[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 145 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9506-H9515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2107, 
  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1998

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 277 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 277

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of 
     order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purpose of 
debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 277 waives all points of order against 
the conference report and against its consideration. The rule also 
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. The 
conference report for the Department of the Interior and related 
agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 incorporates a total 
of $13.8 billion for the fiscal year 1998.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. Speaker, the agenda of the majority has been misrepresented on a 
number of issues in the past, one of those issues being our commitment 
to preserving our natural treasures and the environment. In the 104th 
Congress, we passed a very proenvironment farm bill, a safe drinking 
water bill, and nine other major bills that had the support of 
countless environmental groups. Today we have before us a funding bill 
that takes care of our national parks and protects our environmental 
resources by providing funding increases for the national parks, the 
National Forest System, national wildlife operations, and Everglades 
restoration.
  I am also very pleased that the Interior bill amends the recreational 
fee demonstration program that will now allow parks, forests, and other 
public lands to keep all the fees that are collected. This initiative, 
when combined with the $362 million remaining from the $699 million 
appropriation for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, will help 
address the backlog in maintenance on public lands.
  We all want our children and grandchildren to enjoy the natural 
beauty of our Nation's treasures, and I believe that this effort will 
ensure a better maintained and operated parks system for future 
generations. Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that the Interior bill 
includes funding increases for some quality museums and artistic 
institutions, including the Smithsonian Institution, the National 
Gallery of Art, the Holocaust Memorial Council, and the Kennedy Center.
  I am not, however, supportive of the funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts, which receives a $1.5 million cut in this bill 
below last year's level. While I am disappointed that we were unable to 
hold the House position that I strongly supported, I am pleased that 
this bill contains some major oversight reforms of this agency. We all 
know that private donations and corporate sponsors provide billions of 
dollars to encourage an appreciation of the arts, and I simply do not 
believe we need to fund the NEA when these funds could be put to better 
use. I urge my colleagues to support this rule so we may proceed with 
the general debate and consideration of the merits of this very 
important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This conference report has taken a long time to complete, Mr. 
Speaker, because the Interior appropriations bill encompasses a number 
of controversial issues, including the arts and the environment. 
However, I would like to praise the conferees for their hard work in 
reaching agreement on the report language.
  In particular, I am pleased that they ultimately saw fit to include 
in the report $98 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, a 
funding level which more accurately reflects America's support for the 
arts than did the original House bill from which all NEA funding was 
struck on a point of order. It is essential that we continue Federal 
support for the arts because the arts enhance so many facets of our 
lives. From the educational development of our children to the economic 
growth of our towns and cities, we learn more every day about the ways 
in which the arts contribute to our children's learning.
  One recent study showed that students with 4 years of instruction in 
the arts scored 59 points higher on the verbal portion and 44 points 
higher on the math section of the SAT's than did students with no art 
classes. New research in the area of brain development shows a strong 
link between the arts and early childhood development. At the 
University of California in Irvine, researchers found that music 
training is far superior to computer instruction in dramatically 
enhancing a child's abstract reasoning skills, which are necessary for 
the learning of math and science. Another recent study showed that 
doctors with music instruction had greater diagnostic abilities in 
using stethoscopes than did doctors without music training, and we were 
all quite surprised to find that the skill of listening and diagnosing 
with a stethoscope was missing in far too many of our physicians.
  Obviously, arts education pays great dividends in a wide range of 
fields. No other Federal program yields such great rewards on so small 
an investment. The arts are also an integral driving force behind the 
economic growth of our Nation. The small investment that we make this 
year, $98 million, will contribute to a return of $3.4 billion or more 
to the Federal treasury.
  The arts support at least 1.3 million jobs, not only in New York City 
or Los Angeles or Chicago, but in smaller cities like Providence, RI; 
Rock Hill, SC; and Peekskill, NY. These are just a few of the many 
towns and cities across our Nation whose economies have flourished, 
largely as a direct result of investments that have been made in the 
arts.
  This is not a parochial issue. Members of the House received a letter 
earlier this year from Americans United to Save the Arts and 
Humanities, an organization of business leaders, expressing their 
strong support for NEA. In that letter the CEO of Xerox Corp., the 
chairman and CEO of Sun America, Inc., the chairman and CEO of Sara Lee

[[Page H9507]]

Corp. and over 100 other business leaders endorsed continued Federal 
funding for the NEA as well as the National Endowment for the 
Humanities.
  While I support the funding for the NEA provided in this conference 
report, I must express concern over some of the report's other 
provisions that I believe will have detrimental effects on our 
environment. For example, the conference report includes a provision to 
remove the current cap on the use of purchaser road credits in the 
national forest system. This will encourage excessive road building in 
our national forests and will allow timber companies to log in remote 
areas. In addition, the national forest planning provision will 
interfere with the Forest Service's process of updating and revising 
its forest management plans, which is required by the National Forest 
Management Act. Furthermore, the log export rider will drastically 
reduce the effectiveness of the law that bans the export of logs from 
our national forests as well as from State-owned lands in the Pacific 
Northwest.
  Another provision in the report allows money from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund to be used by Federal land management agencies for 
the maintenance of existing holdings. The use of LWCF money to meet 
ongoing maintenance needs is inconsistent with the purpose of the law 
and would rob the LWCF of funds needed for new acquisitions, without 
crafting a lasting solution to the ongoing maintenance shortfalls.
  Other language in the conference report sets out numerous 
requirements before the New World Mine and Headwaters acquisitions can 
move forward, and allows the authorizing committees to stipulate 
additional requirements for these projects. Given that general 
authorization already exists for these two acquisitions, any additional 
requirements are unnecessary and set a dangerous precedent for future 
acquisitions.
  With those reservations, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my 
colleagues on the conference committee for their hard work in coming to 
an agreement on the report language and in particular for their efforts 
in regard to the NEA.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. This is the rule on the conference report on the Interior bill. I 
would urge all Members before we vote on the rule to take a good look 
at this bill. A lot of groups have worked on it, the White House, the 
staff from the authorizing committees of both Houses and the Committee 
on Appropriations and Members from both sides of the aisle, have had 
input in this piece of legislation.
  Obviously, there are things in here that people do not like. There 
are a few things I do not support. But this is the product of 
compromise. In a democracy we have to arrive at an agreement on 
legislation that we find is in the best interests of the United States 
of America. I think this bill very well qualifies.
  I would point out also the breadth of the bill, that over three-
quarters of the districts of the 435 congressional districts are 
impacted by provisions in this bill. I would urge Members to be sure 
that they understand the impact that this has on their own district.
  I call this the ``take pride in America'' bill. There is so much in 
here that gives us a reason to take pride in our country. Last night 
the new concert hall, not the new concert hall but the refurbished 
concert hall in the Kennedy Center was opened. It was a magnificent 
evening, and a magnificent facility. It is there because of this bill 
in the past providing part of the money and also money coming from the 
private sector by way of contributions, a tremendous partnership of the 
people of this Nation to put together a concert hall we can all look to 
with pride and point to with pride.
  They did something that I want to compliment them for doing. This was 
the opening night of the new hall or the refurbished hall, and they 
invited the people who did the work and their families to share the 
evening. What a great idea. Think of the pride those people felt that 
did all of the different things that made this concert hall, I think, 
the finest in the world today. They were there with their children, 
with their families. What a wonderful idea. We should do more of that.
  I think it is ``take pride in America'' as you listened to that great 
symphony play and perform and to listen to Vernon Jordan recite the 
quotations from Martin Luther King with a background of the National 
Symphony, a very moving evening. We can take pride in America in this 
bill because we address diabetes problems in our Indian population. It 
is a care bill. We have extra money in here because this is a problem 
for our friends in the Indian population.
  It is a take-pride bill because I noted this morning in the news that 
we have the highest percentage of home ownership ever in the history of 
this country, over 66 percent. That is one of the great American 
traditions, to own your own home. Part of that is trees, not a lot, but 
some of the trees that come out of our national forests, another great 
asset of America that is used to help build those homes.
  It is a ``take pride in America'' because it provides for Indian 
hospitals, for Indian schools. It means that the native Americans have 
a chance to break out, to get an education, to get their health needs 
met.
  I could go on at great length about this, but I think also it is 
something we can point to with pride that this bill emphasizes 
maintenance. We recognize that we have to take care of what we have. So 
we do not try to buy up everything in sight, but rather to say not only 
selectively buy land or build facilities, but also let us maintain what 
is already in place. We have added money for maintenance. We have added 
money for improvements, such as we had noted last night in the Kennedy 
Center.
  I want to address a couple of issues that are of concern to many 
members, because I think it is very important that we support the rule 
on this. First of all, the National Endowment for the Arts. I know this 
has been controversial. A little bit of history. In 1995, we did not 
have enough votes to pass the rule, so on the Republican side we made 
an agreement that we would provide 2 years of funding and then 
eliminate all funding.
  Let me point out again, the bill that left the House did not have any 
money for the National Endowment for the Arts. I would also point out, 
that in every bill since 1995, the other body has said clearly, we do 
not agree with this, we are not going to be bound by anything the House 
does, and we are going to continue to put in funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts. When we got into conference, the Members from 
the other body insisted on their numbers.
  I would also point out at this juncture that the total amount of 
money here is far less than it has been historically. I think at one 
point we were up around $170 million or more for the NEA. This bill has 
about $98 million. If we take into account inflation, it is about half 
of what it used to be. It is almost $40 million less than the President 
requested. But, also, in view of the Senate's insistence on their 
position, we put in conditions restricting the way this money would be 
expended.

