government to appropriately compensate these communities for lost 
property tax revenue on federally owned lands. The Sanders-Bass 
amendment corrects this shortcoming, and provides an increase of $1.86 
million of necessary funding for the communities in my own State of 
California.
  To put this amount into perspective, many of the areas that will 
receive this funding were recently under water when the midwinter 
storms caused severe flooding. In January, the State of California 
suffered approximately $1.8 billion in damage. Each of the 10 counties 
in my district were declared a natural disaster area. The $1.86 million 
in PILT payments is sorely needed to rebuild after this serious 
disaster.
  There are other reasons, however, to support this amendment. This 
money goes directly to local schools and rural counties who can least 
afford a loss of funding. In one California county, recent funding 
losses have forced the school district to completely cut out 
extracurricular activities, including sports and field trips, food 
service for one of its elementary schools, library services, two-thirds 
of its transportation services, all fine art programs, teacher training 
courses, a school nurse program, and all capital expenditures.
  If these same cuts had been made in urban and inner city areas, 
lawsuits would have been filed and service levels would undoubtedly 
have been necessarily restored.
  Mr. Chairman, today we heard a lot of discussion over the need for 
Medicare and the need to provide medical services for our elderly 
residents. Before any of our citizens can receive Medicare or Medicaid 
assistance they first must be able to have roads to travel on to get to 
the hospitals, ambulances to carry them in when needed, and hospitals 
to go to. By underfunding our rural counties, we have forced these 
counties to cut back on county services. These county services include 
road maintenance, ambulance service, search and rescue, law 
enforcement,

[[Page H5081]]

snowplowing, bridge maintenance, hospitals, and all local ground 
support for maintenance of Federal lands.
  If the county services were to go away, the Federal Government would 
not have an infrastructure in place to service its public lands. When 
visitors get lost on public lands, it is the county search and rescue 
that comes to their aid. When visitors to public lands need police 
protection, that need is filled by county services.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Sanders-Bass amendment because it gives 
necessary assistance to counties otherwise left without a source of 
funding. I urge my colleagues to vote for public schools and county 
services by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, if we are engaged in a 
comparison of the size of the counties that we represent, I would like 
to enter my entry in the contest. My good friend, the gentleman from 
California, [Mr. Jerry Lewis], and I represent San Bernardino County, 
which is larger in size than the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 
Maryland, Delaware, and Massachusetts combined.

                              {time}  1815

  Both of us, while we support the PILT program, oppose the offset 
provision that is contained in this amendment offered by my good 
friend, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  May I stress that while the support for this amendment deservedly is 
bipartisan, the opposition is also bipartisan. I would like to make 
that very clear.
  Let me say in case there is any doubt about it that my very large 
county is probably about 75 percent owned by the Federal Government, 
and we benefit as much from PILT payments as any other county in the 
United States, probably considerably more because we are the largest 
county in the United States. And if there was any way that we could 
provide adequate funding for this program, other than taking it out of 
research programs which I have been supporting for the last 30 years, I 
would be very happy to support this amendment.
  But I want to make it clear that the target for funding the PILT 
program is not a proper target. If there is any question about the 
value of energy research and specifically fossil energy research to 
this country, we ought to dispel it. This country has had a 
flourishing, developing, expanding economy because we conducted 
research on energy technologies of all kinds, beginning with the atomic 
energy program in World War II, and I have been involved, of course, 
with that program which preceded the creation of the Department of 
Energy.
  Now, what can we say that would elevate the priority for energy 
research? I have tried to defend these research programs over the years 
in every way that I could. I think all of you know that according to 
most economists, half of the economic growth in this country, the 
increase in gross national product, stems from investments that we make 
in research. We make it in solar energy research; we make it in fuel 
cell research. We make it in all kinds of research. And we support a 
multitude of research programs.
  Why pick on these research programs which collectively generate the 
growth in the U.S. economy and make us the world's leader in order to 
support something which deserves support but does not deserve support 
at the expense of what creates the growth for this country? It creates 
the jobs that we are training people in the schools for and does all of 
these other things.
  I think that there is a failure to recognize the importance of these 
investments. I want to stress them in every way that I can.
  Now, I also do not like, and I hope I do not offend anybody by making 
this statement, to argue support for this on the grounds that this 
research is corporate welfare.
  Many of my colleagues have heard me debate our dear departed friend, 
Bob Walker, who I think coined this phrase because he objected to most 
forms of applied research that involved cooperation between the 
Government and the private sector. That is what this fossil energy 
research does. Bob used to decry any of these kinds of programs because 
he would say they are corporate subsidies. They are corporate welfare.
  I happen to know a lot about corporate welfare. The biggest corporate 
welfare program in the world was the oil depletion allowance, which 
provided a very large subsidy to a very profitable industry over very 
many years until we woke up to the fact that it really was corporate 
welfare and we eliminated it.
  These programs of cost-shared research, in which the role of the 
Federal Government is frequently only 5 or 10 percent, leverage the 
most important investments by the private sector that can be made.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Brown of California was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, we should be proud of the fact 
that these shared research programs exemplified by the fossil energy 
research programs have contributed as much as they have. Have they all 
been successful? No. Over the last 25 years, I could give my colleagues 
a long list of those which did not produce and which were canceled, 
sometimes without being completed. Much of our nuclear program could be 
criticized. We have got nuclear plants around the country that were 
built but never used. My good friend, the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Dicks] has some in his area. But do we regret the fact that we 
spent money to develop the world's best nuclear power system? No. The 
nature of research is that you get some winners and you make a few 
losers once in a while. But if you do not continue to make the 
investments, you will never make progress.
  I will stand in every case where an offset is made from energy 
research to support a worthy program and oppose it, much as I would 
like to support the worthy program. We are cutting at the lifeblood of 
this country's future when we begin to take out the funds for this 
offset from research programs of any kind.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by expressing appreciation to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for the fine legislation that is 
before us, but would like to say a few words in support of the Bass-
Sanders amendment and give an example from my own district.
  Last fall, as many of my colleagues know, President Clinton, with a 
few quick words and the stroke of a pen, created the massive Grand 
Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah. Contained 
within the 1.7 million acre monument are two counties in Utah, Kane and 
Garfield Counties. Thousands of tourists are now flocking to this area 
because it has been advertised in virtually every travel magazine in 
the country and the burden of those tourists falls squarely upon the 
10,000 residents of those two counties.
  These small counties have excruciatingly small tax bases. Garfield 
County, for instance, is 98 percent owned by the Federal Government. 
Yet every local resident must now pay for the costs of law enforcement, 
search and rescue, trash pickup, and other services incurred by 
tourists to the monument. That is fundamentally unfair.
  Since we as Americans own the land, the Federal Government, not the 
residents of Kane County or Garfield County, should pay those bills.
  This amendment is an important incremental step toward placing more 
of the costs of Federal lands where they belong, on the Federal 
Government. I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the Sanders-Bass 
amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern they have for 
PILT.
  Let me point out to my colleagues that we put in $12 million more 
than was requested by the President in his

[[Page H5082]]

budget. We recognize how important this is to those who have Federal 
lands, and for that reason we increased the PILT program $12 million 
over what the President requested.
  But, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] pointed out, our 
fossil energy research and development is also an important program. 
And we have, over the years, developed synergically advanced 
technology, as has been stated many times. We can burn coal more 
cleanly and efficiently because of the fossil energy research effort. 
For every barrel of oil we produced, we have left two in the ground. 
And we have invested millions of dollars under the leadership of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] in developing technologies to 
recover these resources.
  The reason we have cheap fuel in this country, the reason our economy 
is the strongest in the world, is in part because we have readily 
available energy resources and that is the result of the things that we 
have done in the past in fossil research, a result of the committee, 
the Committee on Science, having the vision to authorize these 
programs.
  We have another problem. That is, we are phasing down contracts, but 
we have contractual obligations. If we take $47 million out of the 
fossil research program, we are going to breach contracts. We are going 
to have lawsuits against this government.
  We have already reduced the fossil program 30 percent. So let me say, 
and I endorse what the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] said, PILT 
payments are, but this is not the place to take the money because we 
want to keep those jobs, we want to keep this economy strong. We will 
not get to a balanced budget unless we have growth in the economy. 
Energy is the lifeblood of this Nation. It is critical to continue to 
develop these advanced technologies to lead us to the 21st century.
  And let me say, too, in our fossil research programs, we have 
insisted on cost-share participation from the private sector. This is 
not a giveaway. And one of the reasons these programs have been so 
successful is because the private sector gets involved with their own 
money.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I was remiss in not thanking the chairman 
and recognizing the chairman for his efforts to increase the funding of 
PILT. I really do appreciate the initiative.
  This is not a comment in any way on the gentleman's custodianship of 
that extraordinarily difficult budget which he has to administer. These 
are very difficult choices. We understand that. We understand the need 
for research. We have spent millions of dollars on those research 
projects for fossil fuel over the years. I compliment the chairman on 
the job he has done. It is just that we feel that we need to go 
further.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand what the 
gentleman is saying. As I pointed out in the general debate, this bill 
is less than last year, not much but it is less and, therefore, we 
simply cannot do all the good things we would like to do. But I think 
the fossil research programs are vital. These are contractual 
relationships. The government, the United States Government has a 
responsibility to complete these contracts because the private sector 
has invested its money, and to suddenly pull the rug out from under 
them would be not only unfair but could be very costly in lawsuits.
  Far more important, if this Nation is to continue to grow, to have 
jobs, to have opportunities, to continue to be a world leader, we need 
to develop the fossil energy resources so we can use them in an 
environmentally safe way, we can use them at a low cost to our economy; 
and certainly we have a proposal from the EPA to decrease, in effect, 
the levels of particulate matter. That, again, emphasizes how important 
research on fossil energy is to the future of this Nation.
  If we are to meet these new more stringent standards on air quality, 
we have to continue the fossil research programs. As the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown] pointed out, I do not quarrel with the PILT 
program. That is why we increased it $12 million over the President's 
budget request. But I think to take money out of the fossil program 
would be a serious mistake in terms of the future of this Nation.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula] for the outstanding work that he has done on this budget. 
I applaud his efforts. We just disagree on this issue.
  This is the bottom line. It is not complicated. You have heard it 
from conservatives and progressives, Democrats, Republicans and 
Independents. This is tripartitism. The issue is that we have 1,700 
communities throughout the United States of America in 50 States who 
are not receiving fair compensation from the Federal Government.
  In fact, in 1980, in real dollars, they were receiving then $180 
million in PILT payments. Today it is $113 million, significant 
reduction in PILT payments.
  In terms of the fossil energy research and development program, what 
we have got to ask ourselves is whether or not we should be subsidizing 
Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, Texaco, Amoco, Phillips Petroleum, ARCO and 
Shell. These are profitable multinational corporations. I frankly do 
not think they need these subsidies. I would simply point out that 
opposition to the fossil research program is widespread from 
conservatives, from progressives. It was targeted as one of the quote 
unquote dirty dozen corporate subsidies by the Stop Corporate Welfare 
Coalition which includes the National Taxpayers Union, not necessarily 
a progressive organization, I do not get a terribly high rating from 
them, Taxpayers for Common Sense, USPIRG, Citizens Against Government 
Waste.
  The choice is clear. Do we stand up for the kids who are not getting 
adequate education throughout this country because of lack of Federal 
payments, or do we stand with some companies that really do not need 
the subsidies. I would urge a ``yes'' vote for the Sanders-Bass 
amendment.

                              {time}  1830

  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 181, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] 
will be postponed.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on 
Appropriations, in a brief colloquy.
  I first want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Ohio and 
his staff and the ranking member and the staff of the minority for the 
tremendous effort they have put forth in bringing this legislation to 
the floor. I realize the many challenges that they have and the many 
needs that we have throughout the Department of the Interior and the 
demands on Interior appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, I was going to offer an amendment to increase funding 
for the National Park Service for a project in my district known as 
Seminole Rest, a historic site renovation project at Canaveral National 
Seashore in east central Florida. Although I will not offer that 
amendment, I strongly support efforts to develop this site in a manner 
which preserves both its resources while making them available for 
public enjoyment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my hope and understanding that the gentleman will 
work with me and the National Park Service and the Department of the 
Interior to help preserve and develop this project, Seminole Rest at 
Canaveral National Seashore.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his

[[Page H5083]]

comments and I would be pleased to work the gentleman and with the 
National Park Service to find appropriate means to address the problems 
at Seminole Rest.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman and 
I will be submitting a more lengthy statement, a complete statement, 
for the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern that we may miss an 
opportunity to save a resource of great significance to both my State 
of Florida and our Nation--Seminole Rest, which is located at the 
Canaveral National Seashore. This 26-acre site sits on the edge of 
Mosquito Lagoon in one of the last pristine environmental preserves 
along the East Coast of the United States. On this property are located 
three cultural resources; a shell midden known as Snyder Mound as well 
as two historic buildings; the Instone House and the Caretaker's House.
  Seminole Rest holds archaeological resources which reflect periodic 
occupation over a period of about 2000 years. In fact, Snyder Mound is 
one of the most significant and unique Indian middens in the United 
States. This midden contains the remains of shellfish and other refuse 
discarded by prehistoric Indians who inhabited the site as early as 800 
AD and may represent as much as 700 years of prehistoric occupation. 
The two historic houses are significant for their design and integrity, 
and have been located on the property since before 1890. On March 19, 
1997, Seminole Rest was listed on the National Register of Historic 
Places.
  I strongly believe we should be acting to develop Seminole Rest in a 
manner which preserves its resources while making them available for 
public enjoyment. Additional property north and south of Seminole Rest 
should be acquired both to act as a protective buffer and to provide 
for an interpretive display--one which would trace the history of the 
Indians who once lived on the site. Further space exists for marine 
life exhibits, limited public boat-launching facilities and boat tours 
from Seminole Rest to Canaveral National Seashore.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, despite the obvious archaeological and 
historical significance of this tremendous resource, Seminole Rest 
today lies in a state of abandonment and deterioration. Despite the 
obvious potential of Seminole Rest, the two houses on its property are 
in desperate need of repairs and restoration. And with many other shell 
middens lost over the years to erosion and construction, Snyder Mound 
is one of the last sites of its kind and may be lost as well. However, 
I am concerned that the appropriations bill before us today lacks the 
critical funding which would permit the National Park Service to act to 
save this resource.
  Today I had intended to offer an amendment to provide an additional 
$2 million to the National Park Service for operation and maintenance 
so that it might act to save Seminole Rest. I will instead withdraw my 
amendment and have agreed to work with both my distinguished colleague, 
Chairman Regula, and with the National Park Service to ensure that we 
preserve and develop Seminole Rest as a national and historic resource.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out sections 205, 206, and 
     318(d) of Public Law 94-579, including administrative 
     expenses and acquisition of lands or waters, or interests 
     therein, $12,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Miller of California

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California:
       Page 5, after line 15, insert:


            priority federal land acquisitions and exchanges

       To carry out priority Federal land exchange agreements and 
     priority Federal land acquisitions by the National Park 
     Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of 
     Land Management, and the United States Forest Service, up to 
     $700,000,000 to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, of 
     which not to exceed $65,000,000 is for the acquisition of 
     identified lands and interests in lands and for other 
     purposes to carry out the Agreement of August 12, 1996, to 
     acquire interests to protect and preserve Yellowstone 
     National Park, and not to exceed $250,000,000 is for the 
     acquisition of identified lands and interests in lands, at 
     the purchase price specified, in the September 28, 1996, 
     Headwaters Forest Agreement.

  Mr. MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his 
reservation of his point of order.
  The purpose of this amendment which I am offering is to try to 
reinsert into this bill, the legislation that is before us, the $700 
million, for the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the acquisitions 
that were discussed within the Committee on the Budget and within the 
budget agreement agreed to between the leadership of both Houses and 
the President of the United States.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund, as most Members understand, was 
intended by Congress to provide the resources to protect, enhance, and 
expand our Nation's parks, wildlife refuges, public lands and forests. 
The trust fund has accumulated some $12 billion and is growing at the 
rate of nearly $1 billion a year.
  So when the conferees to the budget agreement provided for priority 
land acquisitions of some $700 million, they were not being fiscally 
irresponsible at all. What they were trying to do is to get this 
Congress to meet its obligation to the people of this country to make 
sure that the legacy of this country with respect to the greatest of 
our natural resource assets, our parks, our refuges, our wilderness 
areas and those areas yet waiting to be acquired is preserved.
  Two of the most important to me in this fiscal cycle is that which is 
to deal with the buyout of the New World Mine, which was a mining 
development which was providing the threat to Yellowstone National Park 
above the Clark's Fork River. I think the administration and the mining 
company came to a wise agreement not to go forward but certainly they 
were entitled to compensation.
  The other is in the Headwaters Forest in northern California, where 
we have one of the last remaining stands of old growth forests, of 
redwood trees, that clearly the Nation has made a decision they would 
like to preserve. Certainly the people of California recognize that 
these forests say a great deal about the heritage of this country and 
the importance of those forests to the American people.
  Again, negotiations have been entered into, including the State of 
California, the Federal Government, this administration, Members of 
Congress to try to come to an agreement for the purchase price. This 
$700 million would allow these two purchases to go forward and also 
providing additional money for other purchases and priority projects 
within the agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that some people who perhaps do not know 
as much about the priorities and the needs of the Park Service got 
involved in suggesting to the committee maybe where this money should 
have been spent, and they would have been better off not doing that. 
But I am also terribly afraid that we will lose the opportunity to have 
this money be used for this purpose should this bill pass without this 
amendment to it, and we will lose the opportunity both for the 
acquisition of the Headwaters and of the New World Mine and the 
backlog.
  It is interesting, as we told Members we were going to offer this 
amendment, a great many Members have called our office saying could 
they be included. That is not our purpose in offering this amendment. 
That is a proper question for the Committee on Appropriations.
  Let me just say, and then I will be glad to yield, that I offer this 
amendment in the spirit of many of the Members who are on the floor 
today with deep concern about our natural resources. That is not to in 
any way minimize the struggle and the work product of this committee, 
because this committee has been handed a menu of desires by Members of 
Congress on an urgent basis and the committee simply does not have 
enough money to meet all those needs. So I say that because I think 
this committee has done an outstanding job. I just would hate to lose 
the opportunity that this money within the budget agreement provides 
us.

[[Page H5084]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of 
California was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate first of all the chairman's 
leniency here, and I want to compliment my friend from California for 
bringing this issue up.
  Our committee struggled with this issue. A decision was made not to 
put the money in at this point. I happen to believe, and I hope that by 
the time this bill is done that we will have the $700 million then.
  I had a chance to visit northern California, the redwoods myself, 
just a few days ago during the recess. I wanted to see this Headwaters 
area. And I think it is absolutely essential that we move forward. 
Others are more expert on the Yellowstone issue.
  I know our chairman had concerns about the backlog of maintenance and 
other things and, hopefully, we can work out something in the 
conference committee on this issue if the gentleman's amendment is 
stricken. I regret that it will be, I think it will be, but I think 
bringing up this issue is very, very important. I hope at the end of 
the day we are able to acquire these properties and make the progress 
which I know the gentleman and many of us would like to see 
accomplished in this Congress.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentleman very much for his remarks, and again I hope that people 
understand the spirit in which this amendment was offered.
  I appreciate the chairman reserving his point of order rather than 
making it at the outset so we would have an opportunity to discuss a 
matter which is obviously very, very important to those of us in 
California, but I think also to many of our colleagues, as we struggle 
to provide for the backlog of acquisitions and maintenance and repair 
to the public resources in this country.
  I want to again commend the chairman. I wish I could have stood up 
and had a colloquy with the gentleman, because everyone was doing so 
well in these colloquies, but, unfortunately, I only had an amendment 
so it has not worked out quite as well as I wanted it to. But I 
appreciate the gentleman's reservation and allowing me the time to 
offer this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] still reserve 
his point of order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  I thank the gentleman for his comments and I understand his concerns. 
With respect to the $700 million that was negotiated, I do not think 
anyone in this room was part of that negotiation, but the $700 million, 
wherever it came from, is restricted to land acquisition.
  The problem I have with this is that we are looking at this backlog 
of unmet maintenance needs of $14 billion. We look at construction 
projects, and we have heard of them today. Frankly, Indian facilities 
are a tragedy. What we have let happen to schools and hospitals on 
Indian reservations is a disgrace. There are so many unmet needs. And 
today, when the United States already owns nearly 30 percent of the 
Federal land, I do not think it makes good sense prioritywise to commit 
another $700 million to the purchase of enormous additional acreage. 
Before we start buying more, let us take care of what we have.
  Most people do not realize that almost one-third of the United States 
is Federal land. And on those lands and on these facilities we have 
this $14 billion in unmet needs, $14 billion of neglect. To go out and 
buy land, I think, would be a great mistake in judgment and in 
establishing priorities, which we have to do on this bill.
  Now, I would point out to the gentleman from California, he mentioned 
the New World Mine and the Headwaters Forest, but there is no 
environmental impact statement at the moment, there is no current 
appraisal, there is no habitat conservation plan, there has not been a 
hearing in our committee and there is no comprehensive oversight.
  The President told us earlier this year that they did not need us. 
They did not need the Committee on Appropriations; they were going to 
handle this under FLPMA by exchanging lands and giving the owner of 
Headwaters a building in Los Angeles and so on. Then, suddenly, they 
discover they need money.
  Let me point out again that priority-wise we have a lot of other 
things: failing sewer systems at Yellowstone and Glacier, unsafe access 
routes at Cape Cod, at Eisenhower, at Shenandoah, leaky roofs at the 
native American schools in Oklahoma, Maine, and Arizona, condemned 
kitchens, inoperative plumbing in Washington and Arizona in detention 
facilities, fire hazards, deteriorated dams and levees, endangering 
habitat and public recreation, erosion of water control structures, 100 
abandoned mine shafts and the list goes on, all a great danger to the 
people of this Nation.
  Prioritywise, to spend $700 million, adding to the 30 percent of 
America we already own would be a serious mistake in the face of all 
these needs that face us.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Perhaps the gentleman would like to 
exercise a point of order.
  Seriously, Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman that I think he 
is making a terribly important and valid point and that is why I 
alluded to, in my remarks, that I wished when the deal was cut they had 
spent some time with people who had spent most of their legislative 
life dealing with these issues and a better package could have been put 
together.
  The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] suggested there may be an 
opportunity over the life of this bill to get some of this money 
included, and I would hope it would be. I also hope it would be 
included with the full input of the Committee on Appropriations so that 
we can go to where the priorities are. I would say that there is a lot 
at stake both with respect to the New World Mine and the Headwaters.
  I would also just say that the United States recently won a very 
important court case that said that we owned the lands that were 
contested off the coast of Alaska, and it is about $1.5 billion. I have 
introduced legislation. I would hope this committee would take a look 
at whether or not that money could be put into restoration and the 
backlog that has so troubled the chairman and the rest of us. Because 
the gentleman's priorities are exactly right, but somehow we have to 
find the money to deal on both fronts, both with acquisitions and with 
the standard of care we owe the American people with the current 
resources.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the problem here, under the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund legislation, we do not have an 
authorization to do backlog projects with that money.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman is in a position 
on the authorization committee to help us solve that problem. That 
would be, I think, a good change, and we could have a balance between 
new acquisitions and taking care of the backlog. I think that would be 
a very good outcome here.

                              {time}  1845

  I know it is one the chairman, I think, thinks is the right direction 
to go.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to speak for 2 additional 
minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the

[[Page H5085]]

ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
  I simply would like to say that I think the amendment of the 
gentleman from California is a constructive amendment because it both 
attempts to target some of the high priority items that ought to be 
purchased and, second, it does not attempt to put this committee in an 
illegitimate straitjacket, as did the Committee on the Budget in its 
gratuitous determination of exactly what amount would be provided.
  Under the Committee on the Budget, under the rules that they would 
want enforced, it would be permissible and within budget rules if we 
produced $700 million in acquisition, but it would be against the rules 
as exceeding the budget amounts if we provided $690 million. That is 
ludicrous on its face.
  I think the gentleman's amendment, by saying up to $700 million, 
brings it back within the legitimate approach of the appropriations 
process, and at the same time it tries to meet some high-priority needs 
of the country with respect to Yellowstone and the California lands in 
question. I, for one, think the amendment would be adopted if the rules 
of this House made any sense and if the House itself made any sense on 
this bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 1 minute remaining.
  (By unanimous consent Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for an 
additional 2 minutes.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding. I am going to submit my full statement for the Record, 
because the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] covered, in 
presenting his amendment, many of the concerns that I have.
  But I do want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the 
distinguished chairman, for his leadership on this committee. We are 
very fortunate to have him there. And he is quite correct, there were 
representations made about the Headwaters, that some kind of exchange 
could be made through a full presentation to the subcommittee on the 
Headwaters.
  The need for funds for Headwaters was not presented to him. But we do 
now have an agreement, concluded after exhaustive negotiations between 
major timber districts and the Federal Government, to acquire the 
important land in the Headwaters Forest. As the chairman knows, this is 
an extremely vital part of our northern California forest ecosystem 
that protects endangered species and their habitat. It is a long-
awaited goal that is now before us, that will be lost without action 
now. We do not want to risk this great, unique wonder of nature, 
because once lost, it is lost forever.
  I would also say that in addition to my own area that I am interested 
in, I think the New World Mine property is an important acquisition 
because it would threaten Yellowstone National Park if we could not do 
that.
  But, as I say, the gentleman is quite correct, he was not 
appropriately approached for this appropriation because at the time 
another remedy was being sought. Those remedies have been exhausted. We 
do have an agreement now which I hope, further along in the process, as 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] said, that we will have a chance to revisit 
this.
  I once again thank the gentleman for the way he does protect our 
natural resources and listens to our concerns.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment to provide 
increased funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  The fund has been dormant for far too long while the backlog of 
environmentally sensitive lands has increased to a critical stage.
  The budget agreement provided $700 million for the land acquisitions 
under the fund and yet the committee chose not to include this amount 
of funding.
  We have waited for years to address the enormous backlog that exists, 
as well as to act on new priorities that will be opportunities lost 
without this funding.
  For instance, there is now an agreement, concluded after exhaustive 
negotiations, between major timber interests and the Federal Government 
to acquire important lands in the Headwaters Forest. This is an 
extremely vital part of our northern California forest ecosystem that 
protects endangered species and their habitats. It is a long-waited 
goal that is now before us and will be lost without action now.
  In addition to this important acquisition, the New World Mine 
property that would threaten Yellowstone National Park is a priority 
acquisition. We cannot measure the value of this natural treasure--one 
of the crown jewels and original parks in our national system.
  We had an agreement; the money is there--why should we hesitate to 
address these compelling needs. Why should we risk the future of these 
great, unique wonders of nature? Once lost, they are lost forever.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment. Thank you.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, just let me make a 
final comment. I would hope that the committee, in which the ranking 
post is held by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], would 
examine some of these issues in the interim between now and conference.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act, as amended.
  The Committee on Appropriations filed a revised subcommittee 
allocation for fiscal year 1998 on June 24, 1997, House Report 105-151. 
This amendment would provide a new budget authority in excess of the 
subcommittee allocation and is not permitted under section 302(f) of 
the act.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, section 205 of the budget resolution only 
makes the $700 million available for land acquisition if it is in a 
reported bill from the Committee on Appropriations. The budget 
resolution does not apply to floor amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment be ruled out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I think I have 
to concede that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is correct. I wish 
the rule had been written otherwise. But, in fact, the gentleman is 
correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. 
This amendment will raise the funding level for the land and water 
conservation fund to a level consistent with the budget resolution that 
333 of our colleagues supported. The budget agreement authorized these 
funds as an addition to the 602(b) allocations, so it wouldn't take 
money from other programs. The Appropriations Committee failed to 
include these funds in this bill. It seems contradictory to me that we 
will spend all of this time debating an amendment that was already 
agreed to overwhelmingly by this body.
  The land and water conservation fund serves as a primary vehicle for 
land acquisition to protect the natural, historic, cultural, and 
outdoor recreational resources that must be guarded and preserved so 
that they may be passed on to future generations. President Theodore 
Roosevelt said ``The Nation behaves well if it treats the natural 
resources as assets, which it must turn over to the next generation 
increased, and not impaired in value.''
  There is not a congressional district in the country that has not 
benefited from the parks, recreation facilities, wildlife areas made 
possible by this fund. For years Congress has denied allocating all of 
the money that is available to the land and water conservation fund 
from the revenues received from oil and gas leasing on the outer 
continental shelf. Last year, Congress only spent $138 million of the 
almost $900 million that was collected. This year the appropriators 
approved an additional $100 million but it is still less than one-third 
of the money available this year and only a trivial amount of the more 
than $10 billion of the accumulated unappropriated balance.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time that we use this money as it was intended. 
The Miller amendment must pass for two important reasons: first, it 
keeps us from violating the budget resolution and second, it is a 
positive step forward in the mission of the land and water conservation 
fund to protect our resources and promote recreation.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment and I ask unanimous 
consent to amend part of the bill

[[Page H5086]]

that has been previously read for amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez: Page 2, line 13, 
     strike ``$581,591,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$576,939,000''.
       Page 60, line 20, strike ``$636,766,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$638,866,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that I have had scored by the 
Congressional Budget Office, and they have determined that this 
amendment will save taxpayers $4 million in outlays this year. I ask 
that I be authorized to present this amendment at this time.
  I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], 
and the ranking member, in whose stead the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Dicks] was here for us instead of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Yates], for permitting me the presentation of my amendment to the 
Interior appropriations bill.
  I believe that the amendment before us offers the Members of the 
House an outstanding opportunity to save taxpayers' dollars, to reduce 
the deficit. My amendment gives an opportunity to eliminate some 
government waste and inefficiency in favor of deficit reduction and 
modest funding for programs that promote local community solutions to 
energy conservation.
  My amendment would reduce funding for the Bureau of Land Management's 
Public Domain Forestry Program from the committee recommendation of 
$5.652 to $1 million for the fiscal year 1998. This amendment would 
also increase by $2.1 million dollars the appropriation for energy 
conservation programs.
  Specifically, and I wanted the legislative history to reflect my 
intention, this funding would be allocated to the Department of 
Energy's urban heat island research and highly reflective surfaces 
program. Those programs would provide technical and scientific 
assistance to local communities to assist with planning and 
implementation of measures to reduce energy costs for cooling in public 
commercial and residential buildings.
  At the 10 demonstrations sites already established by DOE, every 
dollar in Federal funding has been matched by $7 or more by local and 
State governments, utilities, business groups, and nongovernmental 
institutions. Nationally, the cost benefits of implementing energy 
conservation measures such as hide reflective surfaces program are 
estimated to reach $4 billion a year. However, we cannot attain these 
savings unless we dedicate more money to research.
  These cost-effective benefits stand in clear contrast to BLM 
forestry. The BLM forestry program has been found to consistently 
operate at a significant loss to American taxpayers. Rather than being 
an economically self-sufficient program, as required by Federal law, 
the BLM forestry program fails to offset even the cost of administering 
the program. In fact, the more money the agency has devoted to this 
program, the more taxpayer dollars have been wasted and lost.
  Based on data collected by a nonprofit public employee organization, 
the program stands to lose more than $30 million during the next 5 
years. For this reason, Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Concord 
Coalition support eliminating funding for BLM forestry.
  In addition to the economic and budgetary reasons for eliminating the 
program, experts believe it is threatening the unique transitional 
forests that exist in many regions around our nation. Disregard for to 
the National Environmental Protection Act has also been well documented 
in the administration of this program.
  As we work to balance the Federal budget, I feel well should not 
devote our precious resources to inefficient programs. This is a simple 
amendment that accomplishes three goals. We devote $2.5 million to 
deficit reduction. We increase funding by $2.1 million for energy 
conservation. We bring under control a wrongful and environmentally 
damaging program.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and work with me to 
reduce the deficit, eliminate waste, and increase savings for future 
generations.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee does support urban heat island research 
in the fiscal year 1998 budget at a $700,000 level. And would I point 
out that the Department has proposed a cool communities concept since 
1995, and the committee has directed the Department to pursue the 
program within the context of urban heat island research, which I think 
you are interested in. The concept of planting trees and painting 
surfaces light colors in urban communities to cut down on heat problems 
and create cool communities is a useful concept, but it is not 
something that I think requires a multimillion-dollar program in the 
Department of Energy.
  I have to point out also that the offset here for this proposed 
amendment is to eliminate $4.6 million out of the total of $5.6 million 
in the Bureau of Land Management for the Public Domain Forestry 
Program. Obviously this is a very important program, and this amendment 
would terminate the Bureau of Land Management's ability to preserve 
forests on 48 million acres of forest land. This amendment would 
devastate local communities that depend on timber and vegetative 
products from the BLM forest lands, and would result in the loss of 
hundreds of timber-related jobs.
  BLM would be unable to deliver critical services to local 
communities, including wildfire control efforts, and prescribed fire 
planning and control. BLM would be unable to undertake projects to 
reduce susceptibility to fire, to address overstocking in woodlands and 
commercial forest areas, and to do forestry stocking. Over $3.5 million 
would be lost in BLM timber receipts. Because of this amendment, 40,000 
permits that are issued for the sale of vegetative products would not 
be issued, resulting in again an annual loss of $300,000.
  Obviously, I understand the interest of the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Gutierrez] in this. But to take $4.6 million out of a budget of 
only $5.6 million for the BLM forestry program would be a serious 
mistake.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
proposed by my friend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez]. I do 
believe the chairman has made a compelling case here about why this cut 
to the public domain program would be devastating to the BLM and to 
those communities that rely on it. I just regret that the gentleman did 
not have a better source, but have I to be in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I urge the defeat of 
the amendment. I hope the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez] will 
work with the Department of Energy in the urban heat island research 
programs, but it would be a great mistake of judgment to tamper with 
the BLM forestry program. I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  No. 1, just in case the time runs out, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank 
the chairman for not raising a point of order and allowing me to offer 
this amendment, so I want to use my time first to get that out of the 
way.
  Second, I would like to say that, look, the ``green scissors 
coalition'' have found this program environmentally and fiscally 
unsound. Let us

