[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 145 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9529-H9541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 277, I call up 
the conference report on 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, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 277, the conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 22, 1997, at page H9004.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].

                              {time}  1315


                             General Leave

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2107, and that I may include 
tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], 
I have had a couple of requests for colloquies, and I would like to do 
those now so we can pace our time here.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the 
chairman in a colloquy.
  As the chairman knows, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to 
divide its Pacific region into two regions beginning on October 1, 
1997. A new region would be created located in Sacramento, CA. This 
transfer was intended to assist the large work load on the west coast 
that is putting a strain on the regional office in Portland, OR.
  I understand that the committee is concerned about the outyear costs 
of the program and that the bill directs the Fish and Wildlife Service 
to consider alternatives to establishing an additional regional office 
in Sacramento. However, the language in this bill would not preclude 
establishing a regional office in Sacramento; is that correct?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is correct, that such 
establishment requires committee approval. The committee will continue 
to work with the

[[Page H9530]]

Department of the Interior to identify an acceptable solution to the 
problem.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, the commitment of the 
administration to include funding for the regional office in its 1999 
fiscal year budget, as Interior Secretary Babbitt has indicated he is 
going to do in a recent letter to the chairman, will help address the 
committee's concern that the establishment of this office would be 
facilitated at the expense of other priorities of the Fish and Wildlife 
Service in the annual Interior appropriations bill.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, 
that is correct. The committee is also concerned that the budget 
submitted by the administration to the Congress for fiscal year 1999 
appropriately addresses this problem in the context of service-wide 
priorities for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I thank the chairman for his assurances.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] for a colloquy with the chairman.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report includes several provisions 
related to management of the national forests. I would like to engage 
the chairman in a brief discussion about a couple of those.
  One of those provisions, from the Senate bill, relates to national 
forest lands in New Mexico and Arizona, where the Forest Service is 
under court order to adjust grazing levels. As I understand it, the 
language says that the Forest Service cannot make those adjustments 
until they have issued an adjustment schedule, or March 1 of next year, 
whichever comes first. Is that the gentleman's understanding?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Yes, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SKAGGS. So as I understand it, this will not prevent the Forest 
Service from making these adjustments as they were ordered to do, once 
the adjustment schedule has been issued, or March 1, at the latest?
  Mr. REGULA. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SKAGGS. On another point, concerns have been expressed about 
section 332 of the conference report which deals with the process of 
revising national forest plans. This also originated in the other body, 
and I understand that as it was approved there, it would have directly 
affected several forests in Colorado as well as many forests in other 
States.
  While the conference report does include a similar provision, the 
original language has been revised, and I would like to make sure I 
understand the effect of this part of the report. I understand the 
Forest Service has already given notice of its intention to revise the 
plans for some forests.
  Am I right in understanding that in those cases, the revisions can 
proceed?
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, 
yes, if the Forest Service has given notice prior to October 1 the 
revisions can proceed.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Sometimes there are court orders calling for planned 
revisions. What about those cases, I would ask the chairman?
  Mr. REGULA. Again, those revisions can go forward.
  Mr. SKAGGS. I also understand that plan amendments, as opposed to 
general plan revisions, are not affected by this revision. I ask the 
gentleman, is that correct?
  Mr. REGULA. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Finally, would the chairman agree that the Forest Service 
can and should go ahead with necessary environmental analysis and other 
work related to the planning process? Would the chairman agree with me 
that the Forest Service can and should go ahead with necessary 
environmental analysis and other work related to the planning process 
to avoid more delays and backlogs, once the process of plan revisions 
resumes?
  Mr. REGULA. Yes.
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the chairman very much for his discussion of 
these matters.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this. It is tough to 
do. There is much in this bill that is very popular and issues we have 
all worked very hard for. But nevertheless, in the context of acting on 
measures that are important, we should not be forced to accept spending 
and a spending policy path that is inappropriate. This bill goes beyond 
just the responsibility of the Committee on Appropriations and writes 
fundamental law dealing with many issues.
  We won a court case in Alaska of $1.6 billion. In this bill, the 
authorization exists to send half of that back to the State of Alaska, 
maybe for good purposes, maybe for bad purposes. I do not know what the 
consequence of that is going to be.
  The timber road credit, which put a limit of $25 million on this 
bill, takes the limit off, and in fact goes in the reverse in terms of 
that particular issue. There are many, many additions in this bill that 
do a lot of good, but it is not worth it. I think we could have done 
better. These provisions were not in the bill when it left the House. 
We should not be held up by the Senate and forced to accept these types 
of antienvironmental provisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the fiscal year 1998 
Interior appropriations conference report and urge my colleagues to 
vote no on this bill. If Congress passes this bill and the President 
signs it into law, the ramifications for protection and enjoyment of 
America's natural resources will be grave.
  Appropriation measures don't require a rule, if in fact the committee 
stays within its responsibility, but this measure, not for technical, 
but for substantive political reasons, is misusing the rule and abusing 
the process of this House to make bad public policy and wasteful 
expenditure. I have heard a lot of reasons why I should vote for this 
bill. There's more money for the parks and national wildlife refuges. 
There are sensible Indian health provisions. There's importantly $98 
million for the NEA when the House measure that passed, didn't even 
permit a vote upon this issue, but hid behind the lack of 
reauthorization. There's just enough in this bill to satisfy everybody, 
but not too much to make folks too angry--at least that's what the 
supporters of this flawed bill would have you believe.
  The popular programs funded by this measure are being used to enact 
numerous provisions that will cause havoc with our public lands and 
parks and cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars. I feel 
compelled to note the flawed policy decisions that have been forced on 
us in this conference report. Most of these ridiculous proposals have 
never had a hearing in the House and Senate or been subjected to proper 
legislative procedures. In short, Mr. Speaker, these proposals were 
slipped into this bill without review, hearing, or debate. Perhaps 
after explanation, Members will understand why these measures were 
shielded from open debate and the light of day.
  There is a provision in this law that basically guts the ban on 
logging exports from our national forests and State-owned lands in the 
West. This popular law will now be unenforced. It will instead depend 
on the voluntary compliance of exporters. Voluntary compliance? We 
wouldn't need a law banning exports if we thought there was going to be 
voluntary compliance. So we can effectively kiss this timber--that is 
apparently so important for maintaining our domestic supply of paper 
products--goodbye.
  There is a provision that prevents the Forest Service from updating 
and revising its forest management plans. This is required by the 
National Forest Management Act. That sets a foolish precedent, and 
essentially forces the Forest Service to be unresponsive to the needs 
of the lands they manage and the people that manage them.
  There is a provision in this bill that prevents the reintroduction of 
grizzly bears into the Bitteroot ecosystem of Idaho and Montana. This 
hinders proper application of the Endangered Species Act and is based 
not on sound science but on the fears of a vocal minority. It has 
absolutely no place in

