[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5998-H6026]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1999

  The committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to move to page 88, 
line 8, through line 6 on page 89, for the purpose of making a point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, some of us 
have amendments in title I. How does the gentleman's proposal affect 
those amendments getting heard today?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it would in no way affect the other 
amendments. We are doing this at the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Yates), who would like to deal with the issue of NEA, is 
my understanding.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, it is not my request. It was my 
understanding that the request was, would I agree to it? If the 
gentleman wants to continue at another stage of the bill, it is all 
right with me, but to place this in my pocket is the wrong approach. I 
would just as soon hear it or just as soon postpone it.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, let us move on and 
dispose of this issue. Most of the speeches thus far have been on that 
issue, so I think it is important that we deal with it expeditiously. 
It will not affect in any way the gentleman's ability to offer 
amendments.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is the gentleman 
saying he wanted to go to the NEA and for how long a period?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, 30 minutes has been allowed in the rule.
  Mr. SANDERS. Then we will come back to the beginning of the bill?
  Mr. REGULA. Yes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we will go 
right back to the start of the bill after we finish this?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is 
correct.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

           National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

                    National Endowment for the Arts


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $81,250,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for 
     the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the 
     arts through assistance to organizations and individuals 
     pursuant to section 5(c) of the Act, and for administering 
     the functions of the Act, to remain available until expended.


                            matching grants

       To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the 
     National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
     1965, as amended, $16,760,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to the National Endowment for the Arts: Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall be available for obligation 
     only in such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of 
     gifts, bequests, and devises of money, and other property 
     accepted by the chairman or by grantees of the Endowment 
     under the provisions of section 10(a)(2), subsections 
     11(a)(2)(A) and 11(a)(3)(A) during the current and preceding 
     fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been 
     appropriated.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, the two paragraphs beginning on page 88, 
line 10, and all that follows through page 89, line 6, include 
unauthorized appropriations in violation of clause 2 of House Rule XXI.
  The language I have just specified is an appropriation of $98 million 
for the necessary expenses for the National Endowment of the Arts. 
Authorization in law for the National Endowment for the Arts expired in 
fiscal year 1993. Clause 2 of House Rule XXI states ``No appropriation 
shall be reported in a general appropriations bill for any expenditure 
not previously authorized by law.''
  Since the National Endowment of the Arts is clearly not authorized in 
law and the bill includes an appropriation of funds in this agency, I 
make a point of order that the language is in obvious violation of 
clause 2 of Rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any member wish to be heard on the gentleman's 
point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as the author of the language which is 
proposed to be stricken under the point of order, I would simply ask, 
is this the point of order that would allow the House to put back by 
recorded vote exactly what will be stricken 5 minutes earlier so that 
one party can claim victory over another, or is this a serious 
legislative approach?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask that the gentleman confine his 
remarks to the point of order.
  Does anyone wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded, and the Chair is 
prepared to rule.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over NEA, 
I would like to speak on the point of order with respect to funding for 
the National Endowment for the Arts, and want to make a few comments to 
put NEA funding in context.
  Last year the Interior appropriations bill that came to the House 
floor provided continued funding for NEA for fiscal year 1998.