[[Page H5087]]

face it, it helps a lot of large, huge timber companies who are going 
to continue to chop down timber regardless of those $5.6 million. One 
of those companies alone that used this program estimated their gross 
last year was $1.6 billion. We are not talking about small ma and pa 
operations where this money is used. They are rather large companies 
which use this money.
  So rather than allow huge companies to chop down trees on the clean, 
we should finally ax a government program that wastes our precious 
natural resources by chopping down those trees in an environmentally 
dangerous fashion that they will do, and with our taxpayers' dollars. 
They really do not need the subsidy. We can use it, obviously, in our 
inner cities throughout the Nation.
  And there are 10 programs, and it is good, and the chairman is 
absolutely right, there is money, $700,000. But really we got 10 
programs and some of the money. There was more money before for these 
programs. There is less money today and I just wanted it see if we 
could get some more money, so I proposed this amendment.
  I know that we have agreed to a voice vote, Mr. Chairman, on this, 
and so I thank the chairman once again for allowing me the opportunity 
to present this amendment.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would only point out that these are small, very small companies 
that do this forestry program in conjunction with the BLM. These are 
not large companies. It is obvious by the amount of money involved 
here.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I would point out to the gentleman from Illinois that 
according to the Forest Service data, this is true for BLM, 95 percent 
of all timber sales in 1996 were purchased by small timber companies. 
In contrast, large timber companies purchased only 5 percent of these 
timber sales. There is a perception out there that this is going to the 
big boys, but they are not involved. It is the small companies that are 
involved.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I commend the gentleman 
from Chicago for his concern for his community, and I hope he will work 
with the Department of Energy to address his problem. I have to oppose 
this because of the impact it would have on the BLM forestry program.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Just to add one quick word, it is not who is 
purchasing, it is who is selling the timber.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the provision 
in this bill which allocates $8.5 million for the acquisition of 
Sterling Forest lands in southeastern New York State.
  As my colleagues may recall, during the 104th Congress, we approved 
and the President signed into law the Omnibus Parks bill of 1996. That 
act dealt with numerous important public land issues. I was most 
gratified that the act included language protecting Sterling Forest, an 
18,000-acre parcel of environmentally sensitive and an historically 
important piece of land in my congressional district in Orange County, 
NY.
  More importantly with the help of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula], $9 million was appropriated during the last Congress as a 
first installment for the purchase of Sterling Forest. The agreement to 
purchase Sterling Forest not only represents a commitment by both the 
Governors of New York State and the State of New Jersey to protect our 
region's sensitive lands, but it is also a model which can be 
replicated for future public land purchases. Not only have Federal 
funds been committed to the purchase of Sterling Forest, but both New 
York and New Jersey have committed $10 million each for its purchase 
and the private sector has also committed a significant amount for this 
worthy endeavor.
  Accordingly, I commend the subcommittee for its efforts in preserving 
these lands, and I urge my colleagues to support this important 
provision.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to use this opportunity, if I might, to 
enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the 
chairman of the subcommittee. I want to thank the gentleman for his 
support over the years for the Marsh-Billings National Historic Park in 
Woodstock, VT. This park, scheduled to open in 1998, is very important 
to Vermont and to others interested in sustainable agriculture.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. I would be very pleased to participate in a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Vermont concerning this new unit of the Park 
Service.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, with the gentleman's assistance, last year 
Congress provided some initial funding for the park, and I am pleased 
that the fiscal year 1998 bill fully meets the park's needs for its 
operating costs. However, the bill does not provide the construction 
funds needed to refurbish the park's historic Carriage House.
  Mr. REGULA. The gentleman from Vermont raises an important issue. The 
construction budget for the Park Service is severely constrained. We 
have to address the critical backlog of unmet maintenance. I mentioned 
this before. We have a huge amount of that. Because of our backlog of 
unmet maintenance needs, we have had to delay new construction and new 
construction at new units in order to help maintain and fix what we 
already have.
  Mr. SANDERS. While I appreciate the very tough decisions faced by the 
committee, construction funds are critical for the Marsh-Billings Park. 
The funds are needed to construct new restrooms, visitor orientation 
space, staff offices, and an art storage facility. Without these 
improvements the park will not be able to provide basic visitor, museum 
and administrative services.
  The Senate allocation is more generous than the House number. Should 
the Senate provide funds for this project, can I ask the gentleman to 
consider supporting this construction project?
  Mr. REGULA. Were the Senate bill to fund this project and if the 
other priority needs for construction are met, I will give serious 
consideration to the support of the project. It is a good project and 
deserves strong support. I do look forward to working closely with the 
gentleman from Vermont to ensure the successful completion of the 
project.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman for the help that he has given us 
in the past, and I look forward to working with him in the future.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering will address a very 
serious concern that I have with the discharge of sewage that has 
contaminated one of the most recognized and loved landmarks in this 
country. That is the Old Faithful area in Yellowstone National Park.
  As my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, Yellowstone is the Nation's 
first national park. The spectacular beauty and the awesome splendor of 
this area bring millions of visitors to the park every year. It saddens 
me to think that this outstanding heritage of natural beauty is falling 
into terrible disrepair, and drastic measures are needed to stop this 
now. Though legislation was established to include Yellowstone National 
Park in a pilot fee program that certainly will help the park complete 
some of the backlog of maintenance, there are some repairs that need to 
begin immediately.
  Congress has increased funding for the National Park Service 69 
percent over the last 7 years. During that same time, Yellowstone's 
funding has increased only about 20 percent, which has barely kept up 
with unfunded mandates and the rate of inflation. What has happened is 
that the infrastructure in Yellowstone has been severely neglected.
  In August of this year, I had the opportunity to make an extensive 
tour of

[[Page H5088]]

the park. During that time I learned a great deal about the needs of 
Yellowstone and the unfortunate decay which has occurred to its 
infrastructure. Miles of roads along with buildings, water systems are 
in dire need of not only repair but replacement.
  My amendment will authorize $5 million to be dedicated to the 
replacement of the Old Faithful wastewater treatment facility. No 
example of degradation on the Yellowstone infrastructure is more 
glaring than the degradation of the sewer system at Old Faithful. The 
Old Faithful plant was built over 60 years ago, in 1930. Then it was 
redone, refurbished in 1974, and it has not been touched since then. It 
is in very bad disarray.
  Right now there is substantial use of that facility in the winter 
months. When the park was built, it was not designed for winter use. As 
a point of information, one of the 4 sewers at Norris Campground has 
already failed and the other 3 can fail at any point. Unfortunately, 
the sewer system at Old Faithful is in the same condition. It is right 
now polluting the water with sewage from the restrooms.
  The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality inspected this 
facility last year and found a number of immediate problems, and they 
are faced with the possibility of closing the Old Faithful area. This 
is extremely alarming, knowing that the surrounding streams are being 
contaminated with discharge from this plant.
  The National Park Service has established an internal system of 
setting funding priorities in the parks. What they do is whatever 
projects they can fund fully, that is what they fund. That has helped 
the small parks, but it has truly hurt the larger parks like 
Yellowstone and Yosemite, because the repairs are very expensive and so 
they are put off. As a matter of fact, there is no line item 
construction funds for Yellowstone in either 1998 or in 1999.
  Mr. Chairman, this year Yellowstone is celebrating its 125th 
anniversary. In 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed a monumental 
piece of legislation that was the start of one of the very best ideas 
in America. That is our National Park System. Today let us assure the 
American people that they will be able to continue to enjoy one of the 
most popular attractions in the National Park System when they vest 
Yellowstone National Park this year and in the years to come.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this much 
needed amendment so that the problem at the Old Faithful wastewater 
treatment facility may be addressed immediately.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming intends to withdraw the amendment or perhaps not offer it. We 
have discussed the importance of this project. I think she makes a very 
powerful case, and I have been assured by the National Park Service 
that it is a priority to address the problems she has outlined and it 
will be in the President's budget in the near future.
  Yellowstone is one of the crown jewels of the National Park System, 
and this is one of the unmet maintenance needs here and elsewhere in 
the National Park Service that I am very committed to addressing with 
the scarce resources that we have. I think she makes a perfect case for 
what I have talked about in the backlog of unmet maintenance. This is a 
classic example. We did provide $1.6 million in additional funds for 
operations in Yellowstone because these parks are getting great 
pressures from public usage. I hope the fee program will also greatly 
help Yellowstone.
  The parks get to return fee revenue now, and I know that that will be 
something that they can use to address the very problems the 
gentlewoman has outlined. As I mentioned earlier, the gentlewoman makes 
a strong case for what we keep talking about, the need to address 
backlogged maintenance. We are very sensitive to the problem.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, with that assurance, then I feel I do not 
need to offer the amendment at the appropriate time in the process.
  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentlewoman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                   oregon and california grant lands

       For expenses necessary for management, protection, and 
     development of resources and for construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other 
     improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad 
     grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and 
     California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent 
     rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein 
     including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such 
     grant lands; $101,406,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That 25 per centum of the aggregate of 
     all receipts during the current fiscal year from the revested 
     Oregon and California Railroad grant lands is hereby made a 
     charge against the Oregon and California land-grant fund and 
     shall be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury in 
     accordance with the second paragraph of subsection (b) of 
     title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 876).


                           range improvements

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


               service charges, deposits, and forfeitures

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


                       miscellaneous trust funds

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


                       administrative provisions

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

                United States Fish and Wildlife Services


                          resource management

       For expenses necessary for scientific and economic studies, 
     conservation, management, investigations, protection, and 
     utilization of fishery and wildlife resources, except whales, 
     seals, and sea lions, and for the performance of other 
     authorized functions related to such resources; for the 
     general administration of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service; for maintenance of the herd of

[[Page H5089]]

     long-horned cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge; 
     and not less than $1,000,000 for high priority projects 
     within the scope of the approved budget which shall be 
     carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as authorized by 
     the Act of August 13, 1970, as amended, $591,042,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 1999, of which 
     $11,612,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     operation and maintenance of fishery mitigation facilities 
     constructed by the Corps of Engineers under the Lower Snake 
     River Compensation Plan, authorized by the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1976, to compensate for loss of fishery 
     resources from water development projects on the Lower Snake 
     River, and of which not less than $2,000,000 shall be 
     provided to local governments in southern California for 
     planning associated with the National Communities 
     Conservation Planning (NCCP) program and shall remain 
     available until expended, and of which not to exceed 
     $5,190,000 shall be used for implementing subsections (a), 
     (b), (c), and (e) of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973, as amended.


                              construction

       For construction and acquisition of buildings and other 
     facilities required in the conservation, management, 
     investigation, protection, and utilization of fishery and 
     wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands and 
     interests therein; $40,256,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                natural resource damage assessment fund

       To conduct natural resource damage assessment activities by 
     the Department of the Interior necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601, 
     et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 
     U.S.C. 1251, et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public 
     Law 101-380), and Public law 101-337; $4,128,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That under this heading 
     in Public Law 104-134, strike ``in fiscal year 1996 and 
     thereafter'' in the proviso and insert ``heretofore and 
     hereafter'', and before the phrase, ``or properties shall be 
     utilized'' in such proviso, insert ``, to remain available 
     until expended,''.


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 4601-4-
     11), including administrative expenses, and for acquisition 
     of land or waters, or interest therein, in accordance with 
     statutory authority applicable to the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, $53,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


            cooperative endangered species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), as 
     amended, $14,000,000, for grants to States, to be derived 
     from the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, 
     and to remain available until expended.


                     national wildlife refuge fund

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


             Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York: In title I 
     in the item relating to ``Department of the Interior--U.S. 
     Fish and Wildlife Service--National Wildlife Refuge 
     Fund'', after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by 
     $500,000)''.
       In title I in the item relating to ``Department of the 
     Interior--National Park Service--Construction'', after the 
     first dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $500,000)''.

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this 
amendment on behalf of the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] 
who has been called away due to a death in her family.
  The amendment would designate $500,000 for critically needed repairs 
and restoration at the historic Susan B. Anthony home in Rochester, NY. 
The Susan B. Anthony House witnessed some of the most important moments 
of the women's rights movement. As Anthony's residence for her entire 
adult life, the house was the site of many visits and planning meetings 
between Ms. Anthony and her fellow activists, including abolitionist 
Frederick Douglass. This is also the place where Ms. Anthony was 
arrested for voting in 1872.
  The Susan B. Anthony House is a vital part of our Nation's heritage. 
It is part of a complex of sites in upstate New York in and around 
Seneca Falls, NY, that include the Women's Rights National Historical 
Park and the National Women's Hall of Fame, celebrating the history of 
the women's rights movement.
  Next year we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of the first 
women's rights convention in Seneca Falls. In terms of the women's 
movement, the women's rights convention in Seneca Falls is considered 
the most important single event making the struggle for women's rights 
possible. Just 2 weeks ago, we held a ceremony here in Congress moving 
a statue of two of the organizers of that convention as well as Susan 
B. Anthony herself into the Capitol rotunda. These women are finally 
taking their rightful place as important leaders in our Nation's 
history.

                              {time}  1915

  Next year many leaders in our Nation will come together for this 
historical anniversary for a year's worth of events on women's history, 
rights and suffrage. Celebrate 98 will educate and inspire the State of 
New York and our entire Nation with the story of the women's rights 
struggle.
  What is important to realize and put into context is that the Susan 
B. Anthony House is not only a national historic landmark but a 
critical part of our Nation's history. It is not only a museum of Miss 
Anthony's pictures and papers, along with her trademark wire-rimmed 
glasses and Quaker shawl, but hundreds of pictures and papers and 
documents of her sister suffragettes.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no national museum of women's history in the 
United States. The Susan B. Anthony House has filled that void by 
collecting the history of the women's movement and preserving it as 
best they could with volunteer labor and donations for the past 47 
years.
  Today time, weather, and Band-Aid repairs have taken their toll on 
this house. The Susan B. Anthony House recently launched a major 
initiative to finance a complete renovation and restoration of the 
property. In addition to needed repairs and maintenance, this project 
will begin the hard task of restoring the house to its appearance 
during Miss Anthony's lifetime.
  Both the house itself and the collection pose special challenges. 
Many of the papers are fragile, and special preservation measures must 
be taken if they are to survive for the benefit of future generations. 
No complete catalog has ever been made of the collection.
  This amendment would provide a modest one-time investment of $500,000 
toward the Susan B. Anthony House restoration project. These funds 
would be used toward an historic structures report for the site and 
some basic physical repairs to the house. The historic structures 
report is a mandatory document for all national historic landmarks and 
provides a sort of baseline for repairs. This report will set the 
parameters for restoring the property to its appearance during Miss 
Anthony's lifetime.
  The $500,000 provided by this amendment is only a first step toward 
restoring the house. The vast majority of the funds needed will be 
supplied through private donors and contributors. This amount is a 
modest contribution by the Federal Government to express our support 
for this vitally important piece of our Nation's history.
  This amendment is the very least our Government can do to show the 
importance of the Susan B. Anthony House and the women's rights 
movement in our history. The amendment would offset this $500,000 by 
deducting the same amount from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 
wildlife and refuge account. The amendment represents only 1.7 percent 
of the $29 million increase granted by the committee over the 
administration's request for this account. It is a minuscule 0.18 
percent of the account's total appropriation of $274 million.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Maloney] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Maloney of New York was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, the committee noted that this 
generous increase was to be used toward preparations for the National 
Wildlife Refuge System's 100th anniversary in the year 2003. Therefore 
it

[[Page H5090]]

only seems appropriate to use some of this funding, considering that 
the Susan B. Anthony House will be a major attraction during the 150th 
anniversary of the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls next 
year. Surely if we can prepare for the Wildlife Refuge System's 
centennial 5 years away, we can provide some small amount of money in 
commemoration of women's rights.
  Would we let Mount Vernon or Monticello fall to pieces? Certainly 
not. Susan B. Anthony was a pioneer for women's rights including the 
right to vote, to own property, and to participate as equal partners in 
our democracy and our society. Susan B. Anthony revolutionized the 
lives of half our Nation's population. Surely she deserves no less than 
our full support. This amendment does not attempt to provide full 
support, but merely a token for the restoring renovation.
  I really would like to ask for a recorded vote on this.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from New York.
  I want to say, first of all, we extend our sympathy to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] on the death of her sister, 
and I think I speak for all the Members in that respect. I appreciate 
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] handling this matter for 
her.
  Mr. Chairman, we have over a million structures on the National 
Register of historic places, and all of them have a very deserved place 
in this Nation's history. But we have a backlog of $500 million in 
refuges maintenance which this amendment would further exacerbate.
  Mr. Chairman, this project is not within a unit of the National Park 
system, and what we have tried to do here in this bill is take care of 
what we have rather than starting new programs. The Park Service has 
advised us, in fact, that they cannot even spend these funds without 
specific legislative language authorizing the project. And as I pointed 
out earlier, we have a $14 billion backlog of maintenance projects. I 
will not recite all of those again, but even in the Fish and Wildlife 
Service we are faced with a $500 million backlog. And if we were to 
adopt this amendment, we would offset it by decreasing Fish and 
Wildlife Service resource management by an equal amount of $500,000, 
and with the backlog that exists in these facilities it would be a very 
unjustified policy decision to make this action.
  We had almost a hundred Members of Congress write to the committee in 
support of increased funding for the refuge system, and we could not 
answer a lot of those, we could not respond to a lot of those simply 
because we do not have enough money. So I think, as a matter of policy, 
it simply does not fit to take $500,000 out of the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to do this, particularly in light of the fact that it is not a 
unit of the National Park Service and in light of the fact that we have 
the millions of designated historic structures that have similar needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect the fact that Susan B. Anthony played an 
enormously important role in this Nation's history, but nevertheless I 
think it would be an unwise policy to invade the funds that we now have 
for Fish and Wildlife Service resource management, and in light of this 
I regrettably have to urge the Members to vote no on this amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
strike the last word to respond.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the 
chairman's concerns for the underlying budget restraints, but I wanted 
to point out that before us today and included in the budget are two 
national historic landmarks which are already in the bill, and given 
the pressing point that the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] 
has made over and over again, that there is no national women's museum 
in this country and that the Susan B. Anthony home has served as such a 
museum in gathering the materials, the history of the women's movement 
of the country, it is certainly deserving, and I appreciate the 
gentleman's concerns, but I certainly wanted to point out that Ohio and 
Maryland have two items in the bill, and we were hoping that given the 
fact of two historical landmarks in the bill, that the gentleman would 
consider this additional historic landmark given the fact that there is 
no women's museum in this country.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentlewoman is 
saying, but I would point out that the two that she refers to, one is a 
President of the United States, and the State is putting in a lot of 
money. What we are putting in is a small amount. The other is a project 
of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], and again the State of 
Maryland is putting in a lot of money.
  I do not think there has been any indication here that there is any 
money being proposed by the State or any other entity to support this, 
that the total cost that is being proposed would be Federal, and I 
think perhaps the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] would like 
in the future to find some matching funds that would make this kind of 
a project more attractive.
  Mr. Chairman, I would still urge a vote of ``no'' on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. 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 181, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Maloney] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         rewards and operations

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


               north american wetlands conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233, 
     as amended, $10,500,000, to remain available until expended.


                 rhinoceros and tiger conservation fund

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


              wildlife conservation and appreciation fund

       For deposit to the Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation 
     Fund, $800,000, to remain available until expended.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations and funds available to the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for purchase of 
     not to exceed 108 passenger motor vehicles, of which 92 are 
     for replacement only (including 57 for police-type use); not 
     to exceed $400,000 for payment, at the discretion of the 
     Secretary, for information, rewards, or evidence concerning 
     violations of laws administered by the Service, and 
     miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement 
     activities, authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be 
     accounted for solely on his certificate; repair of damage to 
     public roads within and adjacent to reservation areas caused 
     by operations of the Service; options for the purchase of 
     land at not to exceed $1 for each option; facilities incident 
     to such public recreational uses on conservation areas as are 
     consistent with their primary purpose; and the maintenance 
     and improvement of aquaria, buildings, and other facilities 
     under the jurisdiction of the Service and to which the United 
     States has title, and which are utilized pursuant to law in 
     connection with management and investigation of fish and 
     wildlife resources: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 
     501, the Service may, under cooperative cost sharing and 
     partnership arrangements authorized by law, procure printing 
     services from cooperators in connection with jointly-produced 
     publications for which the cooperators share at least one-
     half the cost of printing either in cash or services and the 
     Service determines the cooperator is capable of meeting 
     accepted quality standards: Provided further, That the 
     Service may accept donated aircraft as replacements for 
     existing aircraft: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior may not 
     spend any of the funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     purchase of

[[Page H5091]]

     lands or interests in lands to be used in the establishment 
     of any new unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System unless 
     the purchase is approved in advance by the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in the report accompanying 
     this bill: Provided further, That the Secretary may sell land 
     and interests in land, other than water rights, acquired in 
     conformance with subsections 206(a) and 207(c) of Public Law 
     101-816, the receipts of which shall be deposited to the 
     Lahontan Valley and Pyramid Lake Fish and Wildlife Fund and 
     used exclusively for the purposes of such subsections, 
     without regard to the limitation on the distribution of 
     benefits in subsection 206(f)(2) of such law.

                         National Park Service


                 operation of the national park system

       For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and 
     maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the 
     National Park Service (including special road maintenance 
     service to trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), and 
     for the general administration of the National Park Service, 
     including not to exceed $2,500,000 for the Volunteers-in-
     Parks program, and not less than $1,000,000 for high priority 
     projects within the scope of the approved budget which shall 
     be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as authorized 
     by 16 U.S.C. 1706, $1,232,325,000, of which $12,800,000 for 
     research, planning and interagency coordination in support of 
     land acquisition for Everglades restoration shall remain 
     available until expended, and of which not to exceed 
     $72,000,000, to remain available until expended, is to be 
     derived from the special fee account established pursuant to 
     title V, section 5201, Public Law 100-203.


                  national recreation and preservation

       For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs, 
     natural programs, cultural programs, heritage partnership 
     programs, environmental compliance and review, international 
     park affairs, statutory or contractual aid for other 
     activities, and grant administration, not otherwise provided 
     for, $43,934,000, of which $4,500,000 is for grants to 
     Heritage areas in accordance with Titles I-VI and VIII-IX, 
     Division II of Public Law 104-333 and is to remain available 
     until September 30, 1999.


                       historic preservation fund

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the Historic 
     Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), and the 
     Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public 
     Law 104-333), $40,412,000, to be derived from the Historic 
     Preservation Fund, to remain available until September 30, 
     1999.


                              construction

       For construction, improvements, repair or replacement of 
     physical facilities $148,391,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That $500,000 for the Rutherford B. Hayes 
     Home and $600,000 for the Sotterly Plantation House shall be 
     derived from the Historic Preservation Fund pursuant to 16 
     U.S.C. 470A.


                    land and water conservation fund

                              (rescission)

       The contract authority provided for fiscal year 1998 by 16 
     U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.


                 land acquisition and state assistance

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4-
     11), including administrative expenses, and for acquisition 
     of lands or waters, or interest therein, in accordance with 
     statutory authority applicable to the National Park Service, 
     $129,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, of 
     which $1,000,000 is to administer the State assistance 
     program: Provided, That any funds made available for the 
     purpose of acquisition of the Elwha and Glines dams shall be 
     used solely for acquisition, and shall not be expended until 
     the full purchase amount has been appropriated by the 
     Congress: Provided further, That of the funds provided 
     herein, $8,500,000 is available for acquisition of the 
     Sterling Forest.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the National Park Service shall be 
     available for the purchase of not to exceed 396 passenger 
     motor vehicles, of which 302 shall be for replacement only, 
     including not to exceed 315 for police-type use, 13 buses, 
     and 6 ambulances: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated to the National Park Service may be used to 
     process any grant or contract documents which do not include 
     the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated to the National Park Service may be 
     used to implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the 
     southern end of Ellis Island until such agreement has been 
     submitted to the Congress and shall not be implemented prior 
     to the expiration of 30 calendar days (not including any day 
     in which either House of Congress is not in session because 
     of adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day 
     certain) from the receipt by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President of the Senate of a full and 
     comprehensive report on the development of the southern end 
     of Ellis Island, including the facts and circumstances relied 
     upon in support of the proposed project.
       None of the funds in this Act may be spent by the National 
     Park Service for activities taken in direct response to the 
     United Nations Biodiversity Convention.
       The National Park Service may distribute to operating units 
     based on the safety record of each unit the costs of programs 
     designed to improve workplace and employee safety, and to 
     encourage employees receiving workers' compensation benefits 
     pursuant to chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to 
     return to appropriate positions for which they are medically 
     able.

                    United States Geological Survey


                 surveys, investigations, and research

       For expenses necessary for the United States Geological 
     Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research 
     covering topography, geology, hydrology, and the mineral and 
     water resources of the United States, its Territories and 
     possessions, and other areas as authorized by 43 U.S.C. 31, 
     1332 and 1340; classify lands as to their mineral and water 
     resources; give engineering supervision to power permittees 
     and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensees; 
     administer the minerals exploration program (30 U.S.C. 641); 
     and publish and disseminate data relative to the foregoing 
     activities; and to conduct inquiries into the economic 
     conditions affecting mining and materials processing 
     industries (30 U.S.C. 3, 21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and 
     related purposes as authorized by law and to publish and 
     disseminate data; $755,795,000 of which $66,231,000 shall be 
     available only for cooperation with States or municipalities 
     for water resources investigations; and of which $16,400,000 
     shall remain available until expended for conducting 
     inquiries into the economic conditions affecting mining and 
     materials processing industries; and of which $147,794,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 1999 for the 
     biological research activity and the operation of the 
     Cooperative Research Units: Provided, That none of these 
     funds provided for the biological research activity shall be 
     used to conduct new surveys on private property, unless 
     specifically authorized in writing by the property owner: 
     Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be 
     used to pay more than one-half the cost of topographic 
     mapping or water resources data collection and investigations 
     carried on in cooperation with States and municipalities.


                       administrative provisions

       The amount appropriated for the United States Geological 
     Survey shall be available for the purchase of not to exceed 
     53 passenger motor vehicles, of which 48 are for replacement 
     only; reimbursement to the General Services Administration 
     for security guard services; contracting for the furnishing 
     of topographic maps and for the making of geophysical or 
     other specialized surveys when it is administratively 
     determined that such procedures are in the public interest; 
     construction and maintenance of necessary buildings and 
     appurtenant facilities; acquisition of lands for gauging 
     stations and observation wells; expenses of the United States 
     National Committee on Geology; and payment of compensation 
     and expenses of persons on the rolls of the Survey duly 
     appointed to represent the United States in the negotiation 
     and administration of interstate compacts: Provided, That 
     activities funded by appropriations herein made may be 
     accomplished through the use of contracts, grants, or 
     cooperative agreements as defined in 31 U.S.C. 6302, et seq.: 
     Provided further, That the USGS may contract directly with 
     individuals or indirectly with institutions or nonprofit 
     organizations, without regard to section 41 U.S.C. 5, for the 
     temporary or intermittent services of science students or 
     recent graduates, who shall be considered employees for the 
     purposes of chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to compensation for work injuries, and chapter 171 
     of title 28, United States Code, relating to tort claims, but 
     shall not be considered to be Federal employees for any other 
     purposes.

                      Minerals Management Service


                royalty and offshore minerals management

       For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and 
     environmental studies, regulation of industry operations, and 
     collection of royalties, as authorized by law; for enforcing 
     laws and regulations applicable to oil, gas, and other 
     minerals leases, permits, licenses and operating contracts; 
     and for matching grants or cooperative agreements; including 
     the purchase of not to exceed eight passenger motor vehicles 
     for replacement only; $139,621,000, of which not less than 
     $70,874,000 shall be available for royalty management 
     activities; and an amount not to exceed $65,000,000 for 
     activities within the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands 
     Program, to be credited to this appropriation and to remain 
     available until expended, from additions to receipts 
     resulting from increases to rates in effect on August 5, 
     1993, from rate increases to fee collections for OCS 
     administrative activities performed by the Minerals 
     Management Service over and above the rates in effect on 
     September 30, 1993, and from additional fees for OCS 
     administrative activities established after September 30, 
     1993: Provided, That $1,500,000 for computer acquisitions 
     shall remain available until September 30, 1999: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated under this Act shall be 
     available for the payment of interest in accordance with 30 
     U.S.C. 1721 (b) and (d): Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $3,000 shall be available for reasonable expenses related to 
     promoting volunteer beach and marine cleanup activities: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law,

[[Page H5092]]

     $15,000 under this head shall be available for refunds of 
     overpayments in connection with certain Indian leases in 
     which the Director of the Minerals Management Service 
     concurred with the claimed refund due, to pay amounts owed to 
     Indian allottees or Tribes, or to correct prior unrecoverable 
     erroneous payments.


                           oil spill research

       For necessary expenses to carry out title I, section 1016, 
     title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, and title VIII, 
     section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $6,118,000, 
     which shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
     Fund, to remain available until expended.

          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement


                       regulation and technology

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public 
     Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not to 
     exceed 10 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only; 
     $94,937,000, and notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, an 
     additional amount shall be credited to this account, to 
     remain available until expended, from performance bond 
     forfeitures in fiscal year 1998: Provided, That the Secretary 
     of the Interior, pursuant to regulations, may utilize 
     directly or through grants to States, moneys collected in 
     fiscal year 1998 for civil penalties assessed under section 
     518 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
     (30 U.S.C. 1268), to reclaim lands adversely affected by coal 
     mining practices after August 3, 1977, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That appropriations for the 
     Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement may 
     provide for the travel and per diem expenses of State and 
     tribal personnel attending Office of Surface Mining 
     Reclamation and Enforcement sponsored training.


                    abandoned mine reclamation fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out title IV of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87, 
     as amended, including the purchase of not more than 10 
     passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, $179,624,000, 
     to be derived from receipts of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation 
     Fund and to remain available until expended; of which up to 
     $5,000,000 shall be for supplemental grants to States for the 
     reclamation of abandoned sites with acid mine rock drainage 
     from coal mines through the Appalachian Clean Streams 
     Initiative: Provided, That grants to minimum program States 
     will be $1,500,000 per State in fiscal year 1998: Provided 
     further, That of the funds herein provided up to $18,000,000 
     may be used for the emergency program authorized by section 
     410 of Public Law 95-87, as amended, of which no more than 25 
     per centum shall be used for emergency reclamation projects 
     in any one State and funds for federally-administered 
     emergency reclamation projects under this proviso shall not 
     exceed $11,000,000: Provided further, That prior year 
     unobligated funds appropriated for the emergency reclamation 
     program shall not be subject to the 25 per centum limitation 
     per State and may be used without fiscal year limitation for 
     emergency projects: Provided further, That pursuant to Public 
     Law 97-365, the Department of the Interior is authorized to 
     use up to 20 per centum from the recovery of the delinquent 
     debt owed to the United States Government to pay for 
     contracts to collect these debts: Provided further, That 
     funds made available to States under title IV of Public Law 
     95-87 may be used, at their discretion, for any required non-
     Federal share of the cost of projects funded by the Federal 
     Government for the purpose of environmental restoration 
     related to treatment or abatement of acid mine drainage from 
     abandoned mines: Provided further, That such projects must be 
     consistent with the purposes and priorities of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act: Provided further, That 
     the State of Maryland may set aside the greater of $1,000,000 
     or 10 percent of the total of the grants made available to 
     the State under title IV of the Surface Mining Control and 
     Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1231 et seq.), 
     if the amount set aside is deposited in an acid mine drainage 
     abatement and treatment fund established under a State law, 
     pursuant to which law the amount (together with all interest 
     earned on the amount) is expended by the State to undertake 
     acid mine drainage abatement and treatment projects, except 
     that before any amounts greater than 10 percent of its title 
     IV grants are deposited in an acid mine drainage abatement 
     and treatment fund, the State of Maryland must first complete 
     all Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act priority one 
     projects.