[[Page H9531]]

this conference report, a sop to the fears and the pseudo-science that 
dominates this Congress the past years more concerned with anecdote 
than facts.
  This bill ignores provisions passed by the House earlier this year 
that placed limits on special subsidies for road construction by the 
timber industry to $25 million for such credits. I was a supporter of 
tighter limits than the House passed, but I thought we had begun to 
make some progress. I thought we may have sent a message to the timber 
industry that they were going to have start paying their own way if 
they wanted to despoil our Nation's forests. Apparently, I was wrong. 
The purchaser road credit program is now just as it always was: 
bloated, inefficient, and completely unnecessary, wasting tax dollars 
and despoiling our forests.
  This conference report sets a new low mark in establishing a 
precedent of expending the Land and Water Conservation Fund into the 
Road Maintenance and Political Payback Slush Fund. This is indeed a sad 
day and consequence when we don't have the funds to fulfill the 
purposes of law, the preservation, and conservation of lands. Now we 
will see these scarce dollars expended. Specifically, this bill now 
provides a $10 million payoff to Humboldt County, CA and a $12 million 
road maintenance fund for a highway in Montana--paid for by the LWCF. 
The State of Montana also will receive a $10-million gift in the form 
of Federal mineral holdings which three tracts in the year 2000 may be 
valued at $500 million--also paid for by the LWCF or paid even more by 
the mineral assets of the American people. Apparently, these gifts 
serve to ease the blow of protecting the important Headwaters Forest 
and the proposed New World Mine site. In fact the preservation of such 
land is a benefit, not a negative to the two States and areas. That 
sets a horrible precedent, Mr. Speaker. Allowing LWCF money to be used 
for nonland acquisition purposes is not something that I have ever, can 
ever, or will ever support. On these grounds alone, the President 
should veto this bill if Congress makes the mistake and passes it.
  The measure directs $800 million into a fund--improper legislation on 
this appropriation measure--for capital improvements in our national 
parks and for research on Alaska fisheries--maybe positive purposes--
but again no hearings and only in one State--$160 million in research. 
The source of the funds is the $1.6 billion awarded the U.S. Federal 
Government in court over submerged lands and a disagreement with the 
State of Alaska. So the consequence is the U.S. taxpayer won, but now 
we convey significant amounts which enure principally to the benefit of 
Alaska.
  There are many more flaws in this bill--the moratoria on road rights 
of way in law isn't repaired--but I think the ones I have summarized 
here give the Members of this House an idea of why we should return 
this legislation to conference. I should note that I do not, Mr. 
Speaker, believe this conference report is beyond repair. As I have 
said, there are provisions in this bill that I support and are good 
policy. I applaud Mr. Regula and Mr. Yates for making progress in these 
areas.
  But until we fix the LWCF provisions in this bill, until we fix the 
logging export provisions in this bill, until we restore limits on 
special subsidy programs for the timber industry, I will oppose it. I 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for 
including language with regard to the Salton Sea, which is now 
beginning to move forward, and the step required here for a plan of 
remediation will be of extreme benefit and will lead to a much more 
definitive program being presented in future years for appropriations 
to really solve the problem. But the first step I think is adequately 
taken care of here. I thank the chairman for what he is doing.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the 
Virgin Islands [Ms. Christian-Green].
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Interior appropriations 
conference report for fiscal year 1998. While it is not perfect, it 
represents a fair compromise on the many difficult environmental issues 
that the subcommittee had to wrestle with under this bill.
  I am especially pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the conferees were able to 
reach agreement on the funding level for land acquisition in our 
national parks. The nearly $400 million that will be available for this 
purpose will greatly enhance the possibility that funding will be made 
available for the purchase of two important parcels in Salt River 
National Park and the Virgin Islands National Park, in my district.
  I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Yates], for their willingness to include in the bill 
two other provisions that are very important to the economic recovery 
of the Virgin Islands. This is a good compromise conference report, Mr. 
Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a member of the subcommittee, a very 
valued member, I might add, for a colloquy.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this colloquy 
with the chairman.
  On my own behalf, but also, obviously, of the Speaker of the House, 
who has worked very hard and diligently in favor of research for 
diabetes funding, I would just engage the chairman, and ask if the 
chairman would enter into this colloquy regarding the establishment of 
a coherent and unified policy and the expeditious distribution of 
Federal money as appropriated by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 for 
special diabetes programs for Indians, subsection 4922.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to discuss this important 
issue with a subcommittee member and cochairman of the House Diabetes 
Caucus. I understand that the gentleman has developed this colloquy in 
consultation with the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I have indeed, Mr. Speaker, because of the Speaker's 
great leadership on this issue relative to diabetes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee, is it his 
understanding that in subsection 4922 of the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997, that the 5-year $150 million special diabetes programs for 
Indians grant be distributed in a timely manner with a coherent, 
detailed policy formulated by those within the Indian Health Service 
who have direct programmatic oversight responsibility and expertise in 
diabetes care for Native Americans?
  Mr. REGULA. Yes. We feel those professionals from the IHS diabetes 
program who deal on a daily basis with the clinical and public health 
implementation of issues related to diabetes should have full 
authority, and all necessary resources given to them by national IHS 
officials to make decisions and administer these grants, after timely 
consultation with tribal leaders, which shall be completed by November 
30, 1997.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, further, I ask the chairman, is it the 
committee's intent that the extensive epidemiologic data related to 
prevalence, complications, care process, and outcomes currently 
collected and coordinated on an earlier basis by the Indian Health 
Service diabetes program shall be used as the primary basis for the 
distribution of these funds?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Furthermore, is it the intent of the committee that 
the IHS diabetes program fully consider that 25 percent of the grant 
should be used for primary diabetes prevention and 75 percent of the 
grant should be utilized for secondary and tertiary diabetes 
prevention?
  Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman very much for clarifying the 
committee's intent on how this money should be utilized. I urge 
strongly that this conference report be

