[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5981-H5997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1999
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). Pursuant to House Resolution 504
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 4193.
{time} 1236
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4193) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and
for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, 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).
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to introduce my statement with a quote from the
Indian lore, from the Native Americans, and I think it sums up what
this bill is all about. I quote: ``We do not inherit this land from our
ancestors; we borrow it from our children.'' That is a profound truth,
and that is what we have tried to keep in mind as we have dealt with
this legislation. I like to call this bill the ``Take Pride in
America'' bill, because we can take pride in what has happened in this
great land of ours, in the preservation of our great natural resources.
Several members of our committee had an opportunity to tour some of
the parks in the system this last month, and I think we agreed that we
found great pride on the part of the people that staff these
facilities. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would
agree. He was part of our delegation, and saw that people in the land
agencies are proud of their work and they put in a lot of extra time.
We saw this in Yosemite where the storm damage has been repaired, a lot
of it on time donated by members of the Park Service staff.
I also think that the record of volunteers in the land agencies is
enormously impressive, and something we can all take pride in. Mr.
Chairman, 94,000 people volunteered to work in our national parks
without any compensation, but because they care about the land, they
care about the parks. Mr. Chairman, there are 112,000 volunteers in the
Forest Service; 28,000 volunteers in Fish and Wildlife; 17,000
volunteers in the Bureau of Land Management; and we of course are
talking about a total of 617 million acres of the United States, about
30 percent of the land area.
We get a lot of foreign visitors. In our meeting with park officials,
we learned that people come here from all over the world to view the
national treasures, to view the unique ecological characteristics of
our national parks, forests and other facilities.
We have extended the recreation fee program for two. We will talk
more about that in general debate. It is anticipated to generate $500
million over a 5-year period. This is additional money, in fact, and
the public has accepted it. One of the superintendents told me on our
trip that people often want to give more. They say, ``That is not
enough,'' $2 to visit a park or $20 for a car load of people. They say,
``We would like to contribute more.'' The same park people said that
vandalism has been reduced because people become stakeholders. We can
take pride in that.
We can take pride in the fact that as a Nation we commit almost $8
billion to programs for the Native Americans, not all in our bill, but
across the board in many different bills.
Now, this has been a remarkable success story. I do not mention this
in terms of just today, but I want to say it is there because of the
leadership over the years of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates)
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade). They are both going
to leave the committee, and I think that is something we should note.
I could say a lot about the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) and
his leadership. I have served 24 years with him. We have been partners,
and as partners often will, we may have disagreed on policies, but
never in a disagreeable way. He served on this committee for 48 years,
20 years as chairman.
Just to illustrate his leadership, I will give my colleagues a couple
of instances. I remember the hearing on the National Endowment for the
Arts when the gentleman brought in a group from Jessup, Iowa. Now, that
is not exactly New York City; Jessup, Iowa is a pretty rural community.
These young people came to our subcommittee and testified on how a
string quartet had been sent there for a 6-month period, funded one-
half by the National Endowment for the Arts, the other half by the
local community. Obviously, this would not be a wealthy community, and
yet they were willing to put up half the money to bring this cultural
experience to their students. We had one of the students testify from
Jessup about what an impact this grant, along with what his own
community had spent, had made on the students in Jessup, Iowa.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) brought many examples such as
this one during our period on the committee. Likewise, in terms of our
natural resources, the redoing of the minerals management system was
leadership that the gentleman provided. He really has truly lived and
personified in his role on this subcommittee of the Indian saying, that
we borrow this land from our children, and I know that he has always
had a concern for it.
Likewise, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), who has been
a member of this committee for 20 years. He always brought to the
committee a desire to enhance the natural heritage that is a legacy for
all of us and has given us wonderful service. We will miss these two
individuals a great deal in terms of the subcommittee and the
leadership they have provided over the years.
Also, we have had the thoughtful work of the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Skaggs), our friend who always brings to this committee
intellectual curiosity. He always says, ``is this the right thing to
do?'' and always I felt challenged as a chairman. Many times, after
reflecting on what he had to say, I might disagree, but always he made
a very good point in bringing a concern that he might have for some of
the activities of our subcommittee.
Well, we could spend a lot of time on the three Members who have done
so much to contribute to the strength of our committee and to the good
work that it has done. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), and the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) will be missed from the committee's thoughtful
deliberations.
Finally, I have some of charts, which will illustrate what we have
done on the Native Americans. I think it outlines it very well. We do
not have a lot of time to spend on the various activities of the bill.
{time} 1245
I would say at the outset, we were given $14 billion-plus in budget
authority and $13 billion-plus in outlays. We have tried to manage our
resources carefully. In fact, we are spending $2
[[Page H5982]]
million less this year than last. And that in the face of enormous
backlog maintenance problems, in the face of great needs to expand the
programs within the parks.
One item I would like to mention is that we have included the money
to complete the Appalachian Trail, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Yates) has been a leader for many years. Here we have a trail that is
over 2,000 miles long and, thanks to the gentleman's leadership and
follow-up as my partner, our team effort, this will be the last payment
in the Appalachian Trail which is one of the great resources of the
trails program in this Nation, and it will be totally public in terms
of its land access.
I want to mention the recreation fee program in more detail. We
extend it for 2 years, because we have had great support from the
public, from the park leadership. Over a 5-year period, it will provide
$500 million which will be used to enhance the visitor experience and
will be used to deal with some of the backlog maintenance problems.
In terms of management, we are changing the structure somewhat. We do
not want any more Delaware Water Gap outhouse projects. I say that
because it is debilitating to the public support for the parks. And,
therefore, we need to manage the construction programs in a way that
people have confidence in the continued leadership.
Thanks to Members on both sides of the aisle on the Forest Service
issue, we have eliminated the Purchaser Road Credit. This was always a
problem in the past. This year we will not have any amendments on
Purchaser Road Credit, because we took it out.
I must say these things were something that, as the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Yates) always called me ``a partner,'' and I likewise
call him a partner, and it is just that we have agreed on that for good
management.
With regard to SPR oil, we are no longer going to create money. We
are not going to go in and invade the SPR oil account and sell oil just
to provide us some additional funding. And, of course, because of that,
in part, we are funding this bill with a reduced amount of money.
The ``crown jewels,'' the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and Yosemite, are
being protected. We are recognizing their needs. But also, I think in
the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, we recognize the
potential there for recreation. I would urge all Members to see the
section in the report dealing with recreation. This is a new section,
and it is a recognition that there has been an explosion of recreation
usage by the public.
We often think of the Forest Service in terms of America's lumber
needs. But in reality, the Forest Service has the largest number of
visitor days, and the reason being that they offer a wide variety of
opportunities to hunt, fish, snowmobile, camp, bird watch, whatever the
desire might be in the use of public lands. And they have 192 million
acres in federal land.
I think we have tried to have a responsible harvesting of fiber in
the national forests. About 20 percent of the lumber used in the Nation
comes from the national forests. And so I think it is important that we
manage this resource carefully. We have vastly reduced the cut. About 7
years ago, the allowable cut was 11 billion board feet. We have reduced
it to 3.6 billion, because we recognize the public is concerned about
the environmental impact of heavy cutting.
But I would point out that we are growing 20 billion board feet every
year. So even though we might harvest 3 billion-plus board feet, we are
getting an additional 17 billion added to the stock of our national
forests.
So this is important as we talk about reducing CO2. There
is no better way to reduce CO2 than to have a tree, because
it takes in the CO2, and gives off oxygen. And that is part
of what the Kyoto Agreement is all about, to reduce CO2. I
think we need to continue the expansion of our national forests.
The BLM lands get very little attention, but they had 65 million
visitor days last year. One-third of the Nation's coal supply comes
from BLM lands. That is from the public lands. Also, they preserve a
lot of our recreation, natural historical and cultural resources, and
they do have a very broad scope of land opportunities.
Something that I am very pleased to see happen is that our agencies
are working together. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest
Service are consolidating their activities at the field level. They
realize we all serve the same taxpayers, we all have the same mission,
which is to preserve our public lands, and the public does not know
whether this has a tag on it that says BLM or Forest Service. They just
want this land to be taken care of.
In terms of saving money, this is terrific, I think, that they work
together. And, likewise, the Department of Agriculture and Interior are
coordinating their efforts on the Joint Fire Science Plan. This is good
management, and it is good for the way in which we use our public
lands.
Revenues, this is one of the few bills that produces revenues. Sale
of the resources from our public lands totals about $8 billion. And
that goes into the Treasury, helping defer the cost of providing the
services that are part of our land usage.
I have mentioned the recreation fee program and we are getting a
growing land usage. One of the things that we observed when we were
visiting the parks this summer as a committee is the pressures that are
growing for parking space, for traffic management, for the use of the
facilities.
One of the things that we hope to address prospectively is ways in
which we can better enhance the visitors' experience and avoid some of
these problems of too many people loving their parks too much. We want
to manage the parking problem. We want to manage the traffic problem so
that the visitors can get the maximum amount of enjoyment out of their
asset, the national public lands.
We looked at some of the construction needs of our parks. Housing is
one that requires attention so that we can give the employees of the
Park Service, the Forest Service, and the other land management
agencies, an opportunity to live in a comfortable way.