                        Bureau of Indian Affairs


                      operation of indian programs

       For operation of Indian programs by direct expenditure, 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and grants 
     including expenses necessary to provide education and welfare 
     services for Indians, either directly or in cooperation with 
     States and other organizations, including payment of care, 
     tuition, assistance, and other expenses of Indians in 
     boarding homes, or institutions, or schools; grants and other 
     assistance to needy Indians; maintenance of law and order; 
     management, development, improvement, and protection of 
     resources and appurtenant facilities under the jurisdiction 
     of the Bureau, including payment of irrigation assessments 
     and charges; acquisition of water rights; advances for Indian 
     industrial and business enterprises; operation of Indian arts 
     and crafts shops and museums; development of Indian arts and 
     crafts, as authorized by law; for the general administration 
     of the Bureau, including such expenses in field offices; 
     maintaining of Indian reservation roads as defined in 23 
     U.S.C. 101; and construction, repair, and improvement of 
     Indian housing, $1,526,815,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1999 except as otherwise provided herein, of 
     which not to exceed $93,825,000 shall be for welfare 
     assistance payments and not to exceed $105,829,000 shall be 
     for payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract 
     support costs associated with ongoing contracts or grants or 
     compacts entered into with the Bureau prior to fiscal year 
     1998, as authorized by the Indian Self-Determination Act of 
     1975, as amended, and up to $5,000,000 shall be for the 
     Indian Self-Determination Fund, which shall be available for 
     the transitional cost of initial or expanded tribal 
     contracts, grants, compacts, or cooperative agreements with 
     the Bureau under such Act; and of which not to exceed 
     $374,290,000 for school operations costs of Bureau-funded 
     schools and other education programs shall become available 
     on July 1, 1998, and shall remain available until September 
     30, 1999; and of which not to exceed $59,775,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for housing improvement, road 
     maintenance, attorney fees, litigation support, self-
     governance grants, the Indian Self-Determination Fund, land 
     records improvements and the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Program: 
     Provided, That tribes and tribal contractors may use their 
     tribal priority allocations for unmet indirect costs of 
     ongoing contracts, grants or compact agreements and for unmet 
     welfare assistance costs: Provided further, That funds made 
     available to tribes and tribal organizations through 
     contracts, compact agreements, or grants obligated during 
     fiscal years 1998 and 1999, as authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination Act of 1975, or grants authorized by the Indian 
     Education Amendments of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2001 and 2008A) shall 
     remain available until expended by the contractor or grantee: 
     Provided further, That to provide funding uniformity within a 
     Self-Governance Compact, any funds provided in this Act with 
     availability for more than two years may be reprogrammed to 
     two year availability but shall remain available within the 
     Compact until expended: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, Indian tribal 
     governments may, by appropriate changes in eligibility 
     criteria or by other means, change eligibility for general 
     assistance or change the amount of general assistance 
     payments for individuals within the service area of such 
     tribe who are otherwise deemed eligible for general 
     assistance payments so long as such changes are applied in a 
     consistent manner to individuals similarly situated: Provided 
     further, That any savings realized by such changes shall be 
     available for use in meeting other priorities of the tribes: 
     Provided further, That any net increase in costs to the 
     Federal Government which result solely from tribally 
     increased payment levels for general assistance shall be met 
     exclusively from funds available to the tribe from within its 
     tribal priority allocation: Provided further, That any 
     forestry funds allocated to a tribe which remain unobligated 
     as of September 30, 1998, may be transferred during fiscal 
     year 1999 to an Indian forest land assistance account 
     established for the benefit of such tribe within the tribe's 
     trust fund account: Provided further, That any such 
     unobligated balances not so transferred shall expire on 
     September 30, 1999: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, no funds available to the Bureau, 
     other than the amounts provided herein for assistance to 
     public schools under 25 U.S.C. 452 et seq., shall be 
     available to support the operation of any elementary or 
     secondary school in the State of Alaska in fiscal year 1998: 
     Provided further, That funds made available in this or any 
     other Act for expenditure through September 30, 1999 for 
     schools funded by the Bureau shall be available only to the 
     schools in the Bureau school system as of September 1, 1996: 
     Provided further, That no funds available to the Bureau shall 
     be used to support expanded grades for any school or 
     dormitory beyond the grade structure in place or approved by 
     the Secretary of the Interior at each school in the Bureau 
     school system as of October 1, 1995: Provided further, That 
     beginning in fiscal year 1998 and thereafter and 
     notwithstanding 25 U.S.C. 2012(h)(1)(B), when the rates of 
     basic compensation for teachers and counselors at Bureau-
     operated schools are established at the rates of basic 
     compensation applicable to comparable positions in overseas 
     schools under the Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay 
     and Personnel Practices Act, such rates shall become 
     effective with the start of the next academic year following 
     the issuance of the Department of Defense salary schedule and 
     shall not be effected retroactively: Provided further, That 
     the Cibecue Community School may use prior year school 
     operations funds for the construction of a new high school 
     facility which is in compliance with 25 U.S.C. 2005(a) 
     provided that any additional construction costs for 
     replacement of such facilities begun with prior year funds 
     shall be completed exclusively with non-Federal funds.


                              construction

       For construction, major repair, and improvement of 
     irrigation and power systems,

[[Page H5093]]

     buildings, utilities, and other facilities, including 
     architectural and engineering services by contract; 
     acquisition of lands, and interests in lands; and preparation 
     of lands for farming, and for construction of the Navajo 
     Indian Irrigation Project pursuant to Public Law 87-483, 
     $110,751,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That such amounts as may be available for the construction of 
     the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project may be transferred to 
     the Bureau of Reclamation: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed 6 per centum of contract authority available to the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Federal Highway Trust Fund 
     may be used to cover the road program management costs of the 
     Bureau: Provided further, That any funds provided for the 
     Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 13 shall be made 
     available on a non-reimbursable basis: Provided further, That 
     for fiscal year 1998, in implementing new construction or 
     facilities improvement and repair project grants in excess of 
     $100,000 that are provided to tribally controlled grant 
     schools under Public Law 100-297, as amended, the Secretary 
     of the Interior shall use the Administrative and Audit 
     Requirements and Cost Principles for Assistance Programs 
     contained in 43 CFR part 12 as the regulatory requirements: 
     Provided further, That such grants shall not be subject to 
     section 12.61 of 43 CFR; the Secretary and the grantee shall 
     negotiate and determine a schedule of payments for the work 
     to be performed: Provided further, That in considering 
     applications, the Secretary shall consider whether the Indian 
     tribe or tribal organization would be deficient in assuring 
     that the construction projects conform to applicable building 
     standards and codes and Federal, tribal, or State health and 
     safety standards as required by 25 U.S.C. 2005(a), with 
     respect to organizational and financial management 
     capabilities: Provided further, That if the Secretary 
     declines an application, the Secretary shall follow the 
     requirements contained in 25 U.S.C. 2505(f): Provided 
     further, That any disputes between the Secretary and any 
     grantee concerning a grant shall be subject to the disputes 
     provision in 25 U.S.C. 2508(e).


 indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to 
                                indians

       For miscellaneous payments to Indian tribes and individuals 
     and for necessary administrative expenses, $41,352,000, to 
     remain available until expended; of which $40,500,000 shall 
     be available for implementation of enacted Indian land and 
     water claim settlements pursuant to Public Laws 101-618, 102-
     374, 102-575, and for implementation of other enacted water 
     rights settlements, including not to exceed $8,000,000, which 
     shall be for the Federal share of the Catawba Indian Tribe of 
     South Carolina Claims Settlement, as authorized by section 
     5(a) of Public Law 103-116; and of which $852,000 shall be 
     available pursuant to Public Laws 99-264 and 100-580: 
     Provided, That the Secretary is directed to sell land and 
     interests in land, other than water rights, acquired in 
     conformance with section 2 of the Truckee River Water Quality 
     Settlement Agreement, the receipts of which shall be 
     deposited to the Lahontan Valley and Pyramid Lake Fish and 
     Wildlife Fund, and be available for the purposes of section 2 
     of such Agreement, without regard to the limitation on the 
     distribution of benefits in the second sentence of paragraph 
     206(f)(2) of Public Law 101-618.


                 indian guaranteed loan program account

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


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (except the 
     revolving fund for loans, the Indian loan guarantee and 
     insurance fund, the Technical Assistance of Indian 
     Enterprises account, the Indian Direct Loan Program account, 
     and the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program account) shall be 
     available for expenses of exhibits, and purchase of not to 
     exceed 229 passenger motor vehicles, of which not to exceed 
     187 shall be for replacement only.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for central office 
     operations or pooled overhead general administration shall be 
     available for tribal contracts, grants, compacts, or 
     cooperative agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     under the provisions of the Indian Self-Determination Act or 
     the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-413).

                          Departmental Offices

                            Insular Affairs


                       Assistance to Territories

       For expenses necessary for assistance to territories under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, 
     $68,214,000, of which (1) $64,365,000 shall be available 
     until expended for technical assistance, including 
     maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, insular 
     management controls, and brown tree snake control and 
     research; grants to the judiciary in American Samoa for 
     compensation and expenses, as authorized by law (48 U.S.C. 
     1661(c)); grants to the Government of American Samoa, in 
     addition to current local revenues, for construction and 
     support of governmental functions; grants to the Government 
     of the Virgin Islands as authorized by law; grants to the 
     Government of Guam, as authorized by law; and grants to the 
     Government of the Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by 
     law (Public Law 94-241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $3,849,000 
     shall be available for salaries and expenses of the Office of 
     Insular Affairs: Provided, That all financial transactions of 
     the territorial and local governments herein provided for, 
     including such transactions of all agencies or 
     instrumentalities established or utilized by such 
     governments, may be audited by the General Accounting Office, 
     at its discretion, in accordance with chapter 35 of title 31, 
     United States Code: Provided further, That Northern Mariana 
     Islands Covenant grant funding shall be provided according to 
     those terms of the Agreement of the Special Representatives 
     on Future United States Financial Assistance for the Northern 
     Mariana Islands approved by Public Law 99-396, or any 
     subsequent legislation related to Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands grant funding: Provided further, 
     That of the amounts provided for technical assistance, 
     sufficient funding shall be made available for a grant to the 
     Close Up Foundation: Provided further, That the funds for the 
     program of operations and maintenance improvement are 
     appropriated to institutionalize routine operations and 
     maintenance improvement of capital infrastructure in American 
     Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Republic 
     of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of 
     Micronesia through assessments of long-range operations 
     maintenance needs, improved capability of local operations 
     and maintenance institutions and agencies (including 
     management and vocational education training), and project-
     specific maintenance (with territorial participation and cost 
     sharing to be determined by the Secretary based on the 
     individual territory's commitment to timely maintenance of 
     its capital assets): Provided further, That any appropriation 
     for disaster assistance under this head in this Act or 
     previous appropriations Acts may be used as non-Federal 
     matching funds for the purpose of hazard mitigation grants 
     provided pursuant to section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5170c).


                      compact of free association

       For economic assistance and necessary expenses for the 
     Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 
     232, and 233 of the Compact of Free Association, and for 
     economic assistance and necessary expenses for the Republic 
     of Palau as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 232, and 
     233 of the Compact of Free Association, $20,445,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as authorized by Public Law 
     99-239 and Public Law 99-658.

                        Departmental Management


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for management of the Department of 
     the Interior, $58,286,000, of which not to exceed $8,500 may 
     be for official reception and representation expenses, and of 
     which up to $1,200,000 shall be available for workers 
     compensation payments and unemployment compensation payments 
     associated with the orderly closure of the United States 
     Bureau of Mines.

                        Office of the Solicitor


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, 
     $35,443,000.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $24,439,000.

                   National Indian Gaming Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

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

             Office of Special Trustee for American Indians


                         federal trust programs

       For operation of trust programs for Indians by direct 
     expenditure, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and 
     grants, $32,126,000, to remain available until expended for 
     trust funds management: Provided, That funds for trust 
     management improvements may be transferred to the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs: Provided further, That funds made available 
     to tribes and tribal organizations through contracts or 
     grants obligated during fiscal year 1998, as authorized by 
     the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et 
     seq.), shall remain available until expended by the 
     contractor or grantee: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the statute of limitations shall 
     not commence to run on any claim, including any claim in 
     litigation pending on the date of this Act, concerning losses 
     to or mismanagement of trust funds, until the affected tribe 
     or individual Indian has been furnished with an accounting of 
     such funds from which the beneficiary can determine whether 
     there has been a loss.

                       Administrative Provisions

       There is hereby authorized for acquisition from available 
     resources within the Working Capital Fund, 15 aircraft, 10 of 
     which shall be for replacement and which may be obtained

[[Page H5094]]

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

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or 
     office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the 
     emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft, 
     buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment 
     damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other 
     unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until funds specifically made 
     available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies 
     shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds 
     used pursuant to this section are hereby designated by 
     Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, and must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible.
       Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or 
     transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in 
     addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of 
     the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency 
     prevention of forest or range fires on or threatening lands 
     under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for 
     the emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its 
     jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or 
     actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other 
     unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to 
     actual oilspills; response and natural resource damage 
     assessment activities related to actual oilspills; for the 
     prevention, suppression, and control of actual or potential 
     grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the authority in 
     section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 Stat. 1658); for 
     emergency reclamation projects under section 410 of Public 
     Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year funds 
     available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit 
     assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy 
     State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in 
     this title for fire suppression purposes shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding 
     fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies 
     for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in 
     connection with their use for fire suppression purposes, such 
     reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently 
     available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further, 
     That for emergency rehabilitation and wildfire suppression 
     activities, no funds shall be made available under this 
     authority until funds appropriated to ``Wildland Fire 
     Management'' shall have been exhausted: Provided further, 
     That all funds used pursuant to this section are hereby 
     designated by Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and must be 
     replenished by a supplemental appropriation which must be 
     requested as promptly as possible: Provided further, That 
     such replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro 
     rata basis, accounts from which emergency funds were 
     transferred.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for operation of warehouses, garages, shops, and 
     similar facilities, wherever consolidation of activities will 
     contribute to efficiency or economy, and said appropriations 
     shall be reimbursed for services rendered to any other 
     activity in the same manner as authorized by sections 1535 
     and 1536 of title 31, United States Code: Provided, That 
     reimbursements for costs and supplies, materials, equipment, 
     and for services rendered may be credited to the 
     appropriation current at the time such reimbursements are 
     received.
       Sec. 104. Appropriations made to the Department of the 
     Interior in this title shall be available for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the 
     Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment 
     of dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library 
     membership in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members.
       Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of the 
     Interior for salaries and expenses shall be available for 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902 and D.C. Code 4-204).
       Sec. 106. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for obligation in connection with contracts issued 
     for services or rentals for periods not in excess of twelve 
     months beginning at any time during the fiscal year.
       Sec. 107. No final rule or regulation of any agency of the 
     Federal Government pertaining to the recognition, management, 
     or validity of a right-of-way pursuant to Revised Statute 
     2477 (43 U.S.C. 932) shall take effect unless expressly 
     authorized by an Act of Congress subsequent to the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 108. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore 
     leasing and related activities placed under restriction in 
     the President's moratorium statement of June 26, 1990, in the 
     areas of Northern, Central, and Southern California; the 
     North Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; and the Eastern Gulf 
     of Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude and east of 86 
     degrees west longitude.
       Sec. 109. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of leasing, 
     or the approval or permitting of any drilling or other 
     exploration activity, on lands within the North Aleutian 
     Basin planning area.
       Sec. 110. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior to conduct offshore oil and 
     natural gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the 
     Eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area for any lands located 
     outside Sale 181, as identified in the final Outer 
     Continental Shelf 5-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 1997-
     2002.
       Sec. 111. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior to conduct oil and natural 
     gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the Mid-
     Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas.
       Sec. 112. Advance payments made under this title to Indian 
     tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia pursuant 
     to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450, et seq.) may be invested by the Indian tribe, 
     tribal organization, or consortium before such funds are 
     expended for the purposes of the grant, compact, or annual 
     funding agreement so long as such funds are--
       (a) invested by the Indian tribe, tribal organization, or 
     consortium only in obligations of the United States or in 
     obligations or securities that are guaranteed or insured by 
     the United States, or
       (b) deposited only into accounts that are insured by an 
     agency or instrumentality of the United States.
       Sec. 113. (a) Employees of Helium Operations, Bureau of 
     Land Management, entitled to severance pay under 5 U.S.C. 
     5595, may apply for, and the Secretary of the Interior may 
     pay the total amount of the severance pay to the employee in 
     a lump sum. Employees paid severance pay in a lump sum and 
     subsequently reemployed by the Federal government shall be 
     subject to the repayment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5595(i) (2) 
     and (3), except that any repayment shall be made to the 
     Helium Fund.
       (b) Helium Operations employees who elect to continue 
     health benefits after separation shall be liable for not more 
     than the required employee contribution under 5 U.S.C. 
     8905a(d)(1)(A). The Helium Fund shall pay for 18 months the 
     remaining portion of required contributions.
       (c) Benefits under this section shall be available to 
     Helium Operations employees who are or will be involuntarily 
     separated before October 1, 2002 because of the cessation of 
     helium production and sales and other related activities.
       Sec. 114. None of the funds in this or previous 
     appropriations Acts may be used to establish a new regional 
     office in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service without 
     the advance approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

                       Department of Agriculture


                             forest service

                     forest and rangeland research

       For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as 
     authorized by law, $187,644,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                       state and private forestry

       For necessary expenses of cooperating with and providing 
     technical and financial assistance to States, Territories, 
     possessions, and others, and for forest health management, 
     cooperative forestry, and education and land conservation 
     activities, $157,922,000, to remain available until expended, 
     as authorized by law.


                         national forest system

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and 
     utilization of the National Forest System, for forest 
     planning, inventory, and monitoring, and for administrative 
     expenses associated with the management of funds provided 
     under the heads ``Forest and Rangeland Research,'' ``State 
     and Private Forestry,'' ``National Forest System,'' 
     ``Wildland Fire Management,'' ``Reconstruction and 
     Construction,'' and ``Land Acquisition,'' $1,364,480,000, to 
     remain available until expended, which shall include 50 per 
     centum of all monies received during prior fiscal years as 
     fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
     of 1965, as amended, in accordance with section 4 of the Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)): Provided, That up to $10,000,000 of 
     the funds provided herein for road maintenance

[[Page H5095]]

     shall be available for the planned obliteration of roads 
     which are no longer needed.


                        wildland fire management

       For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression 
     activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency 
     fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands 
     under fire protection agreement, and for emergency 
     rehabilitation of burned over National Forest System lands, 
     $599,715,000 to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That such funds are available for repayment of advances from 
     other appropriations accounts previously transferred for such 
     purposes.

                              {time}  1930


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 181, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: amendment No. 11 offered by the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders]; and the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    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. Pursuant to House Resolution 181, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the second amendment 
on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 230, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 260]

                               AYES--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Portman
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand

                               NOES--230

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cummings
     Davis (VA)
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Boucher
     Harman
     Schiff
     Slaughter
     Yates

                              {time}  1957

  Ms. STABENOW, Mr. COYNE, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. REYES, Ms. 
WOOLSEY, and Messrs. STARK, NADLER, ENGEL, and Mrs. LOWEY changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BARRETT of Wisconsin, NUSSLE, SALMON, CRAPO, NETHERCUTT, 
DICKEY, CHRISTENSEN, McINNIS, Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut, and Messrs. 
CHABOT, CAPPS, HULSHOF, FORD, RUSH, HEFLEY, CUNNINGHAM, LATHAM, 
GALLEGLY, COLLINS, NORWOOD, and PICKERING 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 Mrs. Maloney of New York

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. 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 77, 
noes 351, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 261]

                                AYES--77

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.

[[Page H5096]]


     Kennelly
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Leach
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     McNulty
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Smith, Adam
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Thurman
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Waxman

                               NOES--351

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boucher
     Dooley
     Harman
     Schiff
     Slaughter
     Yates

                              {time}  2007

  Mr. SALMON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GUTIERREZ and Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)


  Rules Committee Procedure Regarding Amendments to Legislation to be 
                Considered During Week of July 14, 1997

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, in making the two announcements, let me 
also announce that we do not expect any votes between now and about 10 
o'clock. There will only be one more amendment, and perhaps an 
amendment thereto, so that there is no reason for Members to stand 
around here talking if they do not want to for the next hour and a 
half.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Rules is planning to meet during the 
week of July 14 to grant a rule for consideration of the foreign 
operations appropriation bill for fiscal year 1998. The bill was 
ordered reported by the Committee on Appropriations on July 9 and will 
be filed tomorrow, July 11. The bill is scheduled for floor action on 
Wednesday, July 16. That is next Wednesday.
  The Committee on Rules may grant a rule which would require the 
amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record. In this case 
amendments to be preprinted would need to be signed by the Member and 
submitted at the Speaker's table.
  Mr. Chairman, because of the tight schedule on appropriation matters, 
the Committee on Rules plans to meet Monday at 5 p.m., that is this 
coming Monday, on the appropriation bills for veterans and HUD for 
fiscal year 1998. It is scheduled for floor consideration on Tuesday, 
July 15. The bill has been ordered reported by the Committee on 
Appropriations and the report is expected to be filed tomorrow.
  The Committee on Rules is contemplating an open rule for this 
legislation. If Members have amendments to the bill, and they comply 
with House rules, there is no need to submit the amendments or to 
testify before the Committee on Rules. Members should use the Office of 
Legislative Counsel to draft their amendments. Again, it is not 
necessary to submit amendments to the Committee on Rules or to testify 
as long as the amendments comply with House rules.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, could the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules or any of the Republican leadership tell us what we 
are going to be doing for the rest of the evening at this point?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Well, reclaiming my time, I can tell the gentleman that 
there is an amendment about to be offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] that will not take but a few minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, perhaps the 
chairman can enlighten us about what the plan is for the rest of the 
evening.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] to 
explain that to the gentleman.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we will go to 
the Porter amendment and all amendments thereto, and prior to that the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] has an amendment which I am going 
to accept.
  After we finish with the gentleman from Colorado we are going to go 
to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. I would assume that that 
is probably going to take a considerable amount of time and that would 
be all we would get done tonight.
  Mr. DICKS. Does the gentleman intend to vote on the Kennedy-Porter 
amendment tonight?
  Mr. REGULA. I would hope so, yes. I would like to finish it tonight.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will continue to 
yield to the gentleman to explain what might happen on the next vote on 
the Porter amendment. Will the Committee stay in Committee and continue 
to vote and then roll votes over until tomorrow? What is the intention 
of the chairman?
  Mr. REGULA. We are going to try to do that, depending on how much 
time the Porter amendment takes. The goal is to get far enough along 
that we can finish by 2 p.m. tomorrow. So we want to keep moving. And 
any votes after the Porter amendment we will roll over.

[[Page H5097]]

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my good 
friend, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. The gentleman from New York alluded to a bill before the 
Committee on Rules on Monday on veterans. I thought there might be some 
chance that we may hear that Friday.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the 
gentleman that that is all up to the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies. If they can file their report tonight, I would be 
more than glad to meet tomorrow to save the Committee on Rules members 
from having to come back here Monday when there are not going to be any 
votes until Tuesday at 5 o'clock.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. That is what I am referring to.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would ask my good friend to use his persuasion and get 
it done.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I used my persuasion on the Interior rule and nothing 
happened.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would suggest the gentleman persevere.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Skaggs

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Skaggs:
       Page 46, line 14, strike ``$599,715,000'' and in lieu 
     thereof insert ``$591,715,000''.
       Page 58, line 18, strike ``$100,000,000'' and in lieu 
     thereof insert ``$101,000,000''.
       Page 59, line 10, strike ``$312,153,000'' and in lieu 
     thereof insert ``$313,153,000''.
       Page 60, line 20, strike ``$636,766,000'' and in lieu 
     thereof insert ``$644,766,000''.
       Page 60, line 25, strike ``$149,845,000'' and in lieu 
     thereof insert ``$153,845,000''.
       Page 61, line 6, strike ``$120,845,000'' and in lieu 
     thereof insert ``$123,845,000''.
       Page 61, line 7, strike ``$29,000,000'' and in lieu thereof 
     insert ``$30,000,000''.

  Mr. SKAGGS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to consideration of this amendment 
at this time in the bill en bloc?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the bill's 
funding for energy conservation and efficiency programs by $8 million. 
These additional funds would be used for several important R&D programs 
at the Department of Energy, for State energy programs, and for 
weatherization. It also makes a small adjustment in the division of 
funds among some of the fossil energy programs.
  I appreciate very much the willingness of the gentleman from Ohio, 
the chairman of our subcommittee, to work to develop this amendment, 
which he has indicated he would accept, and should, therefore, not be 
controversial.
  As the chairman knows, I wish that we could go further than is 
provided in this amendment and to provide greater increases in these 
important efficiency and conservation programs, but we were unable to 
find the offsets to do that. In adopting this amendment, it will make a 
definite improvement in the bill. I hope we may be able to go a bit 
farther as the other body considers this legislation.

                              {time}  2015

  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the bill's funding for 
energy conservation and efficiency by $8 million. These additional 
funds will be used for several important research and development 
programs of the Department of Energy, for State energy programs, and 
for the weatherization program. It also makes a small adjustment in the 
division of funds for the fossil energy programs.
  I greatly appreciate the willingness of the subcommittee chairman, 
the gentleman from Ohio, to work with me to develop an amendment that 
he will accept and that therefore should not be controversial.
  As Chairman Regula knows, this amendment does not go as far as I 
would have liked. I think these programs should receive an even greater 
increase in funds. But the amendment is a compromise, and just as it 
does not do all that I would have wanted, it goes further than would 
the bill as reported. So, adopting this amendment will make a definite 
improvement over the bill as reported, and I hope it will set the stage 
for further improvements when we get to a conference with the other 
body.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  This amendment adds $8 million in budget authority to the energy 
conservation accounts. Of that total, $3 million is for the 
weatherization program; $1 million is for the State energy program; and 
the rest is allocated as follows:
  Building equipment and materials will be increased by a total of $3 
million. Of that total--
  $250,000 will go to research in developing gas-fired heat pumps for 
heating and cooling residences and smaller commercial buildings (``Hi-
cool Heat Pump program'');
  $1 million will go to the lighting programs, to support a variety of 
research programs including work on improved light fixtures, advanced 
lamp technologies, improved lighting controls, more sophisticated light 
distribution systems, and possibly work along lines suggested by the 
Hybrid Lighting Partnership;
  $1 million will be for cooperative efforts between DOE and industries 
such as the manufactured-housing companies and utility firms to 
increase the adoption of efficiency measures in the marketplace--
efforts that have been part of the ``Energy Star'' program, but that 
don't include other aspects of that program such as the training of 
retail personnel;
  $150,000 will be to expand efforts to develop practical 
``superinsulation'' materials, by working with insulation 
manufacturers; and
  $600,000 will be for research projects concerning windows and 
glazing, including advanced window coating, electrochromic ``smart'' 
windows, and other new technologies that can produce great energy 
savings.
  Three programs in the industry sector will receive a total increase 
of $1 million. Of that--
  $300,000 will be for Industrial Assessment Centers, university-based 
centers that provide no-cost energy and environmental audits to help 
small and medium-sized businesses;
  $300,000 will be for the ``Motor Challenge'' program, under which 
industry-government partnerships promote a systems approach in 
selecting, operating, and managing efficient electric motor systems; 
and
  $400,000 will be for the ``NICE-cubed'' program, which provides 
competitively-selected grants to state-industry partnerships aimed at 
encouraging deployment of energy-efficient technologies and to 
demonstrate technologies that can improve energy efficiency, reduce 
waste, and save money.
  Finally, the amendment will make a modest increase ($1 million) in 
funding for the consolidated fuel cell program, part of the fossil 
energy research and development activities of the Department of Energy.
  The amendment is fully offset. The increases in the energy 
conservation accounts are offset by a reduction in the advance funding 
for forest service firefighting activities, and the increase for the 
fuel cell program is offset by an additional rescission from the clean 
coal program. These offsets will not have an adverse effect on these 
activities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Davis].
  (Mr. DAVIS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I support the Skaggs amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skaggs amendment which 
provides a much needed increase in funding for energy conservation 
programs. Included in the amendment is an additional $600,000 for the 
windows and glazing program. This program provides funding for a 
promising new technology with enormous energy savings potential for the 
commercial windows market.
  It is my expectation that this funding increase will be used to 
further the development of plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition 
[PECVD] techniques for electrochromic technologies. This technology 
provides a flexible means of controlling the amount of light and heat 
that passes through a glass or plastic surface. Such a capability would 
provide Americans, and indeed much of the world, with a premier energy 
saving opportunity in building construction. The Department of Energy 
has estimated that placing this technology on all commercial buildings 
in the United States would produce savings equivalent to the amount of 
oil that travels through the Alaska pipeline each year.
  In recognition of the importance of this technology, my home State of 
Florida has provided $1.2 million in State funds to the University of 
South Florida which is utilizing a license associated with technology 
developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. I 
believe the additional funds for the windows and glazing program will 
be available to assist with this excellent example of a public-private 
partnership.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Skaggs for his hard work on 
this amendment and Chairman Regula for his willingness to accept it. I 
believe it is a common sense amendment which will enhance our nation's 
important energy conservation programs and

[[Page H5098]]

allow the United States to remain at the forefront of major new 
conservation technologies.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time briefly, I also wanted, 
if I could, to ask the chairman to engage with me briefly. I believe he 
has received a copy or has received a letter from the Secretary of 
Energy. I have a copy which I would like to put in the Record at this 
point. It is, I think, a very helpful indication of the 
administration's willingness to work with the chairman in some areas of 
concern to the subcommittee in the building program in particular.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] relative 
to the Secretary's letter and my amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have examined the amendment. We 
appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is 
willing to work out a compromise on this, and in view of that, we are 
prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me also inquire of 
the chairman, I wanted to put Secretary Pena's correspondence to the 
chairman in the Record at this time.
  As I mentioned a minute ago, I expect that the chairman finds this a 
very forthcoming expression of intended cooperation and accommodation 
by the administration in some areas that were of concern to the 
chairman in this particular part of the bill, and I just wanted to ask 
the gentleman's consent on that point.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, we 
have no objection to putting the letter in the Record at this point.
  The letter referred to follows:


                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                    Washington, DC, July 10, 1997.
     Hon. Ralph Regula,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, 
         Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your interest in helping 
     us reshape the energy conservation programs of the Department 
     of Energy and your continued support for the objectives of 
     these programs. I know that we share the view that 
     investments to increase the productivity of energy use are 
     critical for finding ways to meet environmental goals, to 
     increase American energy security, and to ensure continued 
     economic growth.
       I know that the House Committee on Appropriations has 
     expressed concerns about the management of programs designed 
     to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. While the 
     Department's programs in this area have been highly 
     successful in the past, I share your concern that they need a 
     careful review. I agree with your observation that the 
     programs should be focused around a set of objectives that 
     are both clear and easily explained. These programs must be 
     developed in close cooperation with the business and other 
     groups who must be our partners in this work. Their support 
     for our programs is vital to our success.
       We are working to redesign our programs and will give the 
     views expressed in the FY 98 House Interior Appropriations 
     Committee report very serious consideration. Later this year 
     I will provide you with a strategic plan that responds to the 
     Committee's request; I want to assure you that it will 
     receive my personal attention. Given the importance of energy 
     efficiency--and the opportunities for improving the energy 
     efficiency of buildings, in particular--it is essential that 
     the federal government's RD&D program be well-focused and 
     adequately supported.
       I look forward to discussing this matter with you in more 
     detail in the near future.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Federico Pena.

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I have 
been a strenuous supporter of funding for the Low-Income Weatherization 
Assistance Program and the State Energy Conservation Program funded 
through the Department of Energy accounts in the Interior 
appropriations bill. I have offered amendments in prior years to 
increase funding for these programs and I continue to support strong 
increases for these programs that go to the heart of the Federal 
Government's cooperation in community-based solutions to the needs of 
the people in our boroughs, townships, and counties.
  I want to thank Mr. Skaggs for working with us in supporting 
increased funding for these important programs. Today's amendment 
increases Weatherization by $3 million to $124 million in fiscal year 
1998 and increases the State Energy Program by $1 million to $30 
million. Even though the amendment is small, it begins to move in the 
right direction. The Appropriations Committee had supported flat 
funding with no inflation increase.
  I also want to commend Chairman Regula and his staff for his work on 
this very difficult appropriations bill. It is important to stress, 
however, that these two programs have taken the brunt of the cuts in 
the Department of Energy conservation accounts since fiscal year 1995, 
when Weatherization was funded at a level of $226 million and the State 
grants received $53 million. These cuts of almost 50 percent have 
affected people in every congressional district. Weatherization helps 
low-income Americans through the installation of insulation and 
otherwise improving the energy efficiency of homes. On average, these 
improvements save these poor households over $200 a year in energy 
costs. That makes a huge difference. The State Energy Program provides 
leveraging of funds to conduct energy improvements in schools and 
hospitals so that more money can go into education and health care. 
This program reaches into small business and homes to reduce energy 
costs and apply innovative technologies to solve our energy challenges.
  These programs are still grossly underfunded. I want to stress to my 
colleagues that I hope we can increase these funding levels in 
conference. I will carefully observe our actions and I look forward to 
working with Chairman Regula in balancing important interests, but 
providing critical resources to aid people in need.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                    reconstruction and construction

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, $160,122,000, to remain available until 
     expended for construction, reconstruction and acquisition of 
     buildings and other facilities, and for construction, 
     reconstruction and repair of forest roads and trails by the 
     Forest Service as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 
     U.S.C. 101 and 205: Provided, That not to exceed $50,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, may be obligated for the 
     construction of forest roads by timber purchasers: Provided 
     further, That purchaser road credit will be limited to those 
     companies that meet the Small Business Administration 
     definition of small business as defined in title 13, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, part 121.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against 
the legislative provision beginning with ``provided further'' on page 
47, line 2, through ``part 121'' on line 6. This language violates 
clause 2 of House rule XXI, which prohibits a provision containing 
legislative language in a general appropriation bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule. The second of the unprotected provisos 
under the heading ``reconstruction and construction,'' by restricting 
the availability of the purchaser road credit to a specified class of 
companies, includes legislation in violation of clause 2(b) of rule 
XXI.
  Therefore, the point of order is sustained and the language is 
stricken from the bill.
  Are there any further points of order against the language read?