[[Page H9532]]

approved. I thank the chairman for his leadership, and that of the 
Speaker of the House, as well.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a 
question to the subcommittee chairman. How much money is included in 
this bill for the National Endowment for the Arts?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. $98 million.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Regula for the job he has 
done on this bill. It was a very difficult bill. In all the years I 
have been dealing with Interior bills in this Congress, I have never 
participated in one that had as many controversies as this had. I think 
it is a testimonial to the expertise, the effectiveness, and the 
popularity of Chairman Regula that we have this bill and this 
conference report here today.
  I find this bill acceptable, Mr. Speaker. I would have preferred if 
it had other environmental provisions in it than the ones it has, but 
we succeeded in toning down many of the environmental positions from 
their original writing.
  The bill does give life to the National Endowment for the Arts and 
Humanities, and that is a very, very good thing. I shall vote for this 
bill, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska, [Mr. Young], chairman of the House authorizing committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has been a torture to get to the floor, 
primarily because of two issues that came under my jurisdiction, the 
Headwaters Forest acquisition of $250 million, and the New World Mine 
acquisition of $65 million.
  I agreed to this position of the Headwaters authorization in this 
bill because of the gentleman from California, [Mr. Frank Riggs]. The 
gentleman from California, [Mr. Riggs], did an outstanding job 
conveying the fact that there has been a war in the Headwaters area for 
about 10 years, and it is time to solve this problem. So I considered 
this a very good point to solve the problem of the Headwaters, and 
remember, the President asked for this. We have given it to him, as we 
should.
  The big reason I worked on the New World Mine is because of the 
gentleman from Montana, [Mr. Rick Hill], who is a member of my 
committee. The gentleman from Montana, [Mr. Hill], argued for months 
that Montana was going to lose 300 rural jobs and lose revenues because 
of the buyout the administration agreed to. I believe, very frankly, 
that the mine would have gone ahead.
  But the gentleman from Montana has done an excellent job protecting 
Montana and providing jobs in his district. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, 
we have heard some rumblings that the extremist fringes of the 
President's advisers may recommend vetoing this bill. If that occurs, I 
think we should send the President a clean bill, I mean strip 
everything out of it, send him down a bill with none of the so-called 
extras, including the money he wanted for the project I just spoke of.
  So I will suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this conference report is a good 
conference report; tremendously hard to do, a tremendous effort put 
forth by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Yates], and the gentleman 
from Ohio, [Mr. Regula]. I want to compliment them in their work, but 
especially these, the gentleman from California, [Mr. Riggs], and the 
gentleman from Montana, [Mr. Rick Hill].
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks] for a colloquy with the chairman.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I understand that part of the bill provides 
authority for the acquisition of the Headwaters Forest in California. 
One of the key provisions related to the acquisition makes further land 
acquisitions that enlarge the Headwaters Forest by more than 5 acres at 
a time subject to specific authorization by Congress. I would ask the 
gentleman, is that correct?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, yes, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, would this provision 
affect land acquisitions by the Federal Government through donation, 
exchanges, or legal settlement or is it limited to land that is 
acquired through purchase with appropriated funds?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
the provision requiring an authorization is limited to acquisitions of 
the Federal Government that are purchased through appropriated funds. 
It would not restrict the acquisition of lands or interest in lands 
exceeding 5 acres that are received through donation, exchange, or 
settlements with the Federal Government.
  For example, this provision would not restrict the Federal Government 
from enlarging ownership of the Headwaters Forest as a result of 
settlement involving the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the 
Office of Thrift Supervision.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I would like to 
have a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] on title VI 
of the log export provision contained in the Interior appropriations 
agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there is nothing in the 
language of the log export provision which would allow the holder of a 
sourcing area to export private timber from within their sourcing area. 
Is that the gentleman's understanding as well?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
yes, that is my understanding of the language.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, would the chairman 
be willing to work with me and those who supported this provision to 
monitor implementation with the Forest Service to ensure that concerns 
such as this are addressed?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
will be pleased to work with the gentleman from Washington to monitor 
the provision's implementation.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to say that 
I strongly support the conference report and urge my colleagues to 
adopt it.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
[Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I believe there are a number of very 
significant provisions in this bill, riders added to this bill that 
have had no review by the House, added by the Senate, that are very 
much to the detriment of the environment. I spoke about them at length 
during the rule. Nothing has changed here before us. I would urge 
Members to vote against this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] is trying to 
clarify some very complicated provisions added into the bill by the 
Senate having to do with the export of logs. I still have the opinion 
of the IG from the Department of Agriculture who says, no, in fact this 
would allow the virtual explicit export of Federal logs. The gentleman 
says he is trying to fix that. I appreciate that.
  Mr. Speaker, that points out the whole problem with doing legislation 
on appropriations bills. It is an extraordinarily complicated subject. 
It has not been reviewed by the committee of jurisdiction in either the 
House or the Senate. It has been added to this bill without any 
scrutiny.
  The gentleman is now trying to say that it does not do what this 
attorney who works for the agency charged to enforce the law says it 
does do. I do not really know. Who knows?
  So, Mr. Speaker, we should reject this bill. If we need changes in 
substitution, we should do it in the regular order, not in an 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, as I understand it, the memo 
that the gentleman from Oregon is reading from is a draft provision 
that has not been cleared by the Department. We will get