                              {time}  1415

  The point of order was made that constituted funding for a 
nonauthorized program. The point of order prevailed and the bill left 
the House with zero funding for the NEA, and then the master of all 
arts came into play, Houdini. When we found this bill again, we 
discovered that there was an appropriation, even though it was not 
authorized.
  This year we find ourselves in much the same position. The 
appropriations bill has been reported to the House with $98 million for 
the NEA, yet the NEA has not been authorized since 1993. For the past 
few years it has been continuing on a year-by-year basis only by virtue 
of the appropriations process. A point of order has been made that the 
$98 million should be struck on the grounds it constitutes funding of a 
nonauthorized program. Some of my colleagues may ask, well, what has 
the authorizing committee been doing? Let me explain.
  Back in 1995 the committee reported an NEA authorization bill. It 
would have permitted the NEA to exist for 3 more years, phasing it out 
over that same 3-year period, giving plenty of time for the private 
sector, local States and municipalities to take over the program. In 
fact, the NEA would have ceased to exist as of October 1 of this year 
had that bill become law. However, there was no floor action taken on 
it.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not addressing the question 
of the current legislation and I think his attention should be directed 
to that fact. I think if he wants to state the history of the 
appropriations, the point of order should be disposed of and the 
gentleman permitted to strike the last word or participate in the 
debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct, and the Chair would ask the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to confine his remarks to 
the point of order made by the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H5999]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is entertaining debate on the point of order 
made by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I was merely pointing out that there is a 
lot of history in relationship to what we are discussing today in 
relation to the point of order, so that someone does not fault the 
committee because we have not taken action, because we have taken 
action.
  So I would suggest that it is definitely out of order to move ahead 
with legislation that has not been authorized by the authorizing 
committee, and I would hope that we would sustain the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) makes a single point of 
order that the two paragraphs appropriating funds for the National 
Endowment for the Arts violate clause 2(a) of rule XXI by providing for 
an unauthorized appropriation.
  As stated by the Chair on July 11, 1997, the authorization for the 
National Endowment of the Arts lapsed in 1993. The National Endowment 
of the Arts has not been reauthorized since the ruling of the Chair 
last year. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the two 
paragraphs are stricken from the bill.


            Amendment Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made 
in order by the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut:
       Page 88, after line 9, insert the following:

                    National Endowment for the Arts


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $81,240,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for 
     the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the 
     arts through assistance to organizations and individuals 
     pursuant to section 5(c) of the Act, and for administering 
     the functions of the Act, to remain available until expended.


                            matching grants

       To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the 
     National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
     1965, as amended, $16,760,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to the National Endowment for the Arts: Provided. 
     That this appropriation shall be available for obligation 
     only in such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of 
     gifts, bequests, and devises of money, and other property 
     accepted by the chairman or by grantees of the Endowment 
     under the provisions of section 10(a)(2), subsections 
     11(a)(2)(A) and 11(a)(3)(A) during the current and preceding 
     fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been 
     appropriated.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I am proud to offer my amendment to restore $98 million in level 
funding for the NEA. I would have been equally proud to have risen to 
oppose a motion to strike NEA funding as adopted in the committee bill, 
and I salute my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), for 
his successful committee amendment, yet another sign of the breadth of 
support there is for the NEA.
  I also salute the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) for his long 
and consistent leadership in support of the arts and for his deep 
dedication to responsible stewardship of our Nation's resources. In 
this House we often refer to each other as the gentleman from a certain 
State or the gentlewoman from a certain State. Indeed, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Yates) has been a gentleman; not only a gentleman, 
but a wise gentleman and a leader, and I thank the gentleman for his 
fine service over so many years.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. The 
reforms adopted last year directly addressed the causes of past 
problems, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) will make clear in a 
few minutes. Perhaps these reforms address the concerns. I asked those 
150 Republicans who supported the Republican amendment last year, which 
supported a Federal role for the arts to support my amendment this 
year. I have been a lifelong supporter of the arts, because truly man 
does not live by bread alone. The arts are a medium through which we 
publicly discuss profound and great matters of life and death, love and 
duty, freedom and bondage, man's relationship to God and nature. NEA 
dollars help new plays to be written, new symphonies to be conceived, 
performing arts groups to develop and thrive, and the performing arts 
to reach our most rural communities and our most isolated 
neighborhoods.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Johnson 
amendment to the Interior Appropriations.
  As my colleagues know, this amendment would restore funding to the 
National Endowment for the Arts, an organization which has wasted U.S. 
taxpayer dollars on art which has often been objectionable to 
Americans. By ending funding to the NEA, we are not ending Federal 
funding for the arts.
  Contrary to popular belief, the National Endowment for the Arts is 
not the sole recipient of Federal funding for the arts. There are an 
estimated 200 arts and humanities programs or activities funded by and 
administered through various departments and agencies of the Federal 
Government, but are not getting one dime of NEA funding. These programs 
are programs such as the Commission of Fine Arts, the Holocaust 
Memorial Council, JFK Center for the Performing Arts, the National 
Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian, and many others.
  The Federal Government also provides support for the arts through tax 
expenditures, such as the deduction for charitable contribution to the 
arts, humanities, culture, on income, gift and estate taxes. Zeroing 
out funding for the NEA will not end Federal funding for the arts. It 
simply ends a program which has misused taxpayer dollars with some of 
the sickening attempts to subsidize blasphemous, offensive and 
pornographic depictions.
  In addition, I might point out that the NEA administrative overhead 
and bureaucrats earn about twice as much as the artists they seek to 
subsidize, and much of their subsidy goes to just a few large cities in 
our country. I do not know if this is what is called fleecing of 
America, but it is objectionable, and I urge the defeat of this 
amendment.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear the reforms 
that have been instituted in the past couple of years. They are listed 
here, and in addition, there are some others. First of all, we now have 
six Members of our Congress, three House, three Senate, that serve on 
the Arts Council: The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), and the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey) from the House; Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Collins and 
Mr. Durbin from the Senate.
  We put a 15 percent cap on funds that any one State may receive in 
order to ensure a more equitable distribution. We also added a 
requirement that 40 percent of the funds must go for State grants and 
set-aside programs. We put in a requirement that there would be a 
reduction of administrative funds, and we provided authority for the 
NEA to solicit and invest private funds. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cunningham) mentioned earlier one of the agreements. We have 
implemented that agreement. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) 
mentioned about one city getting too much and we put restrictions on 
this, to broaden it all across America.
  In response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), in 
this year's bill there is the establishment of a priority for grants 
for education for underserved populations and community music, and I 
mentioned earlier