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Porter

  Mr. PORTER. 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. Porter:
       Page 46, line 20, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $41,500,000)''.
       Page 46, line 126 after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1)''.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I hate to offer any amendment to the bill 
of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]. There is no one in the House 
for whom I have more respect and admiration, and I assure my friend and 
all of our colleagues from the West and so-called timber districts that 
my difference with him and with them is one only of policy.
  The amendment that I offer, together with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller], 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. 
Furse], the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Cook], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Royce] will put an end to the use of taxpayer subsidies 
for the construction of logging roads in our national forests. It will 
reduce the $89.5 million road construction and reconstruction account

[[Page H5099]]

by $41.5 million. This amendment will eliminate the funds for the 
construction and reconstruction of timber roads and eliminate the funds 
used to administer the purchaser road credit program. As estimated by 
the CBO, the amendment will directly save taxpayers $42 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not affect recreation and general 
purpose roads, and it will not reduce the money for maintenance and 
road obliteration, which is funded through a separate account. Under 
this amendment, if timber companies want to build logging roads with 
their own money, they can; and there is $5.9 million left in the 
account for the Forest Service to inspect and oversee their work.
  Under the present system, logging companies receive incentives to 
build roads but the taxpayers are left with future maintenance costs. A 
majority of the timber roads in our national forests were constructed 
through the purchaser road credit program.
  The credit that is issued by the Forest Service is for an estimate of 
the cost of the road that, according to the GAO, includes a 15-percent 
profit margin. Mr. Chairman, that is a direct subsidy, and it is one 
that is often greater than the profit margin than the timber company 
can expect on the whole sale. Further, the estimate and the actual 
costs are never compared. That may be a further indirect subsidy.
  Bottom line, there is no accountability for the estimate and credit 
offered by the Forest Service.
  To argue that the purchaser road credit program does not offer a 
subsidy is absolutely absurd. If there was no subsidy, Mr. Chairman, 
the timber companies would not care if it is eliminated; and, very 
obviously, they do. The fact that the Price Waterhouse study says 
otherwise is refuted by the fact that it was paid for by the American 
Forest and Paper Association.
  Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service is a land management agency. It was 
not created to be in the business of building roads. The two other land 
management agencies, the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, do not subsidize the construction and reconstruction of 
timber roads on their lands. Neither should the Forest Service.
  The timber companies build a lot of roads under the Bureau of Land 
Management and Bureau of Indian Affairs, but none of them are 
subsidized.
  I appreciate the efforts of the chairman of the subcommittee to 
improve the forest road program by limiting the number of roads that 
can be constructed in our national forests.
  My colleagues will hear in the debate that only 8 miles of roads will 
be allowed to be built by the Forest Service. That is by the Forest 
Service, Mr. Chairman, and does not take into account the purchaser 
road credit program. Factoring in the roads under this program, the 
total is 302 miles of new subsidized timber roads at a cost to the 
taxpayer of $41.5 million.
  Under this amendment, the roads can still be built, the logging can 
still take place, but the timber companies will have to pay for the 
cost of building the roads needed for the timber harvests. That is the 
way almost every for-profit company in America works in our economy, 
Mr. Chairman; they pay their own costs of doing business. That is 
called free enterprise.
  Mr. Chairman, we already have 380,000 miles of roads in our national 
forests, enough to encircle the planet more than 15 times, 1.6 miles of 
road for every square mile of national forest. Do we really need more 
subsidized roads?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Porter amendment.
  First I want to say to my good friend, the gentleman from the State 
of Washington [Mr. Dicks], that I thought that when the House got rid 
of B-1 Bob that it might be the last we have seen of someone in that 
particular line of work. But we have got B-2 Norman to replace him, who 
has become the Paul Bunyan of our national forests.
  The House of Representatives voted less than 2 weeks ago on a 
spending cut package to balance the Federal budget. Wrapped in those 
proposals were billions of dollars of reductions in the country's 
transportation budget, money needed to pave our highways and fill our 
potholes, money needed so that hard-working families can get to work on 
time, so that economic goods can be efficiently shipped to the 
marketplace, and so that the parents can get their kids to schools 
safely.
  Yet today we are considering an Interior appropriations bill that 
contains millions of dollars to subsidize the construction of logging 
roads in our national forests so that wealthy timber companies can haul 
off even higher profits. Not enough money to fix our national highways, 
but plenty to spare for big profitable timber companies like 
Weyerhaeuser, Georgia Pacific, and International Paper.
  American taxpayers will no longer stand for such corporate welfare 
schemes. Paul Bunyan and his blue ox Babe never needed a pocketful of 
Federal cash to do their job. But if we listen to the cries of the 
timber interests, their industry would go down the river if they were 
pulled away from the subsidy trough.
  My colleagues would think that if we were going to allow private 
timber companies to come in and remove Federal assets from our forests 
for their own profit, at the very least these companies would have to 
pay for the roads that are needed to get to that timber. What is next? 
Paying for gasoline for the corporate jets? The American taxpayers 
already paid for 380,000 miles of roads that crisscross our national 
forests, which is more than eight times the size of the U.S. Interstate 
Highway System.
  I am joined by my colleagues today to say, enough is enough, we do 
not need any new taxpayer subsidized logging roads. If new roads for 
logging purposes are warranted, practical and profitable, why should 
not these corporate giants build their own roads?
  The amendment I offer today with my colleague from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] will end the practice of taxpayer subsidies for the 
construction of these new logging roads. We cut $41.5 million out of 
the construction and reconstruction component of the Forest Service 
roads budget.
  Our amendment only affects the construction and reconstruction of 
logging roads themselves. It does not touch funds for recreation or 
general purpose roads or trail construction, nor does it affect the 
budget for the maintenance of the existing infrastructure.
  The Forest Service fiscal year 1998 budget notes show how they would 
use the $41.5 million for timber roads. They want to spend roughly $10 
million to build 1.3 miles of new timber roads and 38.1 miles of 
reconstructed timber roads. The remaining $31.5 million was slated for 
use, in the staff report, for the designing and engineering of timber 
roads under the purchaser credit program.
  This program gives trees to timber companies in exchange for their 
cost to build the roads, another taxpayer giveaway that must end. This 
amendment leaves intact the $5.9 million the Forest Service requested 
to inspect and oversee the work when timber companies build roads under 
purchaser credit.
  We still want the Forest Service to inspect and oversee their work. 
We just no longer want to reimburse timber companies for the cost of 
these roads. The savings we get from this amendment will be applied for 
deficit reduction.
  We must stand up against the special interests and reverse this 
wasteful and environmentally damaging spending. The environment suffers 
because building these new roads in our national forest system has had 
a devastating impact on direct habitat loss, water quality, and 
wildlife populations.

                              {time}  2030

  Road construction, particularly on steep unstable slopes dramatically 
increases the risk of landsliding, erosion, and siltation of the 
streams. Such damage requires us to be more than idle observers.
  Some points I would like to reiterate about this amendment.
  The amendment will cut only money from the budget that would be used 
to build logging roads. We have never touched the funds that are needed 
to repair or maintain roads in the existing national forest 
infrastructure. There is $85 million in this bill under the entirely 
separate section entitled ``Infrastructure Management'' that is used 
for road maintenance. We do not touch the funds for building the 
general purpose or recreation roads or the construction of trails.

[[Page H5100]]

  This money plain and simple is a direct handover to the lumber 
companies for going in and harvesting trees. All we say is if you want 
to go in and cut down the trees, pay for the roads yourself, and do not 
look to the Federal taxpayer for the subsidy.


 Amendment Offered by Mr. Dicks to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Porter

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Porter:
       On line 2 of the Porter amendment strike the figure 
     $41,500,000, and insert $5,600,000.
       On line 4 of the Porter amendment strike the figure $1 and 
     insert $25,000,000.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to my colleagues 
today, many of which feel that the Kennedy-Porter amendment goes too 
far, that it makes too deep a cut in the timber purchaser credit 
program. It also makes a very severe cut in appropriated funds, most of 
which are being used for reconstruction of timber roads. Only 8 miles 
of new roads are being constructed under appropriated funds.
  What I am offering here is a compromise. This will allow us to go 
forward and do the reconstruction, and it will also provide half of the 
money for timber purchaser credit.
  By the way, most of the timber sales, over 75 percent of the timber 
sales, go to small businesses. These are not going to the elite. Most 
of them have gotten out of the business, at least in the Northwest, 
because they export off their private lands and they get very little if 
any Federal timber.
  My colleagues have to understand what has happened in the timber 
area. We used to do about 10 to 12 billion board feet nationally each 
year. This year we have come down, and this is the history here, and in 
recent years we have come down to about 3.7 billion board feet. We have 
cut in third the timber program in this country.
  What happens when we do that? What happens when we create this 
shortage? First of all we import. Over 30 percent of the softwood that 
comes in today comes in from Canada. They are up there cutting like mad 
to meet the U.S. market requirement. The other thing that happens is it 
forces up the price of lumber. We have got a letter here from the 
homebuilders saying that the average house has gone up about $2,800 per 
house because of increased lumber prices. So consumers have paid 
something like $2.8 billion more than they would have had to pay for 
their new houses over the last several years.
  I ask tonight for some common sense, for some compromise. This is an 
amendment that will not devastate these programs. By the way, in case 
somebody did not understand, one cannot go in and do timber harvesting 
without roads. Ninety percent of the roads we have are used for 
recreational purposes. They are used for fire suppression. They are 
used to get people out into those great recreational areas. The Forest 
Service lands provide more recreational opportunity than our National 
Park System. That is something that is not well understood by some 
easterners, and if the gentleman from Massachusetts ever wants to come 
out, I will be glad to take him around and show him a few of the roads. 
But, seriously, these roads are very important in terms of the 
transportation system. I want to also point out the density of roads on 
the Forest Service lands are much lower than either BLM lands or in 
Forest Service lands.
  The problem with what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] have come up with is that 
they want to cut $41.5 million out of appropriated funds for timber 
roads. Most of that money, almost all of that money, I think $40 
million of that money, would be used for reconstruction. Reconstruction 
means going out and fixing up roads that have problems and doing it so 
that you can put in culverts, you can fix the roads so if you have a 
big storm, they do not break apart and wind up blowing out and winding 
up in the salmon streams. That is why I have changed that part of their 
amendment to go to $5.6 million which is the administration's budget 
request. I think we then fix that part of the amendment. Then we 
preserve some of the money for purchaser credit so that the smaller 
companies out there can still use this program, which is important for 
them because they have a hard time. If they do not have this, they are 
going to have to finance the roadwork themselves, and some of these 
smaller companies have a difficult time doing that.
  We have a way of fixing that with the purchaser elect program which 
will then allow the Forest Service to do some of this for them. There 
are two groups that are going to get really hurt by this amendment and 
doing away with timber purchaser credit. One is the counties. They are 
going to lose 25 percent of what they got before. Those Members who 
have been worried about PILT, counties get hurt here.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 4 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the counties get hurt and the small 
businesses who have used this program. That is why instead of 
eliminating it as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] do, I have kept it in at $25 
million.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would love to go camping with the gentleman from 
Washington sometime, but this issue has nothing to do with recreational 
roads.
  Mr. DICKS. Of course it does.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will just yield to me 
for a brief moment to answer some of the questions that he has brought 
up.
  First and foremost, we specifically outline in the language in this 
amendment that would prevent any cut in funding for recreational road 
purposes, first. Second, the gentleman says that the cost of lumber 
will go up. Only 4 percent of the lumber in this country comes totally 
from our national forests. We have got 389,000 miles of forest, and we 
have only got 1.3 miles worth of new roads.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, first of all, all these 
roads are used by people for recreational purposes.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Absolutely.
  Mr. DICKS. All of them are used. When we do reconstruction on those 
roads, it is to keep those roads available for recreational purposes. 
The gentleman is taking out a big part of that money.
  I am surprised that we even have, and I think it is 5 percent, by the 
way. Look at what we have done to timber harvesting in this country. We 
have taken it down to here. I know that someone will not rest until it 
is probably below this line. That is simply not right because we have a 
responsibility. We can manage these forests on a sustainable basis. 
This is not James Watt running this place down there. It is Jim Lyons 
who used to be on the staff here of the Committee on Agriculture, it is 
Dan Glickman, it is Albert Gore, it is Bill Clinton, it is Bruce 
Babbitt. These are the people that are managing these forests.
  All I want to say is that these people are managing this properly. 
They have also said that the Kennedy-Porter amendment goes too far. We 
have a letter here today and let me just read a couple of salient 
paragraphs:
  ``Small timber business purchasers would be adversely affected 
because of potential financial troubles they may encounter as they 
operate timber sales if the purchaser credit program is eliminated. 
Accordingly, the administration urges Congress to allow the Forest 
Service to do the purchaser election. The administration also supports 
reducing the construction of new roads on national forests as reflected 
in its budget. However, the $41.5 million reduction the amendment 
proposes goes too far in eliminating important construction and 
reconstruction efforts that provide public safety and environmental 
benefits.''
  The administration opposes the Kennedy-Porter amendment because it 
simply goes too far. This is a decent compromise.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield further, I 
would like to point out that I too got

[[Page H5101]]

a letter from the Secretary after I received the letter that he sent to 
me at the gentleman's request, I got a letter from him later this 
afternoon indicating to me that he has no idea of what it was that the 
gentleman had talked to him about.
  Mr. DICKS. No, no. Dan Glickman is a longtime member of the Committee 
on Agriculture.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. In clarifying the letter that I sent 
you this afternoon, the administration supports reducing the 
construction of new roads within the national forest system primarily 
for the environmental reasons and because of the extensive cost to 
maintain the road system that already exists.
  In fact the President's budget proposes to eliminate the purchaser 
road credit program, which the gentleman just refunded in his 
amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. By 50 percent.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The President opposes your amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. I never said the administration supported my amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. But the gentleman certainly said Mr. 
Glickman supported his amendment.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think the amendment of the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks] is interesting, but I have some questions.
  One is that on the purchaser road credits because of the volume of 
timber sales in the Reagan and Bush administration, then they dropped 
off sharply in the Clinton administration, large businesses as well as 
small businesses are carrying these purchaser road credits as assets on 
their books. If the purchaser road credits are eliminated in any form, 
that would be a taking of assets. Can the gentleman reassure me that in 
his amendment that would not occur?
  Mr. DICKS. If my amendment is adopted, of course, we will keep the 
program going. Even if it is not, I am confident that there is nothing 
in the Kennedy-Porter amendment that retroactively takes away anybody's 
right.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the gentlewoman that 
there is nothing in my amendment and I do not believe anything in 
either amendment that would adversely affect prior timber purchaser 
credits. We would certainly work to put language in at some point to 
make sure that that is a clear understanding. We will work with the 
chairman and the administration to make sure that is taken care of.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] 
because I do believe it could conceivably take away those credits. I 
would appreciate language that would make sure that did not happen.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. I think the point that is lost here, too, is that taking 
out this money which takes away the ability to reconstruct roads means 
we are going to have environmental problems. What this gentleman is 
proposing is a good environmental vote because it preserves the 
necessary money to reconstruct these roads in a way that not only can 
the public use them but we will avoid siltation, we will avoid a lot of 
problems that would result in an environmental degradation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] 
has again expired.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Washington have 2 additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 1 hour and that the time 
be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I am not a 
member of the committee. I wish to speak on this. How can I be assured, 
since I am not a member of the committee, and I do not know how many 
members of the committee are going to rise, that I will be allocated 
any time during that hour? There are many other members on both sides 
of the issue who wish to speak.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Is the gentleman saying that it is an hour on the Dicks 
amendment?
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, it is a total of 1 hour on 
the Porter and the Dicks.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would object. I think that is too short a 
time frame. I think there are a lot of Members who want to speak on 
this and I am just afraid we will not be able to take care of everybody 
who wants to speak.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, let me revise the unanimous-consent request 
to close all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto in 
1\1/2\ hours and, of course, that the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, I have to clarify this issue with the Chair for a brief moment. 
If we limit the total debate to 1\1/2\ hours, how do we separate the 
amount of time that would be dedicated to the Dicks amendment versus 
the underlying Porter amendment?

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we do not attempt to separate them. We will 
roll the votes. There will be a vote on the Dicks substitute, and then 
there will be a vote on Porter-Kennedy.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. So the entire debate will then center 
around the Dicks substitute?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would announce it would be the Chair's 
intention to divide the time, if the unanimous-consent agreement is 
reached, as follows: 45 minutes to be controlled by the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula], 22\1/2\ minutes to be controlled by each of the 
proponents of the amendments on the floor, that being the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. What about my amendment, Mr. Chairman?
  I think we have to object. I think it is too short. I think we are 
not ready yet.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?
  Mr. DICKS. I object.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous-consent request pending.
  The CHAIRMAN. There has been an objection.
  Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] seek recognition?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, let us start over.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this 
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 1\1/2\ hours and that the 
time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. PORTER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, the Chair 
announced that the allocation of time would basically be skewed toward 
opponents of the Porter amendment and proponents of the Dicks 
amendment. I would ask the gentleman from Ohio if he would change his 
unanimous-consent request to request that all debate

[[Page H5102]]

on both amendments be concluded by 10:30 p.m. and that half of the time 
be controlled by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and half the time 
be controlled by myself.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield under his reservation, Mr. 
Chairman, I am very interested in trying to obtain a time limitation. I 
have been trying to do that working with the majority party for the 
last 45 minutes, but I do not think it is an especially sweet deal when 
all of the time is controlled by that side of the aisle.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request, 
and we will try to work it out.
  The CHAIRMAN. The request is withdrawn.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss for a minute real purchaser credits 
because again this is one of the situations in which we have been 
debating where myth seems to override fact. And let me try to bring 
back to what is actually at stake here with respect to real purchaser 
credits which have been, they have been accused of being the handmaiden 
of the rich. It is the process that has been accused of being a 
subsidy, and let me explain exactly what happens:
  If I am a timber purchaser and the forest service has a sale, the 
forest service identifies the amount of money for the road. When I bid 
the timber contract, I determine by my own assessment what the road is 
worth. If the road is in my estimation, in the estimation of the Forest 
Service, too expensive, I bid less on the timber. If I think I can 
build a road for the amount of money that is explained through the 
engineering process in the Forest Service, or less, than I bid more for 
the timber. So I adjust my timber bid depending upon my assessment of 
the road allocation determined by the Forest Service and by the 
engineering process.
  When I am through the road is a wash. I do not bid the road to make 
money on trying to get the timber contract. So when it is all over, 
there is no advantage to me in the road process. However it is an 
advantage if I am a small business man because some way I am given a 
credit for the expense of the road in more timber.
  That is the size of it. There is not a subsidy around it; there never 
has been.
  Now do not press me. Look, I am from the west, I am from a timber 
country. My gosh, I am probably kidding my colleagues. But my 
colleagues all know Price-Waterhouse. My colleagues all know that they 
are a very successful auditing company in the United States. Price-
Waterhouse has examined this issue. Price-Waterhouse says this is not a 
subsidy, Price-Waterhouse says this is not a bonus to any big timber 
companies, and therefore I suggest that a third party witness says and 
disputes, disputes the thought that this is some sort of subsidy and 
therefore some sort of corporate pork. It is not.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue is not an environmental issue, and it is not 
even a budget issue. This is a question of the management of forests.
  Now let us assume that we eliminate all of the appropriated money, as 
has been suggested. When we eliminate all the appropriated money, we 
eliminate the engineering process in America.
  Now those of my colleagues who want to shut down the operation of 
every timber program in America, they are right, they are right. Go 
with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. You betcha; that 
is what is done.
  If my colleagues believe in the management of forests for the 
protection of everything we want to protect, the endangered species, 
the water quality and quantity, the stream bank programs, the wildlife, 
and when I am finished I will yield, then my colleagues have to realize 
that we have to have roads for the protection not only of the structure 
of the forests, but what about wild fires? What about recreation? What 
about all the opportunities that we all enjoy in the forests? 
Eliminated.
  If we eliminate, by the same token, the forest or the timber credit 
program, we have eliminated small business. Seventy-five percent of all 
contracts in the forests are given to small business, 75 percent. One 
of the reasons that they are still in business is simply because of the 
road credit program because, yes, they can collect their money earlier, 
they do not have to wait until the end of the program, they do not have 
to wait 3 years. Sometimes these contracts are out 3 years. They can 
assume timber in exchange for the cost, the cost of the road. Not 
profit, the cost. Therefore, my colleagues, this is not, should not be 
couched in the terms that we have heard.
  So supporting any program that has appropriated funds for 
engineering, supporting any program that protects someone, road 
purchaser credits is essential to the health of the timber industry in 
the west.
  Please understand this is the issue.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a unanimous-consent request, 
and I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not care who makes the unanimous-consent 
request. I think there is bipartisan agreement on the committee at 
least.
  Mr. REGULA. That is the request I am going to make.
  Mr. OBEY. And I think we ought to just proceed with the request, so 
why does the gentleman from Ohio not go ahead?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
the Porter amendment and all amendments thereto close in 80 minutes, 
the time to be allocated as follows: 20 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks], 20 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy], 20 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
and 20 minutes to myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. RIGGS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I just would 
like to ask the distinguished subcommittee chairman, since there are a 
number of us waiting here for the opportunity to participate in this 
debate who represent districts that are home to Federal forest lands 
and which are directly impacted by the proposed amendments when we 
would have an opportunity to speak under the proposed unanimous-consent 
agreement limiting time for debate on those 2 amendments or any 
subsequent amendments thereto.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, obviously we would have 40 minutes between 
myself and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] and he could 
assign some time and I could.
  Now, if my colleague does not think 40 minutes is enough, he can 
object to the unanimous-consent request. We are simply trying to 
expedite this, and it would amount to probably about 2 minutes per 
speaker.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield under his 
reservation?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me just suggest that it is my hunch that 
there will be enough time for everybody who wants to to speak provided 
that people who want to speak simply let the four floor managers know 
who they are so that they can allocate time to everybody without 
squeezing people out. The problem they have is that at this time of 
night people come out of the woodwork and the fellows managing the time 
do not have any idea who wants to speak.
  I mean I cannot imagine in 80 minutes that we will not have enough 
time for everybody to participate. I have got forest lands in my 
district. I do not need to talk. I will simply be happy to give that 
time to somebody else. I just want to get this thing done in a 
reasonable time before people start losing their tempers.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] insist 
on his objection?
  Mr. RIGGS. I reserve the right to object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California insist upon his 
reservation of objection?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H5103]]

  Mr. Chairman, the debate, as I understand it now, will be for 80 
minutes, 20 minutes controlled by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Dicks], 20 by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], 20 by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and 20 by myself, and then after 
the 80 minutes of debate, then they will be intermingled. We will take 
votes on the Dicks substitute, and following that there will be a vote 
on Porter-Kennedy.
  Then I want to announce to the Members that once that is completed it 
would be the intention of the Chair to continue to take amendments with 
no further votes tonight. We will go to Line 7, Page 76 and stop just 
before the NEA issue, and the committee at that point will rise. So we 
would have two more votes tonight at the end of the 80-minute period in 
which we debate the Kennedy-Porter and the Dicks substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear there will be no action on the 
NEA issue tonight. We are going to stop just prior to reaching that 
point in the bill, which is Page 76, Line 7.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am having difficulty still hearing what the 
gentleman has said. I just want to make sure. There will be which other 
amendments then debated tonight after these two? The Klug? Royce?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, any amendment will be in order that a 
Member might wish to offer until we reach Line 7, Page 76. If there 
were any votes ordered, they will be rolled over.
  Mr. OBEY. All of the votes will be rolled?
  Mr. REGULA. That is correct, there will be no votes after Porter-
Kennedy and Dicks.
  Mr. OBEY. One additional question.
  It is essential that we not be in the committee marking up the 
transportation bill tomorrow when the NEA vote comes to the floor. Do 
we have an assurance that that double duty will not occur?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am advised by staff that the leadership 
of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] is trying to work this problem out to avoid the very thing 
the gentleman from Wisconsin described.
  Mr. OBEY. My point is I want assurances that the debate on NEA will 
not occur while we are in full committee marking up because we cannot 
be in two places at the same time and everyone feels very strongly 
about that.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. REGULA. That is my intention that that will not happen; that is, 
the debate, if there is any committee markup ongoing at that time. Let 
me assure the gentleman that we are not going to debate the NEA issue 
while the full committee is in markup.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette].
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to a couple of 
points made by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  First of all, this issue that everybody, all of the recreational 
users, are using these roads. In fact, the GAO has stated that 70 
percent of all Forest Service roads are designated as closed to 
vehicular traffic or for rough, high clearance vehicles. These logging 
roads are built for and used primarily by logging companies, and are 
generally inaccessible to vehicles driven by most Americans. I spent a 
lot of time in the national forests in my State, and I will tell 
Members that recreational users do not use these logging roads.
  Second, with respect to the thought that housing sales will 
drastically increase if we cut this program, the truth is only 4 
percent of all timber activity in the United States occurs in our 
national forests, and yet there are 377,000 miles of roads 
crisscrossing these areas. This is eight times the length of the 
highway system, and it seems incredibly disproportionate to be building 
these roads, as well as incredibly unlikely that housing costs will go 
up if we simply stop this program.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for me to add my two 
cents as a westerner, because I know exactly the damage that timber 
roads can do to the environment and to the health of our forest 
ecosystems, as well as the wasting of the taxpayers' money.
  When we do this kind of clear-cutting in western forests, we wreak 
havoc on wildlife and we decimate mountainsides for floods. We have 
seen a lot of this in Idaho with the recent flood damage, and the fact 
that a lot of the mudslides have been caused by timber roads in our 
national forests. It is ecologically wrong and it is a financial drain 
on our budget. We should simply vote against the Dicks amendment. It 
does not cut enough. We should vote for the Kennedy-Porter amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for raising these 
important issue.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I want to respond to a few comments by my friends, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter], both of whom I have great respect for. I am from the West. I 
am from the east side of the State of Washington, where we have small 
timber companies. The idea of big timber companies is foreign to us. We 
have small timber companies, two and three and five and ten people who 
really rely on the timber purchaser credit program. It is not for big 
companies, it is for the small operator.
  I think it is instructive for all of us to think about the fact that, 
with all due respect to the sponsors of this amendment, in my judgment, 
in my opinion, in my education, there is not one of them that has the 
kind of forest lands and the kind of timber communities and the kind of 
people that I do in my district, so it is easy to sit in Chicago or New 
York or Massachusetts and say I am going to take care of you out West, 
and talk about special interests.
  Let me tell the Members who the special interests are in this case. 
They are the people who are driving these fine gentlemen and the 
sponsors of this amendment to a no harvest-no cut policy on Federal 
lands. That is not only damaging to Federal property, it is damaging to 
the recreational interests.
  People who go and use these Federal lands and forest areas, they use 
the roads to get there. It is absolutely inaccurate to say that special 
interests on our side are trying to protect this program. My special 
interests are the little guy. That is who is being hurt by this. My 
special interests are the recreational people who want to go into the 
forest and use it on a weekend, and they use a timber road to get 
there.
  I want Members to know, let us put this into perspective. There is a 
special interest driving the sponsors of this amendment. They want a no 
cut policy on Federal lands and they want to put my region out of work. 
They want to hurt my little people. I am not going to stand for it.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Dan Miller], a sponsor of the amendment and 
a member of the committee.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I stand up here to a certain 
degree reluctantly, being a strong supporter of this particular 
amendment, because I am a member of the subcommittee with the chairman, 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], and I have no greater admiration 
for anyone than I have for the gentleman, especially with the hard work 
he has done to bring this bill to the floor today.
  So many of my colleagues and friends who I vote with most of the time 
are on the other side of the issue. But this is an issue that if one is 
a fiscal conservative and one also loves the environment, it is a 
natural amendment to vote for.
  Mr. Chairman, let us get the facts straight here. First of all, we 
have heard the number of miles we are talking about, 380,000 miles. 
That is 15 times around the world. That is a lot of miles to be built 
in the national forests to start with.
  Mr. Chairman, the amount of logs that are taken out of the national 
forests is a very small amount of the total number of logs in the 
United States. It

[[Page H5104]]

only represents 4 to 5 percent of the total amount of commercial 
logging in the United States. So we are not talking about devastating 
the entire logging industry of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two major reasons I believe we should be 
supporting the amendment; first, as a fiscal conservative, it is an 
issue of money. GAO did a study here about a year or so ago talking 
about the money. It costs us hundreds of millions of dollars every year 
to run this program. In 1995 it was a $234 million net cost. It was 
$278 million in 1995, and it was $455 million back in 1994.
  So the total cost of the timber harvesting business is costing the 
Federal taxpayers money. Why should the Federal taxpayers be 
subsidizing this program? That is what it is, is corporate welfare, 
when it has a subsidy. It is a net cost. The GAO said that.
  Mr. Chairman, the other issue we talked about is the environment. It 
does affect the environment, especially when we combine logs, logging, 
with the roads. I am not opposed to logging in the national forests. My 
environmental friends may not agree with me on that issue, but I 
believe it is sustainable, logging in the national forests.
  But there are some environmental impacts we have to be concerned 
with, because when we cut the trees and make the logs it allows more 
water to flow down the mountainside into the streams, taking all the 
silt that builds up in there and the rocks and such, and it has caused 
damage to streams out West, so there are some environmental impacts 
that we have to be concerned with.
  If Members are fiscal conservatives, if they believe in smaller 
Government, if they want to reduce the size and scope of the 
Government, this is a good amendment.
  Let me conclude with a couple of quotes from some editorials, lots of 
editorials around the country. One is from my area of Florida and 
Tampa. This is a conservative newspaper, by the way. Their editorial 
says, ``This issue,'' talking about logging, ``should unite both 
conservatives who want to cut to Big Government and environmentalists 
who want to stop the destruction of America's woodlands.'' It says, 
``The issue for Congress should be easy. Washington shouldn't spend 
taxpayers' money to despoil public resources.''
  From USA Today yesterday, let me read one paragraph. ``Fact is, the 
road-building subsidy is an anachronism, a fossil from the last century 
when Federal policy was aimed not at managing resources but rather 
enhancing economic development and westward expansion. Well, times 
change. The railroads now stretch from sea to sea. The land has been 
tamed. Let the timber industry pay its own way, or at least pay for its 
own roads.''
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record three newspaper articles:

                [From the New York Times, May 23, 1997]

 Quiet Roads Bringing Thundering Protests--Congress to Battle Over Who 
                  Pays to Get to National Forest Trees

                          (By Carey Goldberg)

       Coeur d'Alene, ID.--They are only pretty little forest 
     roads after all, the kind that inspired Robert Frost, the 
     kind that bring memories of bumping happily over canopied 
     ruts on a bike. Or family outings jouncing by car past lacy 
     walls of birches to a beloved pond or hunting ground.
       But in the current battle over logging in the country's 
     national forests, woodland roads have nowhere near so 
     innocent a mien.
       Logging roads are increasingly blamed for contributing to 
     landslides, floods like those threatening parts of Idaho, and 
     changes in rivers and streams like those that have devastated 
     fish stocks in rivers and lakes around this town in the Coeur 
     d'Arlene (pronounced kur da LANE) National Forest.
       The cost of building roads is also increasingly cited as 
     the reason that many national forests lose money on lumber 
     sales. And the dirt roads so web the country's woods, with 
     more than 380,000 miles nationwide--enough to circle the 
     globe nearly 15 times--that here in Idaho, one square mile of 
     forest can be riddled by as many as 20 miles of roads.
       ``We're concerned about the road network we have and the 
     fact that it's two and a half times the size of the national 
     highway system, which is amazing,'' said Jim Lyons, the 
     Agriculture Department Under Secretary who oversees the 
     Forest Service. ``Our No. 1 water quality problem in the 
     National Forest System is roads.
       The opposition to logging roads has reached the point, some 
     national conservation groups say, that they expect it to 
     spark one of the biggest environmental fight in Congress this 
     session.
       ``This is going to be a pretty big showdown,'' said Marty 
     Hayden, senior policy analyst for the Sierra Club Legal 
     Defense Fund, of a proposed amendment that would slash money 
     for the roads.
       The amendment, offered by Representative Joseph P. Kennedy 
     2d, a Massachusetts Democrat and John Edward Porter, an 
     Illinois Republican, would prevent the Forest Service from 
     using taxpayer money to build roads in national forest. The 
     measure has support from both environmentally inclined 
     lawmakers and fiscal conservatives who oppose corporate 
     subsidies, joined in an alliance known as the Green Scissors.
       The timber industry and its allies are fighting the 
     measure, saying that construction of the roads has dropped 
     significantly--to 483 miles in 1996, at a cost of $74.3 
     million from 1.311 miles in 1991, at a cost of $1.409 
     million.
       The American Forest and Paper Association, an industry 
     group in Washington, D.C., also challenges the assertion that 
     the Government has been misspending money for logging roads. 
     Frank Stewart, the groups spokesman, said a recent Price-
     Waterhouse report commissioned by the association found 
     ``that, no, this is an efficient and effective way to fund 
     road reconstruction'' in national forests.
       The Forest Service has obliterated more than 18,000 miles 
     of roads in the last six years while just 4,575 miles of 
     roads were constructed, the Price-Waterhouse report noted.
       The Clinton Administration is taking something of a middle 
     position, Mr. Lyons said, requesting only a small amount for 
     new roads in comparison to what it is asking for maintaining, 
     reconstructing and obliterating logging roads in the national 
     forests.
       But the Administration is also, for the first time, pushing 
     for the abolition of the program under which timber companies 
     subtract the cost of road-building from the price they pay 
     for the trees they log in national forests, called the 
     purchaser credit plan.
       As the road fight plays out in Congress, environmentalists 
     here in the Idaho Panhandle and in eastern Washington, where 
     national forests are some of the most heavily roaded in the 
     country, say they will be watching with the trepidation that 
     stems from a firsthand knowledge of the damage roads can do.
       ``The roads have largely destroyed the Coeur d'Alene River 
     here; the river has died a death of a thousand cuts,'' said 
     John Osborn, founder of the Inland Empire Public Lands 
     Council, a forest conservation group. In Spokane, Wash. 
     ``This is the worst case of watershed damage in the National 
     Forest System.''
       Roads damage ecosystems in several ways, scientists say, 
     and when heavy road-building is combined with cutting all the 
     timber in an area, known as clear-cutting, the result is a 
     one-two punch.
       Trees absorb water. When they have been cut, more water 
     flows down slopes like those that dominate the Coeur d'Alene 
     National Forest.
       When roads wash out, the scientists say, they dump rocks 
     and soil on lower slopes and into streambeds; even when they 
     remain intact, roads act as channels for water and contribute 
     further to the erosion of lands and streams. The overall 
     effect is that the streams and rivers fill with silt, the 
     scientists say, and the shallower waters mean ruined fish 
     habitats and more flooding.
       ``It took only one-half the water in 1996 to cause the same 
     damage as the floods in 1974 because the river flooded so 
     much more easily,'' said Barry Rosenberg of the Inland Empire 
     Public Lands Council.
       Roads reduce the complement of fish species in an area, 
     said Chip Corsi, a biologist at the Idaho Fish and Game 
     Department. Researchers have found that as little as 1.7 
     miles of roads per square mile of forest have that effect. 
     Mr. Corsi said, adding, ``And here we have from 4 to 10 to 15 
     to up to 20 miles of road per square mile--so it's extreme.''
       He added that roads can also hurt some forms of wildlife by 
     opening their areas of the forest to other species, whether 
     noxious weeds or human beings.
       But the greatest damage roads do, Mr. Corsl and others 
     said, is to watersheds, and warnings to that effect have been 
     coming from scientists and environmentalists for decades. The 
     heavy flooding in the Northwest in 1996--including landslides 
     that cost several lives--focused particular attention on the 
     perils of forest roads.
       Last June, the proposal by Representatives Kennedy and 
     Porter that the Government stop reimbursing the timber 
     companies for road construction lost by just one vote in the 
     House. The new head of the Forest Service, Michael Dombeck, 
     said when he was appointed in February that the national 
     forests' roadless areas should be preserved.
       The construction of roads in the national forests has 
     already shrunk significantly. Mr. Lyons said that under the 
     Forest Service's current proposed budget, it would build only 
     8 miles of new roads and timber purchasers would build an 
     additional 300 miles, of which 132.6 miles would be in 
     currently roadless areas. More than 2,000 miles of road would 
     be reconstructed.
       Even that is too much for environmentalists, who argue that 
     the money should be spent on repairing old roads to minimize 
     the damage they cause.
       According to calculations by Public Employees for 
     Environmental Responsibility, a whistle-blower group of 
     Federal, state and local workers in resource management, the 
     Forest Service loses millions of dollars each

[[Page H5105]]

     year on timber sales; in extreme cases, the group says, road 
     building can cost the agency $1,000 for just $100 worth of 
     timber. But the cost of building roads and the price of 
     timber vary tremendously.
       In areas like the North Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River 
     here, state employees worry that there is not even enough 
     money in the budget to maintain the roads that exist, let 
     alone to obliterate them.
       Viewed from the air, the forest is so ringed and edged and 
     swirled with roads that in places it looks patterned in 
     paisley. It is because of areas like this that the discussion 
     in Congress is expected to be so charged.
       ``Part of the problem,'' Mr. Lyons said, ``is trying to sit 
     down and explain to people what you need in terms of road 
     maintenance and reconstruction and obliteration to protect 
     the resource--to deal with salmon habitat and things that 
     matter in the Northwest. There is this perception all the 
     money we request for roads goes into building new roads.''
                                                                    ____


                     [From USA Today, July 9, 1997]

                       Timber! Let Subsidies Fall

       Congress this week will try again to end the ridiculous 
     practice of paying loggers millions to build roads.
       More than 100 years ago, in 1891, Congress created the 
     National Forest Reserve as a means of protecting the nation's 
     woodlands and increasingly muddied watersheds from the 
     scouring clear-cuts inflicted by the 19th century timber 
     industry.
       Like many good resource-management ideas in those bad old 
     robber-baron days, the protections didn't last long. In 1897, 
     Congress voted to permit logging in the reserves, and the 
     ensuing swarm of timber industry payouts and subsidies 
     continues to finagle taxpayer dollars today. Among the most 
     egregious: a program through which taxpayers spend millions 
     of dollars a year to build roads that logging companies use 
     to harvest cut-rate federal timber.
       There is much to complain about when it comes to timber 
     sales, which routinely cost the Treasury hundreds of millions 
     of dollars a year. But the issue at hand is far narrower. For 
     the second year running, a bipartisan congressional alliance 
     of environmentalists and budget hawks will try Thursday to 
     end the road-building subsidy, valued this year at $41 
     million in direct costs. Last year's effort failed on a tie 
     vote.
       More power to them. The program survives on spurious 
     rationales.
       Supporters say the roads open the forest to recreation. But 
     have you ever tried driving on one? When they are passable at 
     all, they usually lead to vast fields of deadwood and slash, 
     hardly places that invite picnicking or other pleasures. 
     Moreover, the roads contribute to runoff that ruins fishing 
     streams. Or isn't fishing a recreation?
       And it's not as though we don't have enough roads already. 
     The national forests are latticed by 377,000 miles of roads, 
     almost nine times the length of the interstate highway 
     system. In some places, there may be 20 miles of road per 
     square mile of forest, as dense as some cities.
       Does the road-building subsidy have economic importance? 
     Hard to see how. The national forests account for only about 
     4% of the nation's timber production, hardly enough to affect 
     prices or jobs. Other factors are far more influential. 
     Between 1950 and 1994, the timber harvest increased by 64%, 
     while employment in the wood and paper industries fell 4%.
       Fact is, the road-building subsidy is an anachronism, a 
     fossil from the last century when federal policy was aimed 
     not at managing resources but rather enhancing economic 
     development and westward expansion. Well, times change. The 
     railroads now stretch from sea to sea. The land has been 
     tamed. Let the timber industry pay its own way, or at least 
     for its own roads.
                                                                    ____


                   Why Waste Money on Logging Roads?