                              {time}  1000

  First of all, we provide, and this is a suggestion from the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Yates], and I think a good one, that there be three 
Members of each House on the board. We reduce the number of public 
Members from 26 to 14, add 6 Members of the House and Senate, just as 
we do with the Kennedy Center and with the Smithsonian. I think that is 
a very important element. It gives us oversight on a daily basis of the 
NEA.
  We also recognize that the States have done an outstanding job, so we 
provide that instead of the States getting only 34 percent of the 
money, they will now get 40 percent of the money.
  We also provide that no State can get more than 15 percent of the 
total available to the States. We want to spread this across the 
Nation. We provide that grants have to be made to companies that are 
not professional. Under the rules of the NEA, historically only 
professional companies could get grants. We said let's make these small 
communities across the United States, where

[[Page H9508]]

they have a volunteer ballet or a volunteer opera company, eligible for 
a little bit of help. So we have done that.
  We have put in a strong educational component. We say we want these 
grants to have an educational impact. I thought, as I listened to the 
National symphony last night, I just wonder if one of those people 
performing as part of the symphony might have been inspired by an 
ensemble that went out from a local community, as they did in ours, and 
visited the schools. They got a small grant and went out with the small 
grant, the financing, with an ensemble, to tell students what a 
symphony is all about. Maybe one of those people last night had that 
kind of an impact.
  We also eliminate seasonal grants and subgranting, because a lot of 
problems NEA has suffered was a result of their giving a grant which 
was then subgranted to another group or individual. For example, the 
experience in Milwaukee, that was a lump sum grant to the institution, 
and they in turn made a subgrant that we found objectionable. That 
cannot happen anymore, because we have addressed that problem.
  I could mention a number of other things, but I think those are the 
important ones. More money to the States, spread this over the Nation, 
get the education component in, and limit what any one State can get, 
plus, of course, having the oversight of Members of Congress.
  I might also add, we have reduced the overhead. We reduced the amount 
that can be spent on people downtown by $566,000, and there is another 
feature in here, many of my colleagues who object to NEA say privatize 
it. Well, we start that. We have a beginning. We give the NEA authority 
to seek private funds. I think this could lead to an evolution of 
private financing for the National Endowment for the Arts.

