Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 100 (Tuesday, July 15, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 15, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5214-H5245]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2107.

{time} 1320

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 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. Calvert, Chairman pro tempore,
in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Friday, July 11, 1997, a request for a recorded vote on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] had been postponed and
the bill has been read through page 76, line 22.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I know some of my colleagues will be interested in the
schedule, so I might advise the body that it would be our intent to
finish the amendments this afternoon, whatever amount of time that
takes. We also have some limitations to debate. Then any votes will be
rolled until 5 o'clock. We presently have the vote on the National
Endowment for the Humanities pending, and I am sure there will be some
additional votes.
At 5 o'clock we will vote on the amendments, and then it is my
understanding from the leadership that they would like to vote on the
suspensions, and the Journal, and then we would hope to get to final
passage on the Interior bill some time around 8 o'clock tonight.
I might say to my colleagues I hope that in the intervening time this
afternoon that they will take the opportunity to look at the bill.
There are a lot of good features in this bill. I am pleased that we can
say we are a little under last year's amount, but at the same time we
have taken care of a lot of high priority items within the funds
provided in this bill.
It goes without saying we have dozens and dozens of Member projects
in this bill. We had 2,000 requests from Members for projects. Many of
them overlapped obviously. But we tried, as much as possible, to
prioritize these without regard to party, or to region, then simply
make the best judgment we could in light of the availability of
resources.
In terms of priorities, and I think this is very important, we added
$78 million to the National Parks; that is a $78 million increase over
last year, recognizing the pressures on the parks for visitations, to
manage those who would seek the opportunity to visit our parks and to
ensure that they have a positive experience.
We added $57 million for the National Forest System. We are getting
enormous pressure on the national forests. Most people do not realize
how important these lands are for the recreation users. And I have
repeated this fact many times, but it bears another statement, and that
is that the National Forest System has triple the visitor days of the
Park System. Why? Because it has available a multiplicity of uses: We
can hunt, we can fish, we can camp, we can bird watch, we can hike. In
some areas we can run an all terrain vehicle; some areas, a snowmobile,
a wide diversity of opportunities that are available in the national
forests.
And I think a very important point is that the national forests
provide an opportunity for family vacations, where the individual has
got a couple weeks, can either rent or own a camper, go into a national
forest and spend a couple of weeks with his or her family getting a
better understanding of our natural heritage.
The allowable timber cut in our national forests, which this
committee establishes as a cap, has been declining. In 1990 it was more
than 11 billion board feet. Today it is down to 3.8 billion board feet.
And I would also point out in conjunction with that that we are
growing each year 17 billion board feet, which means that we have a net
increase in board feet in our national forests of almost 14 billion
board feet.
Also, I think one of the good features in this bill is that we have
emphasized forest health. We have a forest health program to address
the problem of insects, of diseases, of the many things that create
problems for our national forests, and we have recognized also the
President's Northwest Forest Plan, which was the result of a compromise
that President Clinton and Vice President Gore worked out some years
ago, and we have supported that with significant dollars and language.

[[Page H5215]]

We often do not think of wildlife refuges necessarily in terms of
visitors, but they are vital to the preservation of this Nation's
wildlife resources. We have increased funding for the refugee system by
$42 million.
We have synificantly increased funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, $239 million, and I think there are many other good
features in this bill, and I hope that our colleagues will, all of
them, take a look at it between now and the time we go to final passage
and recognize that in supporting this they are supporting a very
responsible and a very productive approach to the challenges that
confront the Subcommittee on Interior.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gibbons.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an
amendment which amends a portion of the bill that has been previously
read for amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Gibbons:
On page 14, line 4 before the words ``water rights'' insert
surface''. On page 31, line 24 before the words ``water
rights'' insert ``surface''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the consideration of
the amendment en bloc to portions of the bill already passed in the
reading?
Mr. DICKS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, could the
gentleman explain to us what the amendment is about?
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, yes. To the gentleman from Washington, I
would be happy to explain.
This amendment simply is a small technical amendment which changes a
phrase on page 14, line 14, to add the word ``surface'' to ``water
rights,'' and let me explain by way of this.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department, the Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs are buying and acquiring water
rights in a specific location in the Lahontan Valley for the stillwater
wildlife and for preservation of an endangered species fish. They are
buying property with surface water rights attached to them so that they
can acquire the water right, then take away the water right and resell
the land.
The language in the bill itself provides that the Secretary cannot
sell any water rights attached to the land when he puts it back up for
resale after his acquisition, after taking the surface water rights
away. All we want to do is reassure the folks, and we have a letter
from the Secretary of the Interior to this effect, that he does not
object to this proposal, that what they are selling is not land without
any water. There are surface water rights and subsurface water rights.
What we are trying to do is preserve the right for the Department of
the Interior to sell land which has subsurface water rights like
wellwater so that land can be sold. In this area of Nevada land without
water is valueless.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have been assured that the Secretary of
the Interior has written a letter in support of this.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

{time} 1330

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Nevada?
There was no objection.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GIBBONS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
We would have no objection to a limited amendment for the purpose
described by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
I think this is an important sentence in the Department's letter. It
says, ``The Department will consult with the State and local
jurisdictions, including appropriate planning and regulatory agencies
and other interested persons, concerning the sale of such lands.'' We
have no objection. We think this is a good amendment and support it.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter of July
14, 1997, with regard to this matter:

The Secretary of the Interior,

Washington, July 14, 1997.
Hon. Ralph Regula,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Regula: Language was included in the fiscal year
1998 appropriations requests for the Department of the
Interior in two places to allow, generally, the sale of lands
and other real estate acquired incidental to the acquisition
of water rights in the Truckee and Carson River basins in
Nevada with the revenue from the sale to be deposited to the
Lahontan Valley and Pyramid Lake Fish and Wildlife Fund for
acquisition of additional water rights for purposes related
to the initial acquisitions (i.e., restoration of Lahontan
Valley wetlands and recovery of threatened and endangered
fish at Pyramid Lake). The two provisions, one for the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the other for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), use parallel language with minor
changes to correspond to the two separate water-right
acquisition programs authorized. Both sets of language stem
from the fact that a majority of water-right holders who want
to sell their irrigation water rights (and only purchases
from willing sellers are allowed) also want to sell the land
and other real estate interests that go with the water
rights. Except in limited circumstances, the Department of
the Interior does not want to retain the land and other
realty interests but rather wants to resell the land into the
local private market and apply the receipts to continuation
of the water-right acquisition programs.
I am advised that three questions have been raised with
regard to this language. This letter will address each of
those in turn:
1. A question has been raised as to whether the language in
the pending appropriations measure on page 14, line 4 for FWS
and page 31, line 24 for BIA allowing for the sale of land
and interests in land ``. . . other than water rights . . .''
means that rights to subsurface water could not be sold. Our
understanding is that the only water other than water-righted
surface water acquired has been water in domestic wells that
is not technically ``water-righted.'' In any case, it was not
the Department of the Interior's intent to transfer any
rights to these wells to the wetlands but, rather, to sell
the domestic wells along with the land and other incidental
real property. A suggestion has been made that the intent be
clarified by adding the word ``surface'' before ``water
rights'' in the language for both bureaus. The Department of
the Interior would have no objection to a limited amendment
for that purpose.
2. A question has also been raised as to whether the
revenue from the sale of lands and interests in lands, other
than surface water rights, will be used exclusively for
acquisition of water rights tied to the original purpose of
the initial acquisition. In other words, will revenue from
the sale of lands acquired incidental to acquiring water
rights for the Truckee River Water Quality Settlement be used
exclusively for further acquisition of water rights to carry
out the Settlement and, similarly, will such revenue from the
sale of lands acquired incidental to acquiring water rights
for the wetlands be used exclusively for water rights
acquisition for the wetlands. The Department's intent is that
the revenues be used exclusively for acquisitions related to
the purpose of the original acquisitions. Accordingly, both
bureaus will be advised to use their respective revenues
exclusively in accord with this intent.
3. A question has also been raised as to whether the
Department of the Interior would consult with the State of
Nevada and units of local government with regard to the sale
of lands and interests in lands under the proposed
provisions. Extensive consultation has taken place previously
with the state and with local jurisdictions regarding the
purchase of lands under the wetlands restoration and
endangered species recovery programs. In implementing these
sale provisions, the Department will consult with the state
and local jurisdictions, including appropriate planning and
regulatory agencies, and other interested persons concerning
the sale of such lands.
Sincerely,
Bruce Babbett.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

matching grants

To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of
1965, as amended, $13,900,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $8,000,000 shall be available to the
National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of
section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be
available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal
to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of
money, and other property accepted by the Chairman or by
grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections
11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding
fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been
appropriated.

[[Page H5216]]

Institute of Museum and Library Services

Office of Museum Services

grants and administration

For carrying out Subtitle C of the Museum and Library
Services Act of 1996, $23,390,000, to remain available until
expended.

administrative provisions

None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any
grant or contract documents which do not include the text of
18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may
be used for official reception and representation expenses.

Commission of Fine Arts

salaries and expenses

For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a
Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $907,000.

national capital arts and cultural affairs

For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190
(20 U.S.C. 956(a)), as amended, $6,000,000.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $2,700,000:
Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for the
compensation of Executive Level V or higher positions.

National Capital Planning Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National
Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C. 71-71i), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $5,700,000:
Provided, That all appointed members will be compensated at a
rate not to exceed the rate for Executive Schedule Level IV:
Provided further, That beginning in fiscal year 1998 and
thereafter, the Commission is authorized to charge fees to
cover the full costs of Geographic Information System
products and services supplied by the Commission, and such
fees shall be credited to this account as an offsetting
collection, to remain available until expended.

United States Holocaust Memorial Council

holocaust memorial council

For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Council, as
authorized by Public Law 96-388 (36 U.S.C. 1401), as amended,
$31,707,000 of which $1,575,000 for the Museum's repair and
rehabilitation program and $1,264,000 for the Museum's
exhibitions program shall remain available until expended.

TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 302. No part of any appropriation under this Act shall
be available to the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Agriculture for the leasing of oil and natural
gas by noncompetitive bidding on publicly owned lands within
the boundaries of the Shawnee National Forest, Illinois:
Provided, That nothing herein is intended to inhibit or
otherwise affect the sale, lease, or right to access to
minerals owned by private individuals.
Sec. 303. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or
distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote
public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on
which congressional action is not complete.
Sec. 304. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 305. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency shall be obligated or expended to
provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal
servants to any officer or employee of such department or
agency except as otherwise provided by law.
Sec. 306. No assessments may be levied against any program,
budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by this Act
unless advance notice of such assessments and the basis
therefor are presented to the Committees on Appropriations
and are approved by such Committees.
Sec. 307. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of
the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an
entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds
the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act
of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the
``Buy American Act'').
(b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
(1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In
the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided using
funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the
Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in
expending the assistance, purchase only American-made
equipment and products.
(2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing
financial assistance using funds made available in this Act,
the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each
recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement
made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 308. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified
as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located
on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands
in a manner different than such sales were conducted in
fiscal year 1995.
Sec. 309. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated or expended by the National Park Service to
enter into or implement a concession contract which permits
or requires the removal of the underground lunchroom at the
Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
Sec. 310. Beginning in fiscal year 1998 and thereafter,
where the actual costs of construction projects under self-
determination contracts, compacts, or grants, pursuant to
Public Laws 93-638, 103-413, or 100-297, are less than the
estimated costs thereof, use of the resulting excess funds
shall be determined by the appropriate Secretary after
consultation with the tribes.
Sec. 311. Notwithstanding Public Law 103-413, quarterly
payments of funds to tribes and tribal organizations under
annual funding agreements pursuant to section 108 of Public
Law 93-638, as amended, beginning in fiscal year 1998 and
therafter, may be made on the first business day following
the first day of a fiscal quarter.
Sec. 312. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for the AmeriCorps program,
unless the relevant agencies of the Department of the
Interior and/or Agriculture follow appropriate reprogramming
guidelines: Provided, That if no funds are provided for the
AmeriCorps program by the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies
fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill, then none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be
used for the AmeriCorps programs.
Sec. 313. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used (1) to demolish the bridge between Jersey City, New
Jersey, and Ellis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian use of
such bridge, when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such
pedestrian use is consistent with generally accepted safety
standards.
Sec. 314. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or
expended to accept or process applications for a patent for
any mining or mill site claim located under the general
mining laws.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply if
the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for the claim
concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with the
Secretary on or before September 30, 1994, and (2) all
requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the
Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode
claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised
Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and
section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill
site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by
the applicant by that date.
(c) On September 30, 1998, the Secretary of the Interior
shall file with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the United States Senate a report on actions
taken by the Department under the plan submitted pursuant to
section 314(c) of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
(d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent
applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the
request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior
shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party
contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to
conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill
sites contained in a patent application as set forth in
subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the
sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party
contractor in accordance with the standard procedures
employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of
third-party contractors.
Sec. 315. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for the purposes of
acquiring lands in the counties of Gallia, Lawrence, Monroe,
or Washington, Ohio, for the Wayne National Forest.
Sec. 316. None of the funds available to the Department of
the Interior or the Department of Agriculture by this or any
other Act

[[Page H5217]]

may be used to prepare, promulgate, implement, or enforce any
interim or final rule or regulation pursuant to Title VIII of
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to assert
jurisdiction, management, or control over any waters (other
than non-navigable waters on Federal lands), non-Federal
lands, or lands selected by, but not conveyed to, the State
of Alaska pursuant to the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 or the
Alaska Statehood Act, or an Alaska Native Corporation
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
Sec. 317. No funds appropriated under this or any other Act
shall be used to review or modify sourcing areas previously
approved under section 490(c)(3) of the Forest Resources
Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-
382) or to enforce or implement Federal regulations 36 CFR
part 223 promulgated on September 8, 1995. The regulations
and interim rules in effect prior to September 8, 1995 (36
CFR 223.48, 36 CFR 223.87, 36 CFR 223 subpart D, 36 CFR 223
subpart F, and 36 CFR 261.6) shall remain in effect. The
Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior
shall not adopt any policies concerning Public Law 101-382 or
existing regulations that would restrain domestic
transportation or processing of timber from private lands or
impose additional accountability requirements on any timber.
The Secretary of Commerce shall extend until September 30,
1998, the order issued under section 491(b)(2)(A) of Public
Law 101-382 and shall issue an order under section
491(b)(2)(B) of such law that will be effective October 1,
1998.
Sec. 318. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be expended or obligated to fund the activities of
the western director and special assistant to the Secretary
within the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Sec. 319. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
fiscal year 1998 the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior
are authorized to limit competition for watershed restoration
project contracts as part of the ``Jobs in the Woods''
component of the President's Forest Plan for the Pacific
Northwest to individuals and entities in historically timber-
dependent areas in the States of Washington, Oregon, and
northern California that have been affected by reduced timber
harvesting on Federal lands.
Sec. 320. Section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134 is amended
as follows: Under the heading ``TITLE III--GENERAL
PROVISIONS'' amend section 315(c)(1), subsections (A) and (B)
by striking each of those subsections and inserting in lieu
thereof:
``(A) Eighty percent to a special account in the Treasury
for use without further appropriation, by the agency which
administers the site, to remain available for expenditure in
accordance with paragraph (2)(A).
``(B) Twenty percent to a special account in the Treasury
for use without further appropriation, by the agency which
administers the site, to remain available for expenditure in
accordance with paragraph (2)(B).''
Sec. 321. None of the funds collected under the
Recreational Fee Demonstration program may be used to plan,
design, or construct a visitor center or any other permanent
structure without prior approval of the House and the Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 322. Section 303(d)(1) of Public Law 96-451 (16 U.S.C.
1606a(d)(1)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon the
following: ``and other forest stand improvement activities to
enhance forest health and reduce hazardous fuel loads of
forest stands in the National Forest System''.
Sec. 323. The Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, in
their conducting the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project, including both the Eastside Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and the Upper Columbia River
Basin Ecosystem Management Strategy Draft Environmental
Impact Statement as described in a Federal Register notice on
January 15, 1997 (Vol. 62, No. 10, page 2176) (hereinafter
``Project''), shall analyze the economic and social
conditions, and culture and customs of communities at the
sub-basin level of analysis within the project area to the
extent practicable and delineate the impacts the alternatives
will have on the communities in the 164 sub-basins. The
project managers shall release this more thorough analysis
for public review as an addition to the draft environmental
impact statements for the project, and incorporate this
analysis and public comments to this analysis in any final
environmental impact statements and record of decisions
generated by the project.
Sec. 324. Notwithstanding section 904(b) of Public Law 104-
333, hereafter, the Heritage Area established under section
904 of title IX of division II of Public Law 104-333 shall
include any portion of a city, town, or village within an
area specified in section 904(b)(2) of that Act only to the
extent that the government of the city, town, or village, in
a resolution of the governing board or council, agrees to be
included and submits the resolution to the Secretary of the
Interior and the management entities for the Heritage Area
and to the extent such resolution is not subsequently revoked
in the same manner.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Crapo

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Crapo:
Page 89, after line 15, insert the following new title:

TITLE IV--DEFICIT REDUCTION LOCK-BOX

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Deficit Reduction Lock-box
Act of 1997''.

SEC. 402. DEFICIT REDUCTION LOCK-BOX LEDGER.

(a) Establishment of Ledger.--Title III of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the
end the following new section:

``DEFICIT REDUCTION LOCK-BOX LEDGER

``Sec. 314. (a) Establishment of Ledger.--The Director of
the Congressional Budget Office (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the `Director') shall maintain a ledger to be
known as the `Deficit Reduction Lock-box Ledger'. The Ledger
shall be divided into entries corresponding to the
subcommittees of the Committees on Appropriations. Each entry
shall consist of three parts: the `House Lock-box Balance';
the `Senate Lock-box Balance'; and the `Joint House-Senate
Lock-box Balance'.
``(b) Components of Ledger.--Each component in an entry
shall consist only of amounts credited to it under subsection
(c). No entry of a negative amount shall be made.
``(c) Credit of Amounts to Ledger.--(1) The Director shall,
upon the engrossment of any appropriation bill by the House
of Representatives and upon the engrossment of that bill by
the Senate, credit to the applicable entry balance of that
House amounts of new budget authority and outlays equal to
the net amounts of reductions in new budget authority and in
outlays resulting from amendments agreed to by that House to
that bill.
``(2) The Director shall, upon the engrossment of Senate
amendments to any appropriation bill, credit to the
applicable Joint House-Senate Lock-box Balance the amounts of
new budget authority and outlays equal to--
``(A) an amount equal to one-half of the sum of (i) the
amount of new budget authority in the House Lock-box Balance
plus (ii) the amount of new budget authority in the Senate
Lock-box Balance for that bill; and
``(B) an amount equal to one-half of the sum of (i) the
amount of outlays in the House Lock-box Balance plus (ii) the
amount of outlays in the Senate Lock-box Balance for that
bill.
``(3) Calculation of Lock-Box Savings in Senate.--For
purposes of calculating under this section the net amounts of
reductions in new budget authority and in outlays resulting
from amendments agreed to by the Senate on an appropriation
bill, the amendments reported to the Senate by its Committee
on Appropriations shall be considered to be part of the
original text of the bill.
``(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
'appropriation bill' means any general or special
appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making
supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations
through the end of a fiscal year.''.
``(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set
forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 314. Deficit reduction lock-box ledger.''.

SEC. 403. TALLY DURING HOUSE CONSIDERATION.

There shall be available to Members in the House of
Representatives during consideration of any appropriations
bill by the House a running tally of the amendments adopted
reflecting increases and decreases of budget authority in the
bill as reported.

SEC. 404. DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT OF 602(A) ALLOCATIONS AND
SECTION 602(B) SUBALLOCATIONS.

(a) Allocations.--Section 602(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(5) Upon the engrossment of Senate amendments to any
appropriation bill (as defined in section 314(d)) for a
fiscal year, the amounts allocated under paragraph (1) or (2)
to the Committee on Appropriations of each House upon the
adoption of the most recent concurrent resolution on the
budget for that fiscal year shall be adjusted downward by the
amounts credited to the applicable Joint House-Senate Lock-
box Balance under section 314(c)(2). The revised levels of
budget authority and outlays shall be submitted to each House
by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of that House
and shall be printed in the Congressional Record.''.
(b) Suballocations.--Section 602(b)(1) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``Whenever an adjustment is made
under subsection (a)(5) to an allocation under that
subsection, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
of each House shall make downward adjustments in the most
recent suballocations of new budget authority and outlays
under subparagraph (A) to the appropriate subcommittees of
that committee in the total amounts of those adjustments
under section 314(c)(2). The revised suballocations shall be
submitted to each House by the Chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations of that House and shall be printed in the
Congressional Record.''.

[[Page H5218]]

SEC. 405. PERIODIC REPORTING OF LEDGER STATEMENTS.

Section 308(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Such reports shall also include an up-to-date tabulation of
the amounts contained in the ledger and each entry
established by section 314(a).''.

SEC. 406. DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
LIMITS.