We are changing the way in which we manage construction. Historically
for the parks, the Denver Service Center has done this and their fees
have come from overhead on the project. That does not provide a
desirable accountability. So we are going to reduce the numbers of
employees there.
We found that there are 500 people at Denver, whereas the other land
management agencies have about 25 people each. We are putting them on-
line, so that their budget will be part of the line-item budget and
will have accountability for what they do.
These changes are the result of recommendations from the National
Academy of Public Administration, who did an extensive oversight of the
way in which we manage construction project. Again, this is an effort
to stretch our dollars. Prospectively, we will require the Park Service
to contract out 90 percent of construction projects to local
architectural and engineering firms. Hopefully, we will get more
efficient use of these construction dollars.
I mentioned the Purchaser Road Credit, we have eliminated it. But I
want to point out also that we have include $91 million for road
maintenance and decommissioning. That is to eliminate these roads which
are of concern to people.
We put an increase of $6 million for road reconstruction and $93
million also as part of the road reconstruction program. This is an
increase over last year, a statement that we recognize that these roads
are important to the recreation user and we want them to be able to get
in and out of the forest in a safe way. We only have $1 million for new
roads and we provided $5 million for road obliteration. I think that is
a positive direction in terms of those who are concerned about the
environment.
Mr. Chairman, I mentioned about the amount of board feet that come
out of the national forests, part of our resources, which allows us to
reduce housing costs. In terms of fire, we heard discussion on the fire
issue in the debate on the rule, but we had put in additional money
fire suppression and fire science so that we can deal with fire in the
best possible way. There is a substantial amount of money left over
from previous years, and I think we have very adequately taken care of
our fire needs.
$2 million from the Department of Agriculture bill has been added to
this bill to help with volunteer fire companies, recognizing that in
communities
[[Page H5983]]
where they have volunteer firefighting units, they need a little help,
and they, in turn, can help the forestry people in dealing with fires.
And we had $21.5 million in fire assistance to the States, places like
Florida.
I think it should be pointed out that the Florida fires are pretty
much on State lands, but nevertheless the Federal Government is helping
as much as possible.
On Native Americans, I was disappointed in the administration's
request. They reduced the amount on Indian Health Services and had we
funded at the administration's level, only 25 percent of the Indian
population would have dental services. This is from testimony from the
American Dental Society.
We have tried to correct this gross inequity, and we have increased
Indian Health Services by $147 million. And we have increased $50
million for facilities, clinics and so on and recognized our
responsibility.
Some of you will remember some years ago we transferred the Biologic
Resources Program to U.S. Geological Survey and I think they are doing
a remarkably efficient job of providing science to all the land
agencies. We tried to meet their budget needs, as well.
In Ecological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service, we have
included funding for the Endangered Species Act, to administer it. I
hope the administration will come up with a bill to reauthorize the
Endangered Species Act. It is not authorized. It needs reauthorization,
and I would hope that we can get a bill from the administration, along
with others that have offered bills, to deal with this problem because
we have to just appropriate in light of the absence of an authorization
program.
Energy programs. Obviously to meet the needs of the parks and the
forests and the other agencies, we did cut back on the amount of
funding in energy. And I might mention at this point that one of the
things that we have emphasized in our programs is matching funds. We
have said to those who want to have experimental programs in energy,
for those who want to have other programs, ``Okay, we will put up a
dollar, but you have to put up a matching dollar from the private
sector, or from a State, or whatever it might be.'' Therefore we have
maximized considerably the amount money that we have had available to
do energy programs.
Obviously, everyone who goes to the gas pump know that energy prices
are relatively low. Part of this is the result of efficiency in the
production of gasoline. I think the fact that we have low energy costs
contributes very substantially to our strong economy.
We have to keep this success going. It is not a given. We are
importing over half our petroleum. And, therefore, it is important that
we maintain the SPR oil. And I think it is important that we maintain
the programs that will give a more efficient use. I was struck by the
fact that for every barrel that is extracted from wells, two barrels
are left there. And if we can develop technology to get at least part
of that extra two barrels, we will tremendously expand our domestic
resources of petroleum.
Again, we have emphasized partnerships in these programs in terms of
energy efficiency. We have increased energy efficiency funding 14
percent since 1996, and we recognize that energy efficiency is
important in terms of using the resources to the best possible
advantage.
In terms of weatherization, we have flat-funded it. The Federal
Energy Management Program has got an increase because, again, this is a
partnership that has been very effective in working with Federal
agencies.
{time} 1300
National Endowment for the Arts. We will have plenty of opportunity
to debate the NEA later on, so I will not take time on it now, other
than to say to all the Members that they will have an opportunity to
vote up or down on whether they think it is a proper function of the
United States Government to provide funding for the cultural heritage
of this Nation, for the enhancement of it, for the expansion, for the
education of young people in terms of what they have as a cultural
heritage.
We will have that vote, and I will mention at that time the fact that
we have changed the NEA. We have six Members of the Congress that serve
on the Council. We put a cap on funds that can go to any one State.
Forty percent of the funding goes for set-aside programs for State
grants. We have reduced the administrative funds. We have established
priorities for grants for education, particularly in music.
And I would point out also that the obscenity restrictions adopted in
1990 are still part of the law. The Supreme Court, most recently in the
Finley decision, upheld these obscenity restrictions. And we have
eliminated grants to individuals for seasonal support and subgranting.
I think I can say categorically that there will be no more
Maplethorps; that there will not be a ``Corpus Christi,'' as has been
alleged. That cannot happen under the restrictions that we have put on
the National Endowment for the Arts. And I think one of the Members on
our side that has been appointed as one of the three appointees will
have something to say on the functioning of this.
Very briefly I would like to highlight the cultural agencies. We have
funded the Smithsonian. We have tried to address backlog maintenance as
much as possible. But what I really find pleasing, and this is the
result of our subcommittee members working together, is that our
cultural agencies are expanding their outreach. Secretary Heyman, from
the Smithsonian, testified that their web site gets over 12 million
hits per month from all over the world. People are benefiting from the
scientific research that is done there, and benefiting from the
cultural dimensions of this institution.
In tribute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
McDade) have all been strong proponents of these programs. This
wonderful, asset is more than an asset for the District of Columbia. It
is a world asset because of the outreach that they are doing. Twelve
million hits per month. Imagine how many lives and how many individuals
are being touched by that. Twenty percent of these internet hits are
from overseas.
Likewise, the Kennedy Center has developed an outreach program called
the Millennium Stage. They provide a free performance each day in the
Kennedy Center. I think it is at 6 o'clock in the evening. Because we
forget that the Kennedy Center is more than just the opera house and
the film institutes. The Kennedy Center is a monument, in addition to
other things. When people go there, most of them do not go to any
performance, they go to just see the Kennedy Center. In fact, they wear
out the carpeting with so many visitors, and we have to provide for
that.
And, again, these are things that were brought about under the
leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) much more than
myself or others on this subcommittee.
Last year 130,000 visitors to this city, as well as people who live
here locally, went to the free performances at the Millennium Stage,
and at the anniversary in March, they had 10,000 people. I do not know
how they got 10,000 people in that hallway for this Millennium program,
but I think it is wonderful that these agencies are reaching out to the
people all across the Nation. And I know they too have a web site where
people can plug in.
The National Gallery of Art and the Holocaust Museum both offer
extensive outreach programs, and, of course, the Holocaust Museum was
directly there as a result of the leadership of the gentleman from
Illinois. I guess when it is all said and done, we know he will be
sorely missed because he has been such an important part of providing a
legacy for future generations.
Over 23 million people receive services of the National Gallery's
extension programs. They loaned over 150 different programs on the
Gallery's permanent art collection. The Holocaust Museum has a
traveling exhibition. They were in Canton, Ohio, recently, attracting
an enormous crowd.
Canton, I might mention, is in the 16th District, and many of my
colleagues already know about the Pro Football Hall of Fame, but we do
have other things. We have a great art institute. We have a great
symphony. We have a lot of strong cultural enrichment programs.
The Holocaust Museum brought ``The Nazi Olympics: Berlin 1936,'' to
Canton.
[[Page H5984]]
People came from all over Ohio and even from other States to view this
exhibit. The Holocaust Museum has four traveling exhibits going around
the Nation telling the story to remind people of how important the
message is.
This is a good bill. It is fair. We had input from every member of
the subcommittee. We had the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois
and other Members on the minority side. We had the challenges of the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs). The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks), did yeoman's service in solving the problem of the timber
and the purchaser road credit so we do not have that issue this year.
On balance, I would urge the Members to support this bill.
And let me just close again with a quote from our Native American
friends. This is repetitious but it bears repeating: ``We do not
inherit this land from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children.''
And I want to say that the members of our subcommittee live that every
day as we deal with the challenges of this committee. This truly is a
bill in which we can take pride in America.
At this point I would like to submit a table detailing the various
accounts in the bill.