  I hope that in making decisions on this, that people will consider 
what we have done by way of restrictions to ensure that the NEA is 
focused on the cultural heritage of this Nation; that the NEA is 
focused on inspiring people to do things that are worthwhile, such as 
what we saw last night with the National symphony. The other area of 
contention is in the Forest Service area. I want to point out a few 
things here.
  First of all, we have one of the lowest allowable cuts we have ever 
had. Just for example, about 10 years ago, we provided for 11 board 
feet to be cut. This bill limits it to 3.8 billion, a very substantial 
reduction. I think this should make those of you who are concerned 
about the environment very happy with this in the bill.
  We also provide money to close more roads than we build. That is 
another very proenvironmental feature of the bill. We provide for 
forest health. We recognize that we need to have healthy forests for 
those that want to recreate in our forest, for those who want to enjoy 
the out of doors.
  As a footnote, I might say that twice as many people use the National 
Forests for recreation as use the national parks, and that is one of 
the reasons that good roads are very important, because we do not want 
a family going out there with their kids to camp or to hunt or to fish, 
going off the road. We do not want these roads pushed through by a 
bulldozer so when you get the first rain the road goes down in the 
local creek. So we want them built to certain standards. That is the 
reason there is an element of Federal control.
  We also want roads that when we have insect problems, disease 
prevention, fire suppression, that our people can get in in a safe way.
  So I hope Members will give some thought to that as you make a 
decision on whether or not to support the rule and support the bill.
  We also provide significant withdrawal funds for refuge maintenance. 
This does not get a lot of attention. But we provide money that they 
can build dikes, that they can make these facilities more accessible. I 
know that the Ducks Unlimited people are very supportive of the bill 
for the reason that we do that, and we are going to have the 100th 
anniversary of the Fish and Wildlife Service in the year 2003 and we 
are doing everything we can to make sure that the facilities are in 
first class condition.
  I think there are a lot of positive things in this bill that I would 
recommend to Members.
  One last comment. We have heard a lot about global warming in the 
last few days, and I think this is another very, very proenvironmental 
feature of this bill. People are talking about global warming.
  How do you address global warming? By reducing emissions. What do we 
do in this bill? Under the energy section, we have a $42 million 
increase for conservation programs. Conservation, burn less and do it 
more efficiently. Part of that is clean coal, part of it is the way we 
use natural gas and many other things.
  But that is the real world of global warming, and that is 
conservation. We do it. We have increased by $42 million the amount we 
can allocate to that.
  Alternate fuels, new ways. Fuel cells, for example, new technology. 
Again, this bill provides funding for a number of critical programs, 
but I want to point out again one feature throughout the bill, and that 
is we want matching funds. On our energy programs, on the technological 
developments, we require a match from the private sector, so they, too, 
have a stake in what is done, and the same thing is true in other parts 
of the bill.
  I think that this partnership approach is an important element in 
everything we do in terms of research.
  There are a lot of other technological items in here, weatherization, 
which again is designed to conserve fuel to impact on the problem of 
global warming.
  Just let me close by saying to all of my colleagues I am sure that 
you will find things you do not like about this bill. We all can find 
things. But we are one Nation, and, on balance, this bill I think 
overall is good for the United States of America. It is good for the 
environment. It is fair, it tries to address the problems that we have 
out there in a way, and we try to do it in a very economical way. That 
is the reason we were able to reduce the cost $400 million under last 
year, while at the same time increasing the parks by $79 million, 
increasing the forest by $42 million, and I could go on.
  One last feature I would mention is that we provide 100 percent of 
the fees collected at the parks, at the forests, in the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, at the BLM facilities, 100 percent stays in the 
service. It does not go to the Treasury. It used to go to the Treasury 
so there was no incentive.
  Now, when the management of the parks collect a very modest fee from 
those parks or forests or any of those facilities, they get to keep it. 
If you do not think it is great, just talk to a park superintendent 
about how they have been able to do things that otherwise they were not 
able to do because of this.
  I found one little interesting thing. I visited one of the parks out 
in California, and the people there told me that since they have had 
the fee program, vandalism has gone down. Why? Because the individual 
has got a stake in it.
  When they are paying something, they realize that there is value to 
this. They take better care of it, and at the same time visitation was 
going up.
  So this is a great policy issue that is part of this program, and 
this is a good bill. This is a good bill. Members should vote for it. 
It is important to all of us. It is important to the environmental 
future. It is important to the recreation future. It is important to 
the conservation, global warming, all of these things. This bill tries 
to address them in the best possible way.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote for the rule and vote for the 
bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the conference 
report. Those who were here who remember the timber salvage rider, or 
those who were here in support of the timber salvage rider, one of the 
worse environmental votes of recent Congresses, and in fact something 
that was even disastrous for the industry that promoted it because of 
the backlash, will love this bill. Because this bill is rife with 
special interest, antienvironment riders, in addition to a rider which 
effectively repeals the ban on the export of Federal logs.
  That is right, we are now going to supply the Japanese with logs from 
our

[[Page H9509]]

Federal lands. There is deep denial on the part of a few who promoted 
this amendment, particularly our colleague from Washington State, but 
that is true. I will read later from a report which documents that.
  It has a provision that would prevent the Forest Service from 
updating and revising its forest management plans. No matter which side 
of the forest debate you are on, you should be opposed to that 
provision. Even if you want higher harvest on the Federal lands, you 
would freeze in place the current regime. You will not update the 
plans. You will fall in conflict with other Federal laws.
  It overturns a court injunction against the Forest Service on one-
half of the grazing leases on 11 southwestern national forests. It has 
a provision delaying the completion of the Pacific Northwest interior 
Columbia ecosystem management process, which may well put us again in 
conflict with the Endangered Species Act and bring more court 
injunctions against activities in the Pacific Northwest. It has a 
provision preventing the reintroduction of grizzly bears into the 
Bitter-root ecosystem and on and on.
  Also, for the first time, it takes land and water conservation funds 
and not acquiring lands that we need to protect the wildlife of this 
country, sensitive wetlands and others that are threatened with 
development, taking things from the huge list of backlogs and land and 
water conservation funds. No. It gives $10 million to Humboldt County 
in the district of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], and $12 
million for a road maintenance fund in Montana for the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Hill], and $10 million to the State of Montana in terms of 
Federal mineral holdings. Why? To offset the impact of actual land 
water conservation purchases promoted by the administration for the 
headwaters area and in the new world mine.
  These are payoffs, these are unprecedented, and a very, very bad use, 
and an unauthorized use of land and water conservation funds, but they 
are protected by the rule, as are these other unauthorized provisions 
in this bill.
  But the worst and least understood provision is one that the 
Department of Agriculture's own inspector general, despite what some 
here will protest, who are apologists for the log exporters, say, and I 
quote, ``They will effectively gut the 1990 law banning the export of 
unprocessed logs from National Forests in the West.''
  Let me repeat that. Effectively gut the 1990 law. She goes on to say? 
Her opinion, it would basically make enforcement dependent upon 
voluntary compliance, voluntary compliance, when there are millions of 
dollars to be made by diverting these scarce Federal resources into 
export to the Japanese, who do not harvest a single log. Fifteen 
thousand mills operating in Japan, 350 struggling to operate in the 
Pacific Northwest.
  And, guess what? They do not cut any trees. Why? Because we give them 
the logs. And under this bill we will give them more logs and they will 
come off of our Federal lands. It will increase pressure on those 
Federal lands.
  This is a horrible provision, a horrible precedent. Again, the 
apologists will say, no, we are just fussing it up a little bit. These 
12 pages that we put in there, these provisions that the inspector 
general says will gut the law, they will not really gut the law; do not 
worry about it, or we will fix the problems later. Not a single hearing 
was held in the House or Senate by the authorizing committees. Not a 
single hearing. No discussion on things previously stuck in by the 
Senate. We are being told we cannot control the Senate.

                              {time}  1015

  Two Senators from Washington State and one Representative from 
Washington State are particularly promoting this provision. Again, they 
are denying the reality of it. We have the opposition of 60 national 
and local environmental groups to the provisions of this bill; we have 
the opposition of the National Carpenter's Union to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record these statements in opposition.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                                  United Brotherhood of Carpenters


                                       and Joiners of America,

                                Washington, DC, September 4, 1997.
     Representative Peter A. DeFazio,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Bldg., 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative DeFazio. The United Brotherhood of 
     Carpenters and Joiners has always supported a ban on the 
     export of raw, unprocessed timber from public lands. In 
     response to our calls and those of American workers across 
     the country, Congress approved a ban in 1990. Recently, 
     language was inserted into the Senate FY 1998 Interior 
     Appropriations bill that weakens this bill.
       Through the practice of substitution, log exporters can 
     export private, unprocessed timber while buying public timber 
     to make up for the shortfall caused by their own exports. 
     This practice was restricted in the 1990 legislation and any 
     attempts to weaken it should be opposed.
       The current Senate rider impacts the anti-substitution 
     aspects of the law. These substitution limitations were 
     included to prevent companies from circumventing the intent 
     of the law by exporting private raw logs and then buying 
     public timber to substitute for the exported logs. This 
     policy was set to encourage companies to make a choice, 
     within any given ``sourcing area,'' between supplying their 
     mills with federal timber or exporting private, unprocessed 
     timber, not both.
       The rider would alter the definition of these geographic 
     sourcing areas and render the anti-substitution rules 
     ineffective. The high economic value of these logs and the 
     growing practice of transporting them long distances, between 
     sourcing areas, have diluted the sourcing area limitations. 
     This, along with the Senate rider will make it possible for 
     companies to more easily export raw logs and purchase and 
     process public timber.
       Workers suffer when raw logs are exported. Not only do we 
     lose the commodity itself, we lose the manufacturing jobs 
     that turn the raw logs into lumber used for construction and 
     other value-added activities like furniture making.
       Representative Peter DeFazio is circulating a letter to 
     President Clinton and the Interior Appropriations Conferees 
     urging them to oppose this weakening of the 1990 log export 
     ban. On behalf of the 500,000 members of the Carpenters 
     Union, I ask you to add your signature to this very 
     worthwhile request.
           Sincerely,
                                              Douglas J. McCarron,
     General President.
                                  ____

