[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.

                          ____________________