The discretionary spending limits for new budget authority
and outlays for any fiscal year set forth in section
601(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1997, as
adjusted in strict conformance with section 251 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
shall be reduced by the amounts set forth in the final
regular appropriation bill for that fiscal year or joint
resolution making continuing appropriations through the end
of that fiscal year. Those amounts shall be the sums of the
Joint House-Senate Lock-box Balances for that fiscal year, as
calculated under section 602(a)(5) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974. That bill or joint resolution shall
contain the following statement of law: ``As required by
section 406 of the Deficit Reduction Lock-box Act of 1997,
for fiscal year [insert appropriate fiscal year] and each
outyear, the adjusted discretionary spending limit for new
budget authority shall be reduced by $ [insert appropriate
amount of reduction] and the adjusted discretionary limit for
outlays shall be reduced by $ [insert appropriate amount of
reduction] for the budget year and each outyear.''
Notwithstanding section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, section 306 of that Act as it applies to this
statement shall be waived. This adjustment shall be reflected
in reports under sections 254(g) and 254(h) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

SEC. 407. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--This title shall apply to all
appropriation bills making appropriations for fiscal year
1998 or any subsequent fiscal year.
(b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
``appropriation bill'' means any general or special
appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making
supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations
through the end of a fiscal year.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 181, the
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] and a Member opposed each will control
10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are here, I think for the fourth time, to debate the
critical lockbox legislation which will correct one of the more
significant problems in our current budgetary process.
Before I describe this legislation, the amendment, I want to first of
all give thanks to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] and the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] who both have, because of
their schedules, been unable to be here on the floor today but are
strong supporters and have been with us from the outset in fighting to
make sure this critical legislation makes it not only to the floor once
again, but ultimately becomes law.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] has been a tireless fighter
for deficit reduction, and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman]
has been with us from the outset, showing this is a strong bipartisan
effort to correct a serious problem in the budget process we have.
What is that problem? I indicated earlier, this is the fourth time we
have brought this legislation before the House. Each time it has passed
resoundingly, with votes well in excess of 300 votes. The problem that
has been addressed, and hopefully one of these times we will be able to
make it through not only the House but through the conference committee
and send it to the President for his signature, which we expect would
be forthcoming, the problem is simply this: As we put together our
budgets each year and as we debate and vote on motions to restrict
spending, cut spending, or eliminate spending on various programs or
projects, all that happens when we succeed in paring back the budget in
those votes is that the funding for those projects becomes free and
available to be shifted into other spending. It does not necessarily go
to deficit reduction, and in most cases does not go to deficit
reduction.
This bill would be very simple, but is very needed. It would require
that when the House and the Senate both make the same cuts, so that
both the House and Senate have agreed to eliminate spending in a
particular program or project area, that those cuts go into a lockbox,
and in conference those funds cannot then be siphoned off or moved into
other spending. They must be dedicated to deficit reduction.
If there are different amounts between the House and Senate, the
conference committee has the freedom to decide a figure between the two
amounts, but the conference committee is required to allocate those
funding reductions to the deficit.
Mr. Chairman, some Members have said, well, why not allow us, if we
want to make a cut or a reduction in spending, to designate that to
some other program if we so choose? This legislation allows that. It
simply says that if Members want to shift spending instead of cut
spending, then they have to say so in their amendment. If they do not
say so, then we assume, as most debate assumes, that the cuts or the
reductions are specified for deficit reduction. I think it is a very
valuable amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have no problem on this side with the
amendment. We are prepared to accept it.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure I understand the gentleman's
amendment fully. As we pass this bill and the Senate passes its bill
and we agree on a reduction, the gentleman's amendment would require
that we cannot use that money of the reduced amount for any other
program. Is that a correct interpretation?
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is a correct interpretation, with
this explanation. If the Member bringing the amendment wants the
funding to be utilized in another program, he can easily do so in the
amendment. But most of the time when we debate these matters, they are
debated as though they were budget issues and we are reducing
unnecessary spending. This amendment says if we do not designate it to
another spending source, then the conference committee is not allowed
to redesignate it to another source. It is designated to the deficit.
Mr. YATES. If I understand the purpose of the amendment, it is to
reduce the deficit. Is that correct?
Mr. CRAPO. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. YATES. Why, then, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, is his
party advocating the tax reduction bill? Will that not increase the
deficit?
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, because as he
knows, we have a strong difference of opinion on both sides of the
aisle with regard to tax reduction and what impacts it will have on
revenue.
Take, for example, the capital gains tax reduction. Many of us
believe very strongly that that tax cut is going to actually free up
and stimulate the economy sufficiently to generate more tax revenue.
The bottom line is that the tax debate is not this debate, and although
many of us support tax cuts, we also support a good fiscal control over
the spending habits of this Congress. That is what this amendment would
address.
Mr. YATES. Personally, Mr. Chairman, I support neither tax cut, and I
support reducing the deficit.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by my friend Mike Crapo to add the bipartisan deficit reduction
lockbox amendment to the 1998 Interior appropriations bill.
As the lead Democratic sponsor of the Crapo-Harman deficit reduction
lockbox bill, H.R. 126, I also want to thank the Rules Committee and,
in particular, its chairman, Jerry Solomon, for making the request by
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Foley, and me in order.
Deficit hawks--listen up. As the mother of the deficit reduction
lockbox, passage of this amendment is imperative now--at the front-end
of the appropriations process, or we will again mislead our
constituents who think a cut means a cut when, in fact, a cut in one
spending program is reallocated to another bill's spending program.
The House has on three occasions overwhelmingly passed the deficit
reduction

[[Page H5219]]

lockbox, twice as amendments to appropriations bills and once as a
free-standing bill, H.R. 1162. Regrettably, the other body failed to
match our efforts and the measures died with the adjournment of the
104th Congress.
Mr. Chairman, the deficit reduction lockbox is a very simple
mechanism. When Members vote for floor amendments to cut spending,
under current budget rules, the savings generated can later be
earmarked and spent by the Appropriations Committee on other programs.
With the enactment of the lockbox, a separate account is created in
each appropriation bill into which savings from cutting amendments are
deposited. Those savings cannot be respent or reused by the
Appropriations Committee.
During the fiscal 1997 appropriations process, the House adopted
floor amendments cutting nearly $1 billion in spending. That billion
dollars could have been locked for deficit reduction as the proponents
of the amendments intended.
A table prepared at my request by the Congressional Research Service
shows that $40 million in energy and water cuts ware reprogrammed, $543
million in national security cuts were reprogrammed, and $349 million
in VA-HUD cuts were reprogrammed.
Mr. Chairman, without lockbox, more than large sums of money are at
stake. So are our reputations. As the Rules Committee said in its
report accompanying last year's lockbox bill:

Not only is (the Lock-box) important for fiscal
accountability, but it is also important to the credibility
of the Congress with the American people. The Committee
strongly believes that our procedures should make it clear
that a cut is really a cut . . . (and the Lock-box) . . .
meets this requirement.

The lockbox is supported by a broad bipartisan group of deficit hawks
both here in the House and among the public. Fiscal watchdog groups
like Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, the
National Taxpayers Union, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Concord
Coalition and Citizens for a Sound Economy have strongly endorsed this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, show me--and our constituents--the money. Vote for the
Crapo-Harman-Foley deficit reduction lockbox amendment to the Interior
Appropriations Act so we can get it into conference with the Senate.

Table 1. Total savings of House adopted amendments reducing budget
authority, by FY 1997 regular appropriations bill

[In millions of dollars]

Bill Amount
Agriculture..............................................(¹)
Commerce-Justice-State...................................(¹)
District of Columbia.....................................(¹)
Energy and Water Development....................................$40.573
Foreign Operations................................................2.525
Interior.................................................(¹)
Labor-Health and Human Services-Education................(¹)
Legislative Branch.......................................(¹)
Military Construction....................................(¹)
National Security..................................² 543.000
Transportation...........................................(¹)
Treasury-Postal Service..............................³ 2.000
Veterans' Affairs-Housing and Urban Development....⁴ 349.000
__________

Total....................................................$937.098

\1\ The House did not adopt any amendments to this bill reducing budget
authority.
\2\ Most of the reduction of appropriations ($508 million) was
contained in the floor manager's amendment to comply with the recently
adopted 602(b) spending ceilings.
\3\ The House adopted an amendment denying an FY 1997 cost-of-living
allowance for Members of Congress, senior executive branch officials,
and Federal judges. An accurate estimate of the amount of the savings
from the amendment was excluded from Table 1. The amount provided for
the Treasury-Postal Service bill in Table 1 represents the total
savings from the only amendment adopted that reduced a specific amount
of budget authority, $2 million.
\4\ The House adopted two amendments. Each amendment increased budget
authority for certain activities and decreased budget authority for
other activities. However, the net effect of each amendment was a
reduction in budget authority.

Sources: Congressional Records, vol. 142, 1996; and each of the 13 FY
1997 regular appropriations bill (House Appropriations Committee's
reported version).

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, the deficit reduction lockbox is an idea
that, when adopted, will genuinely lower our Nation's deficit and
benefit every American's pocketbook.
Had the lockbox been in place during the appropriations process last
year we would have saved the taxpayer almost $1 billion.
I expect you'll see Mr. Crapo, Ms. Harman, and myself a few more
times this year unless this measure is permanently adopted.
As Members of Congress, we work hard and round up the votes to
eliminate unnecessary spending only to have the savings swept away by
another Member and utilized for their pet project.
This institution has played that kind of shell-and-pea game in the
appropriations process for years--we shift money from shell to shell
with such speed and agility that our baffled constituents soon lose
track of the funds.
They have a right to know that a cut is a cut and we have a right to
expect our hard work toward reducing the deficit will amount to
something more than a bank account to finance pork-barrel spending.
Simply put, this amendment will guarantee that the spending cuts
approved in this appropriations bill would be designated for deficit
reduction.
Our national debt isn't going away any time soon, but a small step
like this is at least a step in the right direction to reduce it.
We should close this legislative loophole.
We have to get serious about deficit reduction and fulfill the pledge
we made to our constituents to reduce the debt our children will
ultimately be responsible for.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Idaho
yielding me time and I rise in strong support of his Lockbox amendment.
I want to also commend him for his leadership and persistence in this
effort.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a new concept--the House overwhelmingly
voted three times in support of the Lockbox. The proposal, originally
introduced by Mr. Crapo, went through a thorough vetting process in the
Rules Committee during the 104th Congress. We worked hard to smooth the
rough edges and resolve the various technical problems. The end result
is the proposal before us--and I am proud to have played a part in
getting us to this point. The Lockbox simply makes sense. In the real
world, when you say you are going to spend less money, you should spend
less money. Only in Washington can you say you are cutting spending and
then allow the money to mysteriously reappear for spending somewhere
else. It is disingenuous; it hurts the taxpayer; and it contributes to
the cynical popular view of this body. The idea is simple--create a
deficit reduction account to ensure that hard fought spending cuts are
realized. When the House votes to save money--the Lockbox mechanism
ensures that the money will truly be saved. Simple though it seems, we
have had some resistance to this idea in the other body and I urge the
``mothers'' and ``fathers'' of the Lockbox in the House to continue to
press our friends over there to look favorably on this proposal. On the
larger subject of reforming our budget process, as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, I am continuing to work
with Chairman Solomon, Chairman Kasich, and other interested members to
develop a more rational and understandable approach to how we spend the
Nation's money and enforce our commitments to balance the Federal
books.
In the interim, this is a good amendment and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Idaho, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote, and
pending that I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 181, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr.
Crapo] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Are there further amendments?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to transfer any land
into trust under section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act
(25 U.S.C. 465), or any other Federal statute that does not
explicitly denominate and identify a specific tribe or
specific property, except when it is made known to the
Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such
funds that--
(1) a binding agreement is in place between the tribe that
will have jurisdiction over the land to be taken into trust
and the appropriate State and local officials; and
(2) such agreement provides, for as long as the land is
held in trust, for the collection and payment, by any retail
establishment located on the land to be taken into trust, of
State and local sales and excise taxes, including any special
tax on motor fuel, tobacco, or alcohol, on any retail item
sold to any nonmember of the tribe for which the land is held
in trust, or an agreed upon payment in lieu of such taxes.

[[Page H5220]]

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that total debate on the
amendment be limited to 30 minutes, equally divided, 15 minutes per
side.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I object to the limitation of time on this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.

{time} 1345

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman offer what was known as
amendment No. 2? I was not clear. I had an amendment that I thought he
was offering and when it got read, it was something different.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, this is Istook-Visclosky, which is the
Indian amendment, so-called.

Point of Order

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, I rise to a point of
order against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Since there has been no recognition for
debate the gentleman is timely and will state his point of order.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against this
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and therefore
violates clause 2 of House rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part,
``no amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if
changing existing law.''
The amendment first gives affirmative direction, in effect. Second,
it imposes additional duties. Third, it modifies existing powers and
duties. And fourth, it modifies existing law.
The Istook-Visclosky amendment prohibits the Secretary of the
Interior from taking land into trust for an Indian tribal government
unless the tribe negotiates a binding agreement with State and local
governments for collection and payment of State and local sales and
excise taxes on retail purchases made on that land by nontribal
members. The amendment also applies similar restrictions on the
Secretary's authority to take land into trust for individual Indians.
The Istook-Visclosky amendment constitutes a violation of clause 2 of
House rule XXI, and I would ask that the Chair give a ruling on this
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Istook] wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would note this is the identical
amendment that was offered and withstood a point of order last year on
the House floor and was enacted by this House 212 to 206.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr.
Kennedy] wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would like to second the
Parliamentarian's request that we review this amendment and concur with
the gentleman from Arizona that this amendment is not in proper order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Yates] wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I raise the same point of order that was
raised by the gentleman from Arizona and cite the same reason; namely,
that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore out of
order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXI, as amended in the 105th
Congress, an amendment to a general appropriation bill changing
existing law is defined to include an amendment making the availability
of funds contingent upon the receipt or possession of information not
required by existing law for the period of the appropriation.
Precedents to the contrary from prior Congresses are no longer
dispositive. The amendment thus constitutes legislation and is in
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, for clarification may I inquire of the
Chair, is it correct that the point of order is sustained even though
the amendment is the same as last year because of a revision in the
House rules from last year to this year?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
Page 89, after line 15, insert the following new section:
Sec. 325. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to carry out the provisions of section 5 of the Act
of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465; commonly known as the
``Indian Reorganization Act''), or the first section of the
Act of June 26, 1936 (25 U.S.C. 501 et seq.), to acquire,
through relinquishment, gift, exchange, or assignment, any
interest in lands or surface rights to lands, outside of
existing Indian reservations.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would note this amendment is offered on
behalf of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] and myself, and
again I ask unanimous consent that total debate on this amendment be
limited to 30 minutes, to be divided equally 15 minutes per side.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I will speak from the well on this.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered to address the same problem
that this House addressed last year by a vote of 212 to 206. It is
based upon a very simple principle. All people should be equal in the
eyes of the law. We should not say that some person should be entitled
to evade their taxes because they make a purchase at a place that does
not wish to follow the law and does not collect taxes that are due on
certain commodities. Usually it happens to be fuel, gasoline, diesel
for automobiles. It is cigarettes. It is alcohol. It is other items
that are purchased that normally have a sales tax.
Mr. Chairman, about $1 billion a year that is supposed to go to State
and local governments to support roads, to pay for schools, to pay for
hospitals, to pay for public health and public safety is being evaded
with the complicity of the Federal Government. Why? Because the Bureau
of Indian Affairs is transferring land at the request of Indian tribes
to what is called tribal trust status, which makes it Federal
Government property operated by an Indian tribe which has gotten this
land not because it is part of their historic property, not because it
is any land that had special significance. It may not even be in the
same State where the tribe has ever been. It may be hundreds of miles
away from any other tribal property.
But it is in a prime location for traffic, and they erect there
convenience stores and gasoline stations to take advantage of their
failure to collect the taxes because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled
that although taxes are due on the transactions, on the sales to
nonmembers of the tribes, they have not granted the States an
enforcement mechanism, and that is up to Congress. The tribes have no
sovereign immunity, the Supreme Court says, but Congress has not acted.
Mr. Chairman, if you could buy your gasoline at two locations and one
is being operated by an Indian tribe which refuses to help collect the
tax and the other operated by someone else, you will find that on
average it is 26 cents a gallon less if you go to the one where the
tribe is assisting the tax evasion. If you are buying a pack of
cigarettes, on average around this country it is 41 cents a pack less
on a purchase of cigarettes. No wonder a person that is trying to play
fair and live by the rules and obey the law, that is trying to compete,
finds that they cannot because the Federal Government is helping them
to acquire the prime real estate locations with no relation to Indian
tradition or custom or heritage but with only one thought in mind: They
want the extra money.
It is huge. New York State estimates they are losing over $100
million a year already, and my State of Oklahoma, the total loss is in
the vicinity of $30 to $40 million a year already and it is
accelerating year after year after year.
This amendment very simply says we are going to have a moratorium on
that sort of thing until we can get a handle on it, until we can
reinstate the principle of fair play.

[[Page H5221]]

Mr. Chairman, if you look at some of the advertisements that they run
in newspapers, grand opening, for example, of this particular facility
in Oklahoma in this newspaper ad, they were not charging the tax on
cigarettes. The U.S. Supreme Court says the purchaser, for example,
still owes the tax, but they are not helping collect it as all other
merchants are required to do by law. They do not collect it on beer, on
gasoline.
No wonder legitimate operators find that they cannot compete. No
wonder that people from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or the National
Federation of Retailers, or Governors of State after State, or the
National League of Cities and the National Association of Governors
have all said we need this legislation.
The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] and I have sponsored House
bill 1168 which puts in place the protective mechanism. We have even
been denied a hearing so we have to come with this amendment to try to
work on the travesty, on the tax evasion. That is what it is, pure and
simple, do not take my word for it. Take the word of the U.S. Supreme
Court that has said that is what is at issue. It is tax evasion which
is illegal.
Mr. Chairman, the adoption of this amendment is simply a fair play
amendment. It is saying that the U.S. Government will no longer be a
party to the widespread tax evasion that not only is taking honest
people who try to compete and putting them out of business, but it is
draining the resources and the opportunities in State and local
government.
I ask adoption of the amendment.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there is one basic fallacy in the argument of the
gentleman from Oklahoma, and that is to equate Indian tribes with
individual people. Indian tribes are sovereign nations. They are
entitled to make the laws that they want to with respect to their trust
lands. If they do want to sell merchandise and not charge State taxes,
they can do that.
It is true that they find themselves in a favorable position as
against other merchants who have to charge taxes, but the same rule is
applicable to other States in the Union. There is no reason why the
gentleman should not make the same attack for the States surrounding
the State of Oklahoma because they, too, have the right to charge
whatever taxes they want to charge. If they choose not to charge any
taxes, that is their right as well. Indian tribes have been recognized
as having those powers.
The Department of the Interior strongly opposes this measure. It
would infringe upon tribal sovereignty. It would impede the 60-year
Federal policy of promoting tribal economic self-governing. On this
appropriation subcommittee over the years we have tried to formulate
procedures that will permit the Indian tribes to benefit and to foster
their self-government. This would abolish all recognition of that kind.
It would say that the Indian tribes are no different than any other
American people and, as a matter of fact, that they are not States.
They have been recognized as States by the courts.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is an invasion of Indian sovereignty, and the
Indians have suffered enough over the years. This is another attack
upon their right to self-sufficiency and to self-government. I urge
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support and concur with the
remarks of my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], the
ranking member.
Furthermore, this amendment has nothing to do with the tax structure
that exists. It makes a direct attack on trust lands. The fact is in my
home State of Minnesota the native American groups have often lost much
of the land that was trusted to them, ceded to them under treaties.
This would put a moratorium on any type of action that might take place
with regard to acquiring the lands that they initially had or other
lands that would provide for a reservation or the economic viability of
those reservation the native American people. This is a mean-spirited
amendment.
As far as that goes, the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois
is exactly right. We have South Dakota advertising that they offer
various tax benefits, so this goes on quite regularly. It is true that
many of these native American groups do of course impose taxes or other
means of raising money from various sources, except it goes back to
that native American group. In fact, they at times agree to collect a
portion of the sales tax or all of the sales tax. The native American
groups provide law enforcement. They make many contributions on a
voluntary basis.
The fact is that this amendment is an argument over power. This is an
argument over the basic sovereign power of these independent Native
American groups. That is what this amendment represents. The fact is
that there are more of us than there are of these minority group native
Americans today, but the fact is that we have made a commitment, a
series of treaties, to respect the dignity, the governance, the
culture, the lifestyle of native American groups.
I think finally now, with some of the activities that are going
forward within the law, obviously, there is a means to address and
redress these problems; that is, to sit down at a negotiating table, as
many States have done, and deal with compacts; to come to an agreement
with the native American groups just as States do with one another.

{time} 1400

We need to learn to live with the type of pluralism that is present
in our Nation. That is the epitome of what this Nation is about. It is
such pluralism that defines us, and it is high time we recognize the
same.
These various groups that I've heard listed in favor of the Istook
amendment, supposedly the defenders of the free enterprise system,
ironically are very anxious to eliminate the competition to their
ventures and to their profit.
That is what this particular amendment is targeted to, but on the
face of it it stops in place the trust transfers of native American
lands. That is wrong, it should be avoided, we should not let that go
forward. This is an amendment that is trying to do something indirectly
that it cannot address directly. They should directly address the
native American sovereignty, which all of us have worked for. Is it
perfect? No, but we will not get there by pulling the rug out from
under the credibility of the U.S. Government commitments and treaty
obligations, defeat this amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I do
rise in opposition to this amendment.
I cannot help but remember the very bitter and contentious debate we
had on a similar amendment during floor consideration of last year's
Interior appropriations bill. As some here may recall, that amendment
was adopted by a very narrow six-vote margin. What happened after that,
well, we know it was stripped from the bill after the administration
objected to its inclusion.
Things have not changed this year. Let me quote from Secretary
Babbitt's letter to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] about
this particular amendment:

The Department of the Interior strongly opposes ``this
measure'' because it would infringe upon tribal sovereignty,
thwart the longstanding Federal policy of promoting tribal
economic self-sufficiency, and undermine ongoing efforts of
tribes and States to negotiate joint taxation agreements to
accommodate the needs of both parties.