                                                September 5, 1997.
     President Bill Clinton,
     The White House, Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We urge you to oppose any amendments 
     that may be included in the fiscal year 1998 Interior and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations bill that would weaken the 
     1990 law banning log exports from federal and state lands in 
     the West, or otherwise prevent the Forest Service from 
     property enforcing the export ban.
       As you know, in 1990 Congress overwhelmingly approved a 
     permanent ban on the export of unprocessed timber from 
     National Forests, Bureau of Land Management and state-owned 
     lands in the Western United States. An important part of that 
     law prohibits a log exporting company from purchasing federal 
     timber for its mills as a replacement for private timber the 
     company is exporting. This practice, known as 
     ``substitution,'' is little more than the backdoor export of 
     federal timber.
       A Washington State trade group representing the interests 
     of large exporting firms is attempting to significantly 
     weaken the 1990 law. The group has asked members of the House 
     and Senate Appropriations Committees to support an amendment 
     that would make it legal for a company to purchase federal 
     timber as a direct substitute for private timber the company 
     is exporting. Apparently, the Forest Service has drafted an 
     amendment aimed at satisfying the log export lobby's 
     concerns.
       Every log exported from the Pacific Northwest increases the 
     economic and political pressure to log the region's federal 
     forests. The Northwest Forest Plan is already under severe 
     stresses and strains from attacks from the timber industry 
     and the 104th Congress. Overcutting federal lands resulted in 
     wild salmon and ancient forest dependent wildlife headed for 
     extinction. Now is not the time to allow for a backdoor to 
     open for cutting down the forests owned by U.S. citizens.
       The ban on log exports from public lands enjoys 
     overwhelming support in the Pacific Northwest. Not only is 
     export ban hugely popular, it is critical to the health of 
     the Northwest's forest ecosystems. We urge you to defend the 
     integrity of the 1990 log export ban by insisting that the 
     total prohibition on federal and state log exports continue 
     and that the Forest Service property implement the ban on 
     substitution.
           Sincerely,
         Steve Thompson (Box 4471, Whitefish, MT 59937) on behalf 
           of, Bonnie Joyce, Friends of the Coquille River (OR); 
           Adrienne Dorf, Gifford Pinchot Task Force (WA); Ellen 
           M. Bishop, Grande Ronde Resource Council (OR); Bill 
           Hallstrom, Green Rock Audubon Society; Julie Norman, 
           Headwaters (OR); Rick Johnson, Idaho Conservation 
           League; John Osborn and Steve Thompson, Inland Empire 
           Public lands Council; David Orr, John Muir Project of 
           Earth Island Institute; Jim Britell, Kalmiopsis Audubon 
           Society (OR); Tim Coleman, Kettle Range Conservation

[[Page H9510]]

           Group (WA); Chris Magill, Kitsap Audubon Society (WA); 
           Felice Pace, Klamath Forest Alliance (CA); Dave Stone, 
           Lane County Audubon (OR); Amy Schlachtenhaufen, 
           Lighthawk; Susan Crampton, Methow Forest Watch (WA); 
           Alexandra Bradley, Quilcene Ancient Forest Coalition 
           (WA); David Dilworth, Responsible Consumers of Monterey 
           Peninsula; Cynthia Wilkerson and Owen Reese, Student 
           Environmental Action Coalition; Bill Arthur, Sierra 
           Club, Northwest Regional Office; Steve Marsden, 
           Siskiyou Regional Education Project (OR); Cheryll 
           Blevins, Southern New Mexico Group of the Sierra Club; 
           David Biser, SouthWest Center for Biological Diversity 
           (NM); David C. James, Spokane Chapter of Trout 
           Unlimited (WA); Robert M. Freimark, The Wilderness 
           Society; Ken Carloni, Umpqua Watersheds, Inc (OR); 
           Stephen I. Rothstein, Univ. of California, Santa 
           Barbara, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution and Marine 
           Biology; Ben Watkins and Mary Schanz, Voices for 
           Animals (AZ); Martin C. Loesch, Washington Wilderness 
           Coalition; Steve Phillips, Washington Wildlife 
           Federation; and Jeff Stewart, Washington's Eighth 
           District Conservation Coalition.

  Mr. Speaker, there are also a number of mills in the Pacific 
Northwest, including Boise Cascade, and 20 small independent companies 
in Oregon and Washington, who oppose the log export provisions.
  Again, who supports it? Five very powerful large log exporting 
companies led by Weyerhauser in Washington State, two U.S. Senators 
from the State of Washington, and our colleague, the gentleman from 
Washington. That is about it. Those are the people who are promoting 
this, overturning the intent of Congress, a long-standing Federal law 
that says we are not going to take our logs and export them from 
Federal lands to a country, Japan, which does not harvest any trees of 
its own, and does not allow freely our finished products into its 
markets; no tariffs on our logs, but big tariffs and barriers on our 
finished wood products.
  This is not a minor technical revision in the law. Again, according 
to the Department of Agriculture's inspector general, it will force the 
forests to rely on the voluntary compliance of timber exporters in 
order to enforce the ban. The ban will still stand, but they will not 
be able to enforce it. In fact, the IG's office states that this 
provision would allow exporters to directly export Federal timber, in 
the full knowledge that their chances of getting caught are near zero.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the opinion of the inspector 
general from the Department of Agriculture into the Record, Ms. Rebecca 
Batts, director of the Rural Development and Natural Resources Division 
of the Department of Agriculture's IG office.
  The material referred to is as follows:

Review of the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 
                                  1997