       Washington spends about $30 million a year subsidizing the 
     construction of logging roads in national forests. These 
     roads cause erosion, pollute creeks and deface the 
     wilderness. They are blamed for landslides that occurred 
     during the flooding in the Northwest last year.
       As U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Furse, an Oregon Democrat who is 
     working with both Republicans and Democrats to get rid of the 
     subsidies, says, ``First we pay to build them. Then every 
     time there is a flood, the public has to pay for it again.''
       The House of Representatives is scheduled this week to 
     review a proposal to cut or eliminate the subsidies. 
     President Clinton favors eliminating the expense.
       This issue should unite both conservatives who want to cut 
     Big Government and environmentalists who want to stop the 
     destruction of America's woodlands.
       The timber industry defends the expense, saying the roads 
     also allow for greater recreational use of the forests. 
     That's so much sawdust.
       There already are more than 380,000 miles of logging roads 
     carved through the forests. This is eight times the length of 
     the interstate highway system.
       Hunters, hikers and others do not lack for access to the 
     national forests. Outdoors enthusiasts would much prefer 
     clean creeks and pristine forests to more roads and 
     additional erosion.
       The issue for Congress should be easy. Washington shouldn't 
     spend taxpayers' money to despoil public resources.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 
seconds. I want to respond to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Nethercutt], who indicated this is a program which supports small 
businesses. The truth of the matter is that out of the 12,000 
companies, only 33 of them are small businesses, and they represent 4 
percent of the total road building program in our national forests in 
this country.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we have too many miles of forest roads. 
There is absolutely no question, 380,000 miles is too much. But 
thousands of miles, though, one cannot just walk away from too many 
miles of road and from poorly constructed roads. We have thousands of 
miles of roads in need of maintenance.
  Unfortunately, the Forest Service often calls that reconstruction. If 
you take a 6-inch culvert and replace it with a 12 because it is 
blocked, that is not maintenance, that is reconstruction. That would be 
virtually eliminated by the Kennedy-Porter amendment.
  The Dicks amendment takes the appropriated funds down to the level 
requested by the Clinton-Gore administration for construction-
reconstruction. I can guarantee the Members most of that budget, 
virtually all of that budget, is going to be used for reconstruction of 
roads, which is environmentally benign. Some of it will even be used 
for removal.
  I had hoped to come to the floor to add funds to maintenance and add 
funds to removal, but it is not allowed under the bizarre rules under 
which we consider appropriations bills at this point.
  There is a $440 million backlog, everybody admits to that, for 
maintenance. But they are saying, we are just cutting construction and 
reconstruction. No, you are not just cutting construction and 
reconstruction. Much of that backlog is reconstruction, and 
reconstruction is maintenance to the rest of us in the world, but not 
to the pointy heads down at the Forest Service. We need to get that 
work done.
  Reducing purchaser credits by one-half, which the gentleman from 
Washington, Mr. Norm Dicks, does with this amendment, by 50 percent 
according to the Clinton administration, I checked with them on this, 
will eliminate all new road building, including any roads into roadless 
areas, under the purchaser credit program. That is the way they would 
use that reduction.
  What will the other $25 million go to? It will go to maintenance, 
which the Forest Service calls reconstruction. It will go to 
Aufderheide Drive, the most heavily used recreational road in my 
district in the Willamette National Forest. It will go to other 
critical roads that have been identified in the President's forest plan 
as needing immediate removal, reconstruction, repair, or upgrading, 
because they present dangers to watersheds and fish. That is what this 
is all about.
  It is well-intentioned on the part of these gentlemen, and I do not 
want to subsidize the industry. No one can accuse me of that. So what, 
the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Norm Dicks, is proposing will 
eliminate the roads into the roadless areas, it will eliminate the new 
road construction under purchaser credits. If you buy into the argument 
by eliminating these monies, you do that. You cannot have the language 
in the bill. That is not allowed. And it will put enough money back 
into the construction and reconstruction program to do what the Clinton 
administration wants to do, to reconstruct problem roads across western 
Oregon, Washington, the western United States, that they have 
identified are in need of immediate upgrade, immediate maintenance, and 
they unfortunately call reconstruction.
  What we really need is to have a debate where we make a more rational 
forest policy in this country and a more rational roads policy at the 
Forest Service, in the authorization committees, and bring that to the 
floor to the debate, as opposed to what we are doing here tonight, 
because we cannot get at the real problem.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], chairman of the authorization subcommittee.

[[Page H5106]]

  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, the 1998 appropriations bill will fund 
the reconstruction of 160 miles of damaged Forest Service roads. 
Through the purchaser credits program an additional 2,000 miles of 
roads will be reconstructed. Reconstruction will protect riparian 
systems, provide access for forest health projects, and wildfire 
prevention. The Kennedy-Porter amendment will eliminate these programs, 
including reconstruction, which will lead to an overall demise of the 
resource.
  By effectively eliminating the roads program, the Kennedy-Porter 
amendment will seal the fate of thousands of small timber companies and 
businesses that depend upon the Forest Road Program.
  Mr. Chairman, I find two very interesting common threads running with 
the sponsors of the Porter-Kennedy amendment. None of the sponsors that 
are from the Republican side, anyway, and I do not believe the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], have any forest roads in 
their district. They do not serve on any of the natural resources 
subcommittees.
  Furthermore, I find it interesting, these same individuals will 
debate strenuously for a subsidy to the NEA, $99.5 million last year. 
They debated strenuously for a subsidy for people's pleasure. Yet, we 
find them all excited about road credits, which are not a subsidy. I 
know these are intelligent people, and I know they understand the 
difference between subsidies and road credits. There are no direct 
subsidies going from the Federal Government to timber companies.
  Furthermore, I want to make it clear that in 1996, small business 
brought 75 percent of the U.S. timber, 75 percent. It is not the great 
big timber companies. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt] 
was absolutely right.
  I want to ask the sponsor of this amendment, if it will not affect 
the lives of his constituents, it will affect the lives of mine. I ask 
him to explain to the children who live in Elk City and Grangeville, 
ID, and the children of other timber-dependent communities throughout 
the country how they will make up the funding they count on for their 
schools that come out of timber sales.
  I ask him to tell the sawmill owner in Bonners Ferry, ID, how he can 
now afford to purchase a timber sale to keep his mill operating. The 
Kennedy-Porter amendment will effectively shut down the national 
forests. If we pass this amendment today, our hands are tied. Fighting 
wildfires and addressing forest health problems will be nearly 
impossible.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment, 
and am opposed to the amendment of my good friend, the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks], my classmate.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that our colleague and friend, the chairman of 
the subcommittee, raised the question before. He said if you have too 
many roads already and you cannot maintain them, then why are we going 
to build more?

                              {time}  2115

  That is really what this big fight is all about, because we are 
falling behind. We have the 380,000 miles of roads. We cannot maintain 
them. And we get studies that come back that look at the economic 
aspects, but they do not look at any of the physical aspects, the 
nontangible aspects in terms of what is happening with these roads in 
terms of fragmentation, in terms of erosion.
  All these issues we have been talking about are being compounded by a 
program that is basically out of control. This does not cut down timber 
sales. The BLM, the BIA, the State programs do not rely upon the type 
of program that the Forest Service has instituted that has built all 
these roads. And the fact is that most of these roads, 80 percent of 
them have nothing to do with or little to do with recreation. In fact, 
if that were the case, we could not have recreated any of these forests 
before the roads were built. We know that is not accurate.
  When we talk about small business, the definition of small business 
is 500 employees or more in these forest industries Road Credit 
Program. You say this is a small business program. Of the 13,000 
companies involved, only about 30, 35 of them do not qualify for the 
purchase or credits. What this is is we are setting up a bank account. 
We are borrowing out the money, and we are not even checking what is 
happening in terms of what the consequence of the road building 
results.
  The consequences are turning out to be a program that is out of 
control, that is heavily subsidized. I admit that this particular 
procedure is a blunt instrument in terms of dealing with this issue. We 
should deal with it much more surgically. But that is not the choice we 
have in terms of this rule or what is presented today in this chamber.
  The choice we have tonight is to vote up an amendment that will in 
fact eliminate or stop this particular wasteful subsidized program, not 
stop timber cutting, saying you are going to do it the way the BLM does 
it, you are going to do it the way the States do it. It will continue 
timber cutting but on a business basis not on the basis of Federal 
Government subsidy but on the basis of business economics the market 
place not the Federal dole.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Hansen] chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public 
Lands.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I chaired this committee on the Forest Service for a while, had a lot 
to do with it. I think the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt] 
came up with some very good things. These folks say that there is no 
recreation. It is obvious where they are coming from. I have spent my 
life in the outback in Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, that area. I was a guide 
at one time. I think I understand it very well.
  Let me just say, they are used for recreation, about 90 percent. All 
these roads that are going to be built, they are going to have people 
who hunt, fish, camp, watch birds, and they are going to be on it. What 
I worry about is so-called Joe Sixpack, which a lot of us may fall into 
that category. I worry about the guy that does not have the opportunity 
to go out on that land, take his camper, take his kids, put up a tent 
and enjoy it for a little bit.
  We are saying to him, you cannot do this anymore. A guy I really 
worry about a lot and I know you folks in the East probably do not 
watch what goes on in the West, but do my colleagues know what is going 
to happen this year?
  Let me tell you something. I do not have to be a prophet to say this. 
It just happens to be the gospel truth. We are going to have fires like 
you have never seen before. We have got all of this water that came 
out. Now it has stopped. Now up come these things. Guess what is going 
to happen? Last year we had more fires than we have ever had.
  As one of the senior members of the Committee on National Security, I 
am always amazed how all these people want to buy all these old 
airplanes and put them back together. Guess what those fires cost us 
last year? $1.2 billion.
  When you talk to the firefighters they say, but there are no roads to 
get in. Fine, do it on helicopters that cost $500 an hour. Jump out of 
those things and get yourself killed. That is all right.
  Are we worried about those people? I sure am. I think they are very 
important. I worry a lot about the people who run stock in that area. I 
worry about the people, the young people of America.
  I built the house I lived in in 1968. I paid 83 cents for a 2-by-4. 
Now they are around $4 apiece. Let us see what that means to the price.
  So in a way, if you are a fiscal conservative, you will vote against 
the Kennedy bill and you will vote for the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr.  Dicks], my good friend, on this particular bill.
  Carrying that on, if you want to see the cost of this thing go up, if 
you want a tax increase, vote for Porter-Kennedy. You will get a tax 
increase, I will promise you that.
  If you want to hold taxes down, do not do it. These folks in a way 
are saying, let us give a tax increase to America. Let us burn the 
West, and that is

[[Page H5107]]

what they are saying. Go ahead and laugh. That just happens to be the 
gospel truth.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 35 
seconds.
  I just want to point out that the truth of the matter is that this 
bill has nothing to do with taxes. Whenever there is an issue that 
Members feel they are going to lose, they say it is going to mean 
taxes. This time we are going to hear that we will create fires.
  The only thing this legislation does is stop new roads for the 
exclusive purposes of building those roads for logging. All the funds 
remain in this bill that are contained for the purposes of recreational 
roads and for fire prevention or other forest management purposes.
  All the funds remain in this bill for recreation, fire prevention and 
any other purpose other than logging roads.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, this is not about raising taxes. It is not 
often that we have an opportunity to enhance environmental protection, 
reduce the deficit and end corporate tax subsidies in one single vote. 
But that is exactly what this amendment offers us today.
  For years the Forest Service has provided taxpayer-funded subsidies 
to timber companies to construct nearly 400,000 miles of logging roads 
through our national forests. These subsidies not only provide a 
handout to the timber industry for costs they should be paying on their 
own, they also underwrite activities that take a serious toll on our 
forests' fragile ecology. These are the habitats for a diverse array of 
fish and wildlife, including many threatened and endangered species. 
Logging roads fragment habitats, increase erosion and siltation into 
rivers and streams.
  As for the expense to taxpayers, the General Accounting Office 
estimates that between 1992 and 1994, the logging road program cost the 
Treasury more than $245 million. And just for a point of reference, 
that is almost three times the cost of the entire budget for the 
National Endowment for the Arts.
  This amendment is plain common sense. Trout Unlimited, hardly a 
bastion of environmental extremism, is among the many groups supporting 
this measure. Let us be very clear. This amendment will not prohibit 
timber companies from building new logging roads. It simply says, do so 
at your own expense; go build them but pay for it at your own expense, 
not with taxpayer dollars. Do not expect the taxpayers to give you a 
handout. Is that not what welfare reform is all about? The Forest 
Service's logging road construction program epitomizes the kind of 
wasteful, environmentally destructive corporate welfare program that we 
have a duty, a responsibility, to terminate as we move toward a 
balanced budget.
  My colleagues, for all those who want to move towards a balanced 
budget, I urge support of this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr.  Shadegg].
  (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about corporate welfare 
and it is not about the Federal budget. It is about proper land 
management of our forests, our land. If you owned a piece of land, 
would you let someone else come in and build a road on your piece of 
land and let them control where that road was, what the quality of the 
road was going to be, and whether the road was going to be permanent or 
temporary and receded? Absolutely not. That is what this debate is 
about. It is not about corporate welfare. It is about who manages that 
decision.
  I talked to professional foresters today about this issue. They make 
it very clear, that the purchase road credit program allows them to 
manage these decisions. I listened just a few minutes ago to one of my 
colleagues come to the floor and say, if you are a fiscal conservative 
or if you are an environmentalist, you will support the Porter-Kennedy 
amendment. The absolute opposite is true. If you are a fiscal 
conservative, you would understand that there is no subsidy here.
  The timber companies do not keep the roads. We keep the roads. 
Recreationalists use the roads. And our professional forest managers 
need to design where those roads go, the quality of the road and 
whether it is a permanent or a temporary road. It is not also about the 
environment. If we allow the timber companies to build the road with 
their own money, they will bulldoze the cheapest, quickest road they 
can get in and do as much environmental damage as may happen. If we 
design the road through the purchase credit program, then we can 
protect the environment.
  This is a debate full of red herrings. It is a debate that misses the 
point. The fundamental issue here is that the Forest Service should be 
designing these roads and we should be forcing timber companies to pay 
for them. The current Forest Service credit program does that. If we 
abandon this program, the forest timber companies will bid, will 
estimate the cost of the roads at the highest possible figure. They 
will reduce their bid for the timber by that amount of money. The net 
effect will be less money to the Federal Treasury. It is not about 
reducing a corporate subsidy because there is no corporate subsidy.
  The fact is right now the bid price includes the cost of building the 
road. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Porter-Kennedy 
amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 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 rise in strong support of the Porter-
Kennedy amendment to promote fiscal responsibility and protect our 
natural resources. I think it is clear that the American people want us 
to get our fiscal house in order. And it is equally clear that they 
want us to protect the environment. The Porter-Kennedy amendment 
accomplishes both of these goals by eliminating an unwise Federal 
subsidy which benefits large corporations and harms our national 
forests.
  I do not oppose timbering on public lands. I understand the 
importance of accessibility to timber sales. But we already have 
380,000 miles of roads in our national forests. That is eight times the 
size of our interstate highway system. And most of those roads can be 
used only by timber companies and are not suited for recreational use.
  It is time that American citizens stopped subsidizing the 
construction of more logging roads.
  It is important to note that this amendment does not affect, let me 
stress, this amendment does not affect the funding of the Forest 
Service for the maintenance of existing roads, nor does it hamper the 
construction of recreational or general purpose roads.
  It simply says that if a timber company needs to build another road 
to reach another timber sale, the company, not the American taxpayer, 
should pay for it.
  I think that makes perfect sense. So, too, do the Citizens Against 
Government Waste. So, too, do the Taxpayers for Common Sense and the 
Wilderness Society and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The 
list goes on and on.
  Support U.S. taxpayers and the environment. Support the Kennedy-
Porter amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Parker].
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  To my good friends from Illinois and Massachusetts sponsoring this 
amendment, I think it is well-intentioned, but they do not know the 
difference between a skidder and a knuckle boom.

                              {time}  2130

  I must tell my colleagues that I do not care for the Dicks amendment 
a whole lot. I am going to support it simply because it is better than 
the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, because this 
gentleman's amendment is devastating.
  We do not have to have roads in national forests. All we have to do 
is allow people an easement to go in, cut the timber and come out. I 
would agree that it would be a subsidy if that logging company or that 
logger took the road with him. But he does not keep the road, he leaves 
it there for the Federal Government to have.
  I must tell my colleagues that that road is not just any road. In the 
private

[[Page H5108]]

sector they go in and they build temporary roads. And those temporary 
roads, they do not last. They are temporary. But I must also tell my 
colleagues that the roads that the Federal Government requires, the 
Forest Service says it must be built to these certain specifications. 
They are interstates without blacktop. They have got drainage, 
concrete, culverts. Everything we would ever want on a road, they have 
it.
  Why would we ever expect a timber company or a logger to go in on 
that property and build to the specifications that the Federal 
Government demanded and then turn around and say, ``By the way, you 
have invested in that; you cannot take any credit whatsoever.'' It is 
ludicrous.
  There is one other point that is even more ludicrous. My home county, 
Franklin County, MS, Meadville, 490 people, all good people, 70 percent 
of the county is national forest. Homochitto National Forest. They tell 
me in my home county that, if the amendment of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts passes, that we are going to cut revenue in timber sales 
by 40 percent. What does that do?
  I ask the supporters of this amendment, I would like to find out from 
them, what will they say to the schoolchildren that will be devastated 
by the loss of revenue that we use to educate those children. The money 
that the Federal Government is going to keep them from having because 
the county is owned basically by the Federal Government. What will we 
do?
  It is a sad representation that this amendment will do anything good 
for our economy.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 
seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to show the gentleman from Mississippi his idea 
of an interstate highway. This is in fact the real truth about what 
happens on these logging roads.
  These logging roads are built by the American taxpayer. The 
companies, in fact, get a huge subsidy from the American taxpayer. And 
the American taxpayer is then forced to maintain these roads. It is a 
terrible subsidy. It should stop. And we are talking about 8 miles 
worth of roads in this amendment. Eight miles.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran].
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Porter-
Kennedy amendment because eliminating the logging road subsidy will 
stop those sales that lose the most money and are the most 
environmentally harmful.
  Logging road construction, particularly on steep, unstable slopes, 
dramatically increases the risk of landslides, erosion and siltation 
into streams. And this picture demonstrates what I am talking about. 
After the winter storms in the last 2 years in the Pacific Northwest, 
the Forest Service found in Idaho that 70 percent of the 422 landslides 
were associated with these Forest Service logging roads.
  Over two-thirds of the roads built in our national forests are 
logging roads constructed primarily to access timber sales. There is no 
good reason why the Forest Service should be in the business of 
constructing these roads on behalf of the timber companies. The Forest 
Service should follow the lead of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the 
Bureau of Land Management and require the timber companies to build 
their own roads at their own cost. These companies can figure out where 
it is economical to build a road and make a timber sale and where it is 
not.
  By building these roads for these companies, the Forest Service 
facilitates logging in many areas that would not otherwise be 
profitable. Last year 87 percent of the logging operations in our 
national forests lost money for the Forest Service. Why? Because we are 
building roads for timber companies to log in areas that should never 
have been logged and are not economical.
  As a result of this backward policy, making our national forests into 
a logging highway, we now have 378,000 miles of road crisscrossing the 
acres of forest not designated as wilderness. Our forests contain 
enough road to circle the globe 14 times over. Imagine that. That is 
equivalent to one and a half miles of road per square mile of land. It 
is 50 percent more road than in non-Forest Service land.
  This amendment is not going to stop roads from being built in our 
national forests, but it will stop taxpayers from footing the bill for 
timber roads. Support the amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the State of Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Porter amendment 
and in favor of the Dicks substitute.
  I want to talk on a couple of points I have heard here today. The 
first one is that there is no subsidy for the timber roads in this 
legislation. As the gentlewoman from Ohio told us earlier, according to 
a recent economic analysis released by Price Waterhouse: ``The forest 
roads program does not contain a subsidy for timber purchases; it 
provides an efficient and effective mechanism for financing road 
construction and reconstruction.''
  These roads are primarily used in the national forest system for 
recreation, Mr. Chairman. Ninety-seven percent of the road system in 
any given national forest is used for recreational purposes by the 
public. I do not think that is a subsidy. They are used by folks who 
want to go up and see the wildlife, or by the disabled, for years by my 
family when we did hiking in the North Cascades and never would have 
gotten into that territory without access to these timber roads.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, it is very important that we consider the rural 
counties that are located next to these national forests. They receive 
25 percent of the gross receipts from timber sales in lieu of property 
taxes on Federal lands. They cannot tax Federal land property, so it is 
important for us to be supported by the Government in our rural school 
districts.
  In my State, loss of funding would place an unbearable burden on 
rural school districts because of the number of acres of Federal land 
in our State that cannot be taxed. We are talking $28.2 million for 
schools and roads, 76 percent of the timber receipts in my State, 
because of the impact of Federal regulation.
  I stand in opposition, Mr. Chairman, and urge my colleagues to vote 
against the Porter-Kennedy and in favor of the Dicks amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, my perspective on this is a little 
different from most of these folks that have been up here tonight. I 
come from the Southeast, but my district is the second largest timber 
producing district in the country. And whether one is in the Southeast 
or the Northwest, the issue is the same when it comes to proper forest 
management. In order to have proper forest management, we have to have 
control of burning and we have to have the removal of dead and diseased 
trees.
  In order to get those dead and diseased trees and to control burning, 
we have to have access to those forests. Without the construction of 
roads, we do not have that access. It is a very, very simple issue.
  Once those roads are constructed, they are not only used for removal 
of these trees and controlled burning, they are used by hikers, by 
campers, by bird watchers, by hunters, by fishermen; all folks ought to 
have access to public lands.
  If this amendment passes, every single Member of this House will have 
constituents that are negatively affected. I urge a no vote on the 
Kennedy-Porter amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise to give my strong support to the Porter-Kennedy 
amendment.
  It is really a win-win situation. First of all, the Forest Service 
will save over half the amount it annually spends on the construction 
and reconstruction of roads. It will spend $41.5 million instead of 
$89.5 million.
  Second, almost no timber industry jobs will be lost, since only 4 
percent of all timber comes from our national forests and many of the 
construction workers will still be hired if the logging company wants 
to build a road.
  And the riparian ecology would be left unchanged for future 
generations.

[[Page H5109]]

  Of course, I believe that environmental concerns are of paramount 
importance, and this amendment preserves the environment. However, 
economics makes passage of this amendment essential.
  I believe that Paul Roberts summarized the economic impact in his 
sobering Harper's magazine article, ``The Federal Chainsaw Massacre,'' 
when he wrote, ``According to government and independent auditors, once 
realistic accounting methods are applied, most Federal forests actually 
lose money.''
  Why then do Members continue to hear from timber interests in support 
of this Federal subsidy? Well, it seems to me there is a simple 
explanation. Would we not want to have government pay if it is willing 
to do so?
  What we need to ask is, is this subsidy beneficial to the public? Is 
it profitable? Do we believe that it is the duty of government? To all 
of these I think the answer is no.
  I do not oppose logging but I do oppose unnecessary and wasteful 
subsidies. Timber users should pay the same fair costs for their 
product as they would in the 96 percent of private lands available for 
logging.
  In 1992-94 the GAO found that, while timber sales in our national 
forests returned $302 million to the Treasury, taxpayers spent $1.298 
billion in administrative costs; a net loss of $995 million.
  This amendment will also reduce the number of timber sales that lose 
money. It is highly unlikely that a logging company would be willing to 
accept the risk of constructing a road for sale where it is going to 
cost more to access, log and transport the trees than would be recouped 
at current free market timber values.
  I hope this House will join me in supporting this very reasonable and 
important amendment.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I join with many of my colleagues who 
tonight have spoken in opposition to the Kennedy-Porter amendment.
  This is not an issue of corporate subsidy or corporate welfare. As 
the Price Waterhouse study has shown, with or without the purchaser 
road credit, the net receipts to the Federal Government from this 
program will not change. And the administration has affirmed that.
  Many of the points I wanted to make tonight have already been made, 
and I think it is important that someone from the Northeast have an 
opportunity to speak on this side who would not otherwise have an 
opportunity because of the limited time we have and, therefore, I yield 
the remainder of my time to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. 
Bass].
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Idaho.
  I want to say a couple of things. First of all, from my perspective, 
from the perspective of a businessman, this amendment is nothing but a 
pig in a poke. The fact of the matter is logs do not fly. They will not 
sprout wings and fly out of the forests, and somebody will have to pay 
for these logging roads.
  Now, contracts for timber are let exactly the same way a contract 
would be let to build a building or parking lot or anything else. There 
is a sale price and cost of sales, and then there is a back charge or 
credit the cost, especially of capital improvements, into the sale 
price.
  These roads are going to get built, unless we plan to end timber 
harvest completely in this country, which would be a terrible idea. We 
will not end up saving money, because the bids will have to be lowered 
in order to cover this capital expense.
  So let us defeat this amendment and get on with the business of 
approving this Interior appropriations.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, what is the relative time left in the 
debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has 11 minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has 10\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
to me.
  I just want to tell my colleagues that I think we went through this 
debate about a year ago, that this debate really has a deja vu view 
quality. To quote Yogi Berra, ``It feels like deja vu all over again.''
  We seem to talk right past one another on this one particular issue. 
There is this enormous continental divide that somehow separates us 
from ever reaching any kind of middle ground on this particular issue. 
I just find it fascinating and, yes, distressing that people, 
representatives, well-intentioned in this body, who represent largely 
urban districts, whether they be in Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, 
Florida, Northern Virginia, Maryland, wherever it might be, apparently 
have no understanding nor any appreciation for the concerns of us that 
represent these districts that are home to timber-dependent 
communities.
  Now, make no mistake about it, this is bad policy. These are public 
roads that provide public access to Federal forest lands for a variety 
of purposes. And I thought we wanted to encourage the idea of multiple 
use of Federal forest lands. It is going to further reduce PILT 
payments, payments in lieu of taxes, to local communities and local 
schools. It is going to worsen forest health and exacerbate the fire 
damage on Federal forest lands.
  I would just quote to my colleagues from a letter from the 225,000 
members of the International Association of Fire Fighters, who say that 
``the forest roads program and the purchaser road credit program are 
essential to providing safe passage for fire fighters and protecting 
our national forests and surrounding communities from catastrophic 
wildfires.'' We urge our colleagues to oppose the Kennedy amendment and 
any other efforts to reduce funding for forest roads construction and 
maintenance.
  The International Association of Fire Fighters are joined by several 
other important national labor organizations in opposing this 
amendment, including the United Paperworkers International Union, the 
Association of Western Pulp and Paperworkers, and the United 
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the Kennedy-Porter amendment. This amendment 
would have a devastating impact on the health of our national forests, 
jobs, small businesses, recreation, education, local government.
  In a letter from the Society of American Foresters, one of the oldest 
conservation organizations in the world and which is widely respected 
as the leader in forestry science, they state that the Kennedy-Porter 
amendment would have a negative impact on forest health. The letter 
states, and I quote:

       Forest roads are the single most important infrastructure 
     component that supports natural resources professionals in 
     the maintenance of healthy forest ecosystems.

  In addition, the Kennedy-Porter amendment would have a devastating 
impact on jobs and small businesses across the country. According to 
the Forest Service, timber harvesting annually supports over 64,000 
jobs, which results in over $337 million in Federal income tax 
revenues. Small businesses purchase two-thirds of the timber harvested 
in national forests.
  Contrary to what supporters say of the Kennedy-Porter amendment or as 
they have tried to portray, 97 percent of forest roads are open for 
recreational use. That means for everyone from hunters to fishers, 
mountain bikers, snowmobilers, hikers, and most importantly, of course, 
fire fighters. All benefit from forest roads.
  Finally, supporters claim that this forest program is a subsidy. This 
is blatantly false. As has been repeatedly said tonight, the Price 
Waterhouse report concludes that the road program is not a subsidy.
  Mr. Chairman, the Kennedy-Porter amendment is well intended but 
complete ill-advised. Those of us who depend upon the forest for our 
living in northern Michigan, we know. I urge all Members here to oppose 
this amendment and cast a vote in favor of local

[[Page H5110]]

government, forest health, small businesses, recreation, education and 
jobs.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I add an additional 3 
minutes to the time of the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk a little bit about some 
of the things I have heard today. I am a sponsor of this amendment and, 
obviously, I rise in strong support of the Porter-Kennedy amendment. It 
would end taxpayer subsidies for the construction of logging roads in 
our national forests. People said it is not a subsidy? USA Today says 
it is a subsidy. The Washington Post says it is a subsidy.
  I have heard a great amount of talk about the recreational needs and 
how people who are recreating would use these roads and why they would 
oppose this amendment. However, I wanted to point out who does support 
this amendment: Trout Unlimited. They recreate; Steelhead Committee of 
the Federation of Fly Fishers; the Northwest Sports Fishing 
Association; the Association of Northwest Steelheaders; Idaho Rivers 
United; Puget Sound Gill Netters; Washington Trout. They support this 
amendment because they know that this amendment is good for recreaters.
  My region has been plagued by catastrophic floods that triggered 
hundreds of mud slides. Study after study found that the majority of 
these slides were associated with logging roads and the clear cuts they 
accessed.
  Mud slides also cause job loss. They destroy the habitat of our 
imperiled salmon runs. These fisheries once provided more than 60,000 
jobs and revenues to my region annually. But the runs have gone belly 
up because, amongst other things, we have very destructive road-
building activity.
  According to the National Marine Fisheries, and I quote, ``Road 
construction has been a primary source of salmonid habitat decline.'' 
And the American Fisheries Society, the professional society of fishery 
scientists reports, ``Only rarely can roads be built that have no 
negative effects on streams.''
  So that is why the sports and commercial fishery interests support 
this amendment, the same groups that I have spoken of before, the 
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. That is the 
largest group of commercial fishers in the West.
  Again, let us look at recreational use of roads. Seventy percent of 
logging roads are closed to vehicles that are not high vehicles, 70 
percent, so the recreational use is not there. It is limited to 
logging.
  This amendment allows logging roads to be built. Want to repeat that. 
This amendment allows logging roads to be built. What it does not allow 
is for the taxpayer to pay so that a company can go in, take public 
timber, take the profit, and we pay for the roads.