[[Page H9533]]

this straightened out. I guarantee that what we have just said will 
cure the problem because there was not a problem in the first place.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure Members that are watching 
this that we are going to stay on schedule and we are going to be done 
with this before 2 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. 
Hill].
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, there may be some malignment in the debate 
here with regard to a road, a road called the Bear Tooth Highway that 
someone suggested existed in Montana. I want to point out to my 
colleagues this is not a Montana road. It is actually within the 
borders of Wyoming, but it is a U.S. Government road and constructed 
for the purpose of creating access to Yellowstone Park. Only the 
Federal Government has jurisdiction and responsibility over this road.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's initiative to purchase the New World 
Mine is going to eliminate 466 jobs in a small community called Cooke 
City, MT. This road simply provides tourists access to Cooke City, MT. 
With the withdrawal of these minerals and withdrawal of these roads, it 
is a community that is isolated and dependent on tourism for its 
economy in the future. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I promise my colleagues I will be brief. I 
hear the calls of ``vote.''
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation has a tremendous impact on my district, 
as has been pointed out by certain of my colleagues earlier today. Last 
September, Pacific Lumber Co., which is the largest private employer in 
the largest county of my congressional district, agreed to sell the so-
called Headwaters Forest, this last old growth stand of redwood trees, 
to the Federal Government and the State of California.
  Mr. Speaker, I endorsed the agreement along with our Senator from 
California, Senator Feinstein, who worked hard to bring all of the 
parties to this agreement together. A number of conditions that are set 
out in this bill must be met before the Headwaters agreement will be 
finalized.
  The bill before us today helps the achievement of one of those 
conditions by authorizing and appropriating the Federal funds necessary 
to consummate the transaction, $250 million in Federal taxpayer funding 
through the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  Mr. Speaker, getting to this very point today, as the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula] will attest, was not easy. I thank the gentleman and 
his very capable staff, and I want to thank Chairman Livingston and Jim 
Dyer for their work on this, and especially the members of the 
authorizing committee, Chairman Young, Chief of Staff Lloyd Jones, and 
somebody who deserves special note, Senior Counsel Duane Gibson, who 
worked so hard on this agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, many in Congress had serious reservations about whether 
this acquisition which was contemplated by the bipartisan agreement to 
balance the budget should go forward. For my part, the Government 
already has a very strong presence in my congressional district along 
California's north coast. My district includes all or part of four 
national parks or forests, including the largest and most expensive 
national park, the most expensive to acquire national park in the 
continental United States, the Redwood National Park.
  This bill provides certainty, though, that this acquisition will 
happen in the right way. The Federal Government gets access to the 
funds needed to uphold its part of the bargain. Pacific Lumber Company 
and the State of California gets certainty that the Headwaters 
agreement can go forward and will happen and Humboldt County gets an 
upfront payment plus continuing compensation in the form of a payment 
in lieu of taxes to mitigate the economic impacts of Headwaters. This 
is not to compensate for lost timber business, but to compensate for 
the loss of property tax revenues by transferring this land from 
private ownership to public ownership and removing it from the tax 
rolls.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all involved for helping this 
legislation become a reality and helping to resolve a long-simmering 
dispute in my congressional district.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report. I 
commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Regula, for the attention 
he has given an issue of great importance to my constituents, going so 
far as to visit my district to learn the facts first-hand for himself. 
I also thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Livingston and his 
capable staff for their efforts to reach an agreement that takes into 
account often-conflicting interests.
  In my view, the most significant element of this conference report is 
title 5, which both authorizes and funds a number of priority land 
acquisitions. Foremost among these is the acquisition of Headwaters 
Forest, in my congressional district. Headwaters Forest, the largest 
stand of old-growth redwoods remaining in private hands, is owned by 
Pacific Lumber Co., the largest private employer in Humboldt County, 
CA.
  Last September, Pacific Lumber agreed to sell Headwaters Forest to 
the Federal Government and State of California. I endorsed this 
agreement, along with our State's senior Senator, Senator Feinstein, 
who worked hard to bring the parties together.
  A number of conditions must be met before the Headwaters agreement 
can be finalized. The bill before us today helps the achievement of one 
of those conditions by authorizing and appropriating the Federal funds 
necessary to consummate the transaction--$250 million. Getting to this 
point was not easy.
  Many of us in Congress had strong reservations about whether this 
acquisition should go forward. For my part, the Federal Government 
already has a strong presence along California's north coast. My 
district includes all or part of four national parks and forests, 
including the largest and most expensive to acquire national park in 
the continental United States, Redwood National Park.
  This presence has had a heavy impact on the area, and not wholly in a 
positive way. It has impacted us in the form of greater regulation, 
lost tax revenues, closed mills, and lost living wage jobs that have 
not been replaced despite government promises.
  On the part of many of my colleagues, there was a feeling that the 
Federal Government has already acquired too much land. At a minimum, 
they wanted to assure that the large expenditure for Headwaters was 
justified, and that the executive branch was not rushing forward 
without a plan for management of the property to be acquired.
  For these reasons, I consistently emphasized to all of the parties 
the need to involve Congress in the acquisition. Not only would this 
further legitimize such a large expenditure of public funds, but it 
would also permit Congress to correct some items the administration had 
failed to address.
  This would also give us an opportunity to address the economic impact 
of the acquisition on the people of Humboldt County.
  Nonetheless, the administration wanted to give the Congress no say in 
the Headwaters transaction. They said that Congress should just provide 
the money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Yet they could not 
answer such basic questions as which agency would manage the property, 
what arrangements would be made for public access, or how they knew the 
Government was getting fair value it money. Interior Secretary Babbitt 
even went to so far to say in a July 18, 1997, press release that he 
did ``not believe that requirements for additional authorization are 
necessary or helpful.''
  This could not stand. And it did not stand, Mr. Speaker, thanks to 
your personal intervention and the insistence of the authorizing 
committees. Mr. Speaker, you assured that action would not be taken in 
this bill affecting the people I represent without my involvement on 
their behalf.
  Months ago, you promised me that you would look out for the interests 
of my constituents. You kept that promise by giving me a direct role in 
negotiating the Headwaters legislation, and by personally interceding 
when it appeared that negotiations were not on track. For your 
leadership, I thank you.
  I also thank the chairman of the House Resources Committee, the 
gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Don Young. He brought to the table his 
extensive knowledge and experience. Because he also represents an area 
of our country whose economy is heavily resource based, he understands 
how the Headwaters acquisition impacts Humboldt County.
  Perhaps his greatest contribution, however, was allowing members of 
his senior committee staff to devote a substantial amount of time to 
the negotiations, including Chief of Staff Lloyd Jones and Counsel 
Duane Gibson.
  Duane merits special recognition. Not only did he travel twice of 
Humboldt County in recent months, but he was lead negotiator for the 
committee. On both the Headwaters and Crown Butte, MT, transactions, he 
fashioned a legislative solution that serves well the interests of all 
of the parties.