       As requested by Jim Lyons, I have reviewed Title VI, H.R. 
     2107. I was requested to provide the quickest possible 
     assessment, as the bill is currently in conference. 
     Therefore, this evaluation reflects my preliminary 
     conclusions only and does not reflect an ``in-depth'' 
     assessment of the myriad factors that could affect 
     implementation.
       Implementation of the proposed bill will effectively gut 
     the ``Forst Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 
     1990.'' In essence, that act prohibited export of unprocessed 
     logs harvested on Federal land and established limitations on 
     the ability of an exporter to substitute unprocessed Federal 
     timber for unprocessed timber exported from private lands. 
     The amendments currently under consideration allow some 
     direct substitution in Washington State, west of the Colville 
     National Forest, the area where we have been told that most 
     of the exports originate. A person could acquire federal 
     timber, and, in the same area, export private timber if the 
     timber originates from land he does not own or have an 
     exclusive right to harvest timber for more than seven years. 
     The Act also would allow a purchaser of federal timber to 
     export private timber immediately after disposal of federal 
     timber, without regard to the calendar year restriction 
     currently in place. Under current law, this would have been 
     deemed substitution. Further, the Act subjects certain basic 
     internal controls (e.g., log branding and record keeping) to 
     a cost-benefit test that may make restrictions difficult or 
     impossible to enforce. Without these basic internal controls, 
     the risk of commingling federal and non-federal timber 
     escalates dramatically. With comingling comes an increased 
     opportunity to divert non-export logs into the export market.
       Enforcement of proposed bill will be so difficult that the 
     Department will be dependent on the voluntary compliance of 
     timber purchasers, exporters, and mills. Regulations 
     developed to implement the current law were suspended by 
     Congress, in part because of the perceived adverse effect on 
     the Western Forests Products industry. The suspended 
     regulations included key internal controls to enable the 
     Department to enforce the ban on export or substitution. The 
     controls were not significantly different than many currently 
     in place as part of Forest timber theft prevention plans. For 
     example, the suspended regulations required branding and 
     painting of federal timber and reporting information about 
     transactions involving federal timber.
       The proposed law subjects the key controls of timber 
     marking and reporting to a cost/benefit analysis--perhaps 
     making it more difficult for the Forest Service to establish 
     these controls which are specifically aimed at the detection 
     of non-compliance. In essence, it will be necessary to 
     demonstrate the existence of violations to obtain support for 
     implementation of the controls. However, demonstrating 
     violation will be nearly impossible, as the controls to allow 
     detection of violations will not be in place. An additional, 
     unintended effect of the requirement could result in Forest 
     Service inability to enforce extant marking requirements 
     aimed at ensuring compliance with domestic timber measurement 
     issues (i.e., branding to ensure proper scaling and payment 
     for federal timber.)
       Current requirements mandate reporting of all federal 
     timber acquired and each subsequent transaction involving 
     that timber. The proposed bill would subject the requirement 
     to a cost/benefit analysis and, if the requirement is 
     imposed, allow for waivers in instances where audits have 
     demonstrated substantial compliance during the preceding year 
     or where the tranferor and the transferee enter into an 
     advance agreement to comply with domestic processing 
     requirements.
       It will be extremely difficult for an audit to demonstrate 
     that an entity had complied with domestic processing 
     requirements in the absence of an effective system of 
     internal control. Further, the conditions for a waiver will 
     be almost impossible to assess in the subsequent years, when 
     transaction reporting is no longer required, based on 
     demonstrated compliance in the initial year. As a ``worst 
     case scenario'' a purchaser could determine to strictly 
     comply with domestic processing requirements for one year, 
     carefully document compliance for that year, obtain a waiver 
     for the subsequent year, and intentionally fail to document 
     subsequent transactions. Without documentation and 
     concomitant branding, it will be nearly impossible to 
     identify noncompliance, and a purchaser may be able to 
     violate the act with a reasonable certainty that he cannot be 
     caught and prosecuted.
       The second basis for a waiver is also problematic--an 
     agreement between the transferor and the transferee to comply 
     with domestic processing requirements. In essence, the 
     Secretary will be saying ``You do not have to report if you 
     agree beforehand to obey the law.'' It would be an unusual 
     timber purchaser or processor who would not be willing to 
     state an intention to comply with federal law, regardless of 
     actions the individual planned to take.
       An additional area of concern is the definition of a 
     violation to mean ``with regard to a course of action.'' This 
     could be interpreted to mean that enforcement official must 
     demonstrate a pattern of behavior before taking action. As a 
     result, even egregious ``one-time'' offenses very difficult 
     to address.
       A new category of violation is created in the proposed 
     bill. A ``minor violation'' involving less than 25 logs and a 
     total value of less than $10,000 is to be redressed through 
     the contract. In effect, this allows for lower fines to be 
     assessed. It is unclear what effect ``minor violations'' 
     would have on demonstrating a ``course of action.'' If a 
     pattern of minor violations was not sufficient to demonstrate 
     a ``course of action,'' then enforcement officials could be 
     put in the very difficult position of documenting a series of 
     events, each one individually exceeding 25 logs and $10,000 
     in value, before prosecution.
       The proposed bill requires a hearing prior to debarment--
     even in cases where a criminal conviction has been obtained 
     (e.g., timber theft) or where a civil judgement has been 
     obtained and no material facts are in dispute. Current 
     debarment regulations permit debarment in these situations 
     based on the administrative record. By changing this 
     provision, the Act will allow a person convicted of timber 
     theft, with outstanding civil judgements, to continue to bid 
     on and be awarded federal timber contracts during the period 
     of the proposed debarment. This course of actions seems 
     unwise, at best.

  Mr. Speaker, the radical overhaul of the law banning log exports from 
our public lands could never stand the light of day. That is why it is 
stuck into this bill with no hearings, no deliberation, and it was only 
done by a couple of Senators who we cannot control, along with the 
other antienvironment riders in this bill.
  This is a bad precedent for the U.S. House of Representatives. Are we 
going to allow the Senate to do these sorts of things repeatedly on 
these bills, or are

[[Page H9511]]

