[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.
____________________