[[Page H9534]]

  I would be remiss if I did not also thank all of the executive branch 
personnel who participated in these difficult negotiations. I want to 
particularly acknowledge T.J. Glauthier of the Office of Management and 
Budget, who demonstrated both firmness and compromise when appropriate, 
and who continually was able to disagree without being disagreeable.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that our persistence has led to a win-win 
result. This is a balanced package that protects living wage jobs, 
respects the rights of private property owners, and preserves key 
environmental assets.
  The bill provides certainty that this acquisition can happen the 
right way. The Federal Government gets access to the funds needed to 
uphold its part of the bargain; Pacific Lumber Co. and the State of 
California get certainty that the Headwaters agreement can go forward; 
Congress gets a role in how $250 million in taxpayer funds are spent; 
and Humboldt County gets an up-front payment, plus continuing 
compensation, to mitigate its law enforcement expenses and other 
economic impacts of the Headwater agreement.
  I will not detail all of the provisions of the Headwaters 
legislation, but I do want to highlight a few.
  Securing financial guarantees for Humboldt County was my highest 
priority in these negotiations. Going forward without an aid package 
was not an option; economic mitigation had to be on the table or there 
would be no settlement.
  The $10 million to Humboldt County included in this bill is 
unprecedented. Together with annual payments in lieu of taxes from the 
Federal Government and increased revenue from timber harvesting on 
Pacific Lumber lands, the county should be made more than whole.
  Another important provision is the limitation on growth of Headwaters 
Forest. Except for parcels of 5 acres or less, no Federal money can be 
used to purchase additional land to expand Headwater Forest without 
express congressional authorization.
  I am an ardent believer in private property rights. That is why I 
fought hard to assure that upon completion of the multispecies habitat 
conservation plan [HCP] covering Pacific Lumber Co. property, the lands 
of abutting smaller property owners will be removed from the critical 
habitat designation for the marbled murrelet.
  Of course, Pacific Lumber Co. and Headwaters do not exist in a vacuum 
in Humboldt County. That is why I was able to get included in this 
legislation two other notable provisions. In view of the unique 
circumstances faced by others engaged in harvesting timber, this bill 
establishes that the Pacific Lumber HCP is not to be considered 
precedent.
  To help both Federal and State officials in California, a provision 
is included that allows greater flexibility in cooperative management 
of government lands. This effectively enacts H.R. 262, which I had 
earlier introduced at the urging of Redwood National Park, but which 
will be beneficial to many of our National and State parks.
  Mr. Speaker, last week my congressional office in Eureka was 
vandalized by individuals who are not satisfied that we are only 
protecting 7,500 acres of timber. But I do not believe that this action 
of a few extremists who favor a 60,000-acre preserve reflects the views 
of most people. A calm appraisal of this legislation will reveal its 
balance.
  This is a Headwaters solution that all fair-minded people can 
support. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the conference 
report.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
bill. Earlier this year a majority of the Members of this body, in a 
recorded vote, voted to eliminate funding for the National Endowment 
for the Arts. We knew what the vote was on. A majority of us said, ``No 
more money. You have misused what you had, and it simply does not make 
sense to tell our 13,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are 
on food stamps that we do not have enough money for them to get them 
off of food stamps, but we have money for the National Endowment for 
the Arts; to tell those military retirees who are not getting the 
health care that they were promised that we do not have enough money 
for them, but we have $100 million for the National Endowment for the 
Arts.''
  We spoke on this subject. I want to remind my colleagues that it has 
made its way back into this bill and if they were serious about the 
vote earlier in the year, then vote against this bill today.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I should tell the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Taylor] that the House of Representatives lost the vote by one vote 
when the opportunity was being presented to offer an amendment on the 
National Endowment for the Arts in changing a rule.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, on my motion to instruct the House conferees 
when they went to conference to accept the provisions of the Senate 
bill which provided funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and 
for the Humanities, the House voted without an objection to do that.
  So the gentleman's statement that the attitude of the House is 
opposed to the National Endowment is entirely incorrect.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have been around here a long time and I have 
often seen a lot of peculiar things happen. Many of us have seen on 
many occasions individual Members of this House drag their feet or 
oppose a project or do very little to promote the project until that 
project is going to pass, and then all of the sudden there are an awful 
lot of instant fathers for the project.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that for the sake of 
historical accuracy, the Record ought to show that with respect to the 
creation of the Headwaters project in this bill today that without 
question the driving force in the Congress behind that project was, 
first of all, the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], 
the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Resources, and Senator 
Feinstein, who worked extremely hard to get that project developed.
  With respect to the comments of the gentleman from Mississippi, I 
would simply say if this Congress simply stopped funding idiotic 
projects like the B-2 bomber or the F-22, we would not only have enough 
money to put every soldier off food stamps, we would have enough money 
to put them all in alligator boots.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my staff and especially Barbara 
Wainman. Barbara has been with me 17 years working with Interior 
matters, and she will be leaving us. This is her last time on this, and 
we very much appreciate what she has done.
  This truly is a ``Take Pride in America'' bill, as I mentioned this 
morning. It does a lot of very positive things for the environment, for 
the culture of this Nation, for the enjoyment of our parks and our 
forests, and just a lot of positive things.
  Mr. Speaker, three points: It is $400 million less than last year, if 
we take out the 700 special amount, so we are managing very carefully 
yet we are getting a lot accomplished. Second, my colleagues heard the 
colloquies on the forest issue, and I think it is clear that there is 
latitude in the forest planning that will meet the needs.
  Third, on the arts issue, we have constrained the NEA as much as 
possible in light of the Senate action, and I think all in all the 
Members should support this bill. It is something I believe we can 
point to with pride. When Members come over to vote, if they are 
interested, we have all the sheets about what is contained in the bill.
  I want to take this opportunity to clarify that the funding provided 
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for habitat conservation planning 
for the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse applies to four counties in 
Colorado. These mice range over four counties in Colorado and two 
counties in Wyoming. However, they are on private land in Colorado and 
on Federal land in Wyoming. The Habitat Conservation Plan only applies 
to the private lands in Colorado.