we just going to let this cruise by by protecting those things in this 
rule? I hope not. Future conference reports will be even worse, more 
rife with special interest riders, if we in the House do not stand up 
for our prerogatives and oppose this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer.
  (Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about 
another point which is not brought up here today. I want to say that I 
am very personally disappointed that we now have a chance to stop 
another sale of our strategic petroleum reserve.
  I understand when the Committee on Appropriations, over the objection 
of the Committee on Commerce, proposed a one-time sale, just a one-time 
sale of SPR oil to pay for the decommissioning of Week's Island in 
Louisiana. I remember at the time, I said, if you open the door, 
everybody is going to look at this as a giant piggy bank. All of a 
sudden, if you need some more money, let us sell some more SPR oil.
  This is getting to be the fourth time now that we have gone into this 
oil reserve. It is about time we make a stop. This is emergency energy 
for this country, and here we are, dipping back into the oil reserve 
one more time. Mr. Speaker, I think the taxpayers in this country ought 
to know this. The oil that we have down there is about $35- or $36-a-
barrel oil and we are turning around and selling it for about $22.
  This is not a good deal for the American taxpayer. This should be 
stopped as soon as we possibly can. Mr. Speaker, I am in a position 
here where I think we have some really good things in this bill, but 
when we look at the possibility of taxpayers in this country getting 
ripped off, I think this is a good illustration of it. They are getting 
ripped off.
  So therefore, I think what we have to do is go back and review this 
again. We had a tremendous discussion prior to this bill going to 
conference, so I would just say now that this rule should not allow the 
sale of SPR oil. It should not allow it. It is a ripoff to the 
taxpayers.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this rule, and I am going to 
support this bill. If the administration vetoes it, I will speak to 
override the veto. I do not want to do so because I think that this 
bill is perfect. It is not. There are many items in this bill that I 
believe should not be here. I agree with the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
DeFazio] on the log export question. I think that is outrageous. I also 
think there are a number of other giveaways in this bill.
  But I have to say that I honestly believe that on this side of the 
aisle we did the best job we could negotiating on this bill, given the 
fact that the people who are quarterbacking the congressional lobbying 
for the administration are Little Leaguers. I cannot help that. All I 
can do is work with what God gives me. So we are doing the best we can 
under the circumstances.
  There is no question, in my view, that the administration gave away 
far more than they should have, both to some interests in this country 
and to some individual Members of Congress. We hear a lot of talk from 
the White House about the money that they are going to save on the 
line-item veto, for instance.
  This bill is a classic example of how the executive branch of 
Government, regardless of party, will, in the present and in the 
future, use the line-item veto and use their other powers in order to 
leverage more spending in a bill, because this bill contains at least 
three items which are out-and-out gifts to individual Members of 
Congress in order to facilitate the ability of the administration to 
spend almost $700 million in additional money.
  Mr. Speaker, I will support this bill, because in the public interest 
it is the best we can do under the circumstances. But I for 1 minute do 
not want to leave the impression that I in any way am thrilled by the 
content of much of it. I am not. I think on balance it deserves to be 
supported because the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] have done the best job they could 
under the circumstances, but I cannot help the fact that we have had a 
sometimes pitiful approach from the other end of the avenue.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule, this bill, and engage in a 
brief colloquy with my friend, the gentleman from California, Chairman 
Young, on a matter involving Outer Continental Shelf drilling.
  Mr. Speaker, I have long been interested in the question of oil and 
natural gas drilling off the coast of the State of Florida. Each year 
for well over a decade Congress has adopted a moratorium on oil and gas 
activities in some of our Nation's sensitive waters, and this year's 
moratorium is included in the conference report before us. We all 
agree, this is not the best way to do this.
  The moratorium does not provide a long-term solution to the principal 
problem affecting the OCS program. Notably, the current OCS regime does 
not provide States and localities with sufficient involvement in 
decisions that can greatly affect them, in the minds of many.
  I have introduced legislation which would establish a joint Federal-
State task force to resolve this issue. The task force would be charged 
with reviewing the scientific and environmental data available, 
commissioning further studies if necessary, and then making a permanent 
policy recommendation based on sound science.
  Others have other views. I would yield to the distinguished chairman 
for his comments on that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's 
concerns in OCS matters, particularly with respect to the Gulf of 
Mexico bordering his State of Florida. I agree that leasing moratoria, 
such as in this conference report, are not a fully satisfactory way to 
address our policy for oil and natural gas exploration and development 
in the OCS.
  As chairman of the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, I would 
like to remind my colleagues of the considerable contribution that oil 
and gas from the OCS makes toward meeting our Nation's energy needs. 
Therefore, I am interested in a thorough review of the provisions of 
H.R. 180, and other bills which would authorize permanent closures of 
portions of the Outer Continental Shelf, in order to weigh the benefits 
of oil and gas development versus the potential risks to coastal and 
shelf resources.
  I assure the gentleman that the Committee on Resources will hold a 
hearing on this issue during the next session of Congress.
  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
profusely for all of those interested in this issue.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would 
like to say that I rise in support of this rule and this bill. This is 
of great interest to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. There is 
a lot in this bill I do not necessarily agree with, either, but this is 
the work of what I call compromise and working with different factions. 
I believe this is the best we can do.
  There are some parts of it in which I may not agree with the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], who has done a yeoman's job, but 
he also has some parts that he does not agree with me. However, this is 
a good piece of legislation that should be passed.
  I urge our colleagues to understand one thing. If this does not pass, 
a lot of things that are in there will not be available when we go back 
to the table. I think it is the right thing to do. We should do it. I 
compliment the gentleman working on it.
  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the 
sentiments, and congratulate the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] 
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for

[[Page H9512]]

good work under very difficult circumstances. I urge passage of the 
bill when it comes time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, but the 
comments that I have have absolutely nothing to do with this rule.
  Back in May of this year, my brother's wife passed away after a long 
bout with cancer. I asked for and received permission to be out to 
attend the funeral. The gentleman from Georgia, at the onset of this 
debate, said that it had been misrepresented, that the minority had 
misrepresented so many things around here. I thought this would be a 
good time to talk about misrepresentation.
  There was a press release sent to the newspapers in my district that 
said that Bill Hefner had voted against a bill that would cause a train 
wreck, and would have corrected that. I was not here. I had an excused 
absence. When I called the NRC, they said they would probably issue an 
apology or a correction. I approached the gentleman from Georgia and I 
was told, grow up, this is my job.
  If that is the procedure we are going to use in this House, if we 
talk about comity, it was a very serious thing for me, for a death in 
my family, as it would be for anybody in this House. And if that is the 
way politics is going to be played around this place, I think it is a 
real tragedy for comity in this House.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of the 
Interior appropriations bill and this rule. We have had a very 
difficult conference, but we came out of it with $98 million for the 
National Endowment for the Arts. I think that is a tremendous 
accomplishment, and something that we could very well lose if we go 
back into conference.
  Second, we came out with $699 million for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, to take care of some very important national 
priorities. That money could also be lost, and I think probably will be 
lost, if this conference report is defeated. The other body, people in 
the other body, senior Members, say they will not put that money in 
again if this bill does not go through.
  To my colleagues, on the question of substitution in the West and on 
the question of log exports, I believe what we did in this bill is 
actually going to strengthen the ability to keep public timber at home.