[[Page H6000]]

Jessup, Iowa had a group out there. They paid half for this, this small 
community, the NEA paid half, and they had a string quartet that spent 
6 months with students in Jessup.
  In 1996 Congress eliminated grants to individuals, seasonal support 
and subgranting so that we would not have a repetition of what happened 
in Minneapolis. These reforms have had a strong impact on the 
organization and the kind of grants it supports. In addition, Senator 
Helms put obscenity restrictions in the NEA legislation in 1990, and 
just recently the United States Supreme Court upheld these restrictions 
in the Finley case as being constitutional.
  So I just want to be sure that we are recognizing the enormous 
changes that have been made in the NEA.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to leave that chart, because I 
think it is very important. I appreciate the chairman of the 
subcommittee showing us all the good reforms, and they are good 
reforms. The problem is, even with all of these reforms, we still have 
a bad NEA in place. That is the problem, and that is why I rise in 
opposition to this amendment to add funding back for the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  I am not under any illusions about this amendment. We are going to 
have a tough time defeating it. But I think there are very important 
principles at stake here, principles that supporters of the NEA simply 
gloss over. Fiscal responsibility of course is one principle. Is it 
fiscally responsible to give taxpayers' dollars to some artists who 
produce art that offends many of the taxpayers? Time and time again, 
even with all of the reforms, NEA money trickles out to so-called 
artists who go out of their way to offend the sensibilities of working 
Americans. Is this a fiscally responsible use of taxpayers dollars? I 
do not think so.
  Another principle is censorship, and I contend that the NEA censors 
artists by doling out money only to those artists that know how to work 
the system. The NEA picks winners and losers, just by the very virtue 
of being a government agency. It thereby censors those who do not meet 
their particular tests.
  Artists need to have the freedom to produce their art and they should 
do so in a free market setting. By allowing the continued government 
interference in the arts, we risk compromising the artistic freedom of 
this country.
  The Federal Government has no business in an agency like this. The 
Federal Government is producing art, culture through the Smithsonian, 
through the museums, through our art galleries and things like that. 
Those are legitimate concerns. But this is the National Endowment for 
the Arts that, in my opinion, does nothing to promote artistic freedom.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Federal Government should get out of 
the arts business entirely, so I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal 
responsibility and against government censorship.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute if I may do that, 
and reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may not reserve time; the time is 
controlled by the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I thought she just yielded me 5 minutes.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would say to 
the gentleman I do have a lot of requests for time. I thought the 
gentleman wanted 5 minutes to speak.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I do, but I just wanted to yield myself 1 
minute of the 5 minutes because I had requests for time from other 
people, and that is why I asked whether I may do that as a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. From the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the gentleman 
had been yielded 5 minutes. To yield the gentleman control of that 
time, so that he may control the dispensation of time, would require a 
unanimous-consent srequest.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, she has yielded me 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. YATES. Will I be able to yield time to other people?
  The CHAIRMAN. Not absent a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I would have to ask unanimous consent in 
order to yield that time to others?
  The CHAIRMAN. To be able to control the 5 minutes and its 
distribution (as by reserving time or being seated), that is correct.
  Mr. YATES. I do not understand that.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the 
gentleman, I certainly would be happy to have him yield time on his 
side; I also have them on my list.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I will take the 5 minutes now. I thank the 
gentlewoman very much for that opportunity, and I thank the chair for 
what I believe was a misapprehension of my rights under the rules.