It is clear that the administration opposes this, but, Mr. Chairman,
we should oppose it in the House of Representatives. Members on both
sides of the aisle ought to oppose it. Very simply put, this is bad
public policy.
The Member offering the amendment, and I have the greatest respect
for the gentleman from Oklahoma, but he talked a lot about tax evasion.
And yet the fact of the matter is that, when polled by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms on the subject of evasion of taxes, only
5 out of 28 States that were polled could respond that they could make
any determination.
They could make no distinction between what was the legal loss of
revenue and what was the contraband loss of revenue; in other words,
what was

[[Page H5222]]

legally sold on the reservations for use there by the people buying it
and what was sold for resale, which would be contraband. So they could
not make any distinction between what was the actual loss of revenue
between what is legal and what was illegal. I think that is an
important point to keep in mind.
It is, I think, important to note that this would have a tremendous
impact on a lot of the tribes and their ability to carry out their
responsibilities. Pending land acquisitions would be put on hold,
brought to a halt.
Let me give my colleagues a couple that would be affected, one by the
Oneida tribe of Wisconsin to acquire land for housing of tribal
members; a pending application from the Sauk and the Fox tribe of
Kansas to acquire land to be used to provide tribal elders with senior
citizen centers.
Let us face it, this is going to have a tremendous impact on the
ability of tribes to provide for the self-sufficiency of their own
people. It is another attempt to get back at tribal governments because
they have the ability to negotiate, on their terms, tax compacts with
State and local governments. This amendment would prevent the
expenditure of any Federal funds to take lands into trust for
individual Indians or tribal governments.
Why are we considering this action? Apparently there are some that
think that we should penalize native American tribes because they are
on the way to providing for their own self-sufficiency with a variety
of things, some of which we do not like, and some of which I do not
personally agree with and do not believe we should be doing but,
nonetheless, they are legal and they are doing it to provide for their
own self-sufficiency.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that instead of promoting positive
thought-provoking legislative initiatives that benefit native
Americans, we have embarked on a policy that would impose punitive
punishment.
We cannot be sure what the impact of this limitation amendment is
going to have on the Native American population. I do not think there
is anyone that can tell us what its impact will be because we have
never held any hearings on this issue.
Again, let us make it clear. Why are we having this debate at all? It
is because some people are angry, but not all. The tribal governments
pay no State or local sales tax on retail sales that take place on
Indian trust land, but we should not be doing this today to punish
them. But we should find out before we do this, if we are going to do
this, what the impact would actually be on tribes.
We need to hold hearings on this, but we have not held any hearings
on this issue. I understand the problem the gentleman has of not being
able to get hearings. I think there should be hearings on this subject,
should be debate on this, but we should not do it on an appropriations
bill.
Consider what would be the impact this would have on, for example,
the Oglala Sioux in Pine Ridge, South Dakota.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Kolbe was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, what would be the impact on the Oglala Sioux
in Pine Ridge, SD? They have 400 families on the waiting list for home
repair. What about the Turtle Mountain tribe in North Dakota, who
report that only half of the adult members have high school diplomas?
Or the Navajo people in my own State? They have 13,000 eligible
students from the scholarship program this year, and there are over
20,000 homeless families on the reservation, and they do not have funds
for this kind of thing.
So I would implore anyone and everyone in this body to think about
the impact on relations between Indian tribes and State governments,
between Indian tribes and the Federal Government. There will be a
serious negative impact, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to resolve a problem that really
does not exist. There are numerous problems with the amendment,
starting with the fact that the language is so unclear that the
Department of the Interior really does not know what it means.
Apparently, it would mean one thing in Oklahoma and something quite
different in the other 49 States.
Complex issues like this should not be really added as an amendment
to an appropriations bill but reviewed by the authorization committee.
This is certainly no way to write a public policy and certainly no way
to treat the native Americans of this country, who have not been
treated well.
You know, we stole a great deal of land from the Indians. In my own
State of Michigan, land was stolen which is no longer part of a
reservation, no longer part of a trust. Up near Burt Lake, around the
turn of the century, the sheriff came in and drove all the Indians off
their land and, to make sure they did not come back, burned their
village down. That was in my dad's lifetime. My dad remembers that.
About 3 years ago, the Catholic church gave to that tribe three acres
so they could start again to preserve their culture. Now, under this
legislation, that tribe could not have those acres put under trust.
That is why the Secretary of the Interior will recommend that the
President veto this bill. He issued that statement this morning.
Now, authors of this amendment assert that State tax agreements with
Indian tribes are virtually nonexistent. Nothing could be further from
the truth. The facts are that 18 different States have already entered
into tax agreements with over 200 Indian tribes. The current process is
working, it works well in the State of Michigan, its works well in most
of the States, and people are compacting more and more as we speak here
today between the tribes and the various States.
Mr. Chairman, if we were to listen to the authors of this amendment,
one would believe that State and local governments have no role in
determining whether the BIA takes land into trust. Again, that could
not be further from the truth. The fact is before the BIA does that and
before the Secretary puts land into trust, he has to consult with State
and local governments to see what the impact upon them will be. And
those State and local governments have an appeal process both within
the Department of the Interior and through the Federal courts.
There are safeguards built into this, but if this amendment would be
passed today, the Governors and local officials would hold all the
cards in these negotiations that are taking place throughout the
country. The tribes would have no recourse if the State did not
negotiate in good faith, and this amendment would give the Governors
the incentives not to negotiate in good faith. If my colleagues want to
see how States negotiate with Indian tribes, they should take a look at
the compacting process after the recent Seminole decision.
There has been, I do not believe, one new compact reached since that
Seminole decision. That decision put in the hands of the Governor in
that one area of law the power really not to be sued and not to be
taken into court. This amendment will go even further treating Oklahoma
in one way and the other 49 States in another way.
Mr. Chairman, I look back at my State and I look at the tribes in my
State and see the land they at one time owned, look at that one band
who lost all their land and now have three acres, and are joyful
because the Catholic church gave them the three acres. And the
amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] would say that
not even those three acres could be taken into trust for those Indians.
We have a moral obligation. I carry within my suit every day this
Constitution, which all of us have taken the oath to uphold. We
recognize three types of sovereignties in this constitution; article I,
section 8: those sovereignties that are foreign countries, the several
States, and the Indian tribes.
This is a frontal attack upon that sovereignty and it is a frontal
attack by an amendment through an appropriations bill. Last week I
begged for the language so I could look at it and was only given the
language yesterday. The language is still defective.
Let us uphold our oath to this Constitution and respect that
sovereignty and do what we do in due process and encourage the tribes
and the States to negotiate.

[[Page H5223]]

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I thank
my friends from Oklahoma and Indiana for their leadership on this issue
in support of small business. This is commonsense legislation that will
level the playing field for small businesses across this country.
The problem is not difficult. We have already heard it outlined this
morning. Native American tribes are currently exempt from charging
excise taxes on sales of things like gas and food and liquor and
tobacco products when selling these products to members of their own
tribe.
I do not think anybody in this Chamber disagrees with the underlying
law and where we stand today, except for the fact that it puts tax-
exempt Indian tribes in direct competition with small businesses and it
drives small businesses out of business.
I have to admit that a year ago I voted with the opposition, those
that are opposing this amendment today. But over the last year I have
sat and studied this issue, I have talked with a lot of small business
owners, I have examined the treaty, and I do not believe that it is
fair for small businesses in America to have to compete on a head-to-
head matchup with those people who are not paying their fair share.
This amendment takes an important first step in ending the Federal
Government's role in creating an unfair playing field. The amendment
states that, before new lands are transferred by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs into the tribal trust, the tribe must reach a binding agreement
regarding State and local sales and excise taxes on sales to non-Indian
customers.
Currently, native American tribes can purchase any land they want to
and then move that land into trust, which eliminates any State or
Federal taxes that they would otherwise have to pay. What many times
happens is that after the land is put in trust, these tribes establish
for-profit businesses on land that are exempt from taxes.
This amendment will not affect any Indian reservation lands nor any
lands currently held in trust estates. Tribes can still operate
businesses on their lands, and this legislation says nothing to the
contrary. It simply levels the playing field for those small businesses
wishing to sell fuel, food, and tobacco products around reservations.
This year I am going to join a number of individuals that have come
out in strong support of this amendment. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
the National League of Cities, the National Conference of State
Legislators have all come around to agreeing that this amendment makes
common sense; that this amendment is the right way in terms of fairness
for the American business man and woman.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I appreciate the study the gentleman and so many others have made in
the time since. Even though we requested hearings in Congress, we were
denied those by the chairman of the particular committee and, thus, we
are here, because we know that the problem is accelerating.

{time} 1415

If you look, Mr. Chairman, at the total amount, for example, the
State and local governments rely on motor fuel taxes, it is $25 billion
a year. Mr. Chairman, if we can sell gasoline for 25 cents a gallon
cheaper, and if the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which currently has
hundreds of thousands of acres of requests pending, continues to
transfer property at patchwork, prime real estate, high-traffic
locations, it does not take long for the motorist to say, my goodness,
it is 25 cents cheaper over here, I am going to buy my gasoline there,
not understanding that they are dealing with a merchant that is
marketing tax evasion.
They are not trying to develop marketable skill. They are not trying
to build legitimate businesses. They are trying to take advantage of
the failure of this Congress to act as the U.S. Supreme Court has said
clearly we have the authority to act. It is not violating sovereign
immunity, it is not violating any treaties, it is merely reinstating
fair play.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very significant amendment. And if we believe
that we want to help tribal members with legitimate businesses, instead
of having false delusions that the way to get ahead in life is to find
and create tax loopholes and profit off of them, then we need to
support this amendment.
This is recognized as a threat to the ability to provide care for
people in public hospitals, to provide roads, to provide education.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, the Istook-Visclosky amendment is simply disgraceful.
It is disgraceful because it demonstrates the ignorance of this U.S.
House of Representatives when it comes to the fundamental issues of
native American sovereignty.
Proponents of this legislation just do not get it. They are building
on the callous history of this Nation towards our native Americans.
When 40 percent of our native Americans are unemployed, when thousands
are sick and dying, when Indian children live in substandard housing
and get insufficient moneys for education, the lowest per capita health
care and education spending of any group in this country are native
Americans. When Indians have four times the suicide rate of other
groups in this country, the proponents of this legislation would like
us to believe that it is the States that are getting a raw deal.
Excuse me. This amendment states that it is States who are getting
the raw deal. Guess what? We are the ones who took away the native
American land to begin with. Everyone is talking, the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is talking about the native Americans are trying
to put all this land in trust. Do I need to remind my colleague that we
have taken over 90 million acres to States and local governments since
1887, and yet there are only 9 million acres given to native Americans
in the form of trust lands? Boy, that sounds to me like a real power
grab.
This rider claims that Indians are fortunate because they have
sovereignty. Let me say that sovereignty is all that these native
Americans have left. Sure, let us get behind the simple idea of
subordinating native American governments and all native Americans to
pull the poverty stricken status they are already in.
The truth of the amendment is that it gives States the upper hand. By
eliminating the ability to take lands into trust or by giving local
governments absolute veto power over new trust lands, we forsake the
government-to-government relationship, as my colleague, the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], said, which is the Constitution of these
United States.
Read the Constitution of the United States, article I, section 8,
clause 2, regarding native American lands. They treat them as States.
They are sovereignties. And yet the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Istook] would not like to have us believe they are other people.
Well, what are Rhode Islanders in my State? Are they other people
because we pay different sales taxes than my colleague might have in
his State? No, they do not because they are a separate sovereignty. And
that is no different from native American lands, and it is an
elementary fact to this whole debate.
Of course, the great concept here is that we break treaty obligations
and violate this Constitution because the States are getting a raw
deal.
Let us be clear. This amendment's goal is to give some county
executives veto power over the president or governor of a native
American nation and violate the trust responsibility that our
Constitution gives native Americans.
Istook-Visclosky incorrectly assumes that there is no process for
protecting State and local government interests when lands are being
considered for transfer into trust. As my colleagues have stated over
and over again, that is not the case. Many States are currently in the
process of working this out so that nonmembers of native American
tribes are taxed and those taxes are reverted to the States.

[[Page H5224]]

But the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] would preempt and preclude any State from being
able to work out a negotiation with their native American tribe for
that State to be able to work out an arrangement where they revert the
taxes back to the State.
We are talking about a discriminatory measure here. And that is what
this legislation does, it furthers the intolerance towards native
Americans by calling them tax evaders. That is shameful, saying native
Americans are tax evaders.
My God, does my colleague not understand the situation that
sovereignty is all about?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Would the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Istook] like to put in an amendment, bill commissaries at our military
bases? Because it seems to me they are unfair competition, too.
Commissaries in my district are charging well under the market price
for goods that they sell to our enlisted people.
Would the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] put in an amendment
that would say that is unfair competition? No, he would not.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would answer the question if the
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] is posing the question to me.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. This amendment treats native Americans
as if they are criminals, and it is dead wrong. I ask my colleagues to
join me in voting against the Visclosky-Istook amendment and upholding
the Constitution of the United States, which we were sworn to uphold in
article I, section 8, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Istook].
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting if someone would claim that we
are disregarding the needs of American Indians in this country, if they
will look, for example, at page 5 of the report of the very bill that
is on this floor right now, they will find that we are appropriating
approximately $6.5 billion for American Indian programs. Agriculture,
Commerce, Justice, Education, Health and Human Services, Indian Health
Services, all of these other matters.
Why? Because we have undertaken certain obligations and we seek to
honor them. We do not permit, for example, a member of the general
public to go into a commissary on Federal military property and buy
goods at any sort of reduced rate. That is only limited to military
personnel, and reserves cannot even do it if they are not on active
duty.
Now, if we were to open up those or any other place and say that the
general public is invited to come in and do their shopping, in
competition with those that are not there for a special purpose, then I
would agree with the analogy that the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr.
Kennedy] raises.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled by the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr.
Kennedy] did not wish to yield to have this interspersed with his
comments.
But you see, what the tribes are doing, if they were establishing
something that is basically a commissary for the Indian tribes, there
is nothing that we are seeking to do that interferes with that.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said, if they are making a transaction
with a tribal member, they do not have to charge any State or local
sales tax or gasoline tax or cigarette tax, and we are not trying to do
that. But what they are doing is saying, we do not want just a location
that is maybe in the middle of a military business and we do not want
to just handle transactions for the benefit of our own members. They
say, we are wanting locations at prime areas.
For example, I have a copy of the letter that says Cheyenne-Arapaho
tribes are seeking to buy up existing convenience store locations along
Interstate 40, not because it is next to their tribal lands or has any
relation or is trying to serve the needs of the members of the tribe,
but because there are hundreds of thousands of people every day that
pass through and they want to be able to sell to them and to undercut
the competition and to get all that business, not by selling to members
of the tribes but by putting people out of business who are following
the law.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I will not yield. I tried to engage in a
dialog.
You see, they are saying, we do not want to take care of our tribal
members. We want an advantage that nobody else has--26 cents a gallon
on gasoline. Now, you go to the corner, and I do not care who you are,
you drive up to a corner and see the price over here is maybe a $1.20 a
gallon and over here it is $1.45. Where are you going buy your
gasoline? It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what
happens here.
And this is not sales to tribal members. The U.S. Supreme Court in a
series, a series, of decisions have said that the tax is still due when
they are making the sales to the nontribal customers. Unfortunately,
the tribes are not doing that. They are refusing to cooperate with the
State and local governments in collecting the taxes that the U.S.
Supreme Court says are due, and they are profiting off the tax evasion.
They are marketing the tax evasion to their customers.
If this were just a matter of tribes trying to deal with their own
tribal members and help out and bring people up to compete, that would
be a very different situation. But it is not what they are doing.
I have a letter from a tribal member who operates a convenience
store, and guess what? She collects tax from customers. She follows the
law. She does not have the special advantage that the BIA has given
some land and trust to her. And she is being out competed by a tribal
gasoline station that is knocking out the ability of one of their own
members to work hard and to make an honest living because they are not
looking to build up regular businesses.
As the newspaper ad which I held earlier shows, they are trying to
sell to people who say, let us not pay gasoline tax, let us not pay
beer tax, let us not pay cigarette tax, let us not pay sales tax. And
that is what is costing us all around this country, and it is getting
bigger every year if we do not stop it.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Yates.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook]
cites the statistic in the committee's report to the effect of $6
billion in various programs as being spent for the Indian people.
In our appropriation subcommittee, we have been reviewing the plight
of the Indian people and making funds available for, I guess, since the
committee was in organization. For 25 years, I have been reviewing
these programs. I will tell the gentleman that $6 billion still is not
enough to take care of the Indian people. They are still the poorest
segment of our population. And year after year, that continues.
The fact that they are given recognition as a State, I should like to
ask the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], what happens if the State
of Texas, which is next to the gentleman's State of Oklahoma, what if
the State of Texas were to charge lower amounts and people went to the
State of Texas instead? Would the gentleman try to get a law passed by
the Congress that would hurt the State of Texas? Of course he would
not.
These are sovereign nations, Indian people deserve recognition as
such.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Yates] for his remarks because I think he is quite on
point.
This amendment is a very blunt instrument to go on what the gentleman
from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook]) perceives to be some wrong that the Indian
nations of this country would engage in economic activity and that they
would do that on tribal land, which is sovereign land and which they
have the

[[Page H5225]]

right if they so desire not to charge a tax on the sales of those
products.

{time} 1430

The gentleman from Illinois just pointed out, people drive across the
State line into Nevada to buy goods, because they do not have a sales
tax because they have gambling. People drive to Oregon from California
because they do not have a sales tax, because they have got an angry
constituency that will not let them have one, so people go there to buy
their goods. People call up L.L. Bean and Lands End and they buy goods
by mail to avoid the sales tax, and we are not shutting down all mail
order houses in this country. We are not shutting down the service
station across the State line. People go to Juarez, Mexico across the
line to buy pharmaceuticals, and we do not shut down the country of
Mexico because it is sovereign.
We made a decision a long time ago that Indian lands in this Nation
were going to be sovereign and they were going to be treated like
States and they were going to be treated like foreign nations. That is
what this is about. The suggestion here that because somebody has put
up a competitive truck stop on Interstate 50 or Interstate 80 or
whatever the highway and that now we should shut down, and that is what
this amendment does, shut down the ability of Indian nations to bring
additional land into tribal land and take away the right of the
Secretary of the Interior to engage in that process, is ludicrous. It
is ludicrous. We act like there is a run on the lands of this country.
The fact of the matter is there is not. The fact of the matter is the
Indians have lost more lands out of trust than they have brought into
trust.
The gentleman cites the suggestion that somehow the Indians are
taking a huge amount of land. Yes, they have applications. What has the
general rule been? The general rule has been if there is a local
controversy, if the Governor does not like it or the local State
legislature does not like it, the Secretary more or less has hands off.
Why? Because we try to tell people to sort it out.
The fact of the matter is that a number of States, 200 tribes, 18
States have tax treaties, tax policies, lands have been brought into
trust and there have been various controversies. Very often the tribes
have said we will accede to this, we will agree to that, we will agree
to that condition, that is a process of negotiation. But that is a
process of negotiation between equals, between a sovereign State, a
sovereign tribe and the Secretary of the Interior, someone who is an
arbiter. That is the process as it is designed to be. That is the
process that should be allowed to continue.
Sometimes we argue over lands being brought into sovereignty, whether
or not they should have gambling or not. Some tribes have said, we will
agree not to do that; California in one instance, and I think in North
Carolina.
Other questions may be taxable, they have been engaged in tax
treaties. Other policies about the uses of those lands, the riparian
uses of those lands, forest practices. A lot of this has been
negotiated and discussed and hammered out. But what we do not do is, we
do not take away the rights of every Indian nation in this country
because we have got some problem with truck stops. That just is not
going to work.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. I want to ask the gentleman from California, because he
mentioned examples of different places that have static borders.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Kolbe, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of
California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. ISTOOK. Is the gentleman aware that the examples he cites are
States, for example, that have static borders and that what is
happening, we have applications and grants of trust status where
basically the borders are shifting one plot of land at a time. An
application is not, for example, for thousands of acres. The
applications may be for one lot, for example, in a State and then
another lot in a different state.
Mr. MILLER of California. Absolutely. One of the things that is made
part of the whole question of lands being taken into trust by the
Secretary in behalf of various Indian nations is that a number of
applications have been made remote to the land base that the tribes
have now or some people believe to be the historical base that the
tribes have and that has always been controversial.
There was a controversy in Milwaukee a few years ago about those
lands being brought into trust. But that is the process of
negotiations. That is the process that the State or the State
legislature or the local county officials or interested citizens
comment on, and that is the process where the Secretary makes the
decision for the purposes and the use of these lands and the connection
of the tribes to these lands and the rightful claim to these lands.
That is a process.
The Istook amendment wipes that process out and says no other lands
can be brought into trust by an Indian nation. It is just an
unacceptable suggestion to what may not even be a real problem. The
House ought to reject this amendment.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Istook-Visclosky amendment. There are many reasons to oppose this
amendment, Mr. Chairman. First, as a matter of procedure, this is more
than a matter of setting a level of appropriations. This amendment sets
legislative policy on a subject under the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Resources. The subject of this amendment has not been considered by
the committee of jurisdiction. By proceeding with an appropriation
rider, we lose the value of public input to Congress available through
committee hearings. Those of us who serve on the authorization
committees are again locked out of the full deliberative process.
Many of us have seen conflicting statements of the many ``Dear
Colleagues'' that have been floating around. In many cases these
letters are in direct conflict with one another, which raises the
question all the more, we need to have hearings on this issue.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, it is not controverted that current law and
regulations mandate that the Secretary of the Interior provide notice
to State and local governments prior to making a final determination on
taking Indian lands into trust status. State and local governments who
disagree with a decision of the Secretary can appeal adverse decisions
within the Department of the Interior and in the Federal courts. This
procedure is already in place.
If this amendment is enacted into law, Mr. Chairman, State and local
governments would be given an absolute veto over all future transfers
to or of land trust status. This is a significant change of national
policy. I submit this cannot be done.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, as matter of equity, I find it very disturbing
that we are debating today yet another attack on Native American
Indians. I fear that efforts like this are a renewal of the efforts of
Congress in prior decades when actions were taken to make sure our
first Americans were never given the opportunity to achieve success.
There was a recent advertisement I heard that pretty well sums up, Mr.
Chairman, our treatment of our Nation's Native Americans. It went
something like this: 200 years of exploitation and neglect, more than
700 broken treaties, 700 broken treaties; $2 billion in tribal trust
funds lost or mismanaged, $200 million in funding cuts last year, and
now the Chamber of this hallowed hall wants to levy new taxes against
tribal governments. Have Native Americans not paid enough, I submit,
Mr. Chairman? This ad was a brutally accurate summary of our past
treatment of American Indians.
The question today is, do we continue along the destructive line of
reasoning or do we provide today's tribes with the opportunity to
determine their future through their own self-initiative? Mr. Chairman,
I have heard that we talk about fair play. Let us propose a law to
honor every one of these 700 broken treaties that our government broke
and let us see what happens. If we talk about fair play, let us