                              {time}  1030

  Also, it will allow the free movement of private timber in the 
Northwest, which will allow more of it to be domestically processed.
  Mr. Speaker, let me point out the bottom line is that under the law 
that was passed in 1990, at the end of last year the State of 
Washington would have been able to export 25 percent of its State's 
logs. What this ban does is say, no, we are going to keep public 
timber, State and Federal, at home. We are not going to allow it to be 
exported. Fifty-three percent of those sales of State timber in 
Washington State go down to Oregon, 53 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, we did not hear our former colleague, Mr. Wyden, or we 
have not heard the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] or anybody else 
from Oregon up here denouncing this bill, because they recognize it 
will mean more timber for small businesspeople in the State of Oregon.
  Mr. Speaker, I frankly am outraged by the deceit that has been put in 
and surrounded on this particular provision. This is a good provision.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say, ``Thank you, 
Honorable Congressman Sidney Yates.'' I rise today to applaud the 
inclusion and protection in this legislation of the National Endowment 
for the Arts. For anyone to think this was an easy fight, they were not 
here. For anyone to think that this is not an important fight, they do 
not know the arts.
  Mr. Speaker, everywhere I go in the 18th Congressional District there 
are people who are saying thank goodness for the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the effort to retain the $98 million in this 
provision.
  Mr. Speaker, the fight will continue, but at least we have made the 
stand. This is an important part of this conference report. The most 
important part, however, should be that the fight must continue to not 
undermine the National Endowment for the Arts as it is being directed 
to be done.
  Let me also acknowledge the Honorable Jane Alexander for her 
continued strength to interact with legislators and to press the point 
that the National Endowment for the Arts is not special interests, it 
is not arts for the big cities, it is art for the rural communities and 
centers around this Nation which provide the access to arts in school, 
to give exposure to young artists, to provide the legacy and the 
continuation of our culture.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does raise some concerns for me, great 
concerns, environmental concerns. But I do believe that there has been 
such a strong commitment and effort to preserve and protect the 
National Endowment for the Arts that preserves and protects our 
culture, that I would argue that this is an important rule and that we 
must move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, the National Endowment for the Arts has been under 
attack for a number of years. I hope this legislation will get us 
reformulated in our strategy to increase its funds, to recognize its 
stand for the preservation of our culture and legacy and fight against 
the radical right that want to destroy the arts of this Nation.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule and to the conference report because, as has been the case with 
past appropriations bills, this report is riddled with indefensible and 
unsound and undebated provisions that represent a direct assault on the 
environment and the resources of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to concur in the statements of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, that the negotiations on behalf of the White House have 
been completely bungled and mishandled and the result is a bill that is 
very, very damaging to America's environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the work that has been done on the 
arts, and the arts has become the compelling reason to vote for this 
legislation. But the arts should not be allowed to destroy the 
environment in that same legislation.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a piece of legislation 
that is terribly detrimental to the environment. It completely destroys 
the $700 million in ``priority Federal land acquisitions'' because of 
the conditions placed on those acquisitions. The report inappropriately 
delays these important acquisitions, even though the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund already provides the ample authority for these 
acquisitions. Moreover, the use of any of the remaining funds of the 
$700 million can easily be blocked by the actions of a small number of 
Members.
  I also object to the outright political payoffs included in this bill 
to benefit local Members of Congress in the areas of the acquisition. 
Humboldt County, where the headwaters of the beautiful ancient rain 
forest is located, is given $10 million even though there is no 
concrete evidence that this amount had any relationship to any 
projected economic losses or that this money will be used to compensate 
any injury in timbering as a result of the acquisition of these lands.
  But even more egregious is in the case of Montana, where $12 million 
is

[[Page H9513]]

earmarked for highway funds as the result of the acquisition of the New 
World Mine and then another $10 million is promised to that State. But 
understand this, that if the Governor does not act on that $10 million 
and does not accept it, he is then offered some coal deposits that may 
have a value to the taxpayers of this country of $226 million in 
royalties and bonus bids. So if the Governor sits on his hands, the 
taxpayers lose $220 million. No hearings, no discussions. That is what 
is going on in this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, we have also embarked on a new approach here that we now 
have Federal acquisitions that are expensive enough, of major 
environmental assets in this country, that now we are going to start 
compensating people for imagined loss even though the track record is 
in most instances where we acquire lands for national parks and 
monuments and wilderness areas, the fact is that the local economy is 
dramatically stimulated because visitors from throughout America and 
throughout the world come there to visit these newly designated sites. 
As we see in the case of Death Valley and the parks and monuments in 
California, in southern Utah, the economy is springing forth because of 
that. But now we are going to compensate these economies with a gift of 
tens of millions of dollars because we imagine that they might suffer 
some losses.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also terribly disturbed about what this does in 
terms of the timber programs and the timber management of our national 
forests and lands. We had very close votes in this House on stopping 
the construction of new timber roads, and yet what we see when they 
went to the conference committee, they just disregarded the votes in 
this House and now we have gone beyond the President's budget. The 
tragedy is that we will see more destruction of more lands in the 
Nation's timberlands.
  The administration had proposed eliminating the road credits, but in 
fact we did not do that in this legislation. We headed in the opposite 
direction. This report, as pointed out by the gentleman from Oregon, 
makes it easier to export logs off of Federal lands, as the Inspector 
General report tells this Congress. But, again, this step was taken 
with no hearings, no public review, no discussion about the 
ramifications of this.
  This report also obstructs the efforts for ecosystem planning in the 
Columbia River Basin. It interferes with the implementation of the 
grizzly bear program in Idaho under the Endangered Species Act, and it 
overturns court injunctions helping grazers in the Southwest.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the problem with this legislation, that once 
they got it out of the House, once they got it out of the House where 
it was a fairly decent bill with respect to the environment, the 
conference committee went crazy and the administration just badly 
handled these negotiations. The result is that we now have once again 
the Interior Appropriations bill with antienvironmental riders on it, 
the same kind of riders that were added 2 years ago when the Republican 
majority shut down the Government over this legislation. We now see 
this legislation with the same kind of riders and we cannot get an 
answer out of the President of the United States of whether or not he 
will sign the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill should be rejected. The rule should be voted 
down.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record information from the Greater 
Yellowstone Coalition.

Does the Interior Appropriations Bill Give Away $10 Million of Federal 
                                 Coal?

       No. It gives away far more than that.
       The bill requires the Secretary of Interior to give away 
     either $10 million worth of federal coal agreed to by the 
     Governor of Montana and the Secretary, or the Otter Creek 
     tracts. If the Governor does not agree to take $10 million 
     worth of coal approved by the Secretary, the Secretary must 
     give the Governor the Otter Creek tracts--which are worth far 
     more than $10 million.
       The Otter Creek tracts cover 10\1/2\ square miles and 
     include reserves of 533 million tons of coal. Similar coal 
     sells for $8-9 a ton at the mine mouth. The bonus bids alone 
     on such tracts average roughly 4 cents per ton--or $21 
     million. But the real value lies in the 12\1/2\% royalty the 
     federal government would collect on the value of the coal 
     mined. The value of the coal is $8/ton 533 million tons, or 
     $4.26 billion, of which the federal government would collect 
     12\1/2\%, or 532 million dollars. Under present law, 50% of 
     that would be sent to the state government. This coal would 
     have returned $266 million to the Treasury. This is what the 
     Interior appropriations bill conveys to the State of Montana 
     for no consideration.


ISN'T THIS AN ACCEPTABLE PRICE TO PAY TO ACHIEVE THE BUY OUT OF THE NEW 
         WORLD MINE, WHICH THREATENS YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK?