[[Page H5985]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JY98.001
[[Page H5986]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JY98.002
[[Page H5987]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JY98.003
[[Page H5988]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JY98.004
[[Page H5989]]
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, once again we are here to consider the Interior
appropriations bill, for fiscal year 1999. I have come before this
House many times to present the Interior bill, for a number of years as
chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on
Appropriations, and for the past several years as the ranking member.
However, this time it is a little different, because it is the last
time that I will take the floor on behalf of the Interior bill.
I want to say that I have been on the subcommittee, I would guess,
for about 30 or 32 years, and I was chairman for about 20 years during
that time. So much for term limits, Mr. Chairman.
I was asked by a reporter whether I favored term limits, and I told
him I did not favor a constitutional amendment for term limits, except
perhaps if I could designate the number of terms that a Member might be
limited to 24 terms. And that, Mr. Chairman, is about what I will have
at the conclusion of this session of the Congress.
And it has been a happy time, Mr. Chairman, over all the years. It
has been happy because of the character and quality of the Members of
the House of Representatives. I think when I first came down here there
were three women who were Members of the House, one Democrat and two
Republican Members. One was from Ohio, from Cleveland. I forget her
name. Perhaps the chairman would remember it. And there was another
lady from New York.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the woman the gentleman was
thinking of was Frances Bolton.
Mr. YATES. Yes. Her son Oliver subsequently became a Member of the
House when she retired. I thank the gentleman for reminding me of that.
I do not know how many women Members there are of the House at the
present time, but I think there must be about 50. And I believe that
the House has made and the country has made progress in that respect,
because I consider that the women Members are among the ablest Members
of the House and they make a real contribution.
I think the speech that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs.
Johnson) made last week on female contraceptives was one of the great
speeches I have heard during my career in the House of Representatives.
And I am pleased that if the Republicans want to follow the rule that
the Committee on Rules voted out, that they had the good sense to
select the gentlewoman from Connecticut to offer the funding for the
NEA amendment, because I think she is so eminently qualified in so many
respects.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ralph Regula), what can I say about the
current chairman? His eloquence, of course, was just made visible when
he presented the bill. He and I have been thinking alike since he
became a member of this subcommittee. When I was chairman, I considered
the gentleman, and I have told him so, as cochairman of the
Subcommittee on Interior, and we brought the bill to the floor in that
spirit.
We had our differences, and those are represented, of course, in the
bills that have come up since he became chairman. He and I differ on
omitting the funds for NEA. And over the years when I was chairman, I
would talk to the gentleman about his interest in the arts.
I think basically he is a lover of the arts. I do not think there is
any doubt about it. He takes such pride in the Canton Symphony, and I
think that extends even to the point that he goes to see the Cleveland
Symphony on occasion. I remember that even on one occasion he went to
New York and was a guest at the Metropolitan Opera, he and my good
friend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Jack Murtha), who is also a
member of the subcommittee.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is a very persuasive teacher.
Mr. YATES. I thank the gentleman very much.
I remember the line from Gilbert and Sullivan. Does the gentleman
remember it? I think it was from ``Patience.'' ``If you are looking for
to shine in a transcendental line, as a man of culture rare.'' And the
rest of the song goes on. I think the gentleman is almost qualified for
that right now.
Certainly he is qualified to handle this bill, not only for the
cultural aspects of it, which I think are, indeed, a most important
part of the bill, but as well for the natural resources part of the
bill, because he has really developed all these programs and made his
presence felt. And it has been a good presence, it has been a fine
presence, because the gentleman has the great qualifications of mind
and of instinct that are so necessary in a good chairman.
I want to commend also the other members of the Subcommittee on
Interior, who are really outstanding members of this House. It was a
pleasure to serve with them and to work with them, particularly the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade), who joins me in
retirement this year. The House will surely miss him because he has
been an outstanding chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development of the Committee on Appropriations.
I will vote for the Johnson amendment as it takes shape later in the
bill, after one of the opponents of NEA funding will have taken the
floor to make a point of order against the bill. I think we can bet
that is going to happen.
{time} 1315
I am sorry that the Committee on Rules did not support the amendment
by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
I call the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) who loves the arts,
who is a great lover of music, a legislative maestro. I think he is a
legislative maestro because he has such a keen interest in the
legislation. And I cannot think of what the Committee on Appropriations
would be like without the great strengths that he possessed as chairman
of the committee and now possess as ranking member. His service to the
House and to the country has been outstanding.
I can understand his great interest in the milk price legislation,
coming from Wisconsin as he does, but I am not sure I always understood
the purport of that legislation as it came to the floor and traveled
through the House.
I leave the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) with a great sense of
loss, because he and I have been such great friends through the years,
both on and off the committee. And I will say that about every member
of the Committee.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) I think is an outstanding
constitutional expert. His touch was always present in connection with
the legislation as we came forward. He was always a gentleman and he
took onto himself, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood),
the indomitable task, the practically impossible task of trying to
bring the Members of the House together as brothers and sisters. I
think perhaps he has succeeded to a far greater extent than seems
apparent, because I think the sense of camaraderie in the House has in
some measure overcome what I have felt was a cloud of partisanship that
has seized the House on occasion.
At any rate, I have been ruminating, Mr. Chairman, and I am sorry
that I have taken the time to try to express a few feelings on this
occasion. I have not given the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha)
all the credit that he deserves. I think he is one of the great Members
of the House in being able to bring people together. And I surely have
not said the nice things I should be saying about the Republican
members of our committee, who are very, very able members and good
people. It was a pleasure to work with them.
I want to return for a few seconds to NEA. We have received letters
from opponents of NEA. And I notice, Mr. Chairman, that contrary to
what I thought was the agreement that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) and I had, there will be an amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas), I am told. And I have a copy of it, which
reads as follows:
The amounts otherwise provided by this act are revised by
increasing the amount for land acquisition and state
assistance under the heading National Park Service to provide
the funds for State assistance programs
[[Page H5990]]
and reducing the amounts for grants administration under the
National Endowment for the Arts by $50 million.
Of course, that is not nickel-and-diming, as some of the amendments
would have, but this is a major program cut, and I would hope that the
chairman would stand by his agreement and oppose the Pappas amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the names go first. We always make a mistake when we
try to specify people. I momentarily forgot the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
I do want to laud my colleague for his service to the committee, as I
should. But as Justice Leonard Hand said, the names go first. Then he
said the knees go. Then he said the nouns go. And then we go.
At any rate, I want to close by acknowledging the great friendship
that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and I have had over the
years and his many, many contributions not only in the field of
national defense but in the Interior bill.
Because of time limitations, I have not covered a number of the items
I wanted to cover. But with that, Mr. Chairman, I say thank you, thank
you to the Members of the House for the privilege of having associated
with them over the years, and those who have come and those who have
gone.
It was a very, very wonderful experience. Public service is a great
vocation. I do not understand why anybody would impose term limits, as
they try to do in various parts of the country. Public service is a
great tradition and a great opportunity to serve the public, and I am
very grateful for having had that opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to especially congratulate the
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for the fine work that
he has done here on behalf of the Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area Service and the Denver Service Center and the reforms
that are written into this bill. It is a major accomplishment.
Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate your willingness to work with me
to secure funds for projects on the New Jersey side of the Delaware
Water Gap National Recreation Area and the Wallkill River National
Wildlife Refuge. These will bring greater use and expand the
opportunities for all people who use these park facilities.
As you know, Congressman Joseph McDade and I share in the benefits of
one of the most beautiful recreation areas in the country, the Delaware
Water Gap National Recreation Area (DWGNRA). Unfortunately, recent
media reports have highlighted the National Park Service's expenditure
of $800,000, waste if not fraud, for a single restroom facility at the
Ramondskill Falls site on the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware Water
Gap.
I know we agree that there was simply no justification for this
scandalous squandering of taxpayer dollars. I am proud to have worked
with Chairman Regula to include provisions in this bill that are
designed to put an end to the scandalous waste in the National Park
Service.
This bill includes major reforms for the National Park Service's
Denver Service Center. The Denver Service Center is an arm of the
National Park Service which assists all regions with planning and
support. A recent report commissioned by Chairman Regula proved that
the Denver Service Center is inefficient and wasteful of taxpayer
dollars. There is little accountability for the costs of the projects
it designs and little, if any, oversight of the design and construction
process. Rather than creating standardized designs that would be
expected of a central design office, the DSC needlessly reinvents the
wheel over and over again.
The reforms included in this bill make sense. First the DSC will be
required to adopt standard practices common to the private sector and
other government agencies. Second, they will be required to consult
outside experts and give more control to local park superintendents.
Finally, the DSC must cut its staff in half and contract out 90 percent
of construction projects to local architectural and engineering firms.
Despite the problems with the Denver Service Center and the $800,000
toilet, there are many worthwhile projects in the DWGNRA that should be
funded. In the past, New Jersey has not gotten its fair share of the
money for projects in the Delaware Water Gap. I had hoped that the
Committee would agree to divide the money for Delaware Water Gap on a
more equitable basis between New Jersey and Pennsylvania. However, I do
appreciate the $300,000 included in this bill for much needed
maintenance work on the New Jersey side of the Delaware Water Gap.