[[Page H5226]]

honor the 700 treaties that our government committed itself with these
Native Americans and let us see what the landscape is going to be with
what this Nation is all about.
Mr. Chairman, I submit we ought to vote against this proposed
amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I regret that the legislative procedures of this body
forces the gentleman to offer this amendment as a limitation on the
appropriations bill. I am sympathetic to the concerns that the
gentleman has and I think his legislative language targets those much
more precisely than the limitation before us and should be addressed by
the authorizing committee.
Unfortunately, the authorizing committee has chosen, at least to this
point, not to have hearings, and I think it is a subject that deserves
a full hearing in the authorizing committee. Because the gentleman from
Oklahoma is forced to use a limitation amendment, it is broader than we
should have it because it prohibits acquiring through gift or exchange
any interest, for essentially any purpose, and there are a lot of
reasons why there should be lands transferred that have nothing to do
with this question of taxes.
Another problem with this approach is that it is only a 1-year
limitation. Because of being on an appropriations bill, it cannot be
extended beyond 1 year, and I think it would be very difficult for any
group to make economic decisions either to construct or to open up a
facility, knowing that in 1 year this could be changed by virtue of the
fact that this limitation language would expire at the end of fiscal
year 1998, which would be September 30, 1998. I hope that the
authorizing committee will address this problem.
I might point out that there are already in existence 200 agreements
with 18 different States where the States and the tribes, exercising
their sovereign rights, have addressed this problem. I would hope that
a lot of tribes and States would continue on that path to bring about
fairness in the marketplace, but at this point, because of the
sovereignty of the Indian nations, this is a decision that has to be
made by the tribes and the States.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the
subcommittee for his statement. I think he has made a very important
point, and that is that this is a very broad amendment. I will come
back to that in a moment.
I certainly agree with the gentleman from Oklahoma, this is a
significant debate we are having and a significant amendment. It is one
of great importance and it deserves the kind of debate that it gets
here today. I think what must be emphasized here is the issue of
sovereignty. These are sovereign tribes. They do have sovereign rights.
They have the right to approach the Federal Government when they
negotiate on an equal basis, and yet the thrust of this amendment is to
put a limitation on the Secretary from taking lands into the
reservation unless there is a binding agreement between the tribes,
States, and local governments that would require the tribe to pay State
and local taxes on reservation lands; in other words, unless they give
up their sovereignty, unless we limit that sovereignty for this
purpose. So they are not going into some negotiation on an equal basis
when not one but both hands are tied behind their back, as this
amendment would do.
I think it is very important to keep that in mind. It is also
important to recognize that we are really talking about enterprise
zones here. In many cases the lands we are talking about are not part
of the reservation itself but are adjacent to it, because very often
the reservation lands originally set aside were not the best lands,
were not good lands. They have had to bring in some of these other
lands in order to have the kind of enterprise zones that we are talking
about. The Republicans on this side of the aisle have supported it in
inner cities, we supported it in rural areas. Native Americans have
that. They have it by virtue of the sovereignty that they have, by
virtue of the fact that they are not subject to the taxation that the
rest of us have. That kind of enterprise zone we should be supporting
for these people who have been among the very poorest.
Finally let me make this final point, that what is missing here is
this is a limitation amendment. As the chairman said, it is much
broader. It goes far beyond simply being a limitation. It goes too
broad. We are talking about putting a limitation on bringing lands in
for any purpose whatever. I think of in my State, legislation that this
body has debated for a long time, the Hopie-Navajo land settlement.
Part of that has to do with bringing certain lands under the
jurisdiction of the two tribes. That is critical to making that
settlement work. Yet this would put a prohibition on making that
happen, on making that work.
I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. As much as
I sympathize with what the gentleman from Oklahoma is trying to do, it
is not the right place, it is not the right way to go about it, and it
certainly is not the right time without having the committee of
jurisdiction take this up and take this under consideration.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I certainly
want to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman of our
subcommittee and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], the ranking
member of our subcommittee. They have made the point that this is a
very profound change in legislation that we are attempting to add to an
appropriations bill, but that is a technical reason for opposing this
amendment. There are moral and substantive reasons for opposing this
amendment. Let me suggest the first moral argument. The Native
Americans in this land are the poorest of the poor in the United
States. Why? Because we, descendants of those European colonists, took
their land and their life-style. By 1887, they had about 138 million
acres, a minute fraction of the land that they used to live on, and
then over the next 47 years we took 90 million acres back from them.

{time} 1445

Since 1934, the Department of the Interior has restored 10 percent of
that land, about 9 million acres, and that is the kind of land we are
talking about, a very small fraction, virtually all of it land that
used to be within the original boundaries of their reservations that we
are talking about here.
Let me suggest another moral reason. In 1886, the Supreme Court noted
that: ``The tribes owe no allegiance to the States and receive from
them no protection. Because of the local ill feeling, the people in the
States where tribes are found are often their deadliest enemies.'' And
for that reason a law was passed called the General Allotment Act. It
actually did not accomplish what was intended originally, but the fact
is we have acknowledged that the only way that the American Indian can
be respected and protected in terms of their rights is for the Federal
Government to have a unique relationship between federally recognized
Indian tribal governments and the Congress. Only the U.S. Congress, has
the responsibility to defend tribal governments from intrusion by State
governments.
Let me suggest some other reasons though, that this amendment should
be defeated. This amendment would unconstitutionally give State and
local governments absolute veto power over each tribal application to
place Indian owned land in trust status. It would provide no remedy to
a tribe if a State or local government flatly refused to negotiate a
tax agreement with the tribe, and the result would be years of costly
litigation. It purports to fix a problem that simply does not exist.
State governments can and do collect lawfully imposed sales taxes on
Indian trust lands. The Supreme Court has held time and again that
product sales to nonmembers on trust lands for use off reservation are
subject to State sales taxes. Most states, including Oklahoma, have
developed a variety of methods for collecting those taxes.
It assumes that there is no process for protecting State and local
government interests when lands are considered for transferring to
trust status. In fact, the current law already protects State and
government interests when

[[Page H5227]]

the Secretary considers land for trust status. Under the current
secretarial regulations, the Secretary must consult with State and
local governments prior to making a final determination on taking land
into trust status, and the Secretary must specifically consider the
impact on State and local governments of removal of the land from the
tax rolls.
This amendment is not necessary. This amendment violates our
Constitution, our constitutional protection of Native Americans. This
amendment is legislation on an appropriations bill. This amendment does
an injustice to the poorest of the poor Americans in this country. This
amendment certainly should be defeated, and I urge my colleagues to
defeat it in the strongest possible terms.
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, I apologize for belaboring
this subject even further. I think that the debate so far has indicated
a clear preponderance of views, and I am not an expert on this subject,
so I feel doubly guilty. But I did have the opportunity of experiencing
this problem of multiple sovereignty and its application from my
earliest days.
Mr. Chairman, I was born and raised in that southeast corner of
California which borders on Arizona and Mexico and abounds with Indian
reservations, and from my earliest days I can recall going across the
border to Mexico because the gasoline was cheaper, and the steaks were
better and cheaper, and when I got a little older I went across the
border to Arizona to help my brother get married because one can get
married more cheaply over there and with less waiting time and less
restrictions. Each governmental institution, each organization had
different rules, and separate sovereignty.
And of course I can, from where I live now, which is a little further
north, pass through a half dozen Indian reservations and have assorted
gambling opportunities on my way down to Mexico or to Arizona or
wherever I choose to go. And I frankly gloried in this. I valued this
rich diversity, and I would not have changed it for the world because
it allowed for people who were seeking opportunity to acquire it.
We still have that going on. A lot of people come down to this corner
of the United States because it is very warm in the wintertime and it
is a rich recreational resource, and they come down there, and they
camp out on the desert if they are totally broke because it does not
cost anything. If they are senior citizens, and many of them are, they
can go across the border to Mexico and buy all of their prescription
drugs at ridiculously low prices, and most of them take advantage of
that opportunity. And it contributes to the economic vitality of the
region, as a matter of fact.
Now I would suggest that, and I am saying this without any exhaustive
investigation, but that we may actually benefit from this diversity of
sovereignty and the opportunity that it creates and that if there is a
solution, maybe we ought to try the market solution. If too many people
are going across the border to Arizona or to Mexico to find something
cheaper, maybe we ought to look at ways of attracting some people from
Arizona and Mexico over to California to buy something cheaper over
here. That would be a good competitive way to balance out the playing
field, and actually this is happening in many situations.
I know of Indian gambling casinos, for example, which have a monopoly
and maybe are using that monopoly to extort a little more from the
white man than they really should, and other tribes have come in and
opened up competitive operations and kind of leveled the playing field
in the process of doing that.
This is legitimate, and I think in the long run justice will be
served, the free market will be glorified for what it can really do to
keep unreasonable prices or unreasonable regulation out of existence,
and we can continue with the kind of a system that we have.
Of course, basically I think we ought to let the Indians have this
kind of an opportunity. It is an economic development program for them.
It has encouraged them to get into business and become self-sufficient.
We have enterprise zones in which we do exactly the same thing for
non-Indians for example. We give them tax advantages, we give them
freedom from regulation in order to encourage them to create jobs and
to provide opportunities for poor people. Well, is that not what we are
doing with the opportunities that the Indians now have as sovereign
States with the ability to control their own future? Those are
enterprise zones for them.
I say God bless the enterprise zones; let us keep them.
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Istook amendment and
urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment because, as we have
heard over and over today, it is overly broad, and it is also
unnecessary.
I come from an area of Wisconsin representing an area which has seven
different separate Native American Indian tribes, all of whom have land
holdings in the district. Of the seven tribes who have businesses on
trust lands in Wisconsin, all of them are paying taxes.
I read from a letter from the state revenue agent in Wisconsin: ``I
have reviewed our records. I am unaware of any Indian organization not
collecting Wisconsin taxes.''
We have had agreements in place between the tribes and the State of
Wisconsin for years for the payment of these taxes, and the adoption of
the Istook amendment would jeopardize these agreements between two
recognized bodies, the State of Wisconsin and the Native American
tribes.
The Indian tribes in Wisconsin are not unique in this regard. In
fact, almost every State with significant Indian population have
similar agreements with their State governments, and according to a
study we have heard cited before, conducted in 1995 by a State, the
Arizona Legislative Council, 200 tribes from 18 States have reached
similar agreements. I have a letter from the Oklahoma Tax Commission
which describes the compact the tribes in Oklahoma have made with the
State, and as for the ad that appeared in Roll Call and was held up
earlier on the House floor, it is an old ad. It no longer runs, since
the law in Oklahoma has been changed. It is, I think, a misleading
problem, and the Choctaw tribe no longer runs it.
We have also heard about the collection of taxes in New York State.
However, I have been told the Istook amendment would not even apply to
New York State since, as one of the original 13 colonies, they have a
different relationship with their tribes. And, moreover, the Governor
of New York has stated he thinks it is not proper or beneficial for New
York to impose taxes on sales made on Indian lands. So New York is not
losing tax revenues, it is choosing not to collect these taxes.
There have been no hearings, as has been cited before on this
amendment. It is another case of trying to create new policy with a
very serious amendment to a serious appropriations bill. Indians
tribes, native Americans, are creating jobs, paying taxes, helping this
Nation's economy as well as their own. I urge my colleagues to look to
Wisconsin as a good example. I urge my colleagues to reject this
amendment and to protect the current agreements between the States and
tribes to collect taxes.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, the way the Congress operates really is not that
dissimilar from the way the rest of the world operates in several
respects. One of those respects, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that usually
there is a reason why things happen, there is a reason why positions
are taken, there is a reason why Members vote the way they do, there is
a reason why Members say certain things, and I think we are faced with
a good example of that, Mr. Chairman.
We have heard from those opposed to this amendment that they are
opposed to it because it is unconstitutional. Well, let us examine
that, and I suspect that if we examine it, Mr. Chairman, we will find
that there is indeed another reason because the amendment

[[Page H5228]]

that the gentleman from Oklahoma is proposing is not unconstitutional
either on its face or in any reasonable interpretation of it.
So let me assure those colleagues on either side of the aisle who
truly are concerned about the constitutionality of this provision that
it is not unconstitutional, and that is a position born not just of my
opinion or the author's opinion, but of a learned treatise that we
would be happy to make available to any Member, conducted and composed
by the Congressional Research Service, that has looked at this proposal
and has concluded that because of its narrow scope, because it does
not, would not, establish any burden on the constitutional rights of
Indians, but simply provide a mechanism whereby legitimate taxes that
are constitutional can more easily and more effectively for the benefit
of all citizens be collected, and I think that their concerns, if
indeed those concerns are born of an interest in making sure that this
provision is constitutional, that it would, in fact, be constitutional.
The legislation simply involves establishment of a mechanism for
collecting State and local retail excise taxes on retail items sold by
tribal vendors on tribal lands to nontribal members and utilizing that
mechanism as a precondition for taking land into trust for an
individual Indian or an Indian tribe. It does no more than that, which
would possibly get it into an area of constitutional activity or
restrictions.

{time} 1500

It does not do that. There is a line of cases, Mr. Chairman, that
clearly establishes that assuring the collection of legally valid
estate taxes of sales occurring on lands to be taken into trust
certainly is constitutional.
In the case of Oklahoma Tax Commission versus Citizens Band
Potawatomi Tribe in 1991, Chief Justice Rehnquist, speaking for a
unanimous Court, indicated that the States could look for agreements
with the tribes for tax collection, or to Congress to vindicate their
rights to tax sales to nonmembers on Indian reservations.
So if in fact we are looking for a mechanism that is fair, and that
is, after all, what we all purport to want here is basic fairness, then
the proposal of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is patently
fair. It is not unconstitutional. It has been found that it likely will
not be unconstitutional, the word implemented by the Congressional
Research Service, and I suspect any legitimate constitutional analysis
of it would indeed bear that out.
In my own State, Mr. Chairman, we are facing the situation right now
with a tribe from Oklahoma seeking to come into Georgia, not a
contiguous State, and establish a gambling or gaming organization or
institution or business therein.
This is one of the legitimate concerns of all of our citizens, those
of large means as well as those of small means; that is, that the tax
base not be eroded. It is not any diminution of the rights of our
native American citizens to simply establish that as a precondition for
enjoying the benefits of instituting gambling or gaming institutions,
that they set up a mechanism to collect taxes, which indeed helps not
only them but all of the citizens of that State in which that
institution is resided.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me assure our colleagues and those
who might be legitimately concerned about the constitutionality of this
provision that it is thoroughly constitutional, both in its intent as
well as the way it would be carried out, and urge adoption and a
favorable vote on the proposal of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Istook].
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise for four purposes. First of all, as the
cosponsor of this amendment, I rise to emphasize to the body that this
is a bipartisan proposal authored by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Istook] as well as myself.
My second purpose in rising is to ask that we view this issue on the
merits and the factual basis. Such words as intolerance, disgraceful,
bitter, mean-spirited, angry, stolen, have all been used today during
the debate, but we ought to look at the factual basis as to what the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and myself want to do.
The first thing we want to do is as a national Government, we are
asking States and local governments to do more, but we are not
providing them in this instance the tools to collect the necessary
revenue to proceed.
Second, for all those entrepreneurs who want to make a living and pay
taxes themselves and support their families, they are placed at a
significant competitive disadvantage. That is all we are trying to do.
In my remaining time, the fourth point I want to address is what we
are not trying to do. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and I
often disagree. One area we have never disagreed on is the issue of the
Constitution of the United States. We are not violating any provision
of that document, and the High Court of this land has said that the
collection of taxes on sales to non-Indians does not violate tribal
sovereignty or any treaties the United States has with tribes. We are
not attacking the sovereignty of Indians.
I would also point out that our country has agreements and treaties
with other sovereign nations as far as the collection and disposal of
taxes.
Finally, if we were trying to do something that was in violation of
the sovereignty of these nations, a number of Members who have stood up
in opposition to our amendment have also talked about the compacts and
the value that these compacts have already had that have been entered
into by various units of government and the tribes. That is all we are
asking be done. That has been found to be constitutional.
The second argument put forth today is that we have essentially
called for a shutdown on the transfer of tribal lands. We are trying to
kill that process. We are asking for a moratorium. The fact is, and I
would acknowledge that this is not the most precise amendment that has
ever been offered on this issue, we tried to do that last year on June
20, and we were prohibited from doing so today. We have tried to
address this issue surgically in authorizing legislation that has not
had hearings held on it, despite the fact that there are now 56
cosponsors of that legislation.
What we are simply saying, to capture people's attention and to make
sure this situation is addressed, is if the desire to purchase new
lands takes place, we have to submit that process to the congressional
authorization and appropriation process and it can proceed. We do not
prohibit them.
The issue of the compacts, we have compacts. The system is working
just fine. The problem is the U.S. Supreme Court on six different
occasions has said that the States have the right to collect these
taxes, but the Court has barred the States from filing suit. There is
no incentive at all on behalf of any of the tribes to enter into good
faith negotiations.
All we are trying to do is to level that playing field to ensure that
there is an incentive by the tribes to sit down in good faith, with
governmental entities of good faith, to make sure that these compacts
do proceed so we can protect State and local revenues as well as small
entrepreneurs.
There has been a dispute as to what is really the loss of revenues. I
went to St. Mark's grade school in Gary, IN. All I know is if you are
selling a tank of gasoline and not paying 7\1/2\ cents to 34\2/10\
cents of that gasoline you are losing revenues. If you are selling a
pack of cigarettes and not collecting 2.5 cents per pack up to 81\1/2\
cents per pack, you are losing money as an institution of the
Government. States like New York are claiming they are losing up to
$100 million; New Mexico, $2.7 million; California, $30 to $50 million
a year.
We are told that, by a number of speakers, we have not held any
hearings. What we need are hearings. I could not agree more. On June 10
of last year, when the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and I
offered the amendment we were not allowed to offer today, the chairman
of the authorizing committee in the House, the gentleman from Alaska
[Mr. Young] got up on this House floor, he got up and said, ``Since I
have been chairman of the Committee on Resources, not a single Member
of Congress has introduced a single bill on this subject.''