[[Page H9535]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24OC97.000



[[Page H9536]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24OC97.001



[[Page H9537]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24OC97.002



[[Page H9538]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24OC97.003



[[Page H9539]]

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference 
report to H.R. 2107.
  While I may have disagreements with other portions of the bill, I 
would like to focus my remarks on the funding provided for the National 
Endowment for the Arts [NEA]. Again, let me state that my primary 
objection to the NEA is that the agency is constitutionally 
indefensible. Of course, I object, too, to the cavailier attitude 
exhibited by the bureaucrats at the NEA in the funding of lewd, 
sacrilegious, and pornographic art over the years. But regardless of 
the type of art funded by the NEA, the agency is unnecessary and a 
waste of taxpayer dollars.
  Rather than reiterate my well known objections to the NEA, I want to 
address the funding and the reforms for the NEA in this conference 
report. First, the funding for the NEA is hardly a compromise with the 
other body. When the House passed H.R. 2107, it contained no funding 
for the NEA. When the other body considered the bill, they inserted 
$100 million for the fiscal year 1998 operations of the agency. The 
bill then went to conference. A conference committee is designed to 
arrive at a compromise between the differences of the two Houses. Yet, 
this conference report exhibits no signs of compromise on the NEA. A 
logical compromise may have been a $50 million funding level for the 
agency, but instead, the bill provides $98 million--a mere $1.5 million 
cut from last year's appropriation.
  Now, my colleagues that served on the conference committee are 
claiming that the real compromise was with regard to the so-called NEA 
reforms. While some of these may modestly improve the performance of 
the agency, history has demonstrated that merely reforming the NEA has 
produced insignificant results. The arts in America will be better off 
only when Washington bureaucrats no longer determine what good and 
proper art deserves the support of involuntarily raised tax dollars.
  This NEA appropriation amounts to less than 1 percent of the annual 
private sector contributions to the arts and humanities in America, 
which is more than $10 billion. Clearly artists in America rely on 
privately raised money rather than NEA grants to survive. Yet, with one 
of the reforms in this bill, the NEA will be allowed to begin to 
compete with private arts foundations for private contributions. If 
Congress is allowing the NEA to solicit private contributions, why does 
the agency need these extravagant taxpayer subsidies?
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to my colleagues that our constituents 
will never believe that Washington will balance the budget unless 
Congress musters the fortitude to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful 
Government agencies. While the NEA appropriation is a relatively small 
percentage of the entire Federal budget, it is a huge symbol of both 
Washington's insatiable appetite for the money of American taxpayers, 
as well as the attitude that Washington knows better than our 
constituents what is best for them.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is really a mixed 
bag. There are many provisions I strongly support. There are others I 
just as strongly oppose. On balance, I believe I must oppose this bill 
because I am deeply concerned about the impact of some of these 
provisions on our Nation's public lands.
  This is a difficult decision for me, because I am impressed with the 
work of the conferees. They have agreed to some pretty wise investments 
that are important to me and my constituents. For example, I was 
pleased to see that the conferees agreed to fund the National Endowment 
of the Arts at $98 million, especially after the bitter disappointment 
arts advocates suffered during House consideration of this 
appropriation. An investment in the arts is an investment in our 
Nation's culture and the livability of our communities. As a strong 
advocate of the public/private partnership that characterizes arts 
funding, it is encouraging to see that the conferees have not abdicated 
their responsibility to our Nation's cultural heritage.
  In addition, the conferees included funding for land acquisition in 
the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. The Columbia River Gorge 
is a national treasure--rich in the historical, cultural, and resource 
legacy of the Nation. Among the countless waterfalls that spill from 
high hanging valleys is Multnomah Falls, one of the tallest in the 
United States and the single most visited attraction in the entire 
National Forest System.
  I remain grateful to conferees for providing funds to continue our 
Nation's commitment to preserving the gorge. The funds provided in the 
conference report will allow for the purchase of lands critical to the 
ongoing protection of this geologic, historical, and botanical wonder.
  However, in spite of all that is good about this conference report, I 
will be opposing this legislation. There are simply too many 
environmental riders that I cannot support, including: Language that 
effectively guts the 1990 law banning log exports from our National 
Forests and State-owned lands in the West; delays in funding Land and 
Water Conservation Fund purchases of the Headwaters and New World Mine; 
the use of $32 million in LWCF funds for payoff to Humboldt County, CA 
and for a road maintenance fund in Montana; language that eliminates 
any limits on the Forest Service's use of purchaser road credit. 
Congress needs to develop a comprehensive policy on the construction, 
reconstruction, maintenance and decommissioning of forest roads. These 
ongoing attempts to legislate forest policy on the Interior 
appropriation bill simply exacerbate efforts to develop a policy that 
makes sense.
  Mr. Speaker, I support much of this report, and applaud the work of 
the conferees in making critical investments in the arts and the 
preservation of our natural resources. I cannot in good conscience, 
however, vote for a bill that I believe will, in the end, cause more 
harm than good to our public lands. I urge the conferees to reassess 
the environmental riders and present to the House a conference report 
we can all support.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the leadership of the 
committee and subcommittee and the conferees for the hard work they 
have done to bring the conference report to H.R. 2107, the Department 
of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1997, to the 
House floor. I especially want to express my gratitude to the 
subcommittee chair, Mr. Regula, and the ranking minority member, Mr. 
Yates, for their willingness to work with the conferees to include in 
the conference report language regarding Marty Indian School, in Marty, 
SD. The report language promises to be helpful to the Indian School 
where conditions are a threat to the health and safety of the young 
students there. I can attest to the serious problems, having been there 
myself. The language calls on the Bureau of Indian Affairs to consider 
``high priority requirements'' at the Marty Elementary School through 
the Facilities Improvement and Repair Program. It is my hope that 
something can be done in the fiscal year 1998 or 1999 budget.
  After years of negotiations with the BIA, the Marty School obtained 
funds to replace half of the school. The leadership at the school and 
of the Yankton Sioux Tribe decided to use the funds to replace the high 
school because of the tremendous dropout rate of Indian high school 
students who attend the public high schools in the area. The dropout 
rate has traditionally been less at Marty Indian High School.
  However, the young elementary school students face attending a 
facility which is scattered among several deteriorating buildings, some 
of which are 70 years old. A few years back, the BIA determined that it 
was not economically feasible simply to repair the school and that the 
entire school needed to be replaced. However, a grant awarded Marty was 
enough to do half of the job.
  The conference report in my opinion gives clear direction to the BIA 
to address immediately this serious problem. The tribe's environmental 
specialists have estimated that it will cost up to $1 million to 
renovate all elements of the heating system alone. No public school 
system should allow its students to be educated in such a facility.
  It has been my pleasure to work with the chair of the Yankton Sioux 
Tribal Council, Steve Cournoyer; the vice-chair of the tribal council 
and former school board president, Bob Cournoyer; the president of the 
school board, Mike Red Lightning, and his colleagues on the school 
board. I admire their wilingness to make every effort to have a 
suitable school for the students at the Marty School and their 
recognition that the future of the Yankton Sioux Tribe is embodied in 
their children. I look forward to continuing to work with these good 
leaders and the BIA. Again, I thank the Committee and its leadership 
for what it has done to help Marty.
  Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reluctantly 
oppose H.R. 2107, the Interior appropriations conference report.
  There are many programs in this appropriations conference report that 
I strongly support. I applaud the conferees on their decision to 
restore funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. I thank 
President Clinton for his leadership in restoring funds for the land 
and water conservation fund. I also commend my colleague Senator Slade 
Gorton for dropping his opposition to removal of two dams on the Elwha 
River and allowing the dams to be eligible for acquisition and future 
removal.
  However, I am voting against the legislation because of an issue that 
has been very controversial amongst my constituents throughout the 
Interior appropriations process.
  Earlier this year the House approved an amendment to the Interior 
appropriations bill which would have reduced the appropriation for the 
roads budget of the Forest Service and