I was disappointed that we were unable to include funding for the
rehabilitation of the Depew Recreation Site and money for the long-
awaited Weygadt Visitors Center. Unfortunately, we still do not have a
formal boat ramp on the New Jersey side, and many of the New Jersey
recreation sites do not have modern restroom facilities. Chairman
Regula has agreed to work with me as this bill moves through the
legislative process to see if we can secure additional funds to address
these fundamental needs on the New Jersey side of the Delaware Water
Gap. Delaware Water Gap is a national treasure, not just a Pennsylvania
treasure.
Finally, I want to thank you for, once again, recognizing the
significance of our wildlife refuges and specifically the Wallkill
River National Wildlife Refuge by including $1 million to ensure the
future preservation of the valuable resource.
Since its establishment, the refuge has received appropriations
through your subcommittee to begin protecting the most critical habitat
within its borders, especially along the Wallkill River itself. Funding
has allowed for the acquisition of undeveloped frontage along the
Wallkill River, as well as riparian wetlands, meadows and upland areas,
all of which support large populations of numerous wildlife. In
addition to enhancing habitat protection, acquisition of additional
property enhances the refuge's effort to open up to the public. The
natural resources found at the refuge lend themselves to environmental
education programs that would benefit local school districts as well as
other visitors to the refuge. By ensuring that a large manageable block
of critical habitat is created at the refuge, acquisition of willing-
seller lands will significantly enhance the refuge's programmatic goals
and help bring the refuge closer to the public.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the very distinguished legislative maestro.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
At a later point, I will make the appropriate comments concerning my
own views of the shortcomings of this bill and the administration's
views of the shortcomings of this bill. For a moment, I would simply
like to say something about our good friend the gentleman from the
great State of Illinois (Sid Yates).
As everyone understands, he came to this House in 1948. And were it
not for the fact that he ran for the Senate and lost by 1 percent and
so had 2 years of interrupted service before he returned to this body,
were it not for that fact, he would be recognized as the Dean of the
House today.
He has served this House with extraordinary skills on at least two
subcommittees. Since the beginning of the Marshall Plan, he has been
involved in foreign policy. Sid was one of the Members here who helped
shape the Marshall Plan in its early years. And also, on the Foreign
Operations Subcommittee, he gave a lifetime of effort to assure the
national security of the State of Israel. He recognized that the United
States, having been a party to the creation of that country, that we
had undertaken a long-term obligation to defend the security of that
country, and he has done so with fervor and grace in all the years that
he has been a Member of this Congress.
At home he has been a champion of civil liberties. He has understood
that the Constitution's most important provision is that it guarantees
citizens the right to be wrong; it even guarantees Members of Congress
the right to be wrong. And I can think of few Members whose passion for
individual liberty and whose passion for constitutional rights have
been more fervent.
I would also say that more than any Member I have known, Sid has been
a champion of what he felt to be sensible budget priorities, almost
without exception putting the needs of regular working people, putting
the needs of education, putting the needs of health care, putting the
needs of the environment before the needs of wasteful weapons systems
or aid to foreign dictators or other provisions of money that did not
as well reflect our national values.
He has served this subcommittee as chair for 20 years, and in the
last two Congresses as ranking Democratic member; and in that time
there has been no greater defender of the public
[[Page H5991]]
interest in terms of protecting the environment, in terms of protecting
public lands, in terms of recognizing our obligations to Native
American tribes.
And he also has, in my view, been the single best debater I have ever
seen in the years I have been in this House. He has stood for a decent
and just society. And in connection with this bill, most of all, he has
been the quintessential champion of Federal support for and funding for
the arts and humanities, recognizing that even with their occasional
faults those programs make a great contribution to giving society the
grace notes that make this society a little better and a little more
human society in which individuals can function.
So I am grateful for the years of service he has provided here, as we
all are, and we wish him Godspeed in his retirement.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) who will join me in retirement at
the conclusion of this Congress and whose loss will be felt very deeply
by the House and by the country.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Yates) both for the yielding of time and his kind thoughts.
I want to begin by expressing my respect and affection for our
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and my appreciation for
all the consideration he has given to me and all the members of the
subcommittee in putting the bill together, and thanks and appreciation
to staff on both sides as well. It has been a great pleasure and
privilege to have worked with everybody associated with this
subcommittee.
But I, too, wish primarily to say a word or two about Sid Yates. I
was 5 years old when Sid came to Congress, and I wish I knew then how
much I should have appreciated what he was already doing for this
country. There are many issues that come before us in which I think
each Member yearns for a special eloquence to be able to express how
they feel. But, we love you, Sid.
{time} 1330
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I join him in
the expression of friendship that he has exhibited. I will not go
beyond that because I will probably react the same way the gentleman
did.
Mr. SKAGGS. Trying to regain my composure, and I thank the gentleman
for interrupting me, perhaps just a couple of quantitative observations
will capture how we are blessed and graced with the gentleman from
Illinois being really an example of living history among us.
While commenting on the fact that he has graced the planet for 40
percent of the existence of the Republic may make him feel old, he is
indomitably young at heart. He has served this country in Congress for
nearly 25 percent of the Congresses of the United States. And so we
applaud and cherish the gentleman from Illinois and his service to this
place.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding me this time. I want to start by thanking the gentleman from
Ohio again for his great cooperation and support on a whole host of
issues that are beneficial to the Pacific Northwest, the region of the
country that I have the honor of representing. I also want to
congratulate the staff. This staff is one of the very best. I
appreciate the fact that they work with all the members of the
committee on both sides of the aisle. That is a good standard.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to say a few words about the gentleman
from Illinois. We have had a few differences of opinion over the years.
The gentleman from Wisconsin talks about his great debating skills
going back to the days of Eddie Boland. I had the misfortune at that
time to be the assistant for Senator Magnuson of the other body at the
time who was the great author of the SST. So the gentleman from
Illinois' great eloquence cost us dearly because ultimately he won. But
I will say this. The day after that great victory for the gentleman
from Illinois and Senator Proxmire from the gentleman from Wisconsin's
home State, a senior member of the Boeing Company came in and said,
``Those two guys saved the company because if we had built the SST, we
would have been in deep trouble.''
So the gentleman's judgment was good. It was correct, and I have
learned a great deal from him. Our styles are probably, some people
would say, completely different. But I would say to a young political
science student, if you want to have a history of somebody who has been
what I consider the best subcommittee chairman I have ever seen in this
House, it was the gentleman from Illinois. He was fair to every witness
that came before our committee and respected the individuals that came
before the committee and treated them with dignity.
Also he had tremendous passion and concern for the issues, such as
the National Endowment for the Arts. He and I have been on this floor
defending the Endowment over the last 20 years. What has happened is we
would have the greatest hearings in our committee on the Endowment, and
one day I got a call from the gentleman from Illinois. He said, ``I
need you to cover me this afternoon on the hearing for the Endowment
for the Arts.'' He forgot to tell me it was the opposition to the
Endowment for the Arts. So I had to come in and be the acting
subcommittee chairman. There were quite a list of very interesting
individuals. The gentleman was good at handing things off when he did
not particularly want to have to listen to all these people who were in
opposition.
But the main thing is that I think he has left behind on our
committee a whole series of members who have had the ability to see him
and how he handles situations, and I think it has built a camaraderie
on the Interior subcommittee. I agree with our chairman, this is a
committee where we care about the culture of our country, we care about
the natural resources, we care about the tribes, and the gentleman from
Illinois has been the real glue on our committee. We are going to miss
him. He has done a great job for the country and a great job for the
Interior subcommittee.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
(Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I hope the gentleman from Illinois will allow me to pay my
tribute to him by speaking in support of something that he has fought
for his whole career and, that is, full funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts. We must allow the Endowment to continue its
exercise of national leadership towards our goal of making the Nation's
artistic resources available to all.
A civilized society as the gentleman from Illinois has taught us for
many years must include art and cultural enrichment, and I believe it
is one of the responsibilities of government to support that aspect of
our civilization. We simply cannot rely exclusively on the good will of
a few private individuals to fund the arts. It is impractical and
unreasonable to expect a single city or an individual State to support
the national availability of important cultural resources. It is the
duty of all of us.
The NEA can act to sustain and increase funding for the arts by
providing incentive funding to other government levels. I see it in my
own city of San Diego. I see it around the country. NEA helps to build
alliances between the arts and related interests such as community
revitalization, downtown development and historical preservation. That
is what is occurring in San Diego. It is occurring all over this
Nation.
The collaboration of NEA with other agencies to contribute to
national goals is paramount. Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman
from Illinois has taught us again, we are judged by the heritage we
leave our children. I hope we leave them more than soap operas and talk
shows, attack submarines and assault rifles, gangs and drugs. By
supporting the NEA, we ensure that the arts will continue to be here
helping to build our economy and trade opportunities, helping to keep
our youth from misbehavior, helping to increase public awareness and
understanding of culture, not just for those with money, not just for
the elite but
[[Page H5992]]
for all of us. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for keeping this
inspiration alive for so many years for all of us to keep it going.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
(Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Illinois for yielding me this time. I want to concur with the gentleman
from California (Mr. Filner) on his comments on the NEA to say I hope
to speak on that shortly when it comes up, but I want to take this
opportunity to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the gentleman
from Illinois.