[[Page H5229]]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Visclosky was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. VISCLOSKY. He said, Mr. Chairman, ``Since I have been chairman,
we have never had a single hearing on this subject. No witnesses have
offered any testimony on this subject.'' The chairman was right. The
chairman was right.
That is why the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and myself
introduced authorizing legislation in this Congress. That is why 54 of
our colleagues have joined us in a bipartisan fashion to sponsor that
legislation and to ask for hearings. Here we are, almost 13 months
after the fact, and yes, no hearings have been held and the gentleman
from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and I have been very, very patient.
The final objection raised on the floor today is that this is a new
tax, and nothing could be further from the truth. We are simply
suggesting that there should be an even playing field; that compacts
ought to be entered into to preserve the revenue flow of the States and
the locales, to preserve the ability of private business to compete in
this society. That is all we are doing. There are no new taxes here
involved.
I would urge my colleagues on the facts and the issues involved, not
to the emotion, and on a bipartisan basis, to please on this vote
support the Istook-Visclosky amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. Hinchey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, my reading of this amendment is that it
would effectively prohibit the Secretary from recognizing new Indian
trust lands. I therefore am opposed to the amendment, and I ask others
to join me in that position.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, if it were to succeed, would be
destructive not only to native Americans but also in many instances to
the communities around which they reside or nearby where they reside.
Why do tribes petition to the Secretary to take lands into trust for
them in the first place? In some cases they are reacquiring lands they
have lost because of their historical or religious significance and
they want those lands back again. In most cases they are acquiring
lands which have the potential to produce income for the tribe, to help
them become economically self-sufficient.
Because of the discrimination that they have faced, because of
poverty and limited education and a host of other disadvantages, and
because they lost their lands which they depended upon, many tribes
cannot build self-sufficiency without building on their trust lands;
that is, taking advantage of the edge that sovereignty gives them.
In effect, this is no different from States that make use of their
statehood to draw business or create industry; gambling in Nevada, for
example, or credit cards in Delaware or South Dakota, or communities
that offer tax breaks to attract industries. But they cannot take their
advantage of their sovereignty unless they have land, and specifically
land that has some commercial potential. If they open a business 200
miles from nowhere, then obviously they are not going to get people to
travel there to do business with them.
If we take away their opportunity to have new lands taken into trust,
lands where they are sovereign, we are taking their only real
competitive edge from them, the only real edge they have. We are
denying them the best chance they have to become a self-sufficient
community. We are taking their livelihood away from them, just as
surely as we did a century or two ago.
But some will ask this question: Does this opportunity not hurt their
neighbors? Does this not hurt the States? When the Secretary considers
petitions for trust lands, and this point has been made here earlier
this afternoon, he must take into account the interests of the affected
State and local governments, and he does so in every instance. But he
does not allow a State or a local government to veto a petition. He has
to consider the objections to it, look at those objections in context,
but that does not give the opportunity for a veto.
In many cases the State and local governments benefit from the
designation of new trust lands. This is true in my State and in my
district. One of the counties I represent is in fact eager to see
tribes acquire new trust lands in their midst, because they expect that
by so doing, that will also bring in profitable businesses that will
benefit all the other businesses that currently exist in that
community, and will exist there in the future.
So this amendment would not only deny an economic opportunity for
Indian tribes, it would also block, in many instances, opportunities
for the communities they live with and work with.
So for those reasons, that it impinges unnecessarily, unfairly, and I
believe unconstitutionally on the sovereignty of Indian tribes, and
that also in many instances as a result it will do damage to the
communities that adjoin those Indian tribe lands, those Indian trust
lands, I oppose this amendment, and I hope that enough others will
oppose it so it will be defeated.
Mr. STUPAK. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We are told,
Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is needed because it is the only way
to stop native Americans from avoiding paying taxes. But in the debate
we are having here today I hope we all understand that we have Indian
tribes, we have individual members of that tribe, and then we also have
just individual members of this country.
This amendment, as written by the authors, is really directed at
native American tribes, not individuals. So even if we pass this
amendment, and I hope we do not, but even if we passed it, individuals
can still continue to avoid taxes. Unfortunately, every day in this
country people think of ways and schemes on how to avoid paying taxes.
Our Constitution does recognize the sovereignty of native American
tribes. Land that is placed in trust then goes underneath that
sovereignty, and on that land there may not be taxes imposed by the
Federal Government, just like the Federal Government does not impose
taxes on each and every State in a direct manner, but we do on
individuals.
Each State in this country is a sovereign State, and each State has
different workers' compensation laws, unemployment laws, single
business taxes, and also competes against each other in attracting
businesses.
But this amendment's intent, I believe, is to start chipping away at
sovereignty for native American tribes. The intent is to take away
those sovereign rights, and to in fact tax the Native American tribes
and not individuals.
The authors indicate that the States can do more, and they are trying
to level the playing field, but the States have in fact entered into
many agreements; like my State of Michigan, they have entered into
agreements.
In fact, we have heard throughout this debate today that there are
these 200 State tribal taxation agreements in 18 different States. If
18 different States can enter into 200 agreements, why cannot those
States who feel they are coming up a little short on their taxation in
their States enforce those agreements?
The primary author of this agreement, the gentleman from Oklahoma
[Mr. Istook], the Oklahoma Tax Commission has passed legislation as
early as 1992 which does impose taxes and does impose taxes on
cigarettes and gasoline in the State of Oklahoma. In fact, I have a
letter here from Kathryn Bass, deputy general counsel, that says that
``in lieu of State tobacco and sales taxes in the amount of 25 percent
of all applicable State excise taxes on all cigarettes and tobacco
products purchased by the Nation or its licensees for resale in Indian
country without reference to the membership or nonmembership status of
the purchasing public.''
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter of July 9, 1997,
from Kathryn Bass to Mr. Baker-Shank.
The letter referred to is as follows:

[[Page H5230]]

Oklahoma Tax Commission,

Oklahoma City, OK, July 9, 1997.
Phillip Baker-Shank, Dorsey & Whitney,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Baker-Shank: Pursuant to your inquiry, this will
confirm that the State of Oklahoma and the Choctaw Nation
signed a Tribal/State Tobacco Tax Compact dated June 8, 1992,
effective January 1, 1993.
Pursuant to the Compact, the Nation agreed to make payments
to the State in lieu of state tobacco and sales taxes in the
amount of 25% of all applicable State excise taxes on all
cigarettes and tobacco products purchased by the Nation or
its licensees for resale in Indian country without reference
to the membership or non-membership status of the purchasing
public. The payments in lieu of state taxes are collected by
the wholesalers selling cigarettes and tobacco products to
the Nation and its licensees and are included in the
wholesale purchase price of the products.
The Compact is authorized pursuant to 68 O.S. Sec. 346 et
seq.
Very truly yours,
Kathryn Bass,
Deputy General Counsel.

{time} 1515

So they put in a 25-percent payment in lieu of taxes. That is sort of
a creative way in which one State has addressed this issue. I think
each and every State should do it that way.
My own State of Michigan, we have come up with ways to place not only
excise taxes but also sales tax on whether it be gasoline, tobacco sold
by native American tribes or individuals within our State. The problem
that we have here is really a State issue. The States have shown the
ingenuity to address this issue.
I do not want the Federal Government, this Congress or anyone else
telling Michigan how to enter into these agreements with native
Americans. I do not want the Federal Government telling us how to do
our job back in our States. We have creative State legislators. We have
creative Governors. We have creative State tax commissions. They are
the best to issue or address this issue. I do not believe it is
necessary for us, the U.S. Congress, to start telling the States how to
address this issue.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I see this as an attack on the sovereignty
of native American tribes throughout this Nation. I would hope that we
would defeat this amendment.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Visclosky] to promote tax fairness and relieve our Nation's small
businesses from unfair competition by Indian tribes.
Let me make it very clear what this amendment does. It simply says
that no new Federal lands can be transferred into tribal trust until
Indian tribes reach a binding agreement regarding State and local sales
tax on sales to non-Indians. The Supreme Court has made it very clear
that only sales to members of the Indian tribes holding the land in
trust are properly exempted from State and local taxes. But what is
actually happening?
Many Indian tribes are using property in tribal trust to operate
truck stops, gas stations, convenience stores and other retail outlets
without charging any State or local fuel sales or excise taxes. This in
turn means that they are selling goods to non-Indians at prices far
below what any other small business can charge; in the case of
gasoline, some 20 to 30 cents less per gallon.
Mr. Chairman, this is patently unfair. It is unfair to our Nation's
small business owners. It is unfair to our State governments which are
losing millions of dollars annually in tax revenue. Mr. Chairman, I am
all for lower taxes on consumers, but I am also for tax fairness. This
is a serious loophole that Congress must close. I strongly urge my
colleagues to support the Istook-Visclosky amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a couple of issues
that have been mentioned by some of my colleagues. For example, we
heard the argument, well, is this not the same as States having
different levels of taxes for gasoline or cigarettes or whatever it
might be. No, it is not the same, because this is a patchwork quilt.
This is where the Bureau of Indian Affairs is, for example, taking
applications for a tribe in Oklahoma to open up a convenience store at
a crossroads of two interstate highways in Ohio where they have never
had any historical connection, they do not have any sort of tribal
lands or any relevance there except it is a nice location to get a lot
of traffic and make a lot of money. An Oklahoma tribe with applications
in Arizona, an Oklahoma tribe with applications in Georgia. And it goes
on, too, with different States.
We have cities finding that different residential lots, not in one
block as part of an Indian area or reservation but in a patchwork
quilt, they will come in and take one residential lot in the middle of
a community and open up a store and say they are exempt from the zoning
laws, as well.
This is more like if one State said, I am going to buy a piece of
property in another State, and if I go out of Oklahoma and I go to
Missouri and I say, ``Now this land I bought is no longer under the
laws of the State of Missouri, it is under the laws of the State of
Oklahoma.'' So you could have, for example, Florida with a gas tax of a
nickel a gallon saying, ``We are going to buy pieces of property in
Connecticut where it is 38 cents a gallon. And we are going to undercut
the price and we will tell everybody they are not in Connecticut
anymore, they are in Florida.''
So if they go into Rhode Island where it is 28 cents a gallon, or if
North Carolina, with 5 cents a pack cigarette taxes says, ``We are
going to open up pieces of North Carolina in New York State where the
cigarette tax is 56 cents a pack or in New Jersey where it is 40 cents
a pack or Massachusetts where it is 51 cents a pack, and we are going
to sell it for the taxes only a nickel a pack,'' you see what happens
with this patchwork quilt that is being created.
These are not tribes wanting to have operations on their reservations
or on Indian lands. These are tribes that want to pick and choose the
premier locations anyplace in the country with no connection, no next
door neighbor situation with any existing tribes, not contiguous land,
but just say ``We want to buy up different tracts and create a
checkerboard. And our tribal lands are checkerboarded all over the
place, and they all just happen to be locations where lots of people
come by to buy gasoline and cigarettes and groceries and evade the
tax.''
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I will not take much time.
As we conclude this debate, I think it is important that we
understand what this debate is not. I will not debate the merits. I
made it clear earlier that on the merits, the substance of this, I
think this is bad public policy. I think it is extraordinarily
important that every Member that votes on this understand what this
amendment is about or, more to the point, what it is not about.
I just heard a moment ago the gentleman from California talking about
how this would prevent the transfer of any lands until, and then he
went on to say, until the tribes have entered into such an agreement
dealing with the collection of taxes.
Mr. Chairman, that had to do with an amendment that was stricken on a
point of order. This amendment, this amendment that we are considering
right now says only that the Secretary may not use any funds in this
act to carry out purposes, provisions of the act to acquire through
relinquishment, gift, exchange or assignment any interest in lands or
surface rights to lands outside of existing Indian reservations.
Mr. Chairman, it does not have anything to do with the issue that we
have all been talking about, myself included, about taxes, about
whether it is fair that tribes should collect taxes, pay taxes for
sales to non-Indians on their reservations. It does not have anything
to do with that. It says only that the Secretary may not acquire, do
anything, spend any money to acquire any land to put it into trust
status. For whatever reason it is being done, no money may be spent.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Istook].
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware there are actually

[[Page H5231]]

some 30 different laws under which property is taken into trust and the
amendment only addresses one specific one, leaving in place a multitude
of others which, among other things, permit tribes to acquire hospital
property and so forth? Is the gentleman aware that this is only 1 of
some 30 different sections under which lands can be taken in and put
into trust?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
am aware that it is only one of the various provisions, but that one
provision does not have to do with just taxes. It does not have
anything to do with taxes.
It is only one provision for bringing them in but it is also one that
is extraordinarily important and would limit, could have severe
limitations on the ability of the Secretary to bring lands into tribal
trust status. It is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we
should reject this amendment.
I understand why the gentleman has proposed the amendment, because it
was the only way that it could be brought to the floor, but it is too
broad. It does not do what it is intended to do. It goes far beyond
that and prevents the Secretary from bringing any land under tribal
trust status at any point.
I believe that that is a mistake. I would urge Members of this body
to reject this amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I call for a vote on the amendment.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate. I know my
father raised me with the belief always that the American Indians had
gotten a raw deal in our Nation's history. I have tried to be very
sympathetic to many of the problems they have had.
Clearly, from listening to the debate today, this issue of tax
collection is being handled very well in some States. But also it is
very clear that there are some very serious problems with what is going
on in some other areas. Indeed, I think the gentleman from Oklahoma has
spelled out very clearly the nature of this problem and the severity of
the problem.
Indeed, it is worth noting that if we did not have a problem here and
that if it did not need to be dealt with, we would not have a situation
where the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Conference of State
Legislators, these are all our colleagues who work in the State houses,
have supported this. The National League of Cities, no less, is
supporting this. So I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
the Istook-Visclosky amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can wrap this up.
I think it is important to stress what is happening here, what the
Federal Government is making possible because of the patchwork quilt,
hundreds of thousands of acres but sometimes it is a quarter acre here,
a quarter acre there, maybe a full acre here for a truck stop,
convenience store, smoke shop, whatever it may be, with total disregard
to the States where a tribe may normally operate, with total disregard
to its historic boundaries, whether you are talking about 20th century
history or 19th century or 18th century or whatever. It is the basic
rule of real estate, location, location, location, that is what is
driving this, that and the ability, not because of sovereign immunity,
not because of treaties, but, as the U.S. Supreme Court has stated,
solely because Congress has failed to act that they are marketing the
failure to charge taxes which the U.S. Supreme Court says are owing and
are due when non-tribal Members make these purchases.
This is not an old advertisement. This ad is about 8 months old. It
is after Oklahoma had tried to get tribes to enter into compacts. Only
3 out of 39 tribes in Oklahoma were willing to do so, despite some very
heavy financial incentives, because they can make more money by saying,
``Come buy from us, no tax on cigarettes, no tax on gasoline, no tax on
beer.'' And what difference does it make if they are not charging those
taxes?
Look at the difference. If you do not charge on gasoline, 26 cents a
gallon, you go to the corner, one station has a price 26 cents each and
every gallon lower than the other. Where do you take your business?
Cigarettes, average of 41 cents a pack. Where do you take your
business?
North Carolina cannot come into Massachusetts and say, ``We have a 40
cents a pack, 46 cents a pack differential. We are going to open up a
branch of North Carolina in the middle of Massachusetts so the
Massachusetts businesses cannot do business.''
I heard someone on this floor say, well, that is okay, everybody can
make a deal with the tribes. That means if you do not do business with
the tribes you cannot stay in business if you do not let them take over
your operation. What a difference it makes. This is from an actual
retail location. It goes through their grocery, tobacco, beer profit,
personnel, expenses, everything. If they have to pay the tax, the
business operates an annual loss of $5,500 a year. If they do not have
to collect the tax, they make $927,000 profit.
Who can stay in business if the Federal Government permits people to
thumb their nose at the law? This is basic fairness. This is basic
justice. This is basic playing by the rules. We have $6.5 billion in
this bill and in other bills going directly to the benefit of Indian
tribes. Do we also say that we want to give them the key to every
business in the country, so that those that are trying to abide by the
law cannot compete and our local communities do not have the billions
of dollars they are losing in gasoline, cigarette, and sales taxes that
pays for our roads, that pays for our schools, that pays for public
safety?

{time} 1530

I urge Members to vote for the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am of a split mind, frankly, on the Istook amendment.
I am concerned about some of the issues that he raises, and I frankly
think that some of the tribes have abused their ability to have land
put in trust. And I think, for that reason, that the authorizing
committee in charge of basic law ought to hold hearings and ought to
produce a legislative vehicle that corrects that problem.
While the Istook amendment is advertised as attacking a problem such
as the differential in tax law that the gentleman has referred to, in
fact that is not what this amendment does. This amendment simply says,
cold turkey, that none of the funds may be made available for the
purposes of acquiring trust lands. That goes too far. It is not
consistent with the traditions or obligations of this country, and for
that reason I think that the amendment ought to be defeated.
I would also say that I would be much more inclined to vote for the
gentleman's amendments in the future if they are not accompanied by an
effort to use the congressional frank in order to send material into
other Members' districts which is essentially misleading and is not
descriptive of the actual amendments before the House.
I am very willing to respond to legitimate suggestions for change in
the law, but I do not respond very well to lobbying pressure from
anybody, especially when it comes from another Member of Congress. It
seems to me that Members of Congress have an obligation to tend to
their own districts. I think they ought to be very careful about the
nature of mail which they send into other Members' districts under the
frank.
The frank is a privilege that Members of this House have that should
not be used to create internal lobbying. The gentleman from Oklahoma is
well-known as someone who does not like to see Federal agencies or
Federal grantees lobbying with Federal money. I also do not like to see
Members of Congress lobbying with Federal money, especially when they
are lobbying each other through the use of the frank and when frank
material is sent into congressional districts which is not consistent
with amendments that are actually offered on the House floor.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I think there are two
problems with the gentleman's approach. First, I do not, for one, think
that it is appropriate to engage in what is in essence a lobbying
operation with taxpayers' money by sending franked material into other
Members' congressional districts.
Second, if that material is sent in, I think it ought to accurately
reflect the

[[Page H5232]]

situation which exists in each of those States, and the material I saw
did not.
And, third, I would suggest that the amendment ought to be offered
which in fact attacks the problem that is described in the speeches
accompanying the amendment. Eliminating all ability to take land in as
trust lands is not the correct remedy for the problem at hand.
The gentleman from Oklahoma is correct about the problem. I, for one,
very deeply resent the fact that some of the tribes have used existing
law to take land into trust and then operate casinos on that land far
from their reservation. I think that is an outrageous abuse of the
trust privilege.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I also think that it is wrong to convey a
misinterpretation of what some of our Governors and some of our State
legislatures have been able to negotiate by way of agreements with
tribes so that they do, in fact, collect the correct amount of tax
revenues from those States.
I would simply say that the gentleman is partially correct in his
concern, but this is not the way to go about it. I do not think it is
legitimate to wipe out the Secretary's ability to take land into trust
across the board when, in fact, the problem is much narrower than this
amendment would lead one to believe.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me the
additional minute.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer what has just been
put forth as an abuse of the frank. In fact, the information sent by
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] was to public officials,
cleared by the House Committee on Frank; and its erroneous nature will
be determined by the facts and not by a Member standing on the floor.
I would rise to support the Istook amendment but begrudgingly. I come
from the second largest tribal district in the United States, and I
want to describe for the Members of this body what is occurring. In
fact, extortion is occurring today as members of tribes go out and tell
people who are independent private businessmen, many of which are
members of that same tribe, that if they do not sell their fast food
stores to them, if they do not sell their gas stations to them, that
they will open one across the way and eliminate their business.
So not only is there an unfair competitive advantage, not only is
there an unethical approach, but in fact there is extortion, which is
under investigation by the FBI at the present time.
This is well-placed common sense. It does not limit all tribal lands
coming under trust. What it says, simply, is that there must be an
agreement between the tribes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman was not here, and the
only point I would want to make is that, first of all, the first Istook
amendment that did what the gentleman wanted to do was struck down on a
point of order, so now he has this secondary amendment. Under this
amendment, remember now, the Secretary of the Interior must approve
this.
I would say to the gentleman, if it was ever done in this kind of a
threatening way, we will drive you out of business, that application I
think would be turned down summarily by the Secretary of the Interior.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Coburn was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield for one
further comment?
Mr. COBURN. I will continue to yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the second comment is the parties would have
a right to go to court, into federal district court, to stop the
transfer into trust. I would think under that kind of a practice that
the courts would strike down the application.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to allow the other
gentleman from Oklahoma to answer that, but I will tell the gentleman
from Washington that presently those very things that he is describing
are ongoing without interference from the BIA or the Secretary and, in
fact, there is extortion ongoing.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
will join the gentleman in going to the FBI, if that is accurate.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would tell the
gentleman that I have been to the FBI.
I want to bring one additional point before I yield to the other
gentleman from Oklahoma. We have before us an historic agreement on
tobacco which has associated with it taxes on tobacco. Do my colleagues
know where all the cigarettes will be sold in the future? They will be
sold on tribal properties throughout the United States.
The Cherokee Nation, the Creek Nation, the Choctaw Nation, anywhere
in history that they have lands, they will come and buy land and claim
it as tribal lands, and they will be the sellers in fact of gasoline,
they will be the sellers in fact of tobacco, they will be the owners of
casino gambling, of bingo halls, and, in fact, the revenue lost to
individual localities, municipalities and States will be enormous.
We have to deal with the greater issue: Can there truly be a
sovereign country inside a sovereign country? That is one we will not
attack. Nobody wants to deal with that issue. That is why we face this
problem. And until we say the Indians cannot be truly sovereign, until
we stop giving to the Cherokee Nation $100 million a year and allowing
them to waste a large portion of that through the problems, if the
gentleman is familiar now with what is going on with the Cherokee
Nation, then we will not solve this problem.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I think the important thing to recall is,
as has been pointed out before, there are approximately 30 laws on the
books under which the Bureau of Indian Affairs can take property into
tribal trust. This amendment only creates a restriction, a moratorium,
upon one of them.
The only reason hearings have not been held, of course, is that
despite requests many months old to do so, the authorizing committee
has not held the hearings although we have requested them.
We have advised people of the provisions which were passed by this
House last year by a vote of 212 to 206 which are incorporated in House
Resolution 1168 sponsored by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky]
and myself and over 50 other Members of this body.
That was what the original amendment was that was offered on this
floor because a point of order was raised and sustained against it.
Then we came with the substitute amendment which only enacts the
moratorium on one of the some 30-odd mechanisms. It leaves in place,
for example, the mechanism where they can still acquire property for
hospitals and other what is called eleemosynary institutions for public
assistance and public good and so forth.
We are trying to target this as narrowly as the House rules permit
us. And of course with the assistance of the Senate and the conference
committee, we expect to improve upon that yet further.
This is an important amendment, Mr. Chairman, because the problem, as
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] states, is accelerating, it is
growing, and nobody can stay in business when their competitors have
this advantage and can locate anywhere they wish without being tied to
existing tribal lands.
The moratorium is only on new lands. It does not affect what they may
do with lands which the tribes already have, whether they own them
outright or are in trust.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H5233]]

Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would use the time remaining to
emphasize that this is a bipartisan proposal between the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and myself.
What we were trying to do was to ensure that States and locales have
the resources to provide for the people that they represent; to provide
for a fair playing field for entrepreneurs in this country.
I would emphasize we are not imposing a new tax. We are not taking
anything away from Indians in the United States of America. What we are
simply asking for is appropriate negotiations as far as State compacts.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this endeavor.
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
the Istook-Visclosky amendment. I believe that this legislation will
protect small businesses from unfair competition and will ensure that
states receive the nontribal tax revenues due them.
The Istook amendment addresses several important issues: Should a
program designed to help native Americans tribes acquire lands for
agriculture, industrial, and cultural purposes be instead used to drive
out local competition? Should the American taxpayer be expected to foot
the bill? The answer to both these questions is ``no.'' In fact, the
U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that nontribal customers must pay State
taxes on goods purchased on tribal land.
For States such as Washington, New York, California, Oklahoma, and
Michigan--which are home to sizable tribal lands covering hundreds or
thousands of square miles--the costs are extremely significant. My home
State of Washington has lost $63 million in lost revenue from the sale
of cigarettes alone. This figure, of course, does not include the lost
opportunity costs to small business, men and women who were forced out
of business because they could not compete with tax exempt tribal
lands.
Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that it is unfair that programs and
funds intended to be used by tribes to provide low cost food, housing,
and to foster native American economic development, and heritage be
used instead to fund anticompetitive activities.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that the issue of native American
tribes collecting State excise taxes on sales to nontribal individuals
that occur on tribal land does not involve native American tribes'
claims of sovereign immunity. Nor does it involve any existing treaty
obligation of the U.S. Government. It is, instead, a problem which
Congress has created and which Congress must rectify. The amendment
before us would do that, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. This is a
classic example of overreaction by Congress. This is curing a sprained
ankle with a sledgehammer.
The gentleman from Oklahoma is trying to solve a problem that exists
in a very few instances. I am told that a few Indian businesses are
selling large amounts of tobacco and motor fuels without collecting
State and local sales and excise taxes. I can appreciate how this gives
a competitive advantage to a few Indian businesses.
I will support legislation which will straighten out this problem to
the satisfaction of the States and local communities as well as the
tribes.
However, I cannot support this amendment because it would place a
limitation on appropriated funds that will adversely affect all Indian
tribes.
Most lands being taken into trust have nothing whatsoever to do with
taxes or commercial businesses. Most lands being taken into trust are
small home sites which lie within an existing Indian reservation,
parcels of nontrust land scattered from one end of a reservation to the
other. Out west this is a very common land ownership pattern and is
called checkerboarded land ownership. Administering these
checkerboarded lands is a nightmare both for the States and the tribes.
Let me point out that small parcels of Indian land are still going
out of trust every year. As a matter of fact, more land is going out of
trust each year than is being taken into trust. In 1996, for example,
130,000 acres of land went out of trust and only 55,000 acres were
taken into trust.
For decades the Interior Department has been trying to block up these
checkerboard lands by taking back into trust those lands purchased by
tribes which were originally part of a reservation and then went out of
trust under the 1887 General Allotment Act.
The effect of this amendment would be catastrophic for any Indian
tribe which has spent years and years and thousands and thousands of
dollars buying back their lands. In many instances, these lands
purchased by tribes will have little value to anybody unless they are
taken into trust.
Tribes are doing this for reasonable, practical purposes. The Bureau
of Indian Affairs operates law enforcement programs, road maintenance
programs, environmental services programs, real estate services
programs, water resources programs, and a large number of other
programs which only apply to trust lands. Tribes want their members
living on these lands to benefit from these programs.
Trust status defines the jurisdictional powers exercised by a tribal
government. It also defines the extent of State jurisdiction. It
determines Federal criminal jurisdiction.
The gentleman from Oklahoma wants to solve a commercial tax problem
which many of the States have already solved. I am told that even the
State of Oklahoma has worked out most of its tax problems with most of
its tribes.
This amendment, however, ignores all of these State solutions.
Instead, this amendment would completely eliminate the Secretary of the
Interior's ability to take any land into trust, in any State for any
reason.
Mr. Chairman, this sledgehammer approach is wrong and I urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to oppose the
Istook amendment because it improperly interferes with established
practices for placing Indian lands into trust. In addition, the
Interior appropriations bill is not the place to consider this ill-
advised amendment.
Our country has struggled to address the needs of native Americans
who lost more than 90 million acres near the turn of the century. But
we have arrived at a process that works under the Indian Reorganization
Act of 1934. The Secretary of the Interior is able to consider
applications to place Indian land in trust. Placing land in trust is
intended to promote self-determination and economic self-sufficiency
for tribes. It is important to keep in mind that 40 percent of
applications to place land in trust are not approved. In addition, many
acres of land are removed from trust status each year. In 1995, more
than 130,000 acres went out of trust while only 55,000 acres went into
trust.
The Istook amendment rewrites the process for placing lands in trust
and could unfairly block Indian lands from entering trust status. It
would backtrack on the principle that relations between native
Americans and the United States should be at the level of the Federal
Government, rather than at the State level where, historically, Indian
tribes have been treated fairly. Under the Istook amendment, a State
would only need to refuse to negotiate with an Indian tribe in order to
block that tribe's lands from being placed in trust.
Finally, the Istook amendment should be opposed on procedural grounds
alone. This amendment constitutes a substantial revision of policy
toward native American lands that ought not to be attached to the
Interior appropriations bill. But at the very least, it should be fully
considered before the House makes such a dramatic policy change.
Unfortunately, hearings have not been held on the Istook amendment, nor
was it considered by the Interior Subcommittee or the full
Appropriations Committee.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Istook amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ISTOOK. 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 Oklahoma [Mr. Istook]
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Hill

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

Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Hill: Page 89, after line
15, insert the following new section:
Sec. 325. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Indian Health Service by this Act may be
used to restructure the funding of Indian health care
delivery systems to Alaskan Natives.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of the
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on
Resources. He has been asked by the Alaska regional nonprofit health
corporations to offer an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill.
Currently, health care in Alaska's 226 Native villages is provided by
12 regional nonprofit health corporations.

[[Page H5234]]

{time} 1545

These corporations are governed by elected village government
representatives. They set policies and priorities for health care
delivery to Alaska Natives within their regions and villages.
This tribally-controlled health delivery structure implements self-
governance and self-determination legislation as mandated by Congress.
Chairman Young was actively involved with the passage of these
important legislative measures to promote self-governance and self-
determination by villages in Alaska.
As I just described, these 12 regional nonprofit health corporations
provide health care services to 226 federally recognized Alaska Native
villages or tribes, consisting of approximately 86,000 Alaska Natives.
However, as mandated under Public Law 93-638, as amended, the Indian
Health Service has recently let several villages break away from these
regionalized health care delivery systems.
This mandatory provision allows the villages to administer their own
health care programs, on a fragmented basis, which the IHS funds
directly. At the same time, corresponding resources are siphoned off
almost quid pro quo from the regional nonprofit health corporations.
This, of course, diminishes the quality and extent of health care
services provided by the regional health corporations to thousands of
village residents.
Chairman Young has fought long and hard for village self-governance
and will continue to do so. However, he frankly cannot justify
fragmenting and destroying a workable regionalized health care system
which at least meets the minimal health care needs of Alaska Natives.
We, as a Congress, have a duty to protect and advance Alaska Native
villages and peoples. The provision of adequate health care services
must be a top priority in Congress's protection of Alaska Native
peoples. After all, we are talking about the life and death of Alaska
citizens.
This amendment seeks to protect the health and lives of Alaska
Natives by maintaining health care delivery on a regional basis under
the nonprofit corporations, which again are governed by elected Alaska
Native village representatives. This has proven to be a very effective
delivery system in meeting the minimum health care needs of the people.
Why monkey around with a program that works?
In the interim, it is the position of the Alaska delegation that
Congress, in honoring the U.S. trust responsibility, not allow any more
villages to separate from the regional health corporations until
Congress takes further action after the General Accounting Office
issues a report on the impacts of costs and health care delivery to
Alaska Natives.
I urge the adoption of this Alaska-specific amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will have no adverse impact on the
delivery of health services to Alaska Natives. It simply codifies IHS's
current policy with respect to the compact between the agency and the
Indian health care corporations. To the best of my knowledge, there is
no opposition. We are prepared to accept the amendment on this side.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the only thing we have heard is that Health
and Human Services is concerned that the proposed amendment could
infringe on the right of tribal governments to participate in self-
determination contracting and compacting, which is their right pursuant
to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act.
We understand that GAO will be asked to study the complexities of
this situation. It would be prudent to delay action on this matter
until the results of this analysis are completed and reviewed by the
tribal governments, Congress, and the administration. And this language
comes up, this statement comes up with the blessing of OMB and the
Indian Health Service.
I am not going to object to the amendment. I think we can check with
the administration during conference and make certain that we are on
solid ground here. The gentleman has offered the amendment for the
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and I have no objection to it, but I
wanted to put this in the RECORD at this point.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill].
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Stupak

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

Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Stupak:
Page 89, after line 15, insert the following:
Sec. 325. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the eviction of any person from real property in
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore that the person was
authorized, on July 10, 1997, to occupy under a lease by the
Department of the Interior or a special use permit issued by
the Department of the Interior.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. My amendment is strictly a
limitation amendment which simply prevents the eviction of individuals
at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lake Shore until the abandoned
buildings or previous structures are removed and taken care of.
Basically, what it says, Mr. Chairman, is my understanding right now
over at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lake Shore there are over 100
abandoned buildings from folks who had leases with the Park Service.
The Park Service was then to tear those buildings down and let the area
go back to its natural state.
Unfortunately, the Park Service has not had the money to clean up
these abandoned sites, so today there are over 100 abandoned dwellings
on the lake shore. There is no money to tear them down, to allow it to
go back to its natural state. So they do not have money to do it, but
yet we are still evicting people. We are still evicting people. We do
not have money to clean up the past abandoned buildings. This year
alone 11 more people will be evicted.
What my amendment simply does, it is not a permanent amendment, but
what it simply does is holds eviction for the length of this
legislation, which is approximately 1 year. There is no reason in the
world for an additional eyesore upon the Sleeping Bear National Lake
Shore. There is no reason to have abandoned buildings. There is no
reason to have deteriorating buildings when we cannot take care of the
ones we already have. In a way, it is a 1-year moratorium.
I understand that there is no objection. I want to thank the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], for helping me along on this process;
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], the gentleman from Washington
[Mr. Dicks], and others who have worked with us on this process to put
the amendment in this legislation.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. We are
prepared to accept the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Stupak], but I do want to make it clear that this is only a 1-year,
temporary withholding and that ultimately these residents will be
required to move. Of course, they will be compensated, but they will
eventually be required to sell to the Government. But in view of the
fact that the Park Service currently has 100 structures that they have
not had the funding to remove, I do not think it would be fair to those
that are still there to make them move during the next fiscal year.
I would urge the Park Service to get on with removing the structures
that are already there and have been purchased by the Service. By
imposing a 1-year moratorium, we give the residents confidence that
they will, at least, be able to stay through fiscal year 1998. We
support the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I share the concern of the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Regula] about letting this go on beyond 1 year. The Park
Service has, in fact, written a letter of concern about this. But under
the circumstances, if they have not torn down the structures, the
gentleman I think makes a persuasive case that for 1 year, at least, we
ought to go along with this.
I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

[[Page H5235]]

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the
gentlemen from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the type of precedent.
I understand there is a special problem asserted in this particular
instance, but the word ``eviction'' used by the amendment author very
much surprises me. I expect that most of these individuals had a 25-
year contract that they made to, in fact, utilize the property, and I
might add at generally reasonable prices, and receive then the
compensation for their property under specific terms of a contract.
I am surprised to hear that there are so many sites. I do not know
every year if you look at what is happening with these properties that
were largely voluntarily sold, maybe some years ago, that you may be
getting into an issue here where every year, even this year in 1997,
you may have individuals that are now expected to in fact give up the
properties in accord with their agreements. When an amendment like this
passes, I think it raises all sorts of issues and questions.
This is not an unusual problem. We had the same thing with the
Indiana Dunes, and I think that you will find that there are many
Members that have come before our authorizing committee on this sort of
matter. So I understand the concerns being expressed here by my friend
and colleague from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], but I also would suggest that
there is an issue here that is going to obviously open up the
floodgates with regards to this type of orderly agreements and
contracts by land management agencies acquiring lands and properties.
I hope the dollars are available for demolishing and moving these
empty buildings out, these acquisitions were painful decisions that
were made at some expense and time to the taxpayer, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the
concerns of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. This is one of
the reasons that we have given the Park Service additional money to
deal with backlog maintenance. This would fall within that category,
and I emphasize that we are only contemplating this limitation for 1
year.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak],
who may want to comment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. In
response to my friend from Minnesota, this has been going on for some
time. This lake shore property in my district, there are over 100
abandoned buildings.
Today is the first time I heard where the Park Service, not from the
chairman, but we had a letter from the Park Service that said suddenly
we have money. For 3 years we have been trying to address it. If this
is the only way we can address this issue, then this legislation has a
lot of merit because we at least got to addressing the issue after 3
years.
It is not just my district. I know in Delaware and Indiana and other
places we have to address it and there has to be some kind of fairness.
If we are telling people their time is up, they have to move off, and
it is just going to sit there, for a lot of these folks this lake shore
property goes through two counties in my district. They are the eyes
and ears, and they help out the Park Service and they keep the
buildings maintained. I think that is better than some abandoned
building that becomes an attractive nuisance and we have liability
issues.
So while I understand the concerns about all the limitations of only
1 year, at the same time I think we have to start addressing it in a
very practical manner. I appreciate the cooperation I have received
from everyone on this issue.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Coburn

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

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Coburn:
Page 89, after line 15, insert the following new section:
Sec. 325. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act
may be obligated or expended for the Man and Biosphere
Program or the World Heritage Program administered by the
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO).

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 60 minutes and that
the time be equally divided.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object,
unfortunately, I have been instructed by our leadership that we have to
object to any time agreements at this point. I regret that, but I have
no choice.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this is not truly about biosphere reserves.
This is not about the United Nations. What this is about is us as a
body and whether or not we are going to follow our constitutional
process in this body. This is just one example of many where this body
has violated and continues to violate its own rules in terms of
authorized programs.
In the last several years millions of dollars have been spent on this
program as well as hundreds of other programs without any authorization
whatsoever from this body. This amendment seeks to eliminate just one
of the many hundreds of areas where money is spent, taxpayer money is
spent, never being approved by Congress in an authorizing body, never
being looked at completely by that authorizing body.
Second, it lacks complete oversight. There is no oversight into the
money, the taxpayer money that is spent. There has been no oversight
function whatsoever.
What this amendment attempts to do is to talk to the Congress about
returning to do what it is supposed to do. Now if you oppose this
amendment, then what you really do is you oppose us operating under the
rules that we have set for ourselves, because what in fact we have said
is that we are not going to fund money for programs that are not
authorized. We are not going to spend American taxpayers' money in a
way that we cannot go and see that it is spent properly.
We are not going to spend money on authorizing programs. There were
exclusions in the first three authorizing programs that came through
this House floor that said we will not allow money to be spent on this
until it will be authorized.
So I would simply ask, Mr. Chairman, that we in fact apply the rules
of the House and the disciplines that were put there on purpose so that
we do the right job with the American taxpayers' money.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].

{time} 1600

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to very briefly identify with the remarks of my
colleagues. This has less to do with the United Nations, but it has
more to do with the fact that we as Congressmen must abide by the
constitutional responsibilities that we have and, that is, not only to
protect the pocketbooks of the taxpayers dollars in good and wise
expenditures but also their ability to make a living. A lot of
Americans are still having to make a living off the land.
I just want to call attention to the fact that there are 47 biosphere
reserve sites already designated in the United States without
congressional authority, sites whose acreages would total the land base
of the State of Colorado.
We can see Colorado here designated in black. That is the land base
that has been designated as biosphere reserves, without any
authorization from Congress and without the local people realizing or
being informed that this was happening to their land base. It is a
serious problem. It needs congressional oversight and congressional
authority.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment to prohibit
U.S. funds for the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program and for the World

[[Page H5236]]

Heritage programs which are both administered by the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO].
As the gentleman points out, I think erroneously, these programs do
report on how the money is expended on those particular programs.
Regrettably we are not members of UNESCO, the United Nations group.
President Reagan made sure of that by taking us out during his
administration. I contend that we ought to be back in the organization
so that we could sit at the table with other nations and obviously have
a better sense of monitoring. But this amendment, Mr. Chairman, caters
to the ill-founded fears of a tiny minority of people in this
population of ours who sees a worldwide conspiracy behind every UNESCO
program.
Frankly, the debate on this issue has surfaced some of the grossest
distortion of facts that I have witnessed in a long time. Digressing a
bit, I might talk about a small minority in this country who many years
ago was known as the Know-Nothing Party. The Know-Nothing Party talked
about a great world conspiracy to take over the United States. As a
matter of fact, they said that the Washington Monument was being built
by the Pope to commemorate his taking over the sovereign United States.
To prove that, they said that the marble to build the Washington
Monument was coming no less from Italy.
Well, the Know-Nothing Party was effective. They scared everybody in
town and they stopped building the Washington Monument. They stopped
for about 50 years, as a matter of fact. The Washington Monument lay by
itself there, a third built. If Members go out and look at the
Washington Monument today, they will notice that it is two-toned. It is
two colors. Years later when Abraham Lincoln was elected into office,
he said, ``that is enough of this scare tactics, let us finish the
monument''. However when they went back to Italy to the quarry, they
were out of that marble. So they had to go to another quarry to try to
match the marble but they never could. Instead the marble was a shade
lighter. That is why the Washington Monument is of two colors.
The Know-Nothing Party had been effective in their panic to stop it.
That is what I think this group is doing today. Those who support this
amendment maintain that the inclusion of Federal lands in the World
Heritage list somehow transfers U.S. sovereignty over our lands. It is
just plain false. It is plain untrue. It is a scare tactic. It is going
back to the Know-Nothing Party. Perhaps, as I said, even deliberately
misconstrued.
The World Heritage program and the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program
in no way transfers any lands from the United States to the United
Nations or any other sovereignty. These programs are simply voluntary
vehicles for designated areas around the world as international
treasures that must be preserved, and to protect the people of the
world from the problems of pollution that, as we are well aware, knows
no national boundaries.
The World Heritage list has no force of law. Rather, it is a
statement of principles that acknowledges the value to the world of our
national treasures. I do not know of anyone who does not agree that
Yosemite National Park, or the Grand Canyon, or similar areas must be
protected from overdevelopment and from pollution.
UNESCO program bashing, in my opinion, is a cover which attempts to
remove the United States from any multilateral efforts to address the
negative effects of pollution and development. This amendment attempts
to continue this coverup. It is not honest in its goals of information,
and it is viewed by our allies around the world as further proof that
the U.S. legislative process is being dominated by a minority of people
whose vision of the world, if enacted, would guarantee our children and
their children with an environmental nightmare devoted only to
exploitation and greed.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. It caters to fear and
misinformation. It is not worthy of enlightened people. It is not
worthy of our Nation, and it deserves to be soundly defeated.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma. While we all want to see our national parks
preserved, I believe we have a responsibility in this body to have some
oversight of a program such as this where we are designating huge areas
of our country to be involved in an international program. This is not
something that has been debated by an authorizing committee at all. We
have no legal language on it.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. This is just the
first misunderstanding, I guess, about whether or not there has been
authorization action or oversight action on it. I would just suggest to
the gentleman that each year that I chaired a subcommittee that, the
ICOMOS which is one of the arms or organizations, did come before us
and ask for and talked about funding for some of the programs.
Furthermore, the World Heritage site is not only authorized under the
Historic Preservation Act but has also been passed as a 1973 treaty.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would point out again, there has been
absolutely zero authorization in this body for this program or for the
expenditure of any money associated with it. There is no question.
Questions have been asked. This has nothing to do with the United
Nations. I can give the gentleman a list of 100 other programs that
this body is spending money on that we have no right spending money on
because we have abandoned our own rules.
I would bring out an additional point. The gentleman from California
[Mr. Brown], the ranking member on the Committee on Science, is
bringing forth legislation to authorize this, as it should be. The
Congress ought to debate this issue in the appropriate committee, which
is his committee. We ought to have the testimony of those people who
are both for and against it come before Congress, a reasoned and
thoughtful decision ought to be made, and once that decision is made,
then that ought to be brought to the floor of this House. That has not
happened. It violates the very principle of the democracy under which
we operate and the rules under which we operate this House. When that
in fact does come, then we should have the vote on it. In the meantime,
we violate our principle of trust to the American people for spending
money that has never been looked at by Congress and never been
oversighted.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, getting between me
and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
Of course, I think he is speaking of the Man and the Biosphere
Program, not the World Heritage Convention, which is, after all, a
treaty which has been approved and which is authorized in the Historic
Preservation Act. The Man and the Biosphere Program draws funds from a
series of different research allocations from various agencies in the
Federal Government, I think some 14 different agencies, if my memory is
correct, all of which are authorized to expend such research funds.
The fact is that they have general authority to spend money on
research. We do not design their projects. Congress appropriately
permits some discretion. The issue is whether or not the MAB Program
has general authority. If there is a contest about it, and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], I respect him and the gentleman
from California [Mr. Miller] for submitting legislation on
authorization, but it is sort of like the redundant reiteration of the
self-evident. Someone is doing it because they want to take on that
challenge, but meanwhile we should not stop the funding.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Reclaiming my time, some serious concerns
exist with this Member regarding the authorization of this in terms of
serious concerns raised by a lot of my constituents in terms of what
this actually involves. I think to ridicule the

[[Page H5237]]

opponents of this as though they are members of a flat earth society is
wrong. I am on the Committee on Science along with the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown] and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn]. We
really need to have a serious vetting of this issue, exactly what the
program involves, what exact bearing it may have in the future in terms
of our control as a body as the U.S. Congress of these national parks
and these so-called biosphere areas and exactly what will be the United
Nations involvement in them. After that process, it may be determined
that this is certainly nothing that we need to be concerned about and
it may garner the support of this body. On the other hand, I have yet
to be convinced.
Therefore, I feel that the gentleman from Oklahoma's amendment is a
good amendment, I support his amendment, and I have supported his
amendment in the committee.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to just get a few facts out
here on the table. I think this is important. Under the World Heritage
Convention, each nation nominates its own most important natural and
cultural sites and pledges to take the necessary steps to preserve and
protect them under its own legal system. The treaty implementing
legislation and program regulations mandate a process that is orderly,
predictable, and exacting, requiring a minimum of more than 2 years
between the proposal of a site for study and its consideration by the
World Heritage Committee. The U.S. nomination process is clearly
delineated in law and regulation, title IV of the Historic Preservation
Act of 1980 and 36 CFR 73, the World Heritage Convention.
Under the regulation, the National Park Service staffs the
Interagency Panel on World Heritage, which is advisory to and chaired
by the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. The panel
meets in public sessions to consider proposed nominations and to review
completed studies. Proposals to nominate have originated from private
organizations and citizens and local governments as well as from park
superintendents.
Every proposed nomination has a strictly defined boundary. The
criteria and documentation requirements for nominations are highly
selective. Many proposed properties have been turned down or deferred
for cause. Relevant committees of the House and Senate are notified of
all pending proposals and again informed when the department has
decided to nominate a property. Over the years when Members have
commented, they have commonly supported proposed nominations in their
respective States. This whole thing started under the Nixon
administration.
Since 1979, when Yellowstone and Mesa Verde were placed on the World
Heritage list, 18 other U.S. sites have been added, for a total of 20.
A handful of others have been nominated but not listed.