[[Page H9540]]

would have placed a cap on the use of the Purchaser Road Credit 
Program. Offered as a compromise, the Dicks amendment was a balanced 
alternative to an enormously controversial policy of the Forest 
Service.
  The Purchaser Road Credit Program may have been an effective tool for 
some small timber companies in the past, but I feel that it has 
outlived its usefulness and should be phased out. Timber companies 
should take more financial responsibility up front when roads are 
needed for a timber harvest on public lands, as they do currently on 
private lands.
  Unfortunately, the Interior appropriations conferees refused to 
accept this compromise language, instead opting to raise the cap on the 
Purchaser Road Credit Program. I am disappointed because the House 
approved the Dicks amendment, the Senate came within one vote of 
approving a very similar amendment, and President Clinton has indicated 
his willingness to begin phasing out the Purchaser Road Credit Program.
  Again, I regret that I cannot support this bill because there are 
many good things in it. However, my concern that we are not taking the 
first step to reform the outdated Purchaser Road Credit program has 
forced me to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Interior appropriations conference report, H.R. 2107, and to express my 
appreciation for the hard work of my chairman Ralph Regula, the 
distinguished ranking member, Sidney Yates, and my other colleagues on 
the subcommittee. I also want to recognize the staff of the 
subcommittee, including Debbie Weatherley, Barbara Waneman, Loretta 
Beaumont, Chris Topik, Joel Kaplan, and Angie Perry. I have thoroughly 
enjoyed working on the committee and agree with Chairman Regula that 
this is one of the most important communities in the House.
  I know that some of my colleagues still have problems with this bill 
because of concerns about the environment. This bill certainly is not 
perfect. For example, I opposed the provision allowing unlimited use of 
timber purchaser credits, which funds the construction of new National 
Forest logging roads. These purchaser credits allow timber companies to 
build roads throughout our forest system and be reimbursed at taxpayer 
expense. It's bad policy and I regret that this provision remains in 
the conference report.
  I was also concerned about the provision preventing the revision of 
forest management plans until the Forest Service issues a final rule on 
forest plans. Two forests in Virginia are currently on the process of 
revising their plans and such a provision would have prevented them 
from completing the work to help bring needed changes into the 
management of these forests. I support the changes made to the language 
which exempt plans currently being revised from the provision in the 
bill and appreciate any clarification the chairman may give on this 
issue.
  There are other provisions in this bill that I have problems with. 
Looking at the bill as a whole, however, I think it represents a fair 
compromise on most of the important issues and represents a step 
forward in funding important initiatives that benefit our environment.
  The $699 million appropriation for land acquisitions will ensure that 
two important acquisitions, the Headwaters Forest and the New World 
Mine can take place, protecting fragile ecosystems from environmental 
harm. The remaining funds can be used by the Forest Service, the 
National Park Service, the BLM, and the Fish and Wildlife Service for 
additional land acquisitions in environmentally sensitive areas.
  I am pleased with the changes in the bill removing provisions 
allowing Alaska Native corporations to file claims to 30,000 acres of 
coastal lands within the Lake Clark National Park. Any division of the 
park, particularly of the coast line, would destroy the integrity of 
the park as a complete ecosystem and prohibit essential public access 
to the park.

