[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.

                          ____________________