  Do we pay just once? No. The taxpayer pays three times for these 
roads. The taxpayer pays to build the road, the subsidy. The taxpayer 
pays to maintain the road, another subsidy. And then the taxpayer comes 
along and pays for the flood damage. Do the timber companies pay for 
the flood damage? No. The taxpayer pays for the flood damage. We 
already have 380,000 miles of road in our national forests.
  So I say that for the sake of fishers, for the sake of the fish, for 
the sake of the taxpayer, for the sake of the environment, I say it is 
time to stop the subsidy.
  And I would like to comment, at the end, by telling my colleagues 
that I am in an area which has lots of timber companies. I have heard 
from not one timber company that has said they cannot afford to build a 
road. If they are not telling us that, if they are willing to go in and 
build a road, it is the cost of doing business. We do not build a road 
inside a company and say, ``Gee, in order for you to do business, we 
are going to build you a road within your company headquarters.''
  So let us stop the subsidy. Let us listen to the thousands and 
thousands of our constituents who have said, ``We are sick of paying 
subsidies to companies who can well afford to pay them.'' Let us listen 
to the user groups. Let us listen to the fishers. Let us listen to the 
recreational users. Let us say, let us save some money. Let us stop 
subsidizing. Let us, in fact, give the taxpayer a break. Let us support 
the environment. Let us stop the subsidy. Let us support the Porter-
Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  The real problem here is that the Federal Government owns an awful 
lot of land. All of us conservatives and those who have kind of a 
libertarian perspective on government need to deal with that. The real 
issue is that the Government owns so much land.
  Now we are not going to resolve that debate here tonight. But given 
the fact that the Federal Government owns so much land, the next 
question is, since we are part of that Government, since we are, in 
fact, Members of Congress who preside over that body, that entity, how 
do we manage properly the land that we own?
  These issues are not big issues for private land owners. They manage 
their forests properly. In my county back in Colorado, the county I 
live in, 70 percent of the land in my county is owned by the 
Government. Seventy percent. These are critical issues for us.
  Now think about that. I think those of my colleagues who are 
proposing this amendment might really understand this if the Federal 
Government thought about taking over and occupying more of their State. 
But this seems to be an issue that is of great concern out in the West.
  Now what about those forest areas and those lands where the timber 
sale may not cover the cost of roads? Those are rare occasions, but 
they do occur. But I would submit that we still need to be concerned 
about logging those areas, for the following reason: The timber 
industry and timber harvest is an integral part to sound forest 
management.
  Let me show my colleagues what happens when you do not properly 
manage a forest. Now the gentleman over here showed a black-and-white 
picture of something he believed to be a hazard. This is a color 
picture. This picture is in color. It just looks black-and-white 
because there is no life left here. Everything is dead.
  This is what happens when you do not get in and thin a forest. The 
trees get crowded. They compete with one another for water. They get 
stressed. The bugs and disease move in. The trees die. They become 
brittle. They will catch on fire, and it burns to the ground and there 
is nothing left there for anybody, no wildlife, no valuable timber, no 
recreation, nothing. It is going to rain here and all of it is going to 
wash into the river and kill the fish.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time does each 
side have, please?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has 8\3/4\ 
minutes, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has 7\1/2\ 
minutes, The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has 7 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the amendment offered by my colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  This amendment would help protect the last frontier of our national 
forest. The United States does not need this wood. In fact, in 1995 
timber companies exported the equivalent of 500,000 logging truck loads 
of logs to foreign countries. These companies were bypassing American 
jobs by exporting the wood raw.
  Our national forests represent a major portion of the last remaining 
untouched forest in our country. If we cannot completely protect this 
small remaining percentage of our forests from the chain saws, the 
least we can do is prevent the American taxpayers from having to pay 
some of the bills for that logging.
  Let us remember that these American treasures belong to all the 
American people, not the timber industry or

[[Page H5111]]

foreign countries. End this wasteful handout.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Transportation, a noted expert on these matters.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the Porter amendment and in support of the 
Dicks amendment, and might add that my colleague from across the water 
in northern Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] joins me in that position.
  We sure heard a lot of hyperbole and imagery tonight. Paul Bunyan, 
you left out his ox Babe, and corporate giants. Let me introduce my 
colleagues to Tony Vukelich, logger from northern Minnesota, 3 or 4 
pulp cutters, maybe 10 or 15 in his little sawmill. Let me introduce my 
colleagues to Howard Hedstrom up in the Gunflint Trail up in 
northeastern Minnesota in a small sawmill, and about 10 or 15 loggers. 
Let me introduce my colleagues to Toivo Maki, a Finnish pulp cutter 
from northern Minnesota. I do not think their income, their gross 
revenue, is $100,000.

                              {time}  2200

  We are talking about small operators, heart and soul of northern 
Minnesota, the heart and soul of rural America, people who try to make 
an honest living in the woods.
  A logger has to bid on these sales that are offered by the U.S. 
Forest Service and has to include in the bid the price of the road that 
he has to build. That road is there available for snowmobilers in the 
wintertime and for the hikers and the campers and for the people going 
out fishing, all sorts of recreational uses on that road. They do not 
get charged for it. But it is there for everybody's use. We used to 
call them tote roads in northern Minnesota.
  The annual allowable cut in our two forests of the Chippewa and the 
Superior is way down to about half of what it was. Yet we are still 
cutting timber that was harvested on sales that was harvested first in 
the 1930's and then in the 1960's and now it is being harvested in the 
1990's. This is a renewable resource. This is not an issue between 
corporate giants and little guys. This is silk stocking urban 
environmentalists against us rural hicks from the sticks, and I am fed 
up with it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it very frustrating this evening, it is the 
first time I have heard this debate personally. I come from rural 
Pennsylvania, where the Allegheny National Forest is in my district, 
520,000 acres. I happen to know the person that runs the forest, 
manages the forest. He talked this morning with the man that does the 
contracts. I know the design engineer that designs the roads. I 
understand how the system works. The gentlemen may not like the system, 
but what they are doing is not the way to fix it.
  The Porter-Kennedy amendment is like an MX missile on rural 
Pennsylvania's economy and our rural road system. It is devastating. It 
will harm parts, and even more so in the west, that have 15 and 20 
percent unemployment. We have a group of urban legislators who in my 
view of listening to all of their testimony know very little about this 
issue and how it really works. I mean that sincerely.
  We are playing with the rural economy of this country and the parts 
of the country that are most struggling economically. We are really 
cutting $91 million out of rural road maintenance when we take $50 
million out of the credit program and $41 million out of the 
maintenance program because that is what the majority of it is used 
for. We are trying to change policy through the appropriations process.
  It is unfortunate that we have an urban group who does not understand 
the rural economy and are trying to devastate it in behalf of the 
people who do not want to cut timber in this country. It is not a 
fiscal issue. If it was a fiscal issue, we would be talking about 
cutting Amtrak, which has $783 million. That is a subsidy. We would be 
talking about $4.3 billion that we spend for mass transit. That is a 
subsidy. And $91 million, if you want to call it a subsidy, it is for 
rural America, it is for roads that campers use, that tourists use, the 
hikers use, the fishermen use.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Blumenauer].
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I thank the gentleman for the patience that he and his 
staff have demonstrated in helping work through some of these issues, 
because these issues, Mr. Chairman, are complex. I think the American 
people who have listened to the debate so far this evening may be a 
little confused. Earlier in the evening I had one of my new colleagues 
confess that he was confused and in fact last year I confessed that 
since there were two votes, I actually ended up voting on both sides of 
this issue. I voted because I was attempting to determine what was in 
fact in the best interests of the areas that I represent but, most 
importantly, what would make the most difference in terms of the 
environment of our forests.
  I hope that this debate will spark a serious analysis and real action 
on the problems related to roads in our national forests. For people 
who care deeply about the environment and look beyond the rhetoric, it 
is sometimes hard to know the best way to protect that environment.
  In part, this confusion evidenced this evening shows why we should 
not attempt to legislate or set policy via the appropriations process. 
It is the blunt instrument that people have referenced. While the 
passage of this amendment may in fact slow or stop some roadwork, it 
will not achieve what some advocates claim. It will not stop logging 
roads, and it is not clear how much, if any, money this will save.
  What we need to do is focus on policy solutions that make sense for 
the environment and the economy. We do need, in fact, additional 
protections for roadless areas. We do need to use our resources more 
carefully. We do need to reduce the number of road miles and their 
impact on our national forests while we adequately maintain roads to 
avoid degradation of stream and wildlife habitat. We need to take this 
opportunity to bring the Forest Service, the administration, the 
industry and environmental advocates together to develop a plan that 
meets everybody's needs. This vote is a signal for Congress to provide 
the leadership and guidance to provide a road policy.
  Congress needs to provide leadership and guidance through the 
legislative process. I would like to work with my colleagues involved 
in this debate to help move that effort forward to create sound road 
policy in the next year--a policy that improves the environment and 
saves money--a policy that can be understood--and, importantly, a 
policy that allows us to monitor our progress toward an environmentally 
sound National Forest System.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, many of the speakers in opposition to this 
amendment are from the West. The only thing west about West Virginia is 
its name, but we have got national forests and we have got loggers and 
we have got timber people and we have got folks working in the woods, 
too, 20,000 of them, and, no, they are not all working in the national 
forest doing logging. There are going to be thousands more that are in 
the national forests who are the hunters, people who want to go 
fishing, people on recreation, people going hiking, a wide range of 
people.
  How do you get into the national forest? Unless you have got some 
real desire to go see the primeval forest you go in on a road, you go 
in on a road to fight the fire, for recreation, for forest management. 
Yes, you go in on a road for logging. And yes, loggers pay for those 
roads. They pay to build them. It is reflected in the bid for the 
property.
  Some people say, ``Well, they don't pay to maintain them.'' They do 
not use them after they build them. They leave a road there that many 
others use. Loggers are the only ones who actually pay to build the 
roads into the forests in the first place. Price Waterhouse analyzes 
this and says there is no subsidy here. There is no subsidy because 
they are actually paying for the road that they build and that later 
many others will use, many others that need access to these forests.

[[Page H5112]]

  I guess I am really concerned about this debate, because I think it 
misses the point altogether, that in rural areas this is not a subsidy, 
it is a way of life. It is an important way for our economies to grow 
and that indeed there is no subsidy here, that thousands indeed across 
the country, indeed millions of people derive benefit from these roads 
that never have anything to do with logging.
  I would urge the House to accept the Dicks amendment and to reject a 
perhaps well-intentioned but ill-founded Kennedy-Porter amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Hooley].
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my views 
on the Porter-Kennedy amendment.
  I have come to Congress to find solutions, to find ways to use the 
legislative process to help us resolve our differences. I know 
firsthand that forest issues can be extremely divisive. To be honest, I 
am very frustrated with the polarized options we are being asked to 
consider today. We need to work to find commonsense solutions, that 
balance conservation concerns with the tremendous need for road 
reconstruction and maintenance.
  What I find most troubling is that we do not have the means to 
maintain the massive road network that we have created. According to 
the U.S. Forest Service, this Nation has a forest road maintenance 
backlog of $440 million. In my district alone, it is a $20 million 
backlog. When we fail to maintain necessary road and decommissioned 
roads which have long been out of use, we create serious environmental 
hazards and threats to public safety. There is simply no sense in 
allocating scarce dollars to construct the new roads when we need to be 
repairing and reconstructing existing roads.
  While I plan to vote for the Porter-Kennedy amendment, I want to make 
it very clear that I do not think this amendment is the ultimate 
solution to our forest road dilemmas. I am supportive of the 
amendment's emphasis on not spending Federal Government moneys on new 
road construction. I think that eliminating purchaser road credits is a 
move in the right direction.
  The Bureau of Land Management timber purchasers have never used the 
purchaser road credits and have been able to build roads and access 
timber in an affordable and efficient manner. Forest Service purchasers 
should do the same. However, I find it disturbing that this amendment 
takes funding away from forest road reconstruction. In the forests in 
my district, reconstruction funds go to flood repair in damaged areas 
and roads that are badly in need of maintenance.
  While I commend this amendment for defunding new roads, I think that 
this amendment does not, take, as broad a view of the problems 
confronting our forests as it should.
  What we really need is comprehensive forest legislation which takes 
funds earmarked for new road construction and puts that money into road 
maintenance.
  I plan to do everything I can in the coming days to make sure our 
existing roads are safe and I hope my colleagues will join me in this 
effort.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee on resources and a 
cosponsor of this amendment, I am pleased that tonight in a single vote 
this Congress can both protect the taxpayers pocketbook and do 
something to enhance our precious natural resources. With this 
bipartisan amendment, we seek to end yet another form of corporate 
welfare, in this case essentially food stamps for timber companies.
  The roads that are being constructed at public expense in our 
national forests are of course too rough for most people to drive a car 
over, but in many ways they are very similar to the tollways near you. 
Tolls are charged for these timber roads across our forests. It is just 
that the taxpayer is the one who has to pay the tolls while corporate 
timber interests get a free ride at taxpayer expense. As we continue to 
try to balance the Federal budget, this is exactly the kind of 
corporate welfare we need to get rid of.
  I voted last year to end certain types of welfare to individuals, and 
it is time to apply the same reasoning to corporate interests. Groups 
as diverse as the Sierra Club and the National Taxpayers Union agree 
that this is the type of taxpayer financed corporate freebie that we 
need to eliminate.
  This amendment does not prevent private logging companies from 
building roads at their own expense. If a company is allowed to log, 
they can build whatever roads they need. The only difference would be 
that the timber companies, the people who benefit from the roads, will 
pay for it, not the taxpayer. If these roads do not make economic sense 
for the timber companies, then why in the world should the taxpayers of 
America be asked to pay for them?
  We have over 379,000 miles of roads in our national forests, almost 9 
times the mileage of the national highway system. If we need to build 
one more mile, let the logging companies pay for it themselves. This is 
not a small amount. It is $91 million of waste that ought to be 
eliminated as we balance the Federal budget.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the proponents of the Kennedy-Porter amendment make it 
sound very simple. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. 
The fact of the matter is that the Federal Government gets paid for the 
timber. I think we all know that the agenda by those who oppose logging 
is to eliminate all timber sales on Federal lands. If that happens, the 
Federal Government gets no revenue. Let CBO score that. Plus you will 
have killed a part of an industry that is predominantly small 
businesses.
  When we talk about some parts of the country, I can tell my 
colleagues for a fact that the people who are in the logging business 
in South Dakota are small businesses. Small logging businesses will be 
out of business. Furthermore, it is the local governments who will 
suffer. Sixteen percent of the land in South Dakota is Federal lands. 
That is 16 percent that is off the tax rolls. Timber sales help offset 
that loss of tax revenue.
  The proponents think they are helping the taxpayer. They are just 
sticking it to the taxpayer in another way, because all we are simply 
doing here is having a taxpayer pay the Government but they are paying 
it in a different government pocket.
  The taxpayer is supposed to feel good about this amendment. I think 
the only people who benefit from this, it looks like to me, and are the 
only ones who are going to come out ahead in this are the special 
interests who are trying to kill the logging industry.

                              {time}  2215

  I think that we need to defeat the Porter-Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], one the sponsors of the amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Illinois for 
yielding this time to me.
  Let me just ask one simple question in this room. If there is no 
subsidy involved in this program, why are they fighting so hard to 
preserve it? And if there is no implication whatsoever if we eliminate 
it, then they should not be fighting to eliminate it. That is the 
bottom line in this whole debate. And let us make the very point that 
the Dicks amendment, which is before us as well, essentially cuts the 
savings in the Porter amendment in half.
  So, if one person is trying to save double and we cut it in half, 
then obviously there is somehow money involved in this program in the 
first place, and that is the simple mistake.
  Now my friend from South Dakota made the point to say that 
essentially the mission of many of us who are in support of the Porter 
amendment is to eliminate timber sales in national forests. That is 
simply not true. My fundamental point of view is not to eliminate 
timber sales, but it is to make money on timber sales in national 
forests, which it seems to me a very fundamental Republican principle.
  Mr. Chairman, there are 380,000 miles of roads in the national forest 
system, and three-quarters of them are closed to the American public at 
large. Three-

[[Page H5113]]

quarters of them are essentially exclusively for the use of the timber 
industry.
  Again, I have got no objections if the timber industry harvests in 
those forests, I have no objections if the timber industry builds more 
roads. There is nothing in this amendment that says they cannot build 
as many roads as they want. What it simply says is the roads will not 
be built with a subsidy in for the taxpayers.
  I understand it is not dollars they are getting; instead they are 
getting trees. But trees have value; when they sell them they make 
money on them. So it is a barter system which is, frankly, even older 
than money.
  And finally let me make the point again we have been criticized 
continually this evening, saying, ``If you eliminate this, there won't 
be money left for a number of Forest Service opportunities and programs 
that are needed.'' That is not true. There is money still left after 
this rescission for firefighting roads, for road maintenance, to build 
more roads to be available to tourism and the recreational industry, 
and additionally there is $5.9 million left in this program 
specifically to oversee the construction of new roads by the timber 
companies.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Turner].
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak out tonight on behalf of the loggers 
and the small sawmill owners in my district in east Texas, who just 
about an hour ago made it back to the house and probably are on the 
front porch right now trying to work on their chain saws and get ready 
for tomorrow. Those folks would certainly disagree with the Washington 
Post if the Washington Post said that the road credit is a subsidy.
  The truth of the matter is that we, in order to protect the national 
forests, require higher quality of roads in areas of the forest or logs 
than are required in the private sector; and to offset that increased 
cost of building the kind of roads we want in our national forests to 
protect the public interests, we offer a road credit. That is to say 
the road that is built there by the loggers is going to be a road that 
lasts for many, many years.
  Mr. Chairman, I can assure any of my colleagues who have ever been on 
a track of land that was logged in the private sector that I know that 
the roads that are built in the private sector do not last 15 or 20 
years.
  So it is a good program, it is environmentally sound, and it does not 
cost the taxpayer one cent because we, as taxpayers, are getting a 
quality road, and the taxpayers are getting every benefit that was 
intended for them to get in the road credit program. It is not a 
subsidy. It is good environmental policy, it protects the national 
forests, and it allows the Forest Service to control the type of road 
that is built.
  Secondly, this Kennedy amendment is environmentally unsound because 
it cuts $42 million out of road maintenance in the national forest. If 
my colleagues believe in the environment, they want those bar ditches 
and those culverts to be maintained, they want that erosion controlled. 
That is what the $42 million is all about; that is why it is there. The 
amendment of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] returns this 
bill to the administration's proposal that cuts only $5.6 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Dicks amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she 
may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Porter-Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Porter-Kennedy amendment is a commonsense 
amendment. Unlike the National Endowment for the Arts which benefits 
many--and was recklessly eliminated in this bill, this timber subsidy 
benefits very few. The U.S. Forest Service cannot even maintain the 
existing roads reporting in March that it had a $440 million backlog of 
road maintenance needs. Why should new logging roads, giving a subsidy 
to private companies, when there is no money available to maintain the 
ones already there? This makes little sense and spends taxpayers 
dollars foolishly without a measurable benefit.
  Besides being unnecessarily expensive because of the steep slopes and 
rough terrain, these new logging roads will hurt our national forests 
which already have extensive road systems which result in road density 
that brings about a decline in many species in our wildlife population.
  Vote Common Sense. Vote for our environment--vote for the Porter-
Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Porter-Kennedy amendment to 
H.R. 2107, the Interior Appropriations Act of 1998. This important 
measure would prevent the further destruction of our Nation's Federal 
forest and especially the few old growth forest which remain on public 
land.
  The Porter-Kennedy amendment to H.R. 2107 would reduce by $42 million 
the Forest Service's $160 million in the funding for reconstruction and 
construction. The amendment also reduces the bill's limitation--from 
$50 million to $1--on the Forest Service's Purchaser Credit Program. 
Both changes are intended to eliminate support for the construction of 
new logging roads into roadless areas. Under the Purchaser Credit 
Program, timber companies may build roads into national forest for 
logging purposes, and, in return, receive up to $50 million in credits 
against the amount they owe the Federal Government for timber sales.
  The stewardship of our Nation's Federal lands should and must be of 
the greatest priority of this Congress--it is a public trust which we 
cannot fail.
  This amendment would protect Federal lands from the destruction 
created by logging roads which harm the forest environment by degrading 
and polluting nearby streams, dividing wildlife habitats into small 
fragments, and allowing the spread of exotic plants and animal species.
  A thousand communities depend on national forest watersheds for clean 
water supplies which are threatened by silt and runoff from lands with 
road construction.
  Road into national forest degrade forest even before any trees are 
cut. They cause erosion and sedimentation--and massive mudslides--are 
inescapable byproducts of roadbuilding in steep terrain. In Idaho, for 
example 70 percent of last year's 422 mudslides were associated with 
national forest roads.
  This amendment would not affect funding for building recreation and 
general purpose roads which are funded separately. The Porter-Kennedy 
amendment would allow routine road maintenance for necessary upkeep and 
repair of roads which includes timber, recreation and general purpose 
roads.
  According to the Forest Service there are over 380,000 miles of 
forest roads in the existing road system that are in need of repair. 
There is a backlog of maintenance on the 232,000 miles with a cost $440 
million.
  The Interior appropriations bill will retain $85 million for 
maintenance of existing roads.
  I would like to urge my colleagues to join me in support of the 
Porter-Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Kennedy-Porter amendment, in opposition to the Dicks amendment, and I 
do so not to engage in a lot of the rhetoric and whether or not there 
is, in fact, a subsidy that is being provided to the timber industry; I 
rise in support of this amendment because I think that if we are going 
to be trying to refashion government in the manner in which we are 
sending the appropriate signals to the timber industry, that this is an 
approach to take.
  What we are talking about now is how do we design a system so that we 
have more market forces coming to bear? I do not think there is going 
to be an overall change in the level of revenue which the Federal 
Government is going to achieve, because I, quite frankly, agree with 
some of the opponents' amendments in that the bids that timber 
companies are going to be offering for these tracts of timber are 
actually going to be lower. But what is going to change by accepting 
Kennedy-Porter is that we are no longer going to be insulating the 
determination in terms of what is going to be the cost for building a 
road from the market forces. We are no longer going to be, in effect, 
having a cost-based reimbursement, and that is what is important.
  We are now going to be putting in place a more market-based mechanism 
which is going to ensure that the timber companies which are bidding on 
these tracts of land are going to have a financial incentive to build 
these roads

[[Page H5114]]

in the most cost-effective manner, and that is what is in the 
taxpayers' interest. Unfortunately, while some of the rhetoric is based 
upon what is going to generate, whether or not it is a subsidy or not, 
my interest in supporting Kennedy-Porter is how can we put in place a 
system which is going to ensure that the market forces are going to 
ensure that taxpayers are going to be getting the greatest return on 
their investment.
  And that, I think, is the most compelling reason, and why those who 
are most interested in ensuring that taxpayers of this country are 
getting the greatest return on their investment should support the 
Kennedy-Porter amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston], one of the major sponsors of this amendment. I 
wish I had more time to give him.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  As my colleagues know, in the narrow scope of an appropriation bill 
and the accompanying rules, the substitute, which I stand in support 
of, works out a good compromise.
  No. 1, the Porter-Kennedy amendment eliminates a very important 
maintenance account, maintenance for fire, maintenance for recreational 
purposes. This restores it but does not increase it except for to the 
President's level, No. 1.
  No. 2, it puts in $25 million, reducing the amount for purchase 
credits by half. Now $25 million, and listen to this, listen to this 
very carefully, is less than the NEA allocations for California and New 
York. That is what it is; yes, very, very important for small timber 
purchases. What this money will do is if there are two roads, but they 
need to build a third road to get to the trees, what happens is when 
the logger builds that road, the money also goes to the first and 
second road, and so three roads are maintained by, as our jobs, as are 
the forests.
  Vote for the substitute; it is a very good compromise.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I am appalled by the incredible 
misinformation that we are hearing this evening.
  I represent a district in northern California that is probably one of 
the most productive tree-growing areas in the world, and we have eight 
national forests in our district. I would like to state a few facts and 
compare it with policy, if I could.
  As the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] pointed out earlier, this is 
a 2-by-4. This very 2-by-4 we could buy for 22 cents in 1989. Now this 
builds homes in each of our districts, those of my colleagues who have 
homes in the big cities that are out trying to support the Kennedy 
amendment now. In 1997 this same 2-by-4 sells for 44 cents, double the 
price. Double the price it was.
  Now let us go through some facts. We have heard a number of points 
that were mentioned tonight. One was that only 5 percent of the timber 
comes off Federal land. Well, guess what? Here is a fact: 50 percent of 
all soft wood grown in the United States today is grown on Federal 
land, but because of present policy we have the doubling of wood price.
  Oppose the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I too rise in strong support of the Porter-
Kennedy amendment.
  When I came to Washington after the election in 1992, one of my goals 
was to work to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful government programs, 
and I believe many of my colleagues, if not most of them, came here 
with this very same goal.
  Well, today presents to us a golden opportunity. I am a cosponsor of 
the Porter-Kennedy amendment to eliminate logging roads subsidies 
because of a very simple reason. Federal construction of logging roads 
is a wasteful, unnecessary program that is a bad deal for the taxpayers 
and the environment. It is such a bad deal that a unique coalition has 
formed in support of this amendment. Republicans and Democrats from 
across the entire political spectrum have joined forces in support of 
this reasonable amendment.
  Let me make something very clear. I do support responsible logging in 
our national forests, but saying that does not mean I support asking 
the American taxpayers to spend millions and millions each year so that 
big-profit timber companies do not have to pay for their own roads.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not affect recreation or general 
purpose roads for fire safety or affect jobs. But what it will affect 
is the American people's confidence in this Congress' ability to cut 
wasteful Federal spending as we work to balance the budget and make the 
tough decisions on which programs receive Federal funding and which 
should not. It makes good sense to target subsidy programs that waste 
taxpayer dollars and harm the environment.
  I ask my colleagues to support the bipartisan timber roads amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of rhetoric that we have heard on 
this floor over the course of the last couple of hours. I have heard 
this amendment accused of fire, I have heard it accused of taxes, I 
have heard it accused of running up the cost of 2-by-4's, I have heard 
it accused of floods. The only thing left is pestilence, and I am sure 
in the next few minutes we will hear that, too.
  But the truth of the matter is that for those that say some guy from 
Massachusetts does not know a lot about the forest, they may be right, 
but I did take the time yesterday to meet with the National Forest 
Service. I met with them for a couple of hours in my office to try to 
understand exactly what this amendment would do and exactly what the 
program that is in place currently does.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, this amendment in no way cuts this 
country's capability of fighting fires. It in no way cuts this 
country's ability to build recreational roads. It in no way cuts this 
country's ability to build trails. It in no way cuts the maintenance of 
existing roads. It in no way cuts roads needed for forest health.
  Anyone who has stood up on the House floor in the last couple of 
hours and made a speech saying that that is what the Porter-Kennedy 
amendment does is just plain wrong. They have not read it. That is not 
what this amendment does.
  All it does is say that for the funds that are going to be utilized 
for the sole purposes of building roads for the purposes of harvesting 
timber, they cannot get a subsidy from the people of this country. If a 
lumber company wants to go build those roads and harvest those trees, 
we say, have at it. Just pay for the roads yourself. You do not need a 
taxpayer subsidy to go out and pay for the roads.
  People that say that the purchaser credit program does not require a 
subsidy, of course it does. Instead of paying them in dollars, we pay 
them in trees. That is what this is all about. If the program did not 
need a subsidy, why are we dealing with it in an appropriations bill? 
The program does not pay for itself. This program costs the American 
taxpayer over $1 billion a year; that is, $1 billion over 3 years. That 
is the GAO report.
  The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] is going to stand up there 
and tell us how many trees we have not cut down. I do not know how many 
of those are in the Alaskan wilderness, but I will tell Members one 
thing, the truth of the matter is if we want to harvest trees, we 
cannot do this solely by going after national Forest Service roads. We 
only cut 4 percent of the trees from the national forest.
  Support the Porter-Kennedy amendment and defeat the Dicks amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Montana [Mr. Hill].
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, the one thing I have learned this evening is 
how little the proponents of the Porter amendment understand about 
timber sales. What people have to understand is that when the Federal 
Government sells timber, in some instances it is necessary to construct 
a road and in other instances it is necessary to reconstruct an 
existing road in order to provide access to the timber.
  The standing practice is that the Forest Service will either 
construct

[[Page H5115]]

the road, or allow credit against the timber sale for the cost of the 
construction. Why is that not a subsidy? It is not a subsidy because 
the timber sale anticipates or takes into consideration access. 
Therefore, the Government receives a higher price for the timber 
because access is provided. If the bidder had to provide that access, 
then the bid price would simply be lower.
  The problem with all this for me and my folks in Montana is that by 
eliminating the prepaid credit, it is going to hurt local governments. 
The reason for that is that 25 percent of the proceeds of the timber 
sales, including the road credits, is given to local governments. It 
goes to counties and it goes to school districts. This amendment, pure 
and simple, will take $10 million out of the budgets of local 
governments. It is important to understand that in recent years there 
have been dramatic reductions in the timber harvest on these Federal 
lands. The result has been large reductions in payments to these 
communities already. The reduction in harvest has been accompanied with 
plant layoffs.
  So at a time when there are fewer jobs, high unemployment, 
considerable disruptions in these communities, the authors of this 
amendment want to make the problem in those communities worse. By 
lowering the value of timber and therefore reducing the revenues from 
these timber sales, they will destroy these communities. Please oppose 
this amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in opposition to the Kennedy-Porter 
amendment, and ask Members to vote for the Dicks-Kingston-Hansen 
amendment.
  Our amendment basically does this. It is a compromise. Instead of 
cutting $50 million out of timber purchaser credit, our amendment would 
only cut $25 million. Instead of cutting $41.5 million out of 
appropriated funds for timber roads, we would only cut $5.6 million, 
which takes it back to the administration's budget request.
  Look at what happened here in timber sales in our country. In the 
1980's, we were up at around 12 billion board feet. Now we are down to 
3.7 billion board feet. What has that done? That has driven up the cost 
of timber. It has made our homes more expensive. If we are going to 
have access even to the 3.7 billion board feet we have to have some 
additional new roads. That is where the Kennedy amendment really does 
hurts us.
  Second, recreation. Let me just read the Members what these roads are 
all about: Access for over 300 million visitor days of recreation use a 
year, access to over 121,000 miles of trail, access to more than 34 
million acres of designated wilderness, access to 19 national 
recreation areas, access to over 18,000 recreation facilities, access 
to about 7,000 miles of scenic byways, access to 50 major visitors 
centers, and major ski resorts.
  So I am telling the Members that this amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] will have a devastating effect. It will reduce 
the timber harvest by 3.7, down to about 1.7. It will probably cost us 
somewhere between $200 million and $300 million in revenue lost to the 
Treasury.
  So please vote for the Dixon amendment and against the Porter-Kennedy 
amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of Chicken Little this evening, but 
believe me, the sky is not falling. We have heard from the gentleman 
from Georgia and many others that we are going to be cutting out the 
maintenance of roads and the obliteration of roads. That is simply not 
true. We have heard that the recreation roads are going to be cut. Not 
true. It does not affect them at all. Fire control, not true. It does 
not affect them at all.
  We have heard from the gentleman from Oregon that land management and 
the engineering process is going to be undermined. Not true. There is 
$5.9 million remaining in the account for management and oversight by 
the Forest Service. We have heard that this amendment involves $89.5 
million. It does not, it is $41.5 million. It is a subsidy. If it is 
not a subsidy, why are the Members worried about it? Obviously it is a 
subsidy.
  Finally, let me say also that the question of small businesses was 
raised. The chairman protected this entire account for only small 
business, and a point of order was offered and sustained to put 
Weyerhauser and Georgia-Pacific back in the subsidy.
  No, this is about subsidizing the timber companies, and believe me, 
Mr. Chairman, it is time that they simply have to pay their own way in 
a free enterprise society. This amendment is quintessentially 
Republican. Seven of the nine sponsors of the amendment are Republican. 
We believe in free markets and competition, not in captive markets and 
subsidies.
  Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Land Management does not work this way. 
The Bureau of Indian Affairs does not work this way. It is time we let 
the free market system dictate timber sales in our national forests as 
well.
  Mr. Chairman, we have reformed welfare, we have reformed agriculture 
in this Congress and in the previous one. Now is the time to reform and 
eliminate subsidies of this type. They are an anachronism. I urge 
Members to support the Porter amendment and oppose the Dicks amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to all of the Members who are watching us on 
C-SPAN and coming over here to vote, the right vote is to vote for the 
amendment of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks]. Why do I say 
that? Let me quote from the Secretary of Agriculture, one of our former 
colleagues, who understands it, who is responsible for the management 
of our forests.
  Secretary Glickman says in his letter, ``However, the $41.5 million 
reduction the amendment proposes,'' that is the Porter-Kennedy 
amendment, ``goes too far in eliminating important construction and 
reconstruction efforts that provide public safety and environmental 
benefits.'' It says it all. It says it all.
  If Members care about people, if they care about the 76 million 
people that take their families to the national forests for recreation, 
if they care about their safety, if they care about the environment, 
Members will vote for the Dicks amendment, because it does not go too 
far, as does the Porter amendment.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Kennedy-Porter amendment, which would undermine the health of our 
national forests and effectively shut them down to recreation, 
industry, and sportsmen. This amendment is completely contrary to the 
wise and effective management of our national forests. The 
International Association of Firefighters says that the programs 
targeted by the Kennedy/Porter amendment are ``essential to providing 
safe passage for firefighters and protecting our national forest and 
surrounding communities from catastrophic wildfires.''
  One of the most misunderstood aspects of the forest roads program is 
how the money is actually spent. The fact of the matter is that new 
road construction accounts for a very small portion of the funding. In 
fact, the forest service intends to build only 8 miles of new roads in 
the entire 190 million acre national forest system, and just 1 mile of 
this is a timber road. The essential point here is that almost all of 
the road construction funds provided to our 122 national forests goes 
for reconstruction of existing roads.
  I would also like to address the issue of how county governments and 
local communities would be affected by the Kennedy/Porter amendment. 
Each year, 25 percent of all revenues collected by national forests are 
returned to the States where those national forests are located. This 
is money that pays for bedrock community projects, such as public 
schools and county roads. In addition, counties also receive payments 
in lieu of taxes [PILT], which can supplement school and roads funding 
or go toward other important community needs. In many of the counties 
in my district, this can mean more than $100,000 annually. In fact, the 
residents of Oregon County in my district would stand to lose as much 
as $140,000 were the Kennedy/Porter amendment to pass.
  The damaging effects of this amendment are made even more evident 
when you consider the loss in jobs and economic activity. The timber 
industry in the State of Missouri accounts for approximately 20,000 
jobs and $3 billion dollars in economic activity. These are family 
owned businesses, hard-working folks. Their work is an important part 
of our local economy and a key element in the wise management of our 
national forests.
  Finally, let us make no mistake about the special interests and the 
real agenda of this amendment. Its chief proponent is the Sierra