One of the things that has not really been emphasized in the long
career that the gentleman from Illinois has had in this House is his
steadfast stewardship over the trust responsibility that this
government has to our Native Americans, our first Americans. Whenever
issues came up with respect to this government fulfilling its
obligations to provide for our Native Americans, the gentleman from
Illinois was there, long before others ever stood on behalf of Native
Americans. I think for those of us today who are carrying on the fight,
we need to look no further for an example of what kind of person we
need to emulate than the gentleman from Illinois when it comes to
standing up for our Native Americans.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, many people have remarked about how long the
gentleman from Illinois has served in this esteemed body. I would like
to say for me it gives me a great deal of pleasure to serve with such a
titan of legislators like the gentleman from Illinois given the fact
that he served in this House of Representatives with my uncle, John F.
Kennedy, when he was a Member of the United States Congress in 1948. To
think that I would have the opportunity to serve with someone who
served with President Kennedy in the House of Representatives is truly
something that I will always cherish and remember.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. I will tell the gentleman that he is carrying on the great
tradition of his uncle and of his father.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, the pending legislation proposes $7.8
million for the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program and I commend the
gentleman from Ohio, Ralph Regula, for seeking to accommodate the
request I and others have made in this matter.
Indeed, this year I spearheaded a Coalfield Jobs, Environmental
Justice and Trust Campaign to increase appropriations from the
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.
This is a trust fund with about $266 million a year in receipts and a
balance approaching $1.5 billion. Yet, during this decade,
appropriations for State Reclamation Grants have averaged only $140
million a year.
The purpose of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program, obviously, is
not to collect fees assessed on coal production so they can sit idle in
a government trust fund.
Rather, it is to make these funds available for the reclamation of
abandoned coal mine lands thereby mitigating health, safety and
environmental threats to coalfield citizens while creating jobs and
bringing these lands back to productive uses.
Joining me in the effort to liberate a greater amount of the
reclamation funds this year are the Associated General Contractors of
America, the United Mine Workers and the Citizens Coal Council.
With that stated, I do want to express concern over bill language
included in this appropriation measure that would authorize $7 million
from the balance of interest earned on the Fund for the Appalachian
Clean Streams Initiative.
There is more than a sufficient unappropriated balance in the Federal
share of the Fund to provide for this $7 million appropriation without
tampering with the accrued interest.
Specifically, interest payments to the Fund are reserved, in part,
for transfer payments to the United Mine Workers Combined Fund. In
light of a recent Supreme Court decision, I am loathe to see any
diversion of these interest payments to new endeavors.
While I had contemplated offering an amendment on this matter, in
light of the great degree of cooperation Chairman Regula has shown on
the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program this year I would rather work
with him and his Senate counterparts to address this issue during
conference.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4193, the Department of
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999,
includes funding for the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Clean Coal
Technology, Fossil Energy and the Energy Conservation Research and
Development programs.
Without the benefit of the increased revenues from a non-existent
tobacco settlement, and notwithstanding the very tight budget caps, the
Appropriations Committee has maintained or increased spending on
important energy research and development programs.
I am particularly pleased that the Committee has included report
language directing the DOE to address in its FY 2000 budget, the House
Science Committee's recommendation in H.R. 1277, the Civilian Energy
Research and Development Act of 1997, with respect to peer-reviewed,
cost-shared research.
I also want to express my strong support for the bill's report
language prohibiting any funds from being used to implement the Kyoto
Protocol. This language is consistent with the Administration's
assurances that Senate ratification must precede actions to implement
the Kyoto Protocol. Given the obvious problems with this unfunded,
unsigned, and unratified Protocol, such a limitation is essential and
timely.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman of
the Committee, Congressman Ralph Regula, for putting this bill together
and conducting the business of this subcommittee in a spirit of
bipartisanship and cooperation. I know that his interest is ensuring
that, within current budget allocations, programs are funded in a way
to help protect our environment and preserve our natural resources. It
has also been a distinct privilege to serve on this committee with our
distinguished ranking member, Congressman Sidney Yates. His passion for
the things in which he believes, including the National Endowment of
the Arts, is a testament to what a man of principle can do through the
force of his convictions. It is truly by the force of his intellect,
and in many instances, the strength of his wit, that the NEA has
survived attack after attack through all of these years.
As a member of this subcommittee, I will miss Sid Yates, and the
spirited debate, as well as humor, he injects into our hearings. As an
individual with tremendous respect for this institution and those who
have served in it, I can think of no better example of selfless
dedication and commitment to public service embodied in Sid Yates. This
institution is a reflection of those who serve in it. Congressman Yates
brings an air of dignity, of civility, of goodwill to this body that is
in short supply. We will be weaker for his loss, but hope that we can
attempt to live up to the high standards he has set for individual
leadership and conduct in this body.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is the primary funding mechanism for our
nation's natural resources. Together, the four primary land management
agencies funded under this bill--the National Park Service, the U.S.
Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land
Management--manage approximately 628 million acres of public land. Our
nation's commitment to protection of animals, plants and mineral
resources is largely carried out through this bill. In addition, our
commitment to Native Americans is carried out through funding of the
Indian Health Services and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Finally,
research to improve our energy efficiency, and identify better
renewable energy sources, are also included in this bill.
While I clearly support certain funding priorities included in this
bill, I remain concerned about others. This bill contains only $139
million of the $900 million authorized funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, with no funding for state matching grants. As the
primary funding source for conserving our natural resources, protecting
open space, and enhancing recreation opportunities, this fund should be
a priority in our federal budget. I know that amendments will be
offered to increase funding for the LWCF and I believe they deserve
serious consideration.
Mr. Skaggs and Mr. Fox will offer an amendment to increase funding
for energy efficiency programs. Despite the success of these programs
in conserving energy and saving money, the bill includes damaging cuts
for building technology, the Federal energy management program, and
transportation, among other programs. The amendment helps to restore
funds to these important programs that actually result in cost savings,
through reduced energy bills, and environmental protection through
decreased energy use. I support this amendment and hope it will be
approved.
In addition, I remain concerned about providing appropriate funding
to support recreation activities on our public lands. The total
economic benefit to the economy from outdoor recreation exceeds $100
billion and includes more than 2.5 million jobs. Yet, the funding we
[[Page H5993]]
pour into our forest system, for example, is tilted largely in favor of
timber production, rather than conservation. While the agreement to end
the purchaser road credit is an important step in reducing the
dominance of money losing timber programs, it is only one program among
many that deserve scrutiny and reconsideration. Currently, only one
percent of the forest service budget is spent on watershed restoration
and compared to the economic investment generated, a very small portion
of the budget is spent on recreation.
Congresswoman Furse will offer an amendment that would redirect more
Forest Service funds to watershed improvements and recreation
management. This is an important amendment and it should be approved.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about some of the
legislative provisions that have been added to this bill. I offered an
amendment at full committee which was accepted by Chairman Regula to
reduce the size of the road through the Chugach National Forest that
was authorized in this bill. While I appreciate the Chairman for
accepting this language, it would be even better if this language were
not in the bill at all because it circumvents an ongoing process
between the stakeholders to determine the best location for the road.
In addition, I am concerned that this bill may allow for new road
construction on the Tongass National Forest and allows the use of K-V
funds for administrative overhead expenses, which encourages timber
salvage activities on federal lands. I hope that these issues can be
addressed as we move toward conference in this bill.
In addition, I hope that the wisdom of the Chairman in not including
certain damaging provisions in this bill will maintain through
conference. The Administration has already threatened a veto of several
provisions included in the Senate version which are, thankfully, not
included in this bill. The Interior Appropriations bill should not be
used as a vehicle for failed ideas and proposals that did not have
enough support to pass out of the authorizing committee.
Mr. Chairman, putting a bill together of this scope and magnitude is
a tremendous task. I want to thank Chairman Regula, Mr. Yates and the
committee staff for the important work they have done in putting this
bill together and hope that we can continue to work to ensure that we
have a bill that has the support of Congress and this administration.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the work of the
members of this subcommittee today led by Chairman Regula, who
throughout his service has been a conscientious worker on the substance
of these Interior Appropriations.
Without question, the principal advocate for this measure has been
Sidney Yates, a member who will complete his service of 48 years in
Congress this year, one of the longest and most able members of the
House--who has set the standards and positive temperament in which this
measure has been shaped and the key programs that it funds. We will
miss him. But Sid Yates has made a big difference and an indelible
positive mark on these key programs. He indeed has given generously and
without reserve to this service. We should also acknowledge Joseph
McDade, a long time in service as a ranking member and key participant
regarding the topics before this subcommittee, again retiring. He will
be missed.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I rise with significant concerns
regarding the substance, funding and policy embraced in this 1999
Interior Appropriations bill. This provides 3% less funding than the
1998 measure, and that translates into less funding for many of
America's most well-known and revered assets: our national parks,
forests and public lands. This means that construction of needed
facilities and partnerships will not be accomplished, and that key land
parcels that will become available will not be purchased, and
inholdings and problems will occur, depreciating these key land
parcels.