  The additional $136 million in the bill for the Everglades will help 
provide needed restoration of flora and fauna within the Everglades 
system; $384 million for maintenance of our National Parks; and an 
additional $41 million for operating the National Wildlife Refuges will 
be used for operational and maintenance backlogs on refuges and 
parklands. This additional funding is sorely needed and will help to 
improve our refuge and park systems, making them more accessible for 
all Americans.
  As Chairman Regula has mentioned, there is a large increase in energy 
conservation programs under the bill, including State energy programs 
and weatherization assistance programs, which help low-income families 
insulate their homes to make them more energy efficient.
  Finally, I am particularly pleased that the conference committee 
agreed to restore funding to the NEA. Our country needs the NEA to 
bring the arts to underserved, underprivileged communities across this 
country. We have no better tool to help leverage private dollars with 
Federal dollars to generate quality arts programming. The NEA is a 
success story and we need to put politics aside and recognize how much 
it does for citizens across the country. I hope that in the next 
Congress we can provide a much needed increase to NEA funding so that 
it does not merely survive, but flourish.
  Mr. Chairman, the conference agreement appropriates a total of $13.8 
billion for fiscal year 1998 for the Department of Interior and related 
agencies. While we can all point to certain programs within the bill 
with which we might disagree, overall I think the conference agreement 
will improve our environment and enhance the stewardship of our natural 
resources. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the intent of an 
amendment I offered to the House's version of this bill, which was 
accepted, in regards to current leaseholders in the Sleeping Bear Dunes 
National Lakeshore. The conference report contains a different version 
of my original amendment, and I wish to clarify for the record my 
intent behind it.
  Many of the current leases at Sleeping Bear Dunes will expire soon. 
While the National Park Service has stated that it plans on restoring 
the properties of expired leases to their natural state, they do not 
have the funds to restore these properties. Clearly, this amendment 
prohibits the Park Service from evicting current leaseholders until 
they have the necessary funds to do so. However, my intent was also to 
have the Park Service restore the existing abandoned residential 
structures before evicting any additional leaseholders.
  Currently, there are numerous abandoned structures that have been 
standing empty for a number of years. Not only are these deteriorating 
structures blights on the natural beauty of the lakeshore, but they are 
also health and safety hazards for the visiting public and local 
citizens. The National Park Service Report on ``Residential Occupancy 
Under Special use Permits'' dated June 21, 1996, raises serious 
concerns about the Park Service's ability to remove the structures on 
park property. The report states, ``Without sufficient funding the lag 
time between abandonment of a structure and its ultimate disposition 
will increase. This will create safety, and other problems, for the 
park.''
  Who will be served by evicting these families from their homes, 
leaving deteriorating structures that will become eyesores and health 
and safety hazards? No one. These families take great price in 
maintaining the integrity and beauty of Sleeping Bear Dunes. It makes 
no sense to continue evicting families, adding to the number of 
deteriorating structures that are blights on this pristine National 
Lakeshore, when the Park Service has yet to take care of the currently 
abandoned and decaying structures. It is my hope that the Park Service 
is willing to address this situation before evicting more families and 
adding to a growing problem.
  In addition, the Park Service has indicated that they may use funds 
raised through the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program to restore the 
properties of leases that expire during fiscal year 1998. I believe 
that this would be a misuse of the revenue generated by this program 
and violate the intent of the Congress. In 1996, the Congress 
authorized the National Park Service to collect entrance fees to deal 
with a growing backlog of maintenance problems due to funding 
shortfalls. I believe that using the revenues created by this program 
to restore the properties of leases that will expire during fiscal year 
1998, and thereby ignoring the existing backlog of residential 
structures, is inconsistent with the desire of the Congress in 
authorizing this program. These fees should be used to address the 
restoration of properties that have been neglected over years past, not 
to evict current leaseholders.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope to work with the National Park Service 
to address these concerns and find a solution to this problem that is 
satisfactory to all parties involved.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 171, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 531]

                               YEAS--233

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Burr

[[Page H9541]]


     Buyer
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Pastor
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--171

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Camp
     Campbell
     Carson
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Ensign
     Evans
     Filner
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Goodling
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poshard
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Bereuter
     Callahan
     Chenoweth
     Cooksey
     Cubin
     Dickey
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Houghton
     Istook
     Klug
     LaHood
     Leach
     McCarthy (NY)
     McIntosh
     Mollohan
     Parker
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Ryun
     Sandlin
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Smith (OR)

                              {time}  1405

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Smith of Oregon for, with Mr. Scarborough against.
       Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. Gephardt against.

  Messrs. BACHUS, SHIMKUS, MOAKLEY, HINOJOSA, STENHOLM, and SESSIONS, 
and Mrs. MALONEY of New York changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. JEFFERSON, OWENS, and TORRES changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________