[[Page H5116]]

Club, which is bent on halting all logging in our national forests. If 
the Sierra Club had its way, the lives and livelihoods of good people 
would be disregarded in favor of its own extremist agenda. I urge a 
strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I am not a Westerner and I have no vested interest 
in this issue. But last year when this was debated I looked at it 
closely.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise again in opposition to the amendment. Last year, 
we witnessed a devastating fire season with more than six million acres 
burned by catastrophic wildfire. While fire is an important part of 
mother nature's cycle, these un-natural, slow-moving, hot-burning fires 
are the by-product of dense fuel loading in our forests, which often 
kills healthy trees and sterilizes the soil from future growth.
  The timber forest road program, which this amendment seeks to reduce, 
provides important access for our wildlife firefighters in their effort 
to protect our natural resources. A member of my staff understands this 
fact first-hand, having spent two weeks last summer fighting fires in 
the Umatilla National Forest in eastern Oregon. The forest roads 
provided their sole access over land to get to the fire and, more 
importantly, a safe means to evacuate personnel when the fire got out 
of control.
  But, it's not just access for our wildlife firefighters that is 
important. These roads also provide important access for resource 
managers, foresters, hunters, fishermen, campers, hikers, and yes, even 
those who just want to take a walk in the woods.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to look past the political 
rhetoric that many groups would have them believe. If you support 
promoting long-term forest health and sound environmental stewardship, 
I urge you to support the forest roads program and defeat this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 211, 
noes 209, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 262]

                               AYES--211

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--209

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wolf
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Becerra
     Berman
     Boucher
     Clement
     Fowler
     Martinez
     Molinari
     Pryce (OH)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sanchez
     Schiff
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Yates

                              {time}  2257

  Mr. GREEN and Mrs. MALONEY of New York changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CRAPO, BONILLA, and NEY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 262, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall 
vote No. 262, the Dicks amendment. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246, 
noes 179, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 263]

                               AYES--246

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks

[[Page H5117]]


     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--179

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryun
     Sandlin
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Becerra
     Berman
     Boucher
     Clement
     Martinez
     Schiff
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Yates

                              {time}  2315

  Mr. SUNUNU and Mr. REYES changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ROHRABACHER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to advise the Members that there will be no more 
votes tonight. We are going to have two more amendments, one by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] on the clean coal, and possibly 
another energy.
  But any votes that will be called for will be rolled over until 
tomorrow. I would reiterate that it is our goal to finish by 2 o'clock 
tomorrow, and we will try to get time agreements if necessary to meet 
that target.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Land and Water conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 4601-4-11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with statutory authority applicable to the Forest 
     Service, $45,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     conservation Fund, to remain available until expended.


         acquisition of lands for national forests special acts

       For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of 
     the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the 
     Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San 
     Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests, 
     California, as authorized by law, $1,069,000, to be derived 
     from forest receipts.


            acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges

       For acquisition of lands, such sums, to be derived from 
     funds deposited by State, county, or municipal governments, 
     public school districts, or other public school authorities 
     pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 484a), to remain available until expended.

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage in 
a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, on September 28th last year representatives of the 
Federal Government, representatives of the State of California 
government, and the Pacific Lumber Co. headquartered in Humboldt 
County, California, signed an agreement providing for the Federal 
acquisition of 75,000 acres of timberland in Humboldt County, in my 
congressional district.
  This land includes 3,000 acres known as the Headwaters Forest, which 
is the largest privately-owned old-growth redwood forest in the world. 
This is an un-entered tract of redwood timberland that is zoned for 
timber production. It is the highest and best use of the land.
  The funds for the Headwaters agreement would come from a combination 
of State and Federal accounts. The Federal share of the total 
acquisition cost is $250 million. The budget agreement, as I think the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman knows, between the Congress and the 
White House anticipates a $700 million increase in the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund for priority Federal land acquisitions and land 
exchanges.
  Of this, I believe it is understood that $250 million would be 
earmarked for the completion of the Headwaters Forest agreement. 
However, none of these funds were included in the fiscal year 1998 
Interior appropriations bill before us on the floor at this time.
  I am a signatory to the Headwaters Forest agreement, but I have 
always been concerned about the impact that agreement could have on 
Humboldt County. My district, as the chairman probably knows, is home 
to all or part of four Federal forests as well as the national redwood 
park and the State redwood parks. Unemployment is high and the local 
economy is suffering as a result of the current restrictions on timber 
harvesting on both private and public lands.
  With the removal of the Headwaters Forest from private ownership, the 
transfer of the Headwaters Forest and the 7,500 acres of forest land 
from private ownership to public ownership, Humboldt County stands to 
lose potential millions of dollars in future tax revenues.
  Mr. Chairman, I did submit to the committee several proposals that 
would let the Headwaters Forest agreement go forward while providing 
economic mitigation for Humboldt County. I had intended to offer an 
amendment prohibiting the Land and Water Conservation Fund to be used 
to acquire the Headwaters until two conditions have been met.
  First, all of the terms and conditions of the Headwaters Forest 
agreement itself must by satisfied or fulfilled by the

[[Page H5118]]

parties to that agreement. Second, legislation must be enacted or an 
appropriation approved providing economic assistance to Humboldt 
County, California, to mitigate the loss of tax revenues incurred 
because of the Headwaters Forest agreement and, again, the transfer of 
this land from private to public ownership.
  Mr. Chairman, section 205 of the joint House-Senate budget 
resolution, again negotiated between the Congress and the White House, 
includes the money for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and, as I 
mentioned earlier, $250 million for the Federal Government to acquire 
this timberland in question.
  Again, I reiterate my concerns, Mr. Chairman, about the potential 
impact of this agreement and this land acquisition on Humboldt County, 
and bring to your attention the fact that Humboldt County again stands 
to lose potentially millions of dollars in future tax revenues.
  I am seeking your assurance, Mr. Chairman, that any money for the 
acquisition of the Headwaters Forest agreement through the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund or through the fiscal year 1998 Interior 
appropriations bill will not be approved, will not be appropriated 
unless there is adequate mitigation for Humboldt County.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman from California has repeatedly made his concerns for 
Humboldt County, California, known to me. I fully understand how 
important an issue this is to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] 
and the people of Humboldt County.
  The $700 million was not included in the bill reported from the 
committee. However, it is possible that the Senate will include all or 
part of these funds. I assure the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] 
that I will raise his concerns for the need of economic mitigation for 
Humboldt County if the funds are an issue with the House-Senate 
conference on the Interior appropriations bill.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank 
the gentleman for his attention to this very important matter and point 
out to him that I am eager to work with him and the other House-Senate 
conferees on this particular issue, not only to secure the funding for 
the Headwaters Forest acquisition but also the equally important 
funding to provide economic assistance to Humboldt County to compensate 
for the loss of future tax revenues.
  Again, I appreciate the assurance of the chairman that he will work 
with me and his fellow House-Senate conferees to resolve this issue of 
economic mitigation for Humboldt County. Given that assurance, I will 
not offer my amendment later today or tomorrow.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         range betterment fund

       For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection, 
     and improvement, 50 per centum of all moneys received during 
     the prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock 
     on lands in National Forests in the sixteen Western States, 
     pursuant to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as 
     amended, to remain available until expended, of which not to 
     exceed 6 per centum shall be available for administrative 
     expenses associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation, 
     protection, and improvements.


    gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research

       For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $92,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund 
     established pursuant to the above Act.


          midewin national tallgrass prairie restoration fund

       All funds collected for admission, occupancy, and use of 
     the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, and the salvage value 
     proceeds from sale of any facilities and improvements 
     pursuant to sections 2915 (d) and (e) of Public Law 104-106, 
     are hereby appropriated and made available until expended for 
     the necessary expenses of restoring and administering the 
     Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie in accordance with section 
     2915(f) of the Act.


                    cooperative work, forest service

       For restoring the balances borrowed for previous years 
     firefighting, $128,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the appropriation shall be merged 
     with and made a part of the designated fund authorized by 
     Public Law 71-319, as amended.


               administrative provisions, forest service

       Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal 
     year shall be available for: (a) purchase of not to exceed 
     159 passenger motor vehicles of which 22 will be used 
     primarily for law enforcement purposes and of which 156 shall 
     be for replacement; acquisition of 25 passenger motor 
     vehicles from excess sources, and hire of such vehicles; 
     operation and maintenance of aircraft, the purchase of not to 
     exceed two for replacement only, and acquisition of 20 
     aircraft from excess sources notwithstanding other provisions 
     of law, existing aircraft being replaced may be sold, with 
     proceeds derived or trade-in value used to offset the 
     purchase price for the replacement aircraft; (b) services 
     pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2225, and not to exceed $100,000 for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; (c) purchase, erection, and 
     alteration of buildings and other public improvements (7 
     U.S.C. 2250); (d) acquisition of land, waters, and interests 
     therein, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (e) for expenses pursuant 
     to the Volunteers in the National Forest Act of 1972 (16 
     U.S.C. 558a, 558d, 558a note); and (f) the cost of uniforms 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and (g) for debt 
     collection contracts in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3718(c).
       None of the funds made available under this Act shall be 
     obligated or expended to change the boundaries of any region, 
     to abolish any region, to move or close any regional office 
     for research, State and private forestry, or National Forest 
     System administration of the Forest Service, Department of 
     Agriculture without the consent of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service 
     may be advanced to the Wildland Fire Management appropriation 
     and may be used for forest firefighting and the emergency 
     rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters 
     under its jurisdiction.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for assistance to or through the Agency for International 
     Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service in 
     connection with forest and rangeland research, technical 
     information, and assistance in foreign countries, and shall 
     be available to support forestry and related natural resource 
     activities outside the United States and its territories and 
     possessions, including technical assistance, education and 
     training, and cooperation with United States and 
     international organizations.
       None of the funds made available to the Forest Service 
     under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the 
     provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b unless 
     the proposed transfer is approved in advance by the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in the report accompanying 
     this bill.
       None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be 
     reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
     procedures contained in the report accompanying this bill.
       No funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund of the Department of 
     Agriculture without the approval of the Chief of the Forest 
     Service.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, any 
     appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service may 
     be used to disseminate program information to private and 
     public individuals and organizations through the use of 
     nonmonetary items of nominal value and to provide nonmonetary 
     awards of nominal value and to incur necessary expenses for 
     the nonmonetary recognition of private individuals and 
     organizations that make contributions to Forest Service 
     programs.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, money 
     collected, in advance or otherwise, by the Forest Service 
     under authority of section 101 of Public Law 93-153 (30 
     U.S.C. 185(1)) as reimbursement of administrative and other 
     costs incurred in processing pipeline right-of-way or permit 
     applications and for costs incurred in monitoring the 
     construction, operation, maintenance, and termination of any 
     pipeline and related facilities, may be used to reimburse the 
     applicable appropriation to which such costs were originally 
     charged.
       Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to 
     conduct a program of not less than $1,000,000 for high 
     priority projects within the scope of the approved budget 
     which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as 
     authorized by the Act of August 13, 1970, as amended by 
     Public Law 93-408.
       None of the funds available in this Act shall be used for 
     timber sale preparation using clearcutting in hardwood stands 
     in excess of 25 percent of the fiscal year 1989 harvested 
     volume in the Wayne National Forest, Ohio: Provided, That 
     this limitation shall not apply to hardwood stands damaged by 
     natural disaster: Provided further, That landscape architects 
     shall be used to maintain a visually pleasing forest.
       Any money collected from the States for fire suppression 
     assistance rendered by the Forest Service on non-Federal 
     lands not in the vicinity of National Forest System lands 
     shall be used to reimburse the applicable appropriation and 
     shall remain available until expended as the Secretary may 
     direct in conducting activities authorized by 16 U.S.C. 2101 
     (note), 2101-2110, 1606, and 2111.

[[Page H5119]]

       Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $1,500 is 
     available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official 
     reception and representation expenses.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Forest 
     Service is authorized to employ or otherwise contract with 
     persons at regular rates of pay, as determined by the 
     Service, to perform work occasioned by emergencies such as 
     fires, storms, floods, earthquakes or any other unavoidable 
     cause without regard to Sundays, Federal holidays, and the 
     regular workweek.
       To the greatest extent possible, and in accordance with the 
     Final Amendment to the Shawnee National Forest Plan, none of 
     the funds available in this Act shall be used for preparation 
     of timber sales using clearcutting or other forms of even 
     aged management in hardwood stands in the Shawnee National 
     Forest, Illinois.
       Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
     593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, up to 
     $2,000,000 may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial 
     assistance to the National Forest Foundation, without regard 
     to when the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative 
     expenses or projects on or benefitting National Forest System 
     lands or related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That 
     of the Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no 
     more than $500,000 shall be available for administrative 
     expenses: Provided further, That the Foundation shall obtain, 
     by the end of the period of Federal financial assistance, 
     private contributions to match on at least one-for-one basis 
     funds made available by the Forest Service: Provided further, 
     That the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a recipient 
     of Federal financial assistance for a project at the same 
     rate that the recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching 
     funds: Provided further, That hereafter, the National Forest 
     Foundation may hold Federal funds made available but not 
     immediately disbursed and may use any interest or other 
     investment income earned (before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act) on Federal funds to carry out the 
     purposes of Public Law 101-593: Provided further, That such 
     investments may be made only in interest-bearing obligations 
     of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both 
     principal and interest by the United States.
       Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244, up to 
     $2,000,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall 
     be available for matching funds, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 
     3701-3709, and may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal 
     financial assistance, without regard to when expenses are 
     incurred, for projects on or benefitting National Forest 
     System lands or related to Forest Service programs: Provided, 
     That the Foundation shall obtain, by the end of the period of 
     Federal financial assistance, private contributions to match 
     on at least one-for-one basis funds advanced by the Forest 
     Service: Provided further, That the Foundation may transfer 
     Federal funds to a recipient of Federal financial assistance 
     for a project at the same rate that the recipient has 
     obtained the non-Federal matching funds.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for interactions with and providing technical assistance to 
     rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 80 percent of 
     the funds appropriated to the Forest Service in the 
     ``National Forest System'' and ``Reconstruction and 
     Construction'' accounts and planned to be allocated to 
     activities under the ``Jobs in the Woods'' program for 
     projects on National Forest land in the State of Washington 
     may be granted directly to the Washington State Department of 
     Fish and Wildlife for accomplishment of planned projects. 
     Twenty percent of said funds shall be retained by the Forest 
     Service for planning and administering projects. Project 
     selection and prioritization shall be accomplished by the 
     Forest Service with such consultation with the State of 
     Washington as the Forest Service deems appropriate.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge 
     National Scenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and (2), 
     and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
       Any funds available to the Forest Service may be used for 
     retrofitting the Commanding Officer's Building (S-2), to 
     accommodate the relocation of the Forest Supervisor's Office 
     for the San Bernardino National Forest: Provided, That funds 
     for the move must come from funds otherwise available to 
     Region 5: Provided further, That any funds to be provided for 
     such purposes shall only be available upon approval of the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
       The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to enter into 
     grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements as appropriate 
     with the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, as well as with 
     public and other private agencies, organizations, 
     institutions, and individuals, to provide for the 
     development, administration, maintenance, or restoration of 
     land, facilities, or Forest Service programs, at the Grey 
     Towers National Historic Landmark: Provided, That, subject to 
     such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture may 
     prescribe, any such public or private agency, organization, 
     institution, or individual may solicit, accept, and 
     administer private gifts of money and real or personal 
     property for the benefit of, or in connection with, the 
     activities and services at the Grey Towers National Historic 
     Landmark: Provided further, That such gifts may be accepted 
     notwithstanding the fact that a donor conducts business with 
     the Department of Agriculture in any capacity.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be 
     available, as determined by the Secretary, for payments to 
     Del Norte County, California, pursuant to sections 13(e) and 
     14 of the Smith River National Recreation Area Act (Public 
     Law 101-612).
       For purposes of the Southeast Alaska Economic Disaster Fund 
     as set forth in section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134, the 
     direct grants provided in subsection (c) shall be considered 
     direct payments for purposes of all applicable law except 
     that these direct grants may not be used for lobbying 
     activities.
       No employee of the Department of Agriculture may be 
     detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by this 
     Act to any other agency or office of the Department for more 
     than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or 
     office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office 
     for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of 
     assignment.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


                         clean coal technology

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading for 
     obligation in fiscal year 1997 or prior years, $100,000,000 
     are rescinded: Provided, That funds made available in 
     previous appropriations Acts shall be available for any 
     ongoing project regardless of the separate request for 
     proposal under which the project was selected.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Klug

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Klug: Page 58, line 18, 
     after the dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(increased by $292,000,000)''.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time will be 15 minutes for the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula] and 15 minutes for the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What we have before us tonight, Mr. Chairman, is I think a very clear 
debate over the subject of corporate welfare, corporate in the sense 
that the money we are talking about this evening to do coal research 
benefits a number of major corporations across the country and across 
the world, corporations like Alcoa, worth $2.5 billion, or GE, $70 
billion, and welfare in the sense that we have been subsidizing 
research for an industry to essentially make leaps forward in 
industrial technology since the 1930's.

                              {time}  2330

  In fact we have been funding coal programs since Franklin Roosevelt 
was President. We have to ask ourselves after 60 years if the program 
has not paid back dividends to this point, why do we have any 
reasonable expectation that it will pay back dividends in the future, 
either in the near future or in the long-term future whatsoever?
  The program is fundamentally unnecessary because financial incentives 
already exist for private industry to develop cleaner burning coal 
technologies under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The 1991 General 
Accounting Office report concluded that the program has been plagued by 
chronic cost overruns and scheduling problems, it funds technologies 
already commercially developed, those unlikely to be used because they 
fail to reduce emissions as much as existing technologies and many in 
fact within the industry have already been developed without any kind 
of Federal assistance or Federal financing.
  In fact at this point, Mr. Chairman, we have already spent $2.75 
billion on clean air technology research, nearly $3 billion aimed at 
large multinational corporations and at this point the government has 
recovered only $400,000 on its investment. While recognizing the need 
for Federal assistance with high risk research, the Department of 
Energy testified before Congress that these type of demonstration 
projects are not the wisest use of taxpayer dollars, and I could not 
agree more.
  The other thing, Mr. Chairman, to point out is the fact that this 
program

[[Page H5120]]

has been absolutely overrun with abuses and failures since the 
beginning. Since the first projects were initiated 10 years ago, there 
were 51 initial projects included in essentially 5 rounds of proposals 
and competition. Fifteen have been withdrawn, 6 are still in the books, 
never to get to the construction stage, one of the project sponsors has 
already been forced into bankruptcy, and one of the projects is now on 
its fifth site in 10 years unable to find any kind of financial backing 
for the technology. I think any of my colleagues who look at this 
objectively as well as a number of outside groups like Citizens against 
Government Waste, Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the 
National Taxpayers Union, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Competitive 
Enterprise Institute, all fundamentally recognize that this is a 
corporate welfare program that has to be eliminated if we are ever 
going to get this Nation's books in order and if we are ever to end up 
actually running in the black.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], ranking member of the Committee 
on Science.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me commend 
the committee for the excellent job that it has done with regard to the 
legislation before us. I think they have been moderate in proposing 
cuts in the various programs that required cuts and they have 
maintained those programs which have the prospect of providing lasting 
improvements in the efficiency of our fossil energy economy in future 
years.
  I think it is well that we should understand that despite all of the 
efforts that we have made in supporting research in alternative forms 
of energy other than fossil, we are still going to be highly dependent 
upon fossil energy for as far as we can determine into the future. It 
is by far our largest reserve of energy, and we are going to have to 
use it.
  Much of the program that is being attacked by this amendment supports 
research that will provide for the utilization of this huge resource in 
more efficient ways; that is, it will produce more energy more 
efficiently and it will also provide that this energy meets the 
environmental standards which we have set for this country.
  The fact of the matter is we very badly need this continued research. 
As I remarked in earlier remarks today, it seems a long time ago now, 
in opposing another effort to cut into energy research in order to 
support other worthy programs, energy research and energy in this 
country, the ability to use energy efficiently and to develop new 
energy sources is the backbone of our economic growth. We recognize 
that there are limits on how much of this we can do. The committee, as 
the chairman has pointed out, has taken steps to make very large 
rescissions in many of these fossil energy programs. But the criticism 
that is being made of the programs that remain are largely unwarranted.
  I and one of my colleagues have made this point over and over again, 
that we need to complete these programs. They will be terminated in the 
relatively near future, but we need the results that we will obtain 
from them. The attacks made on them, that they represent corporate 
welfare to large corporations, is simply not the case. Most of these 
programs are operated by small and medium sized organizations.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. The program is working well. 
The committee is supervising it closely.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
make a couple of quick points.
  What we have just heard is the fundamental argument we always get on 
any science program, that we cannot cancel it because they just started 
it and there might be potential, or we cannot cancel it because they 
have invested so much money they might as well finish the project to 
see if it pays dividends.
  There is never an optimal point to terminate a science project 
according to many people in this Chamber, but I will say fundamentally 
that if the program is going to be terminated in the near future, we 
might as well save the money today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, as a new member of the Subcommittee on Interior, it is 
two amendments in a row that I stand up in disagreement with my 
chairman. My chairman is one of the great Members of this body and it 
is with a certain amount of reluctance that I do that, but as someone 
who has been a fiscal conservative and opposed to corporate welfare 
since I came here, this is a classic case of corporate welfare.
  What we are talking about doing is saving the American people $292 
million, $292 million that our taxpayers have to send to Washington for 
us to pay back and give to large corporations to build power plants. 
What this program is about, starting back in 1986, was to test the new 
technology on power plants. There were approximately 45 projects around 
the United States that received millions of dollars. In fact, over $2 
billion has been spent on this program to date.
  What we are talking about doing is saying, wait a minute, wisely we 
decided to stop creating these new projects back in 1993, but there are 
still some projects in the design phase. We can stop them now. That is 
how we can save the $292 million. We do not need these programs. One of 
the programs that is being talked about is in bankruptcy right now. 
Another one is on its fifth location and cannot even find a site. 
Another one DOE says they may cancel because the sponsor could not 
guarantee the technology would survive. Another program is on a second 
site location because the initial backers decided the technology was 
not economically viable. That was a $183 million program. I think our 
taxpayers in this country deserve to keep their own money rather than 
taking $292 million and sending it back for these projects.

  I support basic research as a responsibility of the Federal 
Government. I am a strong supporter of NIH. I think the National 
Science Foundation is an appropriate place for basic research. But this 
is applied research. This is building power plants to provide energy 
power. This program was created back in 1986. The Clean Air Act changed 
the rules back in 1990. That is the reason we do not need this right 
now.
  This has the strong support of fiscal conservative organizations, 
supported by the Citizens Against Government Waste, the Taxpayers for 
Common Sense, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Taxpayers 
Union, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Competitive Enterprise 
Institute. It has got wide support by the conservative organizations 
because this is an effort to save money.
  It is misnamed by calling it clean coal. It is clean coal in name 
only because the environmental community supports this amendment, 
because what the environmental community is saying, coal is not the 
best type of energy source we have. We have organizations like the 
Sierra Club supporting this amendment. This is a program that I think 
has outlived its usefulness. We have a chance to save the American 
taxpayers money. It is corporate welfare, and I think it is time that 
we end it.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Klug amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle].
  (Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin. This amendment claims to save 
money while helping clean up our environment. What we have in fact 
here, Mr. Chairman, is a case of false advertising. Will this amendment 
save taxpayers money? The simplistic view is yes, but the truth of the 
matter is that it will end up costing more than it purports to save.
  The clean coal technology program is comprised of a number of 
cooperative agreements between government and industry. These 
agreements are legally binding contracts. Maybe some Members do not 
understand what a contract

[[Page H5121]]

is, but the Federal Government is going to remain liable for its share 
of these agreements regardless of what action we take here in this 
bill. So if we pass this amendment, not only will we likely end up 
paying for the cost of the programs, but we are going to saddle the 
American taxpayer with the cost of the Federal Government defending 
itself against litigation.
  Let us look at whether this amendment really does much for 
environmental protection. It is all well and good to support R&D in 
areas such as solar and biomass, which is something I have fought for, 
but it is not realistic to expect that these options will be a 
significant segment of our energy supply for the foreseeable future.
  The Energy Information Agency in its examination of trends in the 
energy sector has determined that in the year 2010, 88 percent of our 
energy is going to come from fossil resources. Consider this while 
taking into account the likelihood that the United States is going to 
commit to emissions reduction targets later this year in Kyoto.
  How are we going to meet these limits? The answer is through 
technological innovation in areas where emission reductions can be 
realized. Since coal is our most abundant domestic resource, it makes 
sense to try and develop methods to burn it cleaner. The type of large-
scale efforts we need to do are too risky for the private sector to 
assume on their own. That is why Congress came up with the Clean Coal 
Technology Program to meet this challenge, to find ways to make use of 
a secure and plentiful energy resource in a clean and efficient manner.
  The clean coal program is exploring methods that have made burning 
coal as clean as natural gas and are sound investments. Clean coal 
technologies can cut acid rain emissions by 98 percent, fly ash 
emissions by 99 percent and CO2 emissions by over 40 
percent. Obviously, continuing with this effort is the better 
environmental alternative and cutting it would be shortsighted.
  Let us look further at some of the arguments put forward by the 
proponents of this amendment. They criticize the Clean Coal Technology 
Program because some of the projects have failed. Of course some of the 
projects are going to fail. These are high risk endeavors. That is why 
the government is involved, to leverage an investment that the private 
sector would not otherwise make. If their success were guaranteed, 
there would be no need for government participation. Keep in mind, when 
a project fails, the industrial partner also does not profit.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If I could for a moment quote from a study that was done by the 
Department of Energy in 1985 at part of the time this program was first 
being considered. It says:

       Given the size and availability of U.S. coal reserves, the 
     security of the domestic coal supply and the comparative 
     economics of coal as a fuel, free market forces are operating 
     to select and commercialize the most efficient and 
     environmentally effective clean coal technologies. Federal 
     subsidies could alter these market forces and adversely 
     affect the development of competing technologies both within 
     and outside the coal industry.

  In other words, if there are innovations to be made in the coal 
industry, they are much more likely to be made without the Federal 
Government's involvement.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Royce] to further support that point.

                              {time}  2345

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  The clean coal technology program is unnecessary. Financial 
incentives already exist for private industry to develop cleaner 
burning technologies; the recipients of these funds represent several 
corporations that do have billions of dollars in revenues a year; and, 
lastly, even the Department of Energy has stated that demonstration 
projects such as those supported by the clean coal technology program 
are not, quote, ``the proper place or certainly in these fiscally 
constrained times the wisest place for Federal funding.'' This is from 
the Department of Energy.
  The clean coal program has a history of waste and mismanagement. 
According to a General Accounting Office Report, almost half of the 
program's ongoing projects have exceeded their budgets, fallen behind 
schedule or scaled back their scope. If the program proceeds as 
planned, taxpayers will hand out a total of $2.3 billion to the private 
coal industry and receive little in return. According to the General 
Accounting Office and the Department of Energy, it is unlikely that we 
will ever be able to recover taxpayers' investment in clean coal 
projects.
  Join with me and Citizens Against Government Waste in ending this 
unnecessary program and take a step towards balancing the budget. Vote 
``yes'' on this amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I would 
point out that the GAO report of 1994, the most recent report, and I 
quote, ``the program has shown that the government and the private 
sector can work together effectively to develop and demonstrate new 
technologies. The lessons learned from DOE's experience with the 
program should be useful for similar programs in which costs are 
shared.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply note that I am going to vote 
for this amendment because it does not do nothing to nobody. The outlay 
savings from this amendment are exactly zero. This money is never going 
to be spent, it is there simply as a cushion against contractual 
obligations, and so vote for it because this budget authority reduction 
will result in not one dollar of outlay savings.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent southern Illinois which is part of the 
Illinois coal basin, and it is part of the coal that we have in this 
country, 300 years of coal supply in this country to supply energy 
needs for America. The problem is much of it is high sulfur coal; we 
cannot sell it.
  The Clean Air Act cost us nearly 15,000 jobs in the Illinois coal 
basin alone when it was passed, and I guess the question that I would 
ask of our colleagues is where do we think that we are going to go in 
the future for supplying the energy needs of this country? We have 
barely 30 years of proven oil and gas reserves left in the entire world 
right now, we are decommissioning our nuclear power plants all over 
this country, and that is going to rapidly expand as their life runs 
out. We are kidding ourselves if we think we are going to go to solar 
or wind or some of the other things.
  Mr. Chairman, coal is the single greatest energy supply we have, and 
we simply have to find a way to clean it with either pre- or post-
combustion technology so that we can use it to supply the energy needs 
of this country, and that is what the clean coal technology program has 
done for us.
  Already more than $9 billion in sales of advanced U.S. technology in 
the United States and overseas can be traced back to the achievements 
of the clean coal technology program. One-quarter of the coal-fired 
capacity in the United States now uses technology pioneered in this 
program. Twenty-five percent, 25 percent of all of the coal-fired 
capacity, again I repeat, in this country uses technology pioneered in 
this program, accounting for almost $1 billion in domestic sales, and 
by the year 2000 this will have increased to 75 percent.
  Let us vote against this amendment, keep our technology afoot, clean 
our coal up, save our jobs.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me point out a few facts to rebut points made by my colleague 
from Illinois. This is what the Congressional Budget Office has to say 
about this argument:
  Since the passage of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 the private 
sector has faced a clear legislative mandate for lowering coal 
emissions. Electric utilities and large industrial users of coal now 
have a clear economic motive for selecting among current practices and 
new technologies the lowest cost option for reducing emissions.