One good measure continued is the fee demonstration program in the
absence of authorization and limited funds. This helps in numerous ways
to augment the shortfall of funding. Numerous measures are included,
which hamstring the land management agencies and the implementation of
policy based upon professional land management practices and solid
study and science in which it is rooted. Hopefully, the amendments to
reject these limits where it is possible to change these appropriation
riders will be positively acted upon.
I am also interested in the curtailment of the timber roads policy,
the timber road credits, that has been included in this measure and the
emphasis upon road closure and maintenance, this is positive and much-
needed, and I hope to be able to vote for additional limits on timber
roads. I'm concerned about the projected 3.6 billion board foot target
number included in the measure. The tendency to include legislated
numbers or quotas for timber harvest have had the effect historically
of distorting the use and mission of our national forests and result in
the loss of the forest and taxpayer dollars.
Timber harvest should be left to the varied management plans and
process, rather than attempting to superimpose a political judgment
upon our nation's forest eco-systems.
While this rule for consideration of this measure has attempted to
make a virtue of what is and isn't authorized this measure has gone to
extraordinary lengths to permit repeated votes on pet projects and
protect others from votes and help to special interests--all at the
expense to our natural resources, parks, wilderness and the legacy of
future generations, such as the Chugach Road, which mandates a twenty-
six mile long, 250-foot wide easement through an Alaska wilderness and
spurns the current negotiations to resolve this matter. And proceeds
with this road notwithstanding the result.
Mr. Chairman, the reduced role of the N.P.S. Denver Service Office is
being advanced as a panacea, as if it alone were responsible for the
high cost of construction, and of some celebrated projects like the
Delaware Water Gap ``outhouse.'' The fact is when we look behind these
projects, we will find in many instances the U.S. Congress as advocate,
not the N.P.S. Denver Service Office who was cast to do the bidding of
those in public office.
The Denver Service Office has been a whipping post for a lot of
projects that have been costly, and perhaps the employment of some
private sector incentives and professionals will help, but this will
bear close oversight to be certain as to quality and standards which
today have been the prerequisite for the N.P.S. will be attained.
Mr. Chairman, I support the moratoria included in this measure on
patenting of new mining claims, which literally provide for the give-
away of our public land to special interests, often fragmenting the
ecosystems and undercutting logical management of our public lands, and
the moratoria on further leasing of the oil and gas leases on the U.S.
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Congress needs to address these long-
term problems with law, not these yearly moratoria. But until we have
permanent policy, these actions and moratoria are essential.
I am certainly concerned that the appropriation process has been
focused in numerous measures to undercut the Kyoto agreement, a treaty
which hasn't even been voted upon. The purpose in these bills appears
to prevent objective scientific research, monitoring and analysis, to
in essence interfere with the non-partisan attainment of facts to stop
the progress to disarm the advocates of such a needed global agreement.
This effort is improved and reflects badly on this Congress. We need
such information and work now more than ever.
Mr. Chairman, finally, no doubt today this chamber will ring with
arguments against funding the National Endowment for the Arts.
Interestingly enough, one argument offered by those opposed to funding
is how insignificant the federal commitment is. At less than one
percent of the total $9 billion spent on the arts in America--and less
than one hundredth of one percent of our total federal budget--they
argue the money won't be missed. They try to minimize the action and
effort to cut and its adverse impact.
Since the NEA figures are relatively small, I can understand some of
the temptation to minimize the NEA's importance. The NEA works as the
catalyst in each state, providing cultural activity throughout the
nation. Non-profit arts organizations depend on a partnership of
multiple sources for funding. Private funding sources are more willing
to match funding when a federal commitment is present. When the federal
commitment backs out, often private funding dries up.
The arts are important to Americans. In my home state of Minnesota,
one million children were served by non-profit arts organizations last
year. In 1994, by investing $255 million of total arts spending by
Minnesota arts organizations, we saw a $900 million economic impact in
our communities, both rural and urban. Only about $5 million of that
money came from the NEA, but the message was clear that the federal
commitment was there as the foundation and endorsement of state, local
and non-profit participation.
Money from the NEA enables organizations to provide services that
would otherwise not exist. It is important to communities without a
philanthropic or corporate funding base for cultural activities. The
less visible arts such as a ``poet in residence'' in a small town or
visiting a school are greatly empowered by the NEA. Since NEA funding
to Minnesota was cut in half in 1996, many small and mid-sized
organizations are not receiving funding--and unfortunately none in
rural areas.
In 1996, all NEA funding for a program in St Paul called COMPAS was
cut. COMPAS is an organization that sponsors hands-on arts activities
that strengthen communities and individuals through creative self-
expression. Their program include Writers and Artists in the Schools,
arts projects at Battered Women's Shelters, urban neighborhood arts
projects,
[[Page H5994]]
and programs to support creative expression among the elderly through
writing, just to name a few. These programs stimulate important parts
of the brain and provide tools for better communication skills in
special needs populations. According to COMPAS, getting money from the
NEA is like a Good Housekeeping seal of approval--it validates their
function so they can secure other funding sources. Without the NEA
funding, other prospects for funding are actually diminished--not
enhanced as some NEA critics maintain!
Many may not realize that the NEA sponsors grants to Public Radio
International. Prairie Home Companion, the weekly radio broadcast out
of my hometown in St. Paul, was started through funding from the NEA.
Top-notch, world-class arts organizations like the Minnesota Orchestra,
the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra, the Minnesota Opera and the Guthrie
Theater suffered serious setbacks from 1996 NEA funding cuts. And many
may not realize that the Fourth of July celebration on the Mall here in
Washington was entirely sponsored by the NEA. Half a million people
won't hear the Blues & Roots show and the National Symphony next year
if NEA funding is eliminated.
Successful programs today that are proven may achieve alternative
funding and be commercially viable, but what about the nourishment for
tomorrow's American creativity that would be lost without NEA funding?
It's time to recognize some of the ways so many Americans will be
affected if this small amount of money is defunded. What some portray
as a negligible amount is one of America's most profitable investments
in itself. The NEA is a great bargain at $0.36 per person, both
culturally and economically, with immeasurable returns. I urge my
colleagues to vote in support of the NEA and to reject the bogus
argument to defund the NEA.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman Regula and
his colleagues on the Appropriations committee on their efforts to
prepare this appropriations bill.
While the Subcommittee was not able to fund this project, I wanted to
take this opportunity to draw everyone's attention to the efforts going
on to provide an interpretive center for the Upper Mississippi. The
Upper Mississippi River is a national treasure because of its unique
ecological and historical value which is shared by no other part of the
world. An interpretive center would allow visitors to explore the
social, economic and environmental history of the Upper Mississippi in
an integrated and compelling way. This truly is a great-American
venture which would benefit the entire nation and provide an
educational and cultural base for future generations. There currently
is no other project or facility along the Upper Mississippi River which
celebrates this rare heritage.
On March 3 of this year, Mayor Terry Duggan, Jerry Enzler, Teri
Goodmann and other Mississippi River Museum officials testified before
your Subcommittee about their efforts to create a world-class
interpretive center that will provide visitors a unique view of the
Mississippi River. I commend the entire Mississippi River Museum staff
and all of the many people in Iowa, along the Mississippi and around
the country for all their hard work and efforts for this noble project.
The other body of this Congress has decided to provide funding for
this project at a level of $1.2 million. As the appropriations process
continues, I hope the benefits of the Upper Mississippi River National
Wildlife and Fish Refuge Interpretative Center will be fully
considered.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The amendments printed in part 1 of House Report 105-637 are adopted.
If an unprotected provision is stricken on a point of order, the
Committee of the Whole shall immediately consider the amendment printed
in part 2 of that report, if offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) or her designee. That amendment shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
The amendment printed in part 3 of the report may be offered only by
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) or his designee, may be offered
only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided and
controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he or
she has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record.
Those amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, namely:
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do so only to make clear to the House what the
concerns are of the administration as we move into the consideration of
this bill. The Statement of Administration Policy indicates that on the
committee bill as modified by the rule and associated motion, if it
were presented to the President, the President's senior advisers would
recommend that he veto the bill at this point.
They do so for a number of reasons. First of all, they obviously
object to the rule which has put at risk the funding for the arts.
Secondly, they object to the shortchanging of a variety of programs in
the jurisdiction of this bill because of the inadequate allocation to
the subcommittee which results in a serious shortfall of funds in a
number of key programs. They specifically object to, for instance, the
fact that funds are reduced by more than half of the $270 million
administration request for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. They
object to the fact that there is provided no funding for the millennium
program protecting artifacts of our national heritage. They object to
the fact that the bill denies most of the requested $128 million
increase for Interior and the Forest Service to implement the Clean
Water Action Plan. They object to the lack of adequate funding to deal
with the Year 2000 computer problem. And they object to a number of
legislative riders in the bill, as well, as they affect various
environmental programs.
{time} 1345
They also object to the fact that the administration's requested
increase in energy conservation for development of technologies to
improve industrial transportation and building efficiencies and to
reduce carbon emissions are also significantly reduced.
So I would simply say, as we move into this debate, this bill has a
long way to go before it reaches a condition in which it would receive
a Presidential signature. I think the committee needs to recognize that
point today.