{time} 1615

No new proposed nominations are being actively considered. The World
Heritage Committee, composed of representatives-elect from 21 member
countries, review all national nominations. At present 506 properties
have been listed. The committee also places properties on the list of
World Heritage in Danger. Only the committee can place properties on
either list. Neither listing action imposes any legal requirement for
U.S. sites beyond those already contained in U.S. law.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I think the gentleman is
making a very good statement in pointing out the preparation and the
information that is available to the public generally and to Members of
Congress specifically, and I realize that many of us have not had the
opportunity to learn all of this in detail, but the presumption, I
think, should be on two decades of bipartisan support under both
Republican and Democratic administrations.
I point out that the gentleman pointed out 16 of the sites are
actually national parks and 4 are not, but that no private site would
be listed without the consent of the owner.
Mr. DICKS. That is correct.
Mr. VENTO. And that this places no additional restrictions or
interferes in any way with the sovereignty or the property rights of
any individuals in terms of these World Heritage sites.
Is that the gentleman's understanding?
Mr. DICKS. That is correct, that is my understanding.
Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the gentleman's having yielded to me.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield to me? He has
given me so much data with which to look at, so for just a second?
Mr. DICKS. Yes; I am glad the author of the amendment wants to be
informed. I think it is quite good, and I yield to him.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. First of all, there have been no statements from me in
putting forth this amendment that I objected to the World Heritage
Reserve Program. Never said; no, I have never said that.
No, the point is, and authorizing language that the gentleman, the
implementing language that the gentleman from Washington states, title
IV of the Historic Preservation Act; could he please inform me the date
in which we signed on to this treaty?
Mr. DICKS. 1973.
Mr. COBURN. And could the gentleman in fact tell me whether since
that time this has come before the Committee on Science or the other
authorizing committees to, in fact, implement this treaty and the
language associated with same?
Mr. DICKS. The gentleman, I would refer him to the Constitution of
the United States, under which the Senate of the United States has the
responsibility for the ratification of treaties, giving its advice and
consent.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman continue to yield to
me?
Mr. DICKS. Yes; I continue to yield.
Mr. COBURN. But the Senate can originate no spending, and therefore
the House has to originate spending, and to do that it has to have
authorized programs under which to do that, and I would just like a
reference to where the authority comes for the House to spend money
that has never been agreed to by the respective committees that have
jurisdiction over that money.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, and I quoted, and I will
try to go back and find the section under the Historic Preservation
Act, there is authorization for this program. That is my understanding.
So I guess the point I am trying to make here is I think we have a
program that is working very effectively, and the idea of cutting off
the money for it and saying no money shall be spent I think is
unnecessary.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Well, I mean it is authorized under title IV of the
Historic Preservation Act, the amendments of 1980, the subsequent
amendments of 1982, the reauthorization of it in 1988 for 25 years.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
how much money is authorized?
Mr. VENTO. There is not a specific amount autorized.
Mr. COBURN. Exactly my point.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, that is not the gentleman's point. The point
is that we do not always authorize a specific amount.
Now, the gentleman may object to the fact that there is not a
specific amount authorized, but general authority exists within the
rules of the House and the Constitution.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to yield any further. It is
under the Historic Preservation Act. I think there is legal authority
for this. Here it is.

[[Page H5238]]

Title IV of the Historic Preservation Act of 1980 and 36 CFR 73, the
World Heritage Convention.
I would also point out that not only was this done under the Nixon
administration, but finally the Reagan administration chose to
highlight one of its most major initiatives in private sector fund
raising for parks, the restoration of the Statue of Liberty, by
nominating the statue to the World Heritage list in 1984.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. 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 urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. I think it is unnecessary. I think there has been a lot of
fear mongering about this. My view is that it is a very solid, common
sense oriented program that also has done a lot of good, but the World
Heritage parks, sites that have been named have actually, we have seen
an increase in tourism. More people want to go to those sites.
So I think it has been an advantage to the communities where there
has been such a designation.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise today in support of the Coburn amendment. As my colleagues
know, in these debates now and then we get off track. I think we have
to go back and read what the amendment really says. So let me just
refresh everyone's mind. It is not dealing with tourism, it is not
dealing with talking about past accomplishments of different Government
agencies or Government owned projects. It is basically dealing with the
present funding of programs that originated in the U.N. These programs
are being funded illegally.
The amendment reads ``none of the funds made available by this act
may be obligated or expended for the Man and Biosphere Program or the
World Heritage Program administered by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization.''
Now I would remind all my colleagues that on June 11, 1997, in
Rollcall 198 we had this same vote. It passed 222 to 202. So for the
folks on that side of the aisle I think they should remember this has
already been voted on by the House and was passed overwhelmingly.
Second, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the
Committee on Resources, had a vote on what is called the American Land
Sovereignty Act. That passed overwhelmingly, 246 to 178. That act would
require specific congressional approval before any area within the
United States is included in an international land reserve and require
specific accounting of all funds used to support the Biosphere Program.
So we have on record two votes that clearly show that the majority of
the Members here in Congress at least on the House side supported it.
Now the Biosphere Program and the World Heritage Sites Program have
designated a combined total of 67 different U.S. sites and hundreds of
thousands of dollars of taxpayers' contributions without any
authorization from State and local governments or any Members of
Congress, from either body. These two programs are under the
jurisdiction of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization which is UNESCO. UNESCO was so poorly run and physically
mismanaged that the United States withdrew from this agency in 1984. I
say again, we withdrew. The United States withdrawal from UNESCO
included disallowing any U.S. funds from going to this agency.
Unfortunately, that is not the end of the story, and that is why we
are here today, and that is why we have had the two previous votes on
this matter. The State Department doesn't get it. Overwhelmingly, the
House approved it. UNESCO and the Biosphere Program have been illegally
funded by usurping U.S. tax dollars. This has been done by the creation
of the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program as a separate office within
the State Department.
Now, there is no one here in this House who wants to have a separate
program in the State Department funded without the approval of the duly
elected Members of Congress. So our responsibility is to pass this
amendment, and that is what we have done previously.
Mr. Chairman, the committing of U.S. lands to the terms of an
international agreement, particularly without approval of the people in
this body, is flagrantly violating constitutional responsibility and
infringes on the most sacred and important individual property rights
that we have. First and foremost, State and local governments should
have the full authority to choose whether an area within their
jurisdiction should be part of any international designation. Then and
only then should Congress become involved by also approving and then by
authorizing funds to be used in such programs; under the current
status, neither of these cases is occurring. But frankly, we don't want
our lands ever being controlled by anyone except the U.S.A.
This little simple amendment which has passed overwhelmingly twice
this year is a correct and appropriate execution of our constitutional
responsibilities to account for the expenditures of all public moneys.
We need to do this amendment on every appropriations bill so that we
stop the use of unauthorized funds.
I strongly support this measure and urge my colleagues to do the
same, and I would conclude by citing an article from the Jacksonville,
FL, Times Union reported in May of this year that the Man and Biosphere
Program and the American Heritage Program, agreed to pay for food,
lodging and other expenses for a hundred experts to travel and to
attend a conference in Maine dealing with the repair of the Everglades
in Florida. They went up to Maine. Right? Maine is where they have
their meeting, and the Everglades is in the southern tip of Florida. I
am certain many taxpayers would question the use of Federal funds to
pay for individuals in Florida to attend a conference in Maine to
discuss solutions occurring in Florida.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot let this continue. So I urge my colleagues to
pass this amendment. And remember we have passed it overwhelmingly
before.
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, I rise in opposition to the
amendment before us. I would not normally take the floor on something
like this, but I need to point out that the Man and the Biosphere
Program is essentially a research program within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Science, and I am constrained to speak on the matter
because of that.
Now, it seems to me that there is a number of different motivations
or reasons behind the opposition of the proponents of this amendment,
and most of these have been stated: that it does not have an
authorization, that it is under the control of the UN and that it
deprives State and local government of certain prerogatives to which
they are entitled. I think that a review of all of these matters would
indicate that the proponents of the amendment are stretching things
just a little bit.
There is, in fact, no specific authorization for the Man and the
Biosphere Program. On the Heritage Program, there apparently is
authorization contained in both treaty and authorizing legislation.
With regard to authorization for the Man and the Biosphere Program,
as my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] has pointed
out, funding for this program comes from 14 different agencies, which
is more than I recognized, and in each case the agency is authorized to
conduct the kind of research which it supports in the Man and the
Biosphere Program. So within the general authority to do the research
in each of these 14 agencies they are supporting research in the Man
and the Biosphere Program.
Now I will admit, and it is a good point that the proponents of this
amendment make, that there is no specific line item authorization for
this in any legislation, but I would point out that that is not an
unusual situation in this great Congress of ours. There are many
programs which have gone on for years, which do not have specific line
item authorization. The most vivid that I can point to right now is
this

[[Page H5239]]

wonderful Mars Pathfinder Program, a multi-hundreds of millions of
dollars program, far more expensive than Man and the Biosphere, and
there is nowhere an authorization for this program, which is continuing
for the next couple of decades.
Now I might regret this, I might like to have a specific line item
authorization for the Mars program because it would provide more
control and oversight and attention and be very desirable. The Congress
has to make judgments about what detail it goes to in the authorizing
process. In the case of the Man and the Biosphere Program, I think it
should be authorized. I concur with the proponents of this amendment
that it would be helpful to conduct oversight, to have an authorizing
committee with the responsibility to make sure that there was no hanky-
panky going on here, in case there is any allegations that there is,
and to specify the policy direction of the program, the degree of State
and local interventions and the amount of money that should be spent.
And I hope that the gentleman will join with me in attempting to pass
such an authorization bill.

{time} 1630

Because of the ambiguity of congressional committee jurisdictions, I
think the Committee on Resources will have some claim to jurisdiction
here. The ranking member of the Committee on Resources and I have
jointly sponsored this amendment, and we welcome sponsorship from the
majority side of both of these committees as well.
Most of the arguments that I have heard with regard to the merits of
the Man in the Biosphere Program I do not agree with. I think this is a
meritorious research program. It is one which, as has been indicated,
is extremely important to develop comparative scientific data about
conditions that exist all around the world.
There is no other way to get this comparative analysis without having
research sites, sites that have been identified as being unique, that
can be studied in various different parts of the world, where they
represent different ecological conditions and other factors.
I think that the only thing some can say against it is that it was
conceived by UNESCO, which my good friend, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Torres] used to serve as ambassador from the United
States. He is not responsible for the program, though. However, the
international scientific community is heartily in support of this
program.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise on this issue. I was not intending to speak
here, but I was monitoring this in my office. I just heard some
statements I could not believe. I think the authors of this amendment
have not done their homework and they are leaping before they are
looking.
This program, as the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has said,
has been around since 1971. We have 15 Federal agencies that
participate in it voluntarily. The total amount they spend is $115,000
of contributing money. That is about $10,000 per agency that they
contribute. In my State of California we have 25 sites that have been
designated. I might add that they have been designated out of the
initiative of the local community to do it.
What they are suggesting here is that Federal agencies should not
participate in this, and essentially that we ought to be the
micromanager, the mother of every kind of interest in our local
communities, because it has some kind of United Nations attached to it.
We will get to a Congress that will want to screen every tourist that
comes to our district from out of State, we will want to make sure that
every type of weather satellite going over our country is monitored,
and so on.
Mr. Chairman, the point is that this program is absolutely harmless.
There are 15 State parks in California that have applied for this and
have been designated, including some public water districts, like Marin
Municipal Water District, a private ranch owned by the Audubon Society,
and in fact, I am up here speaking about it because property that my
family and other families own, private land, eagerly sought this
designation because we want to be part of this international monitoring
station.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make the point here, that it was stated that
there was no local knowledge of it, that it was some kind of umbrella
brought out of some kind of international community. You do not
participate in getting these nominations; it is a competitive
nomination. You do not get any junk land in here, you do not get any
land in here that does not have any scientific interest in it, that
there is not an ongoing monitoring by the scientific community. All of
these people want to be in this. They want to be part of this.
This is a biosphere all over the world. How are we going to learn
about global warming, how are we going to learn about the impacts of
air quality, how are we going to learn about migratory birds that do
not know that they have to fly under United States rules? These are the
kinds of things that biostations give us information for.
We cannot be here in Congress and say because we are participating in
this in an international community that we have to strike the money and
we cannot do anything with this program. Do not be so ignorant about
this globe. It needs international monitoring and these biospheres do
it, and the properties that are in it have been eagerly sought after to
get into the program. It is tough to become nominated for a biosphere.
It is an honor. I am proud that my land, our land, is in that.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the question I have is one or two, really.
No. 1, the gentleman desires to be part of the boundary area around
this biosphere reserve program, and the gentleman did of course check
with everybody else that was going to be involved in that?
Mr. FARR of California. I did not check with the U.S. Congress.
Mr. COBURN. I am talking about local property rights, to make sure
everybody that was included in it had their individual rights as
property owners checked as well. That is one of the real complaints. We
can ignore it and say everybody is fanatics, flatlanders, and the know-
nothings. But the fact is there are some genuine concerns about
property rights associated with this issue. The gentleman can step on
it, ignore it, and say they are just goofballs and ignorant.
Mr. FARR of California. Name one single property right issue that is
violated by naming this as a biosphere.
Mr. COBURN. There are three States that have already issued through
the State legislatures a requirement that they not have this U.S. Man
and the Biosphere: Kentucky, Colorado, and the third is Alaska.
Mr. FARR of California. What is the restriction? What is the point of
the gentleman's question?
Mr. COBURN. They have had impact on the lands.
Mr. FARR of California. What impact? Name one.
Mr. COBURN. Use. Use of their lands; land value, changing land value.
Mr. FARR of California. What? There is a restrictive use because you
might measure the weather, because you might measure the rainfall?
Mr. COBURN. Would the gentleman from California continue to yield to
me and let me give him an answer?
Mr. FARR of California. I am trying to get an intelligent answer.
Mr. COBURN. Having been unintelligent and ignorant, what I would put
forth and focus on is there are people who do not have the right to do
what they had the right to do before the Man and the Biosphere Program
came into their own land.
The gentleman can say that does not exist, but there was testimony in
the Committee on Resources about the State of New York, the
Adirondacks, and I would refer the gentleman to that testimony, where
local landowners and officials referred to that.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Farr] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. FARR of California was allowed to proceed
for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I will give a very clear answer
to the gentleman's question. The U.S. Constitution protects us on a
takings issue, and most constitutions, including that of the State of
California, protect us on a takings issue. There is absolutely no
taking by nominating and

[[Page H5240]]

being accepted as a biosphere property. It is simply----
Mr. COBURN. If that is the case, then let us authorize it and do it
right, rather than do it in an unauthorized fashion.
Mr. FARR of California. It has been done by treaty.
Mr. COBURN. The U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program has never been
authorized, never. The gentleman's side does not dispute that fact. It
has never been authorized. So let us authorize it, if that is the case.
Mr. FARR of California. When we sign a treaty that authorizes it.
Mr. COBURN. No, that is the World Heritage preserves. All treaties,
all treaties have to have implementing language and also appropriations
that come from authorizing; that is, if we would look at the Camp David
accords, we do not just automatically let the State Department spend
what they want to spend on it.
Mr. FARR of California. In closing, Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely
no violation on property rights; I am talking about biosphere, that
applies to property. I know it, I own it, I participate in it, and
there is no violation. Therefore, there is no need for this amendment.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I missed part of this debate, but let me
talk about a specific example of a Man and the Biosphere reserve
program that had been set up in my district in Missouri. It was called
the Ozark Highlands Man in the Biosphere Preserve.
Mr. Chairman, we would have had two-thirds of my district and
probably the northern third of the Arkansas district that borders mine,
a little bit of the district of the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Marion
Berry, and a little bit of the district of the gentleman from Arkansas,
Mr. Asa Hutchinson, tied up as a Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program.
Let me just talk to the gentleman about how this came about.
First of all, if you do designate a Man and the Biosphere preserve
area, local citizens and local presiding commissioners and county
officials need to be involved in the process. This did not happen in my
district.
All of a sudden the Park Service and all of the other land management
departments decided that this would be created. There was no local
input whatsoever. We were not told about it. We were not told about it.
Then finally our folks heard about it through the grapevine, if you
will, and, consequently, with the outrage and an outcry from thousands
of residents within our district.
That was not because necessarily of the core area. The core area was
on public lands. But the surrounding buffer zone would have tied up
two-thirds of my district, and limited land use and economic
development and other things in an already very poor part of my
district, with no local input whatsoever. That is not right.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR of California. First of all, Mr. Chairman, the local
planning is done by zoning that is under control of local government
and cannot be violated by a biosphere agreement.
Second, it was on public lands, as the gentlewoman indicated, not
private land. The management plan for that biosphere is done by those
agencies that govern that land.
Mrs. EMERSON. However, Mr. Chairman, first of all, the buffer zone,
which was much larger than the core area which would be designated by
the Park Service and other land management people, is private land for
the most part. I can assure the gentleman that not one local official,
and there are no zoning Commissions in my particular part of Missouri,
but the presiding commissioners of the counties involved, as well as
local citizens, were not alerted, not asked for their opinion
whatsoever.
Mr. FARR of California. What was exactly proposed in the biosphere
that made it so controversial?
Mrs. EMERSON. The fact that private property management would be
restricted.
Mr. FARR of California. That cannot be done.
Mrs. EMERSON. I know that it cannot technically be done, but let me
tell the gentleman, I will share with the gentleman all of the
proposals as they existed before they were pulled back by the Park
Service and others, because there was such an outcry. I will show them
to the gentleman, and they indicate very emphatically that there were
limitations, restrictions put on it.
Mr. FARR of California. I would say to the gentlewoman, it is my
experience that you cannot create anything greater than what has
already been created by the local planning process. In the
gentlewoman's State, she may have less of a degree of planning process
than our State does. That is why in our State when we have quality
areas, they want to become biospheres, because it is almost bragging
rights that says, as the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] says, it
becomes a tourist attraction for the area, like a national marine
sanctuary does or a national park does. Those are much more restrictive
because we actually write rules and regulations.
The biosphere is a bottoms-up, applied-for process.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. I just think the point needs to be made, Mr. Chairman,
the core area of the biosphere, I do not have any objection to it at
all. The fact is, it has a tremendous impact on other people, without a
good representative walk through our body.
If Members will look, this is an exact diagram of what they all look
like in terms of their impact. There is a core area that is designated.
Then there is a managed use area that limits--and these are all private
lands that the gentleman has agreed to, himself, that in his land he
wants it managed in a certain way, but it has to be agreed to. But a
third area is a zone of cooperation which impacts people's ability to
do with they want with their land.
Mr. FARR of California. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, it
does not, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman. Nothing changes
by a biosphere.
Mr. COBURN. It does not in the gentleman's area, but it does so in
many other areas in this country. That is the difference.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would appreciate it if Members would not
speak until they have been yielded to or control the time.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I
think it is abundantly clear that the sponsor of the amendment and
others first of all have tried to portray this as not being authorized.
That did not sell, because of course there has been authorization, and
while Man and the Biosphere receives funding from 14 different agencies
and departments, all of which are authorized with some discretion to
spend such research money, there is no such clear-cut case. If that
were the case, Members could get up on this floor during an
appropriation bill and strike it from the bill because it is not
authorized.
I might say, the lack of authorization process in this House has
never received such attention as it has in this particular case,
suggesting ironically in error that there is not authorization. If that
were the case, Members could have struck this on a point of order, but
Members cannot because that is not the case.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. We would be happy to strike it on a point of order, but
they would not specify putting the money out on a line item, so we
cannot.
Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that is not the issue, I
would say to the gentleman. Now we are getting to some theory about how
biospheres are functioning and how they may limit activities.
The fact is, Members cannot come up with a single example, a single
example, of anyone that has had any limitation placed on their private
or on public property that is due to these listings. When the gentleman
is asked to do that, he will not do that.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
will give the example, in upper New York

[[Page H5241]]

State, the Adirondacks. In the district of the gentleman from New York,
Mr. Jerry Solomon, there was testimony before the Committee on
Resources in his district. I would be happy if the gentleman would read
that.
Mr. VENTO. The gentleman had better have it for the Record. When we
get out here, we are not dealing on testimony itself. Sometimes it is
erroneous. Individuals can say anything, but what are the facts.