                              {time}  1430

  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) who preceded me, the minority 
whip, in connection the speech he made is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The 
government does not actually control the giving of the grants. That is 
in the hands of panels, of civilians who are expert in the field. They 
are the ones who make the original selections.
  It is true that there has to be a censorship because there just is 
not enough money made available under the appropriations for the 
National Endowment of the Arts to provide grants for as many 
applications as they receive. They, therefore, have to be selective.
  The second statement of the gentleman was that the Federal Government 
should not be in this business. Well, the general welfare is the 
government's business. I remember statements like the gentleman's being 
made before 1957 in connection with Federal aid for education. The 
Republicans were opposed to Federal aid for education and they 
prevented that program from being enacted by the Congress.
  Then in 1957 the Russians launched Sputnik and General Eisenhower, 
who was President at the time, President Eisenhower, sent a request to 
the Congress for Federal aid for education in mathematics and in 
science. The Congress quickly passed that. But no mention was made for 
education in the civilian sense. That took a later date.
  Now, we do not have the Federal Government making grants for the 
purpose of studying the languages, history, philosophy, ethics, 
religion, legislature or the arts, as such, other than through the NEA. 
We do have the National Science Foundation. The National Science 
Foundation does an excellent job for mathematics and for the sciences.
  But insofar as the political sciences are concerned, the National 
Science Foundation does not engage in that. In other words, the 
National Science Foundation does not contribute to the disciplines that 
will educate our children in the ways of peace. Only the arts and 
humanities represent the Federal Government in making those kinds of 
grants and in teaching in that respect.
  Does the committee believe that education in science and math is 
enough? I do not think so. I think that the endowments have done a 
remarkably fine job over the years and I am constrained to support the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to 
restore the funding for the arts.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that this amendment simply 
restores funding to the NEA that my amendment originally placed in the 
bill last week, funding that was just stricken by the Republican point 
of order.
  Of course this amendment should be supported, even if the procedure 
being used is Mickey Mouse. If we have to support a Mickey Mouse 
procedure in order to provide funding for the arts, then that is what 
we will have to do.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, first I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma

[[Page H6001]]