I would also question the earmarking of several projects in this
House that are a very low priority given the very deep reductions that
were made in the overall accounts in which those same projects are
found.
It seems to me that, for a variety of reasons, this bill, at this
point, despite the best efforts of the chairman of the subcommittee,
the bill is not in the condition at this point that it would receive a
Presidential signature. I urge the House to correct that as it moves
through the process if it wants to avoid yet another appropriations
bill which seems to be headed for a confrontation with the White House
rather than a compromise.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I just want to comment in response to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) and the points that he makes. We have increased the
Everglades restoration effort up to $20 million. Park Operations are up
$99 million, which is the administration's request. The Bureau of Land
Management is up $20 million. These are all increases. BIA tribal
priority allocations are up $14 million. The National Wildlife Refuge
account is up $18 million. This is all over last year's bill. BIA
education and law enforcement, $20 million. In the Indian Health
Services, where the administration was requesting less than last year,
we have increased it $147 million.
[[Page H5995]]
We have fully funded wildland fire fighting.
I think the steps that we have taken in management with the Denver
Service Center will allow us to have additional funds in the future for
construction.
So I am simply saying it may not be perfect by some definitions, but
we have made a lot of very substantial increases and improvements over
management in the past years.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we ran out of time in the general debate, because I
wanted to lend my words of respect and admiration to not only our
chairman of our subcommittee, who has done such a wonderful job of
putting this bill together, but certainly the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Yates) for all of his service and humor and wisdom in our
subcommittee.
But, also, I think the fact that he made the statement that the
members of the subcommittee are of high character and quality is
personified, not only in him, but in the chairman of our committee as
well as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and other Members on our side, especially
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), who worked so hard on the
Democrat side to make this committee a success.
Mr. Chairman, I do support this bill. It is a good bill, crafted
well. When many Americans think of the natural beauty of our country,
they think of the area as managed by the agencies funded by this bill,
our national parks, our forests, our monuments, our cultural treasures.
The bill also provides funding for Native Americans through the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
I am pleased that our chairman, along with our subcommittee, have
made Native American health a priority in this bill. The lowest life
expectancies in this country exist among Indian populations, and they
are the lowest of any nation in this hemisphere except Haiti.
Despite the President's emphasis on health care, this is an area that
was miserably overlooked in the President's request to Congress. He
really shortchanged the Indian population and their health needs. The
Indian Health Service received the lowest funding increase in the
Department of Health and Human Services budget request at less than 1
percent, while the overall funding request for HHS averaged a 7 percent
increase.
In the area of diabetes, the chairman has included language
tightening reporting requirements for Native American tribes receiving
funds for diabetes prevention and treatment to monitor the usage and
effectiveness of the program. Also in the bill is $1 million for an
innovative diabetes program to be administered by the Joslin Diabetes
Center, a leading center in diabetes research in our country.
I also want to bring Members' attention to the provisions in the bill
addressing the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.
There may be an amendment to modify or strike the provisions contained
in this bill through the subcommittee and then again through the full
committee.
This project started as a simple scientific assessment of the public
lands in eastern Washington and Oregon. Once begun, it took on a life
of its own. This occurred back in 1994. Money was inserted into the
Interior bill without authorization.
And 4 years later, now, we have spent at least $40 million on the
planning process of ecosystem management, whatever that really means to
whoever wants to define it, and there is no end in sight.
The implementation, according to the agencies involved, would cost
upwards of $125 million a year for 10 years. That is not possible in
this bill. It will not be possible over the next 10 years.
The language in the bill brings this unauthorized regional planning
process, and that is really what it is, back down to the local level
where managers better understand the capabilities and the challenges
facing the land in a particular area. The administration has objected
to this concept. If they would come forward in a constructive manner,
I, speaking for myself only, would be willing to work with the
administration on appropriate language. But I cannot support the
imposition of a one-size-fits-all standards on our forests and BLM
districts from northern Nevada to western Montana.
So I hope that the Members in this body will take particular care to
look into the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
itself, understand what those of us in the West face regarding
ecosystem management, and support the committee's version of this
particular provision.
I also encourage my colleagues to support this bill and approve of
all of the provisions within it, because it is a finely balanced and
finely tuned bill.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment that will be offered
in a few minutes to provide full funding for the National Endowment for
the Arts at the level of $98.5 million and urge my colleagues to join
me in casting an important vote in support of the Nation's arts
programs.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on
Appropriations for 22 years, I have been privileged to work closely
with my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Yates) and other supporters over the years to ensure the survival of
the National Endowment for the Arts.
The National Endowment for the Arts is a critical institution for our
Nation. This important organization has served as a catalyst for the
expansion of arts institutions throughout our Nation. The NEA is
responsible for building the cultural infrastructure of our country.
Over the last 30 years, the NEA has nurtured a healthy infrastructure
of cultural institutions in order to better serve the unique needs of
each community.
In 30 years, the number of State arts councils increased from 5 to
56, the number of local arts councils grew from 600 to 3,800, the
number of orchestras increased from 110 to 230, the number of nonprofit
theater companies increased from 56 to 425, the number of dance
companies grew from 37 to 450, and the number of operas grew from 27 to
120.
Since its creation in 1965, the NEA has awarded over 100,000 grants,
and less than 40 have been considered to be controversial. It is
estimated that the endowment cost each American just 64 cents a year.
However, with this modest investment, the agency helps enhance the
quality of life for all of our citizens.
I really think, when you analyze this, you see that the Endowment has
been a catalyst. It has helped spread the arts all over this country.
Instead of attacking it, we should be applauding it for a job well
done.
I want to compliment both the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) and
also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), our chairman, for the work
that they have done to try to fashion a way for the House to be able to
work its will on this issue.
I just feel so strongly. In my own State of Washington, to see all of
the various arts institutions grow and develop with small seed money
from the NEA has really been something that I am proud of and I think
everyone from our State is proud of. So I would like to see the money
left in under the Obey amendment, but if that does not occur then we
certainly want to support the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs.
Johnson) when she offers an amendment to restore the money.
It is certainly, in my judgment, one of the high priorities for this
bill.
I rise in support of the amendment to provide full funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at the level of $98.5 million,
and urge my colleagues to join me in casting an important vote in
support of our nation's arts programs.
As a Member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I have been
privileged to work closely with my distinguished colleague Sidney
Yates, and other supporters over the years to ensure the survival of
the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is a critical institution
for our nation. This important organization has served as a catalyst
for the expansion of arts institutions throughout our nation. The NEA
is responsible for building the cultural infrastructure of our country.
Over the last 30 years, the NEA has nurtured a healthy infrastructure
of cultural institutions in order to better serve the unique needs of
each community. In 30 years, the number of state arts councils
increased from 5 to 56;
[[Page H5996]]
the number of local arts councils grew from 600 to 3,800; the number of
orchestras increased from 110 to 230; the number of non-profit theatre
companies increased from 56 to 425; the number of dance companies grew
from 37 to 450; and the number of opera companies grew from 27 to 120.
Since its creation in 1965, the NEA has awarded over 100,000 grants
and less than 40 have been considered to be very controversial. It is
estimated that the Endowment costs each American just 64 cents a year.
However, with this modest investment, the agency helps enhance the
quality of life for our citizens, by supporting theaters, touring dance
companies, folk festivals, arts education, orchestras, museums, and a
wide variety of other programs.
Many widely acclaimed programs began with the talent of individuals
who had received seed money from the NEA, and many rural areas of our
nation would not be able to enjoy arts programs without outreach by the
Endowment.
We must recognize that the small investment made by the federal
government in funding the NEA creates tremendous leverage in
obtaining private investment. For every dollar spent by the Endowment,
it attracts $11 in investment from the private sector. In fact, many
private sector contributors rely heavily on the NEA's grant selection
process as a guide to the kinds of programs that should be supported.
Endowment support has helped to increase audience support for all art
forms For example, the annual audience for professional dance has grown
from one million to more than 16 million over the past 28 years.
Audiences for the work of professional opera companies have grown to
over 7.6 million, compared to only 5 million a decade ago.
Non-profit theaters serve an audience that has grown to over 20
million. Symphony performance attendance has risen to over 27 million
annually. All of this has occurred with seed support from the NEA.
Also, support for the arts is support for the economy. The NEA's
modest budget has annually generated matching funds estimated at over
$1.2 billion. These monies permeate the economy. At least 1.3 million
full time jobs are supported by the arts; $25.2 billion is earned
through salaries, wages, and entrepreneurial income; local governments
receive $790 million in taxes and fees; state governments receive $1.2
billion; and the Federal government receives $3.4 billion in income tax
revenue.
It is clear that the outreach and support granted by the NEA to the
arts has an incredible ripple effect throughout our economy, and
restricting or eliminating the NEA's ability to perform that outreach
would be both economically and culturally devastating.
In my home state of Washington, many arts and cultural institutions
have benefitted from NEA grants, including: Tacoma's Broadway Theater,
the Pacific Northwest Ballet, the Seattle Art Museum, the Spokane
Symphony, and the Seattle Childrens Theater.