{time} 1645

I understand one aspect and that is that some have fears and
concerns. I think that you are representing those fears and concerns. I
regret that. But that is the case, that there are those type of
concerns, but I think there is not a basis for this fear and
accusations about these two programs.
I would think that each of us that brought a serious amendment, as
this is a serious amendment, that we would back that up. The fact is
that this amendment does great harm in terms of what would occur, and
the message sent if it is enacted. We are the leader, basically, the
United States. These programs were initiated by the United States, both
the World Heritage Convention and the Man and The Biosphere Program. To
date, nearly 150 nations have joined with us on the World Heritage
Convention, 125 in terms of Man and The Biosphere.
What this amendment has the effect of doing is relegating us to a
cultural and environmental isolationism which suggests that we are no
longer going to cooperate, in an era when we look at the international
and national boundaries of our Nation and recognize the inherent logic
in terms of working and collaborating and cooperating with other
nations in terms of dealing with, as in the case of Man and The
Biosphere, which the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] rightly said
is a research program.
Where are these research dollars being spent? I found it interesting
that so many of my colleagues from Florida had opposition to this,
because I found that the University of Miami is one of the sources of a
couple of the different grants, of some half million dollars of
research grants. They receive a significant amount; the University of
Alaska, the University of Boston. Of course they did find that the
Danish polar center in Copenhagen received $6,000. I guess that is with
regard to polar bear migration.
The purpose is clear with these programs, to try to come together and
intelligently do research. There is no sovereignty loss. There is no
property rights affected by these two voluntary programs.
I think the true nature of this particular amendment is reflected
when we get somebody up here with a map of the United States with a
black hole in the middle of it, the fact that they are attempting to
try to portray these programs as something that they are not. I think
that is the reason, because of the misunderstandings and misconceptions
that persist, that any amendment like this has ever passed. There is no
basis for the enactment or passage of this type of amendment or other
negative amendments that deal with the Man and The Biosphere or the
World Heritage Convention.
These two programs are important steps where the United States has
actually led the world in, and attempted through voluntary means to
gain cooperation and recognition by listing those sites that are
important to ecosystems, for research or preservation on a
collaborative basis, or those sites that have special cultural or
environmental significance.
It defies me that the opposition here has tried to, first on a
technical basis and then on a substantive basis, but with no facts,
there are certainly fears, there is emotion, but there is not the type
of substantive criticism that would justify any type of retreat from
these two programs. In fact we ought to be doing more of this type of
work as we look into the next century. We ought to do much more of this
type of work. I think these are important programs. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment as the poorly conceived amendment
that it is.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, one example is the Mammoth Cave Area
Biosphere Reserve.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the
Mammoth Cave Area Biosphere Reserve, with the national park as its core
protected area, has therefore utilized its stature to better address
local conservation and development issues, including securing
additional financial resources not previously available. Landowners and
communities have derived tangible benefits, received recognition for
working together to resolve complex conservation and development issues
and protect resource values.
A survey of biosphere reserve managers in 1995 suggests that in cases
where their cooperative activities identify explicitly with biosphere
reserve concepts, there are more cooperating parties and more
participation of local organizations than in cases where such
cooperation was merely consistent with these concepts.
The point here I think is that these have worked to the benefit of
the local community. I have got two in my State, the Olympic national
biosphere reserve and Mt. Rainier. Both of those have been very
popular. We are in the heart of marbled murrelet, spotted owl country
out there, where disputes rage over Federal involvement. But in this
case the biosphere reserve has had the local support and, therefore, I
think is a good deal.
What I worry about here is by putting in this amendment, this kind of
a meat-ax approach saying no money shall be spent, that means we just
cut off this program. We have not had any hearings to cut off this
program. It has been in existence.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is exactly right.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we ought to stay with this. If the gentleman
and the Committee on Resources want to have hearings, have hearings
until the cows come home. Then bring some legislation out here.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this is an entirely voluntary program on the
part of the Nation and on the part of private landowners. We have
provided the impetus, the United States has, to provide encouragement,
the education, the preservation of these sites on a voluntary basis. It
defies logic to have an amendment like this which would completely
arbitrarily withdraw us for no good reason other than to satisfy some
conspiracy theories which have cropped up in recent years. Let us be
led by reason not emotional falsehoods.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my good colleagues
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks] if they all have proposed in their districts,
their specific districts, a Man and The Biosphere Program?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, yes, I have on the Olympic Peninsula, and it
is in the Olympic National Park.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, were the gentleman's local citizens
included in the process? Which of his local constituents were?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I
think it was Olympic National Park. We have an active advisory group
that nominated it to be part of this.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I represent a largely urban area, but there
is a 2-year notice provision that is given prior to the Man and The
Biosphere listing. These voluntary listings that do not affect
sovereignty. That is the intention. I regret that it engendered great
controversy in the area of

[[Page H5242]]

the gentlewoman because of what I believe are misunderstandings. But it
must have worked. When that did occur, there was a withdrawal.
But they have interspacial centers in Kentucky. They have the coho
salmon program in my colleague's district in Washington. This is a
wonderful program in terms of research, and the fact that you are
attempting to hang this up and crucify it on the cross of process with
regard to some trumped-up issue with regard to reauthorization, I
think, is not worthy of this House.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I guess I just look
at it from the point of view of my constituents. The counties, the
several counties that would be tied up in my district are those of the
poorest part of my district where there is a great deal of unemployment
and a great deal of poverty. The buffer zone where they live is limited
in land use for the future, or that is how the proposal was.
Consequently, we could not economically develop that area so we could
not get more jobs there. The only few jobs we have are tourism-related
jobs. We cannot bring in big trucks. We cannot build better highways in
that kind of a situation.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs.
Emerson] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Emerson was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in the situation where
there is not local unanimity that we, as a local representative, have a
responsibility either to try to help create it or to tell the
department we should not go forward with this. If we do not have the
unanimity locally, I do not think we should do it.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, that is true. We did not, and we were
able to keep our land from being used for this purpose. But the problem
is, the problem that I have is that there was no community involvement
whatsoever during the 2-year process that they were trying to make this
designation, I suppose because there is really no authorization for it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would not say that. What I would say is,
let us work with the people in the executive branch who are involved in
this and insist that there be local involvement. That is something we
all can agree on. None of us on this side of the aisle that I know of
are objecting to the local people being involved in how this is
structured and the nomination process, et cetera. But to cut off the
money when we have really no example of anything damaging being done is
just not fair.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, how can the gentleman say there is no
example if, in fact, two-thirds of my district was going to be tied up?
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment that we are debating right now divides
into two parts. One part deals with the Man and The Biosphere Program.
The other deals with the World Heritage sites. That basically
designates areas of countries that the countries are really quite proud
of, in our country, Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, and it goes on a
list. The list is one that kind of makes the whole country feel proud.
If a travel magazine was listing the top 10 sites to visit in the
United States, any one of these places would be thrilled to have their
names on the list, but because the United Nations is participating in
this process, there is some kind of threat that there is an
international conspiracy to somehow or other take over the local rights
of citizens in the United States, when in fact there is absolutely no
infringement upon the local or the State or the national laws of the
United States by having either one of these designations made, either
the Biosphere or the World Heritage sites.
I think that what might be going on here is that we might in fact be
engaging in a bit of, I think there is a term for it but essentially it
is an anniversary syndrome, because 50 years ago this month something
landed in the desert near Roswell, New Mexico, and early reports
indicated that the wreckage consisted of the remains of a flying disk
but those reports were quickly changed to identify the flying object
which had crashed to be a mere weather balloon.
Those are only reports which suggested the only recorded statement by
the U.S. military that ET might exist, now form the basis for one of
the most convoluted conspiracy theories in history, in this solar
system anyway. Eighty percent of Americans believe that the U.S.
Government has covered up what it knows about aliens from outer space.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thought we were talking about the U.S.
Man and The Biosphere Program.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, we are.
Mr. COBURN. And the gentleman is talking about supposed UFO's.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I am Irish and my points are made by
parables. So my colleagues have to sit back. If they just wait a little
bit, there is a point to the story.
So the book entitled ``The Day After Roswell'' purportedly documents
the U.S. Government's real cold war against the extraterrestrial
biological entities. To my great relief, the book does say that the
deployment of our space-based advanced particle beam weapon has scared
the aliens away for now.
So I think it is a particularly auspicious month, this 50th
anniversary, for us to be debating this issue out on the floor, because
clearly it is going to take its rightful place at the center of
paranoid conspiratorial theories. There is no infringement on State or
local or national laws in any way. These are just designations that the
country itself embraces.
Now, for reasons that make about as much sense as that we are
communicating with little green men telepathically into outer space, we
now have a discussion over this subject. What is the plan? What is the
plot?
The plot is that Secretary Bruce Babbitt of the Department of the
Interior is playing a role, coordinated with the U.N., UNESCO continues
to be mentioned out here, to coordinate the subordination of American
land to international authorities, compromising the local zoning, the
State zoning laws all across our country, and Bruce Babbitt is part of
this conspiracy. Who does he work with? He clearly works with Bill
Richardson, our Ambassador in the U.N. What State is he from? New
Mexico. Think about it. Where is Roswell? Is Richardson a Hispanic
name? I do not think so. Where did he come from? And why is he
participating in this conspiracy at the U.N. to subordinate the local
and State zoning laws of our country.
We do not have any evidence, of course, as yet of a single local or
State zoning law having been changed, despite the many years that this
process has taken place, but yet we are supposed to believe that this
theory, along with other theories of black helicopters with U.N. troops
flying over public lands in the United States, continuing to operate
without the detection of ordinary Americans.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Markey] has expired.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1
additional minute.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

{time} 1700

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me,
and I ask the Members of the other side if they would please not have
this amendment pass. These are two great programs, the Man and the
Biosphere and the World Heritage Recognition Program are both wonderful
programs that make America proud without restricting our laws in any
manner, shape, or form.
Please, anyone who is listening to this debate, we must reject this
amendment.

[[Page H5243]]

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to
thank the chairman of this Committee on Appropriations for this
opportunity to speak in a colloquy. I also thank the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks] for his kindness in this very important issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleague, who has been
detained, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald] and
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], chairman of the Subcommittee on
Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, in this colloquy about the
need to recognize the contributions of a great American, Sojourner
Truth, to the American suffrage movement.
I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], for his
participation in this colloquy, for his sensitivity to this issue, and
for his consistent dialog on matters that promote communication and
understanding on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to join the gentlewoman
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Millender-McDonald] to discuss the important contributions of Sojourner
Truth to the American woman's suffrage movement.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
understand I was putting too much emphasis on the ``u'' in the
gentleman's name.
Mr. REGULA. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, it is not the
first time someone has made that mistake.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Well, the gentleman is a ``regula''
gentleman, and I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Chairman, we are working with others of my colleagues, including
the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney], the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Hastings], who is on floor today, and the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Owens], and over 100 organizations, including the NPCBW, to appeal
to the committee for help in identifying sources of funding for the
erection of a statue honoring Sojourner Truth in the Nation's Capitol.
We feel strongly that the African-American woman's role in the
suffrage movement should be recognized and Sojourner Truth should be
recognized along with her white suffragette sisters.
Mr. REGULA. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield.
Sojourner Truth was a very powerful vocal voice in the suffrage
movement. She was a renaissance woman who played a pivotal role in
ensuring American women and African-American women the right to vote.
As a nonviolent peaceful force for change in our history, Sojourner
Truth proved that an equal society would make a better America.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time once
again, born Isabella Baumfree, a slave in upstate New York in
approximately 1797, Sojourner Truth labored for a succession of five
masters until July 4, 1827, when slavery was finally abolished in New
York State.
After prevailing in a courageous court action demanding the return of
her youngest son, who had been illegally sold away from her to a slave
owner in Alabama, Isabella moved to New York City. She then changed her
name to Sojourner Truth, which means ``itinerant teacher.'' She became
deeply involved in religion. She had always been very spiritual and,
soon after being emancipated, had a vision which affected her
profoundly, leading her, as she described it, to develop a perfect
trust in God and prayer.
After 15 years in New York, Isabella felt a call to become a
traveling preacher. She took her name, Sojourner Truth, and with little
more than the clothes on her back, began walking through Long Island
and Connecticut, speaking to people in the countryside about her life
and her relationship with God. She was a powerful speaker and singer.
When she rose to speak, wrote one observer, ``her commanding figure and
dignified manner hushed every trifler to silence.'' Audiences were, and
I quote, melted into tears by her touching stories.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of her contributions to the
suffrage movement. In her most famous speech at a woman's rights
conference in Akron, OH, which is, of course, quite near my district,
in 1851, she coined the phrase which continues to embrace the concerns
of many women today: ``Ain't I A Woman.'' This powerful speech
catapulted her to the forefront of the woman suffrage movement.
It is my understanding that as a political activist, Sojourner Truth
campaigned for Ulysses S. Grant in the Presidential election in 1868.
She demanded that the board of registration place her name on the list
of voters but was denied this right. Then in 1872, she went to
Michigan, where she repeated her demand to vote and again was denied.
Undaunted, she sat in President Abraham Lincoln's office until he
personally heard her suggestion for dealing with freed and unemployed
slaves. The President told her that he had heard her speeches long
before.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would not be here in this
body with the gentleman today, speaking on this Interior bill, if it
was not for Sojourner Truth. Her leadership and dedication more than a
century ago paved the way for literally millions of women, and I might
add that I historically supported President Grant as well.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, she was passionate and
determined, even when others told her to sit back and hold tight. Her
booming voice of reason could not be silenced throughout her 84 years
of life. She devoted her life to educating and preaching on women's
rights and abolitionism, knowing that everyone would benefit from this
equality.
Mr. Chairman, a statue would memorialize the image as well as the
real accomplishments of those courageous and uniquely nonconformist
individuals who have had a profound and lasting impact on the United
States.
The women's suffrage movement forever changed the role of women in
American society. It was the catalyst for lifting the status of women
from one of disenfranchisement to free and equal partners in our
Nation's political, social, and economic systems.
As beneficiaries of the women's suffrage movement in the United
States, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald] and
myself are both appreciative of all the contributions of the women of
the historic movement.
This body must work to acknowledge the contributions to our Nation's
history of all Americans, whether they were born male or female, free
or slave, Native American or immigrant.
Sojourner Truth was without equal. She must not be forgotten. She
embodied a special human spirit which sought to promote justice and to
improve society.
A Sojourner Truth statue is necessary to honor both the women and the
larger vision which inspired her. A tangible memorial is important to
keeping her story alive for our children and for future generations.
Acknowledging the presence of an African-American suffragette will
provide a role model in history for African-American girls today and
other girls across the Nation who are learning the importance of
speaking in the face of wrong.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I assure both gentlewomen that I will
assist their efforts to identify appropriate means of recognizing these
many accomplishments of Sojourner Truth, including identifying the
appropriate source of funding and a location for a statue in the
Nation's Capitol.
I also thank the gentlewoman for giving us a great history lesson
today.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
commitment as well on the Commission on Martin Luther King. We know of
the gentleman's history, and we thank him very much for this commitment
and we look forward to working with him.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.

[[Page H5244]]

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to finish up our debate on this
amendment and make a couple of points.
We have heard about UFO's, we have heard about black helicopters, we
have heard about flatlanders, we have heard about Know-nothings, but
what we have not heard about is the Congress doing its job. And this is
about authorizing. This is about the Congress being responsible for the
money they spend.
There is no doubt in my mind that some of these biosphere programs
are excellent; that they have been great for their communities; they
have been great for the heritage sites that they surround. But the fact
is that we are, as officers of this body and representatives of our
constituents, responsible to make sure how we spend the money.
I thought I might just give a short notice of the money and where it
came from and who supplied it and where it has been spent because it is
rather interesting. We heard today that it is not much money and it is
under control. We spent $23,000 in Russia, of our money, for
biodiversity, unauthorized. We spent money in Denmark, unauthorized,
for biodiversity and the biosphere program. We spent $12,000 on the
continent of Europe. We spent over $12,000 in Mexico. All of this money
has been unauthorized, money with no chance for oversight.
I do not believe in flying saucers, I do not even believe in black
helicopters, but I believe in following the oath of my office. If this
is a good program, then take it through the right committees, authorize
it, appropriate the money and then let us do it together. But let us
not violate the trust that the country has given us in terms of what we
do and how we do it.
I want to thank the chairman for being patient on this amendment. I
appreciate his input. And I would say to those that oppose this
amendment that they can oppose it on technical grounds because they
support the U.S. Man and Biosphere and they support the U.S. World
Heritage reserves, but if they oppose it on that basis, then they have
an obligation to have those programs authorized and then funded
individually, not hidden in other budgets, like the Air Force spending
$70,000 last year, the State Department spending $50,000, EPA spending
$50,000.
Let us talk about the money, where it comes from and make sure it is
under the oversight.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
the amendment offered by Congressman Coburn and Congressman Stearns to
prohibit any Federal funds from being used to support the U.S. Man and
the Biosphere Program or the World Heritage Program. This same
amendment has also been included in the National Science Foundation
authorization, the foreign affairs authorization and the defense
authorization.
It is hard to believe, but over 68 percent of the lands within our
national parks, preserves, and monuments have now been designated as
United Nations World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves. As a result,
these areas and the land areas surrounding them may be subject to
international land management rules ignoring the rights of private
property owners in the area. State and local governments are left out
of the decision making process when lands are designated as a part of
these programs. In my own State of Washington, citizens and local
officials have expressed the desire to have input into land use
decisions. This is an opportunity they do not have when the United
Nations makes land use policy.
In 1996, the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the
Smithsonian, and the Bureau of Land Management contributed a total of
$170,000 to the Biosphere Program, which has operated for the last 30
years, without authorization or oversight. It is time to eliminate this
waste of taxpayer dollars and exercise our constitutional
responsibility to account for the expenditures of all public money.
This amendment will protect the rights of private property owners, and
the integrity of our national park system.
As a result, I urge you to support the Coburn-Stearns amendment.
Mr. BONO. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the supremacy of
the U.S. Constitution over the organization known as the United
Nations. Through the text of our constitution, the greatest legal
document in governmental history, the Founders of our government spoke
with both common sense and comprehensible language. If we would simply
follow the genius of that document, we would eliminate so many of the
arguments and disputes that arise. Therefore, in respect of the
Constitution, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to the
Interior Appropriations bill that protects our Nation's land and
America's heritage from the United Nations' sovereignty grab.
This important amendment to the Interior bill accomplishes several
important goals: (1) it protects the sovereignty of the states; (2) it
protects the constitutionally protected rights of U.S. citizens; and
(3) it safeguards the private property rights of landowners. It also
sends a message for the one-worlders to keep their hands off.
In my view, the best form of government, especially the federal
government, should be a limited government. The Constitution spells out
the functions of the respective branches, and based on this equation,
something is very wrong with the Executive branch's interpretation of
their legitimate authority. Of course, just as the key Founders of our
Republic advocated limited federal powers, it is clearly appropriate
for Congress to exercise its oversight duty when necessary to prevent
an abuse.
The proposals for the U.S. Man and the Biosphere program (USMAB) and
the World Heritage Program are not endeavors that I support. As many of
my constituents in the 44th District know, these sites are under the
jurisdiction of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, better known as UNESCO. Further, I do not believe that
the Executive Branch, the part of our federal government that our
federal Constitution charges with enforcing the law, has the ability to
make the law binding our citizens and land-owners regarding our
participation in this agenda.
Some may wish to capture the majesty and assets of our country
through the bloated U.N. bureaucracy. As a member of Congress, I must
strenuously object to these efforts. Through our vote this afternoon,
the position of the House of Representatives is made clear. Tax payer
dollars must not go to fund these ill-advised U.N. projects. I wish to
thank my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Dr. Tom Coburn, for
his attention to this matter over the years. He can trust that he has
my support in safeguarding the rights of all citizens against the
influence of foreign agents.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. YATES. 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 Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn]
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

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

Amendment printed in House Report 105-174 offered by Mr.
Weldon of Florida:
Page 89, after line 15, insert the following new section:
Sec. 325. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act for any fiscal year may be used to designate, or to
post any sign designating, any portion of Canaveral National
Seashore in Brevard Country, Florida, as a clothing-optional
area or as an area in which public nudity is permitted, if
such designation would be contrary to county ordnance.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 181, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Weldon] and a Member opposed each will be recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 181, all points of order
against this amendment are waived.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have a beach in my district, Canaveral National
Seashore. It is a beautiful beach, a pristine beach, considered by many
to be one of the most beautiful on the entire East Coast of the United
States. Several years ago this beach began to be taken over by nudists
and other people who engage in lewd and lascivious activity. I have
with me today a binder containing more than 250 police reports
indicating the nature of this lewd and lascivious behavior.

[[Page H5245]]

This amendment is not about simply prohibiting people from sunbathing
in the nude or swimming in the nude. This amendment is about sexual
harassment of a form and nature that pales in comparison to what we see
on the job sites in many of our places today. Indeed, if I were to
describe some of the content of what is going on on this beach in my
district, we would need a rating system for C-SPAN.
I repeat, this is not just about nude sunbathers. This is about a lot
of behavior that I would rather not even describe here on the floor of
the House.
Now, I approached the National Park Service and asked them to deal
with Canaveral National Seashore like they dealt with Cape Cod in 1991
under the Bush administration, where they designated that nudity would
not be allowed, and the National Park Service refused.
In response to that, the county commission in Brevard County, FL,
where the beach is located, passed an ordinance designating no nudity.
And then, against my recommendations, the National Park Service chose
to post signs designating a portion of the beach as ``clothing
optional.'' What happened subsequent to that was that there were people
arrested for violating the county's nudity ordinance, and then they
used the existence of those signs in their defense and the charges were
dropped.
Now, in the defense of the National Park Service, they have now since
removed those signs designating a portion of the beach as ``clothing
optional.'' However, people in my community remain concerned that the
National Park Service will not respect local authority on this issue
and may choose to redesignate an area of the beach as clothing
optional.
My amendment is very simple. It basically states that the Park
Service cannot designate a portion of the beach as clothing optional in
the future. Additionally, my amendment states that this will not be in
effect if the county should repeal its county ordinance.
I therefore encourage all my colleagues to support the amendment. My
amendment is very simple. It basically states it is limited to
Canaveral National Seashore. Its also states that if the local
ordinance is repealed, that this amendment is no longer in effect.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
say that I originally rose in opposition because I was not sure of what
the facts were in this case.

{time} 1715

As explained by the gentleman, a question comes to my mind, and that
is this: The gentleman stated that the Park Service had removed its
signs, if I understood the gentleman correctly. If that be true, why
then is the amendment needed?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. We asked the Park Service to designate
Canaveral National Seashore as ``no nudity,'' like they had at Cape Cod
in Massachusetts, and they have refused, for reasons that I do not
understand, and we continue to have a serious ongoing problem. And then
when they posted those signs, there were a lot of constituents in my
district who were very disturbed about that. And there is concern
amongst my constituents, because of their unwillingness to designate
this beach as no nudity, that they may in the future again try to set
aside a portion of the beach.
So I am responding to my constituents, putting into law language that
prohibits the Park Service from doing this again. And frankly, I think
it was very inappropriate for the Park Service to do that in the first
place.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, based on the explanation
of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], perhaps I may be inclined
to support his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
In closing, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Yates] for supporting my amendment. I would encourage all of my
colleagues to support this amendment. This is about whether moms can go
to the beach with their kids and enjoy themselves.
I have lots of case reports that I can share with any of my
colleagues here of how the enjoyment of those families on the beach was
very, very much intruded upon.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask if the gentleman would put some of
those in the Record to support his position?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to do
that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment. I
join with my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Yates] in accepting it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 181, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon]
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read the final lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998''.

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.
Gibbons], 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.

____________________