[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.
____________________