       No, because that purchase will never be consummated if it 
     is tied to this giveaway. The purchase agreement is tied to 
     the settlement of a Clean Water Act lawsuit brought against 
     the gold mining company by local community interest groups. 
     Settlement of the lawsuit is a prerequisite of the purchase. 
     But several of the plaintiffs are strongly opposed to new 
     coal development in the presently unmined area of the Otter 
     Creek tracts--and will not agree to a settlement if it will 
     lead to mining the Otter Creek tracts. They agreed to a 
     settlement with the gold miners--but not with coal mining of 
     presently unmined ranchlands.
       For more information, call Russ Shay at 202-544-3198.
                                  ____



                                Greater Yellowstone Coalition,

                                    Bozeman, MT, October 23, 1997.
     President, William Jefferson Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Clinton: We write to urge you to veto the 
     FY98 Interior Appropriations bill that will soon be on your 
     desk. The provision in the bill requiring that 500 million 
     tons of federal coal be given to the state of Montana as a 
     prerequisite for completing the New World mine agreement is 
     completely unacceptable and only serves to hold Yellowstone 
     National Park hostage to pork barrel politics. If developed 
     today, the coal reserves named in the bill would generate at 
     least $250 million in royalties each to the federal treasury 
     and the State of Montana.
       Through your leadership, the conservation community and 
     Crown Butte Mines, Inc. found a way to amicably resolve a 
     potentially explosive, expensive and debilitating debate over 
     a mine proposed on Yellowstone's doorstep. The agreement 
     signed in your presence on August 12, 1996 in Yellowstone 
     National Park was a win for all parties. It protected 
     Yellowstone forever from the threat of industrial mining and 
     its resulting water pollution. It protected Crown Butte's 
     property rights and it called for $22.5 million in pollution 
     clean-up in the mining district which will protect human 
     health and create jobs.
       The 1996 agreement was embodied in principle in a tentative 
     pact reached between the Administration and Congressional 
     leadership two weeks ago. This proposal, which funded the 
     agreement, also contained funds for the Beartooth Highway and 
     called for a study of mineral resources in Montana.
       Now, in a last-minute political maneuver, Representative 
     Rick Hill and Senator Conrad Burns have included a provision 
     in the FY98 Interior Appropriations bill that requires that 
     coal or other mineral assets be given, free, to the state of 
     Montana. This provision not only fleeces the American 
     taxpayer by requiring that property owned by us all be given 
     away, it brings significant new controversy to a process that 
     has been marked by cooperation.
       Coal development in eastern Montana has a long and 
     contentious history. Coal mining adversely affects ranchers 
     property rights and the water they depend on for their 
     livestock operations. Coal mining changes the character of 
     local communities and puts significant strains on community 
     infrastructure and resources. It also changes patterns of 
     public use, putting off-limits to entry land that was used 
     for recreation, hunting and fishing.
       Because of the controversial nature of coal development, 
     the federal government has taken a very open and public 
     approach to coal. Areas proposed for leasing go through 
     extensive public review with all values considered. None of 
     this is true of the provision in the FY98 Interior 
     Appropriations bill. No public hearings were held on this 
     provision, no public input sought. Giving coal to Montana is 
     a backroom deal, pure and simple. It will benefit a few at 
     the expense of many.
       We are in firm support of the 1996 New World agreement. It 
     is an agreement crafted to protect Yellowstone and its water. 
     Coal has nothing to do with the agreement or in protecting 
     the Park. As plaintiffs to a Clean Water Act lawsuit against 
     Crown Butte Mines, Inc., we urge that you veto the bill and 
     insist that Congress send to you legislation that implements 
     the historic agreement signed in Yellowstone.
           Sincerely,
         Michael Clark, Executive Director, Greater Yellowstone 
           Coalition; Jim Barrett, Board Member, Beartooth 
           Alliance; Tom Throop, Executive Director, Wyoming 
           Outdoor Council; Joe Gutkoski, President, Gallatin 
           Wildlife Association; Julia Page, President, Northern 
           Plains Resource Council; Tony Jewett, Executive 
           Director, Montana Wildlife Federation; Betsy 
           Buffington, Associate Representative, Sierra Club; Sean 
           Sheehan, Northwest Wyoming Resource Council.

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

[[Page H9514]]

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generous grant of time. I 
would like to go back to the issue of log exports, because the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] tried to obfuscate the issue a 
little bit.
  Mr. Speaker, let us say it in simple language. The Inspector General 
of the Department of Agriculture, a qualified attorney, one versed in 
the laws of the land and the restrictions on the export of logs at the 
Department of the Government charged with implementing restrictions on 
the export of logs harvested on Federal lands says, and perhaps the 
gentleman can understand this language, ``Implementation of the 
proposed bill will effectively gut the Forest Resources Conservation 
and Shortage Relief Act of 1990.''
  She goes on at great length. I realize it is two pages, single space, 
and it might be difficult for some to understand. But in those two 
pages she comes to no different conclusion. This effectively repeals 
restrictions on the export of Federal logs so that we can become a log 
exporting colony of Japan where they do not harvest trees. I do not 
think that is right. I do not think it is good even for those log 
exporting companies in Washington State that are pushing this, because 
it is going to bring about a backlash if this goes into place.
  Mr. Speaker, when people see the scarcity of logs coming off of 
Federal lands being diverted into a foreign market which does not allow 
the import of our finished products, it only wants our raw materials so 
it can protect its own dying and inefficient industry, outrage will run 
high in the Pacific Northwest and I believe across the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. This is the effect of this legislation. 
The gentleman from Washington who spoke so eloquently was also an 
eloquent supporter of the timber salvage rider when it first passed. I 
was an outspoken opponent when it first passed. A year later, the same 
gentleman was an eloquent proponent of repealing the timber salvage 
rider, the one that he had supported so eloquently the year before, 
because he said he could not have anticipated the impact.
  Mr. Speaker, it is the same here. I urge Members to read the single 
spaced, two-page report. If we pass this legislation, not only will we 
have the giveaways of our oil, not only will we violate the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund and do a couple of blatant payoffs to a number 
of congressional districts, not only will the other anti-environment 
riders contained in this legislation go forward, we will repeal the ban 
on the export of logs from Federal lands. Plain and simple. We cannot 
deny it. That is the bottom line.
  So if Members want to vote for anti-environment riders, if they want 
to vote for a giveaway of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve, if 
Members love those sorts of things, if they want to give away the 
authority of the House of Representatives to the Senate and protect 
unauthorized provisions in this bill, if we want to set that precedent, 
if we want to roll over for the Senate, then vote for the rule.
  But if Members do not, if they want to protect our prerogatives and 
protect the taxpayers and protect the environment, then Members will 
vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, urging all of my colleagues to support this 
rule, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous 
question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on 
the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 247, 
nays 166, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 527]

                               YEAS--247

     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Manton
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stokes
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--166

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Calvert
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goodling
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Largent
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weygand

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bono
     Brown (CA)
     Chenoweth
     Cubin
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Gonzalez
     Houghton
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     McIntosh
     Mollohan

[[Page H9515]]


     Payne
     Rangel
     Ryun
     Schiff
     Smith (OR)
     Souder

                              {time}  1106

  Messrs. STUPAK, BARR of Georgia, BURTON of Indiana, MORAN of Kansas, 
HULSHOF, PAXON, PICKERING, CALVERT, PEASE, BENTSEN, KENNEDY of Rhode 
Island, Mrs. LOWEY, Mrs. THURMAN, and Ms. SLAUGHTER changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. McINNIS, DAVIS of Virginia, and COX of California changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________