[[Page H5122]]

  In other words, the passage of the Clean Air Act has led ultimately 
to the cleanup as private industries have used their own brain power to 
develop innovative technologies. It is not the DOE clean coal program 
which that same congressional office report argues has, in fact, been a 
waste of money because there has been very little payback 
scientifically, and there has been very little payback in terms of 
commercial technology.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden].
  Mr. HOLDEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by my friend from Wisconsin, [Mr. Klug] which seeks to rescind 
an additional $292 million from the clean coal technology program.
  I recognize that these are tough budgetary times. Therefore, we must 
prioritize, and I believe that one of our priorities should be to 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  Coal is the largest domestic source of energy produced in the United 
States. Current estimates demonstrate a 250-to-300-year coal resource 
base in the United States. We have more coal than the rest of the world 
has recoverable oil. Think about that, more coal than the rest of the 
world has in recoverable oil. Therefore, it is important that we invest 
in the research and development that will allow Americans to continue 
benefiting from this abundant, secure, and affordable fuel source 
without compromising the environment.
  I am proud to represent an area in Pennsylvania that sits on the 
largest anthracite coal deposit in the country. Anthracite is 
considered the cleanest burning solid fuel on the commercial market 
today. With continued research of anthracite coal, the potential of the 
United States becoming energy self-sufficient in an environmentally 
friendly manner is enhanced.
  The clean coal technology program is important for several reasons: 
cleaning up the environment by burning waste coal. In my home County of 
Schuylkill alone there is an excess of 1 billion, with a B, billion, 
tons of waste coal that has accumulated over the years.
  Reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides and air toxics.
  Developing cleaner, more efficient power systems.
  Sponsoring promising technologies that are too risky for private 
industry to undertake alone.
  Providing a model for future government-industry technology 
partnerships.
  And providing tremendous job opportunities in this country, not in 
the Middle East.
  Coal research and development will provide huge benefits for the 
Nation and pay for itself many times over through taxes flowing back to 
the Treasury from expanded economic activity. Let us not curtail the 
research that will help us achieve energy self-sufficiency in this 
country.
  This amendment presents a clear choice between investing in the 
future or just giving up and remaining dependent on foreign oil. I urge 
a ``no'' vote on my friend's amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to close at this point in the hopes that we 
can get out of here a little bit earlier this evening. I want to 
essentially take a look at three arguments in support of continuing to 
fund clean coal and then three arguments that I think will instead 
argue for the continued rescission of this program and to knock it down 
to zero.
  First of all, we heard my colleague from Illinois argue that clean 
coal technology was supposed to reduce acid rain. The fact is according 
to the Department of Energy and according to the Congressional Budget 
Office EPA regulations, the Clean Air Act passed by this Congress, is 
the primary cause of improvements in air quality and contained 
incentives to further control emissions. We are going to set targets 
and let private industry reach those targets through its own set of 
innovations, not by technology developed by the Government and 
essentially set down.
  Now again the idea of the clean coal technology program argument No. 
2 is that it was going to result in commercial technologies. Let me 
reemphasize that we have invested $3\1/2\ billion and at this point 
only had $400,000 come back to the Department of Energy. Any company 
that was running that kind of return on its investment would long ago 
be out of business, and frankly this program should have long ago been 
out of business.
  The other argument is that it supports the coal industry and that 
somehow without this research the coal industry could not exist, and 
the fact of the matter is the coal industry has done very well over the 
years, but more and more technology, frankly, is shifting to natural 
gas. There is more use in natural gas, there are more applications of 
natural gas, it burns cleaner, it sells for cheaper prices, and when 
the marketplace essentially has these targets out there that industry 
is supposed to hit, it hits those targets, but it does through again 
through industry innovation as folks shift to clean, natural gas away 
from coal and some of the coal problems.
  And again one of the fundamental arguments we have been beating on 
tonight, and I will say it one more time, this is corporate welfare. 
This money is going to Alcoa, a $2\1/2\ billion company; Daimler Benz, 
$12 billion; GE, $70 billion. If there is research to be done, clearly 
these corporations can afford to do it themselves. It is unlikely that 
this program in any form and fashion is going to be able to generate 
profits that are going to go back to the Federal Government or go back 
to the Department of Energy period.
  It has not worked in terms of cleaning the air; other government 
programs have done that. It has not resulted in wide scale commercial 
technologies. In fact the marketplace has already moved in other 
directions. And it is industry, quite frankly, and it is welfare, quite 
frankly, that those large multinational corporations can afford to do 
on their own.
  I urge my colleagues when they return in the morning to vote for the 
Klug-Miller-Foley-Royce amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, Corporate Welfare has taken a real beating 
tonight, and the truth of the matter is that that term is badly abused. 
This is not corporate welfare, this is people welfare. This program is 
designed to help the people of this Nation.
  How does it help them? It provides an ability to burn a resource 
where we have 250 years of supply. It means they can have low cost fuel 
for their lights, for their appliances; more and more we use 
electricity. It means they can have jobs because the costs of energy 
will be competitive for our industries.
  Does it work? It certainly does. As was pointed out earlier, one 
quarter of the coal fired capacity in the United States now uses 
technology pioneered in the clean coal program.
  Do people believe in it? The private sector has committed 60 percent 
of the cost of this program. This says very clearly that they believe 
that it is an efficient and a very effective program, and there is very 
few programs that have a 60 percent private/ 40 percent public cost 
share of an experimental nature.
  Does it help us otherwise? Sales of clean coal technology already 
exceed $9 billion both here and abroad.
  What does it mean? China, as I mentioned earlier in the evening, is 
consuming even more coal then the United States and with the growth of 
their economy that will probably double. The market for clean coal 
technology is enormous and will help our balance of payments, it will 
create jobs for Americans, it will help to clean up the environment 
worldwide. Other nations are concerned about their emissions because 
they do go into the atmosphere that ultimately all of us breathe.
  This program is a success.
  Now we have been practical about it. In this bill we rescind $100 
million of clean coal technology because a couple of programs that were 
on line decided that they did not want to go forward.

                              {time}  0000

  Mr. Chairman, we have been trying to manage this with good judgment 
in a very responsible way. But speaking of responsibility, I would 
point out that there are contracts pending that will

[[Page H5123]]

require a commitment of this available funding to meet the fact that 
the private sector is willing to go forward on other types of 
technology.
  This is a successful program. It is a good program. It means jobs for 
the future. It means clean air. It means energy independence. We do not 
have to send a team of soldiers to protect coal that is in the United 
States of America. We do not have to build underground facilities to 
store it. It is there. Clean coal technology will enable us to use this 
source of energy to improve the quality of life and maintain our 
economic leadership in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KLUG. 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 181, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                 fossil energy research and development

       For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy 
     research and development activities, under the authority of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), 
     including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 
     and equitable interests in any real property or any facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for 
     conducting inquiries, technological investigations and 
     research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and 
     disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social 
     and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 
     performed under the minerals and materials science programs 
     at the Albany Research Center in Oregon, $312,153,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That no part of 
     the sum herein made available shall be used for the field 
     testing of nuclear explosives in the recovery of oil and gas.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Royce

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Royce: Page 59, line 10, insert 
     after the dollar amount ``(reduced by $21,014,000)''.

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply cuts funding 
appropriated above the administration's request for five fossil energy 
research and development programs, programs earmarked for coal, natural 
gas, and the oil industries, programs that have been discussed at some 
length tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe none of these programs merit Federal funding. 
U.S. private industry does not need these programs, period, but my 
amendment at least saves the American taxpayer some $21 million, about 
7 percent of the total spending, for the many fossil energy research 
programs contained in the appropriations bill.
  This savings is why this amendment is endorsed by Citizens Against 
Government Waste, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National 
Taxpayers' Union, and Americans for Tax Reform, among several other 
organizations.
  Why do American corporations not need these programs? Let me refer to 
a report done by the Congressional Budget Office that looks at the 
Department of Energy's fossil fuel programs. It reports, and I quote 
from that report, ``The major new technologies for enhanced oil 
recovery have come from private industry, not the Department of 
Energy.'' The Energy Department says, ``This has little in the way of 
commercial applications to show for its investment.''
  The fact that technological innovation and new commercial 
applications is found in the private sector, not the government, comes 
as no surprise. A Brookings Institute study found that Federal energy 
R&D has been an abject failure. It reported, ``The overriding lesson is 
that the goal of economic efficiency is so severely constrained by 
political forces that an effective, coherent national commercial R&D 
program has never been put in place.''
  As we have heard tonight, the 1997 budget resolution reached a 
similar finding about DOE energy R&D programs. No, these corporate 
research subsidies, and subsidies is what they are, going to large 
corporations, some of the largest multinationals in the world, as a 
matter of fact, is not the direction we should be going.
  We praise the American economy for being the most productive economy 
in the world. I will tell Members one thing, our economy was not built 
on government subsidies like the one this amendment modestly cuts, and 
those economies in the world that are built on subsidies, think of the 
European countries, those are economies that are hurting.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close with this argument. I want to make the 
point that tonight we have heard a lot about the importance of research 
to our economy. We have heard a lot about the importance of energy to 
our economy. No one doubts this. It is obvious, but that does not mean 
that every DOE research program deserves immunity. These five programs 
certainly do not.
  I ask Members to consider that these five programs targeted by this 
amendment are administered by the Department of Energy. That alone 
should give Members of this body pause. We have been hearing about 
waste and inefficiency in the DOE for years now. Many Members in this 
body as well as former Energy secretaries have supported abolishing the 
Energy Department.
  They are right, the Department of Energy was founded in 1976 on a 
dubious idea; that this country needs a national energy policy 
coordinated by Washington. It has since grown into a multi-billion 
dollar bureaucracy with numerous wasteful missions. We do not have a 
national energy policy today, thankfully. By the way, the price of gas 
at the pump is at an historic low. This is due to market forces, not 
government research programs. But we are stuck with the DOE and its 
many wasteful programs.
  The Department of Energy itself has not asked us to spend this money. 
It does not request these funds. Yet, we are going to go ahead and 
spend it anyway? What kind of sense does that make? There is no reason 
to plus up these subsidies. I urge my colleagues, even those who 
support government-supported fossil fuel programs, to support this 
fiscally responsible amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been responsible. We have reduced the research 
programs by 30 percent over the past few years, but we have tried to 
keep the good ones. Does anyone believe we did not send soldiers to 
Saudi Arabia and Desert Storm to not protect an energy source that is 
overseas? Of course we did. We spent billions of dollars doing it.
  That illustrates how important fossil fuel sources are to this 
Nation, and makes a very powerful case to continue research programs 
that will do a number of things; that will allow us to use fossil fuels 
in a more efficient way, to get more Btus that are useful in the energy 
stream of this Nation. Fossil fuel is going to be the choice that we 
have to depend on for many, many years to come. These programs are 
designed to make our use of fossil sources more efficient.
  Obviously, the private sector believes in them because they put up a 
good part of the money to do the research. As I said earlier, we do not 
fund commercialization. We have carefully guarded against any programs 
that get beyond the development of technology. But we think it is very 
important for the future of this Nation to ensure that we have adequate 
energy sources from fossil sources, that we use these energy sources in 
an effective way so we do not deprive future generations of the same 
quality of life we have had, and to use these sources in a way that 
will keep us competitive in the world marketplace.
  Mr. Chairman, I think at this point it would be a serious mistake to 
violate contracts that are already in place, to stop programs that are 
shown to have potential in midstream, and to cut at this juncture would 
not be a good management on the part of our fossil program.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to say to all of the Members that we as a 
committee have been very careful in determining what programs work and 
what do not, and to make sure that we manage the

[[Page H5124]]

taxpayers' money efficiently on behalf of their future in the fossil 
energy resource programs. I strongly urge a no vote on this amendment. 
Let us keep these programs going so we can ensure that we have energy 
independence as a Nation in the future, and we can insure that those 
who follow us will have the same quality of life and opportunities that 
result from having an adequate supply of fossil-generated energy.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Royce]. This is one of many amendments 
that foolishly looks for savings in energy security, an area of great 
importance to our national security.
  Our economic well-being depends on a secure and reliable energy 
supply. The Energy Information Agency has predicted that for the 
foreseeable future, we will be getting over 85 percent of our energy 
from fossil sources. So if Members are looking to adjust the Federal 
investment in R&D in this area, then Members had better understand the 
ramifications of what they are trying to do.
  The Royce amendment is a textbook example of how not to interfere 
with a program. After hearing hours and hours of testimony, the 
Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations decided to 
alter the administration's budget. Some programs were increased in 
order to more effectively meet their missions. In order to pay for 
these increases, the Committee on the Interior has acted responsibly by 
finding offsets for these cuts.
  The Royce amendment takes a simplistic approach to deficit reduction. 
It simply looks at any line item which the Committee on Interior 
increased, ignores the fact that the plus-ups were offset, and 
eliminates the increase. So the point of this amendment is to cut any 
program that the committee determined to be of the highest priority.
  Let us look at the programs it cuts: The low emission boiler system, 
a cleaner-burning, high-efficiency technology that is moving into its 
final stage of development. This is exactly the type of technology our 
country is going to need to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act 
and international emission reduction requirements.
  This stage requires the construction of an actual plant, an 
undertaking that requires more funding than did the planning and design 
phase of earlier years. The committee recognized this, found an offset, 
and provided the necessary funding.
  The Royce amendment also cuts research on particulate matter 
monitoring. Any Member who is concerned about the Clean Air Act 
compliance should care about this. Our current monitoring capability is 
insufficient, and an effective understanding of our air quality 
situation requires an improved monitoring expertise.
  The committee recognized this as a high priority area, but once 
again, this amendment seeks to ignore the priorities of those who best 
understand these programs. Mr. Chairman, in this era, where we must 
emphasize domestic solutions to the challenge of meeting our ever-
increasing energy needs, the Royce amendment is a decisive step 
backwards. I urge its defeat.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, briefly, I rise in support of the Royce amendment. Let 
me, if I can, put this in context. Again, we hear from opponents of the 
amendment that sense that somehow if we go back to the levels 
originally requested by the administration, that energy research in 
this country stops in its tracks. But the Department of Energy spends 
$3.2 billion a year on a variety of applied and basic research 
projects. This amendment simply says, in 5 areas where we have done 
fossil research for 60 years, and again, we have told welfare 
recipients they have to be off the dole for 2 years, but these research 
programs can go on for 60 years, and in five very specific programs we 
simply roll back $21 million back to what the administration requested. 
I think it is very clear the Department of Energy still has a lot of 
money to spend on programs it wants to fund, but I think we ought to 
let the Department of Energy, the experts, set the parameters.
  I think, first of all, we need to keep in mind in this entire debate 
that I think private industry is much better, much better suited to 
identify and target technologies that are commercially viable than DOE. 
According to our own Congressional Budget Office, listen to this, ``The 
major new technologies for advanced oil recovery, for example, have 
come from private industry, not from DOE. In other instances, DOE 
continues to develop technologies in which the market clearly has no 
interest.''
  So the bottom line is we have thousands of dollars in excess 
government subsidies flowing to programs that have delivered very 
little results; frankly, in this case, in the Committee on 
Appropriations, more money than the Department of Energy wants to fund 
technology that, frankly, has already been the subject of billions of 
dollars in Federal grants.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Royce amendment, and to put an 
end to corporate welfare as we know it.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Royce amendment. While this 
may be only $21 million, every million dollars counts. What we are only 
talking about is going back to what the Department of Energy requested 
in this particular appropriation process.
  Mr. Chairman, when I first got elected and campaigned back in 1992, I 
had a basic question I kept saying, and I have been asking it every 
year for the past 4 years I have been here. It is, is this a Federal 
responsibility? Do we really have to have the Federal Government doing 
this program?

                              {time}  0015

  I am not convinced this is one. This is why it is called corporate 
welfare. The private sector can do that. We have a lot of strengths in 
the private sector. We have a lot of belief in the private sector. 
While we have made great progress along the past couple years in the 
spending on this particular appropriations subcommittee, this is one 
that, do we really need to keep spending this money? Why cannot the 
private sector?
  I go along with the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], and I think this is an appropriate 
way to cut spending and to get some more sensibility back into the 
total amount of money spent at the Department of Energy.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, there are several aspects of 
this debate which trouble me a little bit. I think we have all paid 
tribute to the work that the Committee on Appropriations has done in 
examining these programs and making recommendations which will protect 
the public interest and give us the most value for the taxpayers' 
dollars that are being spent here.
  I am also informed that we are not above the President's request in 
these items, that we are below the President's request so we are not 
loading this up excessively.
  But the thing that really troubles me is that the subject matter of 
this debate has been before the committee, which I have the pleasure to 
serve on, the Committee on Science, the authorizing committee, over the 
years. We have conducted extensive research on these programs. We have 
tried to monitor the Defense Department. We have not found any 
department, including the Energy Department, we have not found any 
department, including energy, which is free from mistakes. And we make 
an honest effort to correct those wherever it is possible to do so. We 
think we have a sound program here which is in the best interest of 
this country.
  I have a sense, however, that those who are arguing against these 
programs have certain fundamental ideological objections to the 
government participating in these. They do not like the idea that this 
country can benefit from a partnership between the government and the 
business community of this country.
  This for a long time produced an atmosphere in which the government 
and industry were fighting each other. We have worked very hard to 
overcome

[[Page H5125]]

that, to find ways in which government could play a role, the private 
sector could play a role, appropriate to each, and in most cases this 
means that we cooperate in developing the basic research.
  The private sector then carries that research on through applications 
and commercialization. This is what we are trying to achieve. It is a 
delicate balance. We admit that it is a delicate balance. But there are 
some Members who persist in insisting that this is government subsidy 
or government welfare. I see some nods coming from my good friend on 
the other side. I deny that this is the case.
  Those countries which pose the greatest threat to our economy are 
those which have achieved the most effective balance and cooperation 
between government and industry. There is nothing perfect in these 
arrangements. They have to be constantly scrutinized. There has to be a 
sense of really what is in the best interest by people who have an 
understanding of the problems that face the Nation and the problems 
that face the private sector in achieving solutions to those problems.
  I guarantee Members that there is not a corporation in this country 
that will invest money in a program in which there is no payoff for 10 
years. There is just no incentive for them to do so. They would prefer 
to muck up the environment or do whatever else is necessary to avoid 
spending money that does not have a payoff within 10 years.
  This is that area in which cooperation is essential. We have to 
leverage the interest of the private sector. We have to provide an 
incentive for them to spend their money in the hopes of making a profit 
and moving forward into a commercially viable activity. That is the 
whole thrust of this program.
  There are those here on this floor who deny that that is a proper 
role for government. I think we need to face this realistically. We can 
nitpick the particular projects. We can do anything we want. It will be 
easy to find cases in which we misjudge, both the industry and the 
government misjudged what the results might be. But in the long run, 
what we are doing is basically aimed at preserving our energy 
independence in this country, producing a viable, growing, healthy 
economy and providing for the welfare of our children and our 
children's children and the future. I think that after the scrutiny 
that we have given these programs over the years, we are approaching an 
understanding of what that proper balance is.
  I think it is contained, as closely as we can get, in the report that 
the subcommittee has made here. I commend the chairman and the members 
of that committee for the hard work and the analysis that they have put 
into this.
  I can assure my colleagues that we have done the same thing in the 
Committee on Science for a large number of years, and it is my fond 
belief, my strong belief that this is the only way this country is 
going to succeed in maintaining its economic priority in the world 
before us.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in total support of the Royce amendment to bring 
some sanity to the spending of taxpayer dollars when it comes to 
shelling out taxpayers' dollars to huge corporations that make billions 
of dollars worth of profit.
  I would, first of all, like to say that I have deep admiration for 
the speaker who just presented his case before us. The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown] had been the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Science for many years. He is the ranking member now. But 
over the years he was fair to every Republican that ever worked on the 
Committee on Science, and he is an honest and fair man. And what we 
have here is an honest and fair disagreement as to a basic philosophy 
of what government should do and what government should not do.
  What we have here is the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] who 
stands for a philosophy, a more conservative free enterprise 
philosophy, versus the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] who has 
presented more of a philosophy of government intervention in the name 
of benefit to the community and to the country as a whole.

  I think this is an honest disagreement. I think it is. I respect the 
opinion of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], and I respect his 
motivation.
  Let me say I believe that he is wrong. I believe the philosophy that 
he is talking about has been an utter failure over and over and over 
again. The partnership between powerful government and powerful 
interest groups like big business and big labor has never worked for 
the benefit of the average person. Instead these partnerships have 
tended to freeze out the little guy, have tended to use the taxpayers' 
money for the benefit wealthy interests and the taxpayers end up 
footing the bill for all of this.
  This is no different. What we are arguing about tonight is a $21 
million add-on that goes beyond what the Department of Energy has 
requested from the Congress. That is $21 million extra from what has 
been requested from the Department of Energy. I even question some of 
the projects the Department of Energy has proposed.
  But here we are just talking about, should the Federal Government 
rush into relationships with companies that they themselves can afford 
the research and development of the new products or of the new 
technologies that are being discussed?
  My friend from Pennsylvania discussed boiler technology. Why should 
we, for example, support millions of dollars for boiler technology so 
that some company can make a big profit on it? Why should we do that, 
when other companies and other people in our society are investing in 
wind technology for energy, they are investing in solar technology?
  I just had a conversation with a company that has invested, unlike 
what the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] has suggested, invested 
millions of dollars over two decades, not just one decade but two 
decades, to come up with new solar technology. We are undercutting the 
entrepreneurs in our society who know best by shoveling government 
money, scarce government money to people who we, as politicians, think 
they should succeed as compared to other people in the private sector 
who are investing their own money, other people who may have just as 
good a chance of succeeding in developing technology.
  Quite often we know that the money is going for people who are 
developing technology who have special connections politically. My 
friend from Pennsylvania comes from a coal-burning State or a coal-
producing State. Is there any question he is looking out for his 
constituents? He should. But this is not the way to make decisions that 
will be in the best interest of the people in the long run, especially 
of the people of the United States of America.
  In France they have tried this, where you have a partnership between 
big business and big government. What they have is they have massive 
unemployment in France that would never be acceptable in the United 
States. In Japan, Japan has gone through an economic catastrophe in the 
last few years. Why is that? It is because you have government planning 
the economy and so when things go wrong, it is not just one company 
that has miscalculated, it is an entire industrial plan that has gone 
wrong.
  We should run away as far as possible from this idea that there 
should be a partnership between government and the private sector. 
Although I will say that it is motivated, those who advocate this plan, 
they have the best of motivations, the best of motivations. They want 
what is right for America.
  I do not think it is going to take us in the right direction. It has 
not taken France in the right direction, did not take Japan in the 
right direction. I will tell my colleagues, it certainly did not take 
the socialist countries in the right direction. The socialist countries 
that were all basically one big industrial plan failed in a big way.
  So I would ask support of the Royce amendment and a tough stand for 
the taxpayers.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I ask for a vote on 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by gentleman 
from California [Mr. Royce].

[[Page H5126]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 181, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through page 76, line 7, be considered as read, printed in 
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There is no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through page 76, line 7 is as 
follows:


                      alternative fuels production

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Monies received as investment income on the principal 
     amount in the Great Plains Project Trust at the Norwest Bank 
     of North Dakota, in such sums as are earned as of October 1, 
     1997, shall be deposited in this account and immediately 
     transferred to the General Fund of the Treasury. Monies 
     received as revenue sharing from operation of the Great 
     Plains Gasification Plant shall be immediately transferred to 
     the General Fund of the Treasury.


                 naval petroleum and oil shale reserves

       For necessary expenses in carrying out naval petroleum and 
     oil shale reserve activities, $115,000,000, and such sums as 
     are necessary to operate Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 
     between May 16, 1998 and September 30, 1998, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, revenues received from use and 
     operation of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 in excess of 
     $163,000,000 shall be used to offset the costs of operating 
     Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 between May 16, 1998 and 
     September 30, 1998: Provided further, That revenues retained 
     pursuant to the first proviso under this head in Public Law 
     102-381 (106 Stat. 1404) shall be immediately transferred to 
     the General Fund of the Treasury: Provided further, That the 
     requirements of 10 U.S.C. 7430(b)(2)(B) shall not apply to 
     fiscal year 1998.


                          energy conservation

       For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation 
     activities, $636,766,000, to remain available until expended, 
     including, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     excess amount for fiscal year 1998 determined under the 
     provisions of section 3003(d) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 
     4502): Provided, That $149,845,000 shall be for use in energy 
     conservation programs as defined in section 3008(3) of Public 
     Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507) and shall not be available until 
     excess amounts are determined under the provisions of section 
     3003(d) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4502): Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public 
     Law 99-509 such sums shall be allocated to the eligible 
     programs as follows: $120,845,000 for weatherization 
     assistance grants and $29,000,000 for State energy 
     conservation grants.


                          economic regulation

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Office of Hearings and Appeals, $2,725,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                      strategic petroleum reserve

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facility development and operations and program management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $209,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, of which $209,000,000 
     shall be repaid from the ``SPR Operating Fund'' from amounts 
     made available from the sale of oil from the Reserve: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding section 161 of the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act, the Secretary shall draw down 
     and sell in fiscal year 1998 $209,000,000 worth of oil from 
     the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Provided further, That the 
     proceeds from the sale shall be deposited into the ``SPR 
     Operating Fund'', and shall, upon receipt, be transferred to 
     the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account for operations of the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve.


                         spr petroleum account

        Notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 6240(d) the United States share 
     of crude oil in Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 (Elk 
     Hills) may be sold or otherwise disposed of to other than the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Provided, That outlays in fiscal 
     year 1998 resulting from the use of funds in this account 
     shall not exceed $5,000,000.


                   energy information administration

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Energy Information Administration, $66,800,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


            administrative provisions, department of energy

       Appropriations under this Act for the current fiscal year 
     shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase, 
     repair, and cleaning of uniforms; and reimbursement to the 
     General Services Administration for security guard services.
       From appropriations under this Act, transfers of sums may 
     be made to other agencies of the Government for the 
     performance of work for which the appropriation is made.
       None of the funds made available to the Department of 
     Energy under this Act shall be used to implement or finance 
     authorized price support or loan guarantee programs unless 
     specific provision is made for such programs in an 
     appropriations Act.
       The Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings, 
     equipment, and other contributions from public and private 
     sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other 
     agencies, Federal, State, private or foreign: Provided, That 
     revenues and other moneys received by or for the account of 
     the Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of 
     products in connection with projects of the Department 
     appropriated under this Act may be retained by the Secretary 
     of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for 
     plant construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-
     sharing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing 
     contracts or agreements: Provided further, That the remainder 
     of revenues after the making of such payments shall be 
     covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided 
     further, That any contract, agreement, or provision thereof 
     entered into by the Secretary pursuant to this authority 
     shall not be executed prior to the expiration of 30 calendar 
     days (not including any day in which either House of Congress 
     is not in session because of adjournment of more than three 
     calendar days to a day certain) from the receipt by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of 
     the Senate of a full comprehensive report on such project, 
     including the facts and circumstances relied upon in support 
     of the proposed project.
       No funds provided in this Act may be expended by the 
     Department of Energy to prepare, issue, or process 
     procurement documents for programs or projects for which 
     appropriations have not been made.
       In addition to other authorities set forth in this Act, the 
     Secretary may accept fees and contributions from public and 
     private sources, to be deposited in a contributed funds 
     account, and prosecute projects using such fees and 
     contributions in cooperation with other Federal, State or 
     private agencies or concerns.
       The Secretary is authorized to accept funds from other 
     Federal agencies in return for assisting agencies in 
     achieving energy efficiency in Federal facilities and 
     operations by the use of privately financed, energy saving 
     performance contracts and other private financing mechanisms. 
     The funds may be provided after agencies begin to realize 
     energy cost savings; may be retained by the Secretary until 
     expended; and may be used only for the purpose of assisting 
     Federal agencies in achieving greater efficiency, water 
     conservation, and use of renewable energy by means of 
     privately financed mechanisms, including energy savings 
     performance contracts. Any such privately financed contracts 
     shall meet the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 
     Public Law 102-496 (42 U.S.C. 8287).

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                         Indian Health Service


                         indian health services

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5, 
     1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of 
     the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian 
     Health Service, $1,829,008,000, together with payments 
     received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b) 
     for services furnished by the Indian Health Service: 
     Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal 
     organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any 
     other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the 
     grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available 
     to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year 
     limitation: Provided further, That $12,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic Health 
     Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $359,348,000 for 
     contract medical care shall remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 1999: Provided further, That of the funds 
     provided, not less than $11,889,000 shall be used to carry 
     out the loan repayment program under section 108 of the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act: Provided further, That 
     funds provided in this Act may be used for one-year contracts 
     and grants which are to be performed in two fiscal years, so 
     long as the total obligation is recorded in the year for 
     which the funds are appropriated: Provided further, That the 
     amounts collected by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services under the authority of title IV of the Indian Health 
     Care Improvement Act shall remain available until expended 
     for the purpose of achieving compliance with the applicable 
     conditions and requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the 
     Social Security Act (exclusive of planning, design, or 
     construction of new facilities): Provided further, That of 
     the funds provided, $7,500,000 shall remain available until 
     expended, for the Indian Self-Determination Fund, which shall 
     be available for the transitional costs of initial or

[[Page H5127]]

     expanded tribal contracts, compacts, grants or cooperative 
     agreements with the Indian Health Service under the 
     provisions of the Indian Self-Determination Act: Provided 
     further, That funding contained herein, and in any earlier 
     appropriations Acts for scholarship programs under the Indian 
     Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1613) shall remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 1999: Provided 
     further, That amounts received by tribes and tribal 
     organizations under title IV of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act shall be reported and accounted for and 
     available to the receiving tribes and tribal organizations 
     until expended.


                        indian health facilities

       For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and 
     equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities, 
     including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans, 
     specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase 
     and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers; 
     and for provision of domestic and community sanitation 
     facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act 
     of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
     Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and 
     titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with 
     respect to environmental health and facilities support 
     activities of the Indian Health Service, $257,310,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated for the planning, design, construction or 
     renovation of health facilities for the benefit of an Indian 
     tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land for sites to 
     construct, improve, or enlarge health or related facilities.


            administrative provisions, indian health service

       Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service 
     shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109 but at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent 
     to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under 
     5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; 
     purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints; 
     purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and 
     renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms 
     or allowances therefore as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are 
     concerned with the functions or activities for which the 
     appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved 
     conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or 
     activities: Provided, That in accordance with the provisions 
     of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, non-Indian 
     patients may be extended health care at all tribally 
     administered or Indian Health Service facilities, subject to 
     charges, and the proceeds along with funds recovered under 
     the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651-53) 
     shall be credited to the account of the facility providing 
     the service and shall be available without fiscal year 
     limitation: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     law or regulation, funds transferred from the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service 
     shall be administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian 
     Sanitation Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated to the Indian 
     Health Service in this Act, except those used for 
     administrative and program direction purposes, shall not be 
     subject to limitations directed at curtailing Federal travel 
     and transportation: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, funds previously or herein made 
     available to a tribe or tribal organization through a 
     contract, grant, or agreement authorized by title I or title 
     III of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
     Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450), may be deobligated and 
     reobligated to a self-determination contract under title I, 
     or a self-governance agreement under title III of such Act 
     and thereafter shall remain available to the tribe or tribal 
     organization without fiscal year limitation: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available to the Indian 
     Health Service in this Act shall be used to implement the 
     final rule published in the Federal Register on September 16, 
     1987, by the Department of Health and Human Services, 
     relating to the eligibility for the health care services of 
     the Indian Health Service until the Indian Health Service has 
     submitted a budget request reflecting the increased costs 
     associated with the proposed final rule, and such request has 
     been included in an appropriations Act and enacted into law: 
     Provided further, That funds made available in this Act are 
     to be apportioned to the Indian Health Service as 
     appropriated in this Act, and accounted for in the 
     appropriation structure set forth in this Act: Provided 
     further, That funds received from any source, including 
     tribal contractors and compactors for previously transferred 
     functions which tribal contractors and compactors no longer 
     wish to retain, for services, goods, or training and 
     technical assistance, shall be retained by the Indian Health 
     Service and shall remain available until expended by the 
     Indian Health Service: Provided further, That reimbursements 
     for training, technical assistance, or services provided by 
     the Indian Health Service will contain total costs, including 
     direct, administrative, and overhead associated with the 
     provision of goods, services, or technical assistance: 
     Provided further, That the appropriation structure for the 
     Indian Health Service may not be altered without advance 
     approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.

                         OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

              Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531, 
     $18,345,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act 
     are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups 
     including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands 
     residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and 
     all others certified as eligible and not included in the 
     preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the 
     Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any 
     single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985, 
     was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi 
     Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such 
     household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be 
     provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided 
     further, That the Office shall relocate any certified 
     eligible relocatees who have selected and received an 
     approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a 
     replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the 
     land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.

    Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts 
                              Development


                        payment to the institute

       For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska 
     Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title 
     XV of Public Law 99-498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56, Part A), 
     $3,000,000.

                        Smithsonian Institution


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as 
     authorized by law, including research in the fields of art, 
     science, and history; development, preservation, and 
     documentation of the National Collections; presentation of 
     public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation, 
     dissemination, and exchange of information and publications; 
     conduct of education, training, and museum assistance 
     programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for 
     terms not to exceed thirty years), and protection of 
     buildings, facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 
     for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to 5 
     replacement passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for employees; $334,557,000, of which 
     not to exceed $32,718,000 for the instrumentation program, 
     collections acquisition, Museum Support Center equipment and 
     move, exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum of the 
     American Indian, the repatriation of skeletal remains 
     program, research equipment, information management, and 
     Latino programming shall remain available until expended, and 
     including such funds as may be necessary to support American 
     overseas research centers and a total of $125,000 for the 
     Council of American Overseas Research Centers: Provided, That 
     funds appropriated herein are available for advance payments 
     to independent contractors performing research services or 
     participating in official Smithsonian presentations.


        construction and improvements, national zoological park

       For necessary expenses of planning, construction, 
     remodeling, and equipping of buildings and facilities at the 
     National Zoological Park, by contract or otherwise, 
     $3,850,000, to remain available until expended.


                  repair and restoration of buildings

       For necessary expenses of repair and restoration of 
     buildings owned or occupied by the Smithsonian Institution, 
     by contract or otherwise, as authorized by section 2 of the 
     Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), including not to 
     exceed $10,000 for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $50,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That contracts awarded for environmental systems, protection 
     systems, and exterior repair or restoration of buildings of 
     the Smithsonian Institution may be negotiated with selected 
     contractors and awarded on the basis of contractor 
     qualifications as well as price.

                        National Gallery of Art


                         salaries and expenses

       For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of 
     Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and 
     administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by 
     the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the 
     public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9, 
     Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the 
     treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum, 
     and art associations or societies whose publications or 
     services are available to members only, or to members at a 
     price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 
     5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for 
     protecting buildings and contents

[[Page H5128]]

     thereof, and maintenance, alteration, improvement, and repair 
     of buildings, approaches, and grounds; and purchase of 
     services for restoration and repair of works of art for the 
     National Gallery of Art by contracts made, without 
     advertising, with individuals, firms, or organizations at 
     such rates or prices and under such terms and conditions as 
     the Gallery may deem proper, $55,837,000, of which not to 
     exceed $3,026,000 for the special exhibition program shall 
     remain available until expended.


            repair, restoration and renovation of buildings

       For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and 
     renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or 
     occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or 
     otherwise, as authorized, $6,442,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for 
     environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior 
     repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of 
     Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded 
     on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.

             John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts


                       operations and maintenance

       For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and 
     security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
     Arts, $11,375,000.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses for capital repair and 
     rehabilitation of the existing features of the building and 
     site of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, 
     $9,000,000, to remain available until expended.

            Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Woodrow Wilson International 
     Center for Scholars, $1,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill from pages 59, 
line 14, through page 76, line 7?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Miller of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, 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. 
2107) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

{time}  0028

                          ____________________