Throughout the nation, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is
serving the interests of the American people. It is important for our
future, and it should continue to receive the support of Congress.
Let's do what's right for the nation, and vote for the amendment to
restore funding to the NEA.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and I want to
particularly congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the
chairman, for the excellent balancing act he has accomplished, although
a few more changes will need to be made and we are going to address the
National Endowment for the Arts very shortly.
I am especially pleased that the bill eliminates the Purchaser Road
Credit program. That is a major environmental victory. We were able to
accomplish that with the help of our Western colleagues. We worked
together. We reasoned together. This shows that when people sit down
and reason together and try to work things out, we can actually make
some serious progress.
The Purchaser Road Credit is being eliminated as part of an agreement
under which Easterners and Westerners agreed to forego other changes to
amend the bill. That is a fair deal, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
There are some timber amendments that fall outside the agreement,
those concerning the Chugach and the K-V Fund, and I urge my colleagues
to support those amendments.
I also want to clarify language we agreed to have in the bill that
enables the Forest Service to use the Roads and Timber Trails Fund for
some new purposes. This could be a great plus for the environment if
the Forest Service uses this money for true forest health projects as
section 334 requires.
We will be watching very closely to see that this section is not
violated by using the funds for salvage logging or road building.
Turning to the National Endowment for the Arts, this is something we
go over time and time again. I think it is a sad commentary that we
have to engage in this debate yet once again. We have already made NEA
selection criteria more stringent. We have already limited grants to
individual artists. We have already reduced NEA funding to about half
of its peak level, and I think that is cutting too much but the will of
the House has to be worked.
Yet even though we have addressed every legitimate concern raised by
NEA opponents, and some that were not as legitimate, they are still
hell bent on destroying an agency whose programs educate and enrich the
lives of Americans in all regions and in all walks of life.
I simply do not understand it. I look at what NEA has done in my
district in upstate New York, a rural area. We have the world class
Glimmerglass Opera. It gets support. We have small county organizations
like the Chenango County Council for the Arts doing magnificent work to
introduce youngsters in their formative years to the arts.
It helps schools bring in a wide variety of arts programs. It enables
our small cities to support symphonies and museums, all designed to
enrich their lives. I do not see anything wrong with that. As a matter
of fact, I think that is exactly what we should be supporting. These
are institutions that would have a difficult time surviving without the
small contributions that they receive from the NEA.
I think the Federal Government ought to undertake these sorts of
legitimate activities through which the American public working
collectively can enrich our culture in a way that is difficult for
individuals working alone.
So I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment. It is well
thought out. It is well reasoned and it is good for this bill and it is
good for America.
Finally, just let me say that this Member, along with so many of my
colleagues, will miss the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) when he
is not here in the next Congress. I hope I am. The gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Yates) has been a tower of strength. He has been a person
that you can talk to who will listen to you. He has just done so much
for so many for so long and he will be sorely missed.
I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) for serving America
so well.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
{time} 1400
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Rhode Island for his kindness.
I rise for two particular reasons, and that is to support the
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the
Humanities. It is a sad story that the amendment offered by the
Democrats could not have been left in, that provided the $98.5 million,
and that we will be subjected to a point of order of which then the
Johnson amendment will hopefully be offered and supported to provide
for the Endowment for the Arts.
But I would say that the American people stand alongside of those of
us who enthusiastically continue to support the National Endowment for
the Arts and Humanities. In fact, for every dollar the NEA invests in
communities, there is a 20-fold return in jobs, services and contracts,
and corporate America believes it is important to have a public-private
partnership.
In Houston, Texas, the symphony, the opera, the ballet, all of my
indigenous and community-based arts groups stand alongside of support.
I hope we do not have to go through these shenanigans again, and I hope
we vote enthusiastically for supporting the arts again for $98.5
million.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want
to join those who have already stood in support of the National
Endowment for the Arts. It has been spoken to in many
[[Page H5997]]
instances already, but let me say, for our State of Rhode Island, this
is an issue of particular importance, because we are very proud in
Rhode Island that our former Senator, Claiborne Pell, was amongst the
champions of NEA when he first got here to the Congress in 1960 and,
with the help of my uncle, President Kennedy, was able to fashion the
National Endowment of the Arts early on. And what a success it has
been.
In my State of Rhode Island, we have a program called Arts Talk that
focuses on dropouts in our schools. We have found students in the Vo-
Tech schools, who have no exposure to the arts, are able to get
exposure through the programs like Arts Talk, which expand the arts to
people that do not ordinarily have access to the arts.
What this has done is, it has helped awaken their imaginations,
helped them have a better self-image, because in many instances they
learn about their own cultural heritage expressions within the arts. In
addition to that, they may find some inherent talent in their own being
that will allow them to express themselves through the arts, either by
playing an instrument, acting in a play or painting a picture.
These things may sound esoteric to us, but I can tell you in Rhode
Island they have had a marked impact on helping reduce juvenile
delinquency in the schools. We have actually seen students that we have
paired up with this program have a greater attendance in the schools,
because they feel good about what they are doing.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a program that really does not just
meet the eye with respect to the arts. The implications of this program
go well beyond just the immediacy of having our young people exposed to
the arts.
I would ask my colleagues to keep this in mind when we have the point
of order on the Obey language which will strike it and, therefore,
strike the $98 million for NEA; and I would hope we support the
amendment of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to restore
that funding, because I think it is so critical for our future
generations to build their self-esteem and sense of self, which is so
powerfully done through the arts.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for
the work that he has done on this bill and on two other issues related
in this bill, the Blackstone Valley Heritage Quarter and the support he
gave Indian health services, which I must say was drastically
underfunded, but thanks to the work that the chairman and the committee
members provided, we are going to see an increase in Indian health
services, which is something that I think we should all applaud.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to also associate my words with the words
about the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and this bill being a
good bill, and also with the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Yates). Though we have opposed each other on many issues, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Yates) reminds me of the gentleman from Kentucky,
Mr. Natcher.
One time when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was on the
floor and I was mad as a hornet, Mr. Natcher, being from Kentucky, who
was in the majority at the time and in control of the bill and, with
me, fuming right there at that microphone, said ``Mr. Cunningham,'' he
said, ``I am from Kentucky and we have race horses. Quite often they
come out of the block so fast that they break their legs, and we then
have to shoot them. If you will settle down, I will help you pass your
amendment.'' So I got the word of the then-chairman, Mr. Natcher.
But I would say that I am proud of what the Republican majority has
done with the balanced budget, welfare reform, and tax relief for
working families, and I am proud of this bill.
I have a potential sadness with this bill, in the fact that in 1995,
on the Interior appropriations bill and the rule, the Republican Party
was at an impasse. There was a group that wanted to increase the
funding for the NEA and there was a group that wanted to strike the
funding for the NEA. The result would have been that we would have lost
that rule and the other side of the aisle would have taken over that
rule and written it as they saw fit.
So then the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey),
got the Republicans of both groups in a room for 4 hours and we came to
an agreement. That agreement was that we would continue to fund the
National Endowment for the Arts for a certain period of time.
Then the problem was that they could not use the funding within the
year and they would lose that amount of funding, so we agreed to let
them keep it so they could establish a true endowment that would fund
the NEA, and we also promised to work for a tax break where you could
give to the arts and get an additional tax break.
That was a word and that was a bond. My view of a principles of your
word is that if I give, say, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks)
my word, I would fall on my sword before I would break that word,
unless I came to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and looked
him in the eye and said, I cannot follow that because of these reasons,
and let him respond.
But once an agreement had been executed, like the National Endowment
for the Arts agreement, you cannot come back on your word.
I would ask the committee, many Members feel very strongly on both
sides of this issue. That is fine, and they have fought for that. But
the agreement was not just to reduce the NEA, it was not just to compel
it to follow certain rules; it was, after the agreement, to eliminate
it from the taxpayers, and Joe Six-pack would not have to pay for the
NEA, but it could become its own endowment.
I would ask this House and those Members that signed and agreed, I
was in the room, you can spin it any way that you want. I am not
talking about the Democrats, they were not part of this agreement, I am
talking about my own party.
You can spin it any way you want. I was in the room, I know the
agreement, I know the acknowledgment, and I know how it was carried
out. My potential sadness is that that word would be broken in this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to live up to their word and vote
against the Johnson amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman, but I would
point out, we came to the floor of the House from the committee with
zero funding 3 years in a row; 1997 and 1998 and this year would have
been zero had there not been an amendment in the full committee
supported by some Republicans.
We got to the Senate for a conference on the bill, and the Senate
made it very clear that they were not bound by any agreement made by
the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Regula, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cunningham
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In my humble opinion, it should be struck, the point
of order, the Johnson amendment should not be offered, or if it is
offered, those members should stick to their word. The chairman of the
committee in conference should not yield and accede to the Senate
provision, and then the word would be kept.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, it is
rather difficult. The Senate has dug in, the other body, and also the
President made it very clear that a $14 billion bill, which affects a
lot of things in your State as well as others, would be vetoed over
this issue. So it is pretty complicated.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I understand.
Mr. REGULA. We kept our part of the bargain. We came with the zero.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Ballenger) assumed the chair.
____________________