(Mr. Largent) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a little repetitious. We have been through this 
so many times. But I want to take advantage of an opportunity to pay 
tribute to a very distinguished colleague who was first elected to 
Congress when I graduated from high school. That is the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Yates).
  The gentleman is a dear friend. He has been a devoted and committed 
Member of this body. We sometimes have our disagreements on all kinds 
of issues, but I respect him profoundly and I wish him all the best.
  Let me add that I am totally opposed to this amendment. At the 
Constitutional Convention, the whole question came up of funding the 
arts and it was overwhelmingly rejected on the grounds that that is not 
an appropriate function of the national government.
  In 1965 we got into ``guns and butter.'' We got into funding 
everything. The national government swelled enormously, penetrating 
virtually every aspect of our lives. This is not a time to revive it; 
this is a time for downsizing, getting the national government out of 
our lives and getting folks back home more involved in participating in 
funding such things as the arts and humanities.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the Johnson 
amendment restoring full funding to the National Endowment for the Arts 
in the amount of $98 million.
  I strongly support full funding for the National Endowment for the 
Arts. Over the past 30 years our quality of life has been improved by 
the NEA. Support for the arts proves our dedication to freedom of 
expression, one of the fundamental beliefs that our Nation has been 
built upon.
  Full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts will not detract 
from the quality of life in our Nation as a whole. The NEA is a dynamic 
investment in the economic growth of our Nation's communities. Arts are 
extremely important to the constituents of our districts, and by 
supporting them I know that I am ensuring that our rich, diverse 
American culture will continue to be memorialized and celebrated.
  In addition, the cultural benefit they provide, arts organizations 
make a direct economic impact on our communities, providing jobs, often 
fueling a vital flow of patrons to restaurants and shops.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to fully support the Johnson 
amendment restoring full funding to the arts, and I commend my friend, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), for his support of this 
endeavor.
  I am pleased to rise today in support of the Johnson amendment, 
restoring full funding to the National Endowment for the Arts in the 
amount of $98 million.
  I strongly support full funding for the National Endowment for the 
Arts. Over the past 30 years our quality of life has been improved by 
the NEA. Support for the arts proves our dedication to freedom of 
expression, one of the fundamental beliefs our great country is built 
on. Full funding for the National Endowment for the Arts will not 
detract from the quality of life in our Nation as a whole.
  The NEA is a dynamic investment in the economic growth of our 
Nation's communities. Arts are extremely important to the constituents 
of my district, and by supporting them, I know that I am ensuring that 
our rich, diverse American culture will continue to be memorialized and 
celebrated. In addition to the cultural benefit they provide, arts 
organizations make a direct economic impact on the community, providing 
jobs and often fueling a vital flow of patrons to restaurants and 
shops.
  The NEA brings the arts to our young people. Each year, the arts 
endowment opens the door to the arts to millions of school children, 
including ``at-risk'' youth. An education through the arts improves 
overall student learning, and instills self-esteem and discipline. The 
arts also help prepare America's future work force by helping students 
develop reasoning and problem-solving skills, and enhancing 
communication ability--all important career skills for the 21st 
century.
  The NEA has worked diligently for the past 8 years to create a more 
accountable and efficient system. In 1994 the NEA constricted the 
grantmaking process by eliminating subgrants to third party artists and 
organizations. The following year, the NEA eliminated seasonal 
operating support grants, and in the fiscal year 1996 and 1997 
appropriations bills, Congress banned nearly all grants to individual 
artists.
  Furthermore, the recent decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the 
decency standard passed by Congress in 1990 is a victory for both the 
National Endowment for the Arts and for the Congress. This decision is 
a significant step to protecting the caliber of art funded by the NEA.
  The arts foster a common appreciation of history and culture that are 
essential to our humanity. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to do the 
right thing by restoring full funding for the arts by supporting the 
Johnson amendment.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I will try and do two quotes here to 
perhaps change the mind of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) and 
others on this subject.
  Let us go back to the year 1787. During the Constitutional 
Convention, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina offered a motion to 
authorize the government to spend money on the promotion of literature 
and the arts and sciences. The motion was put up before the members and 
it was defeated overwhelmingly.
  From that point on through the years of 1960, Americans enjoyed a 
vibrant and successful art community. Successful not because of the 
government, but without the government. Is the gentleman from Illinois 
repudiating all of that history?
  Suddenly, almost 200 years later in 1965, Congress started talking 
about supporting the arts through Federal funding. But do my colleagues 
know which President said he was against funding for the arts? 
President Kennedy, who stated, ``I do not believe Federal funds should 
support symphony orchestras or opera companies.''
  NEA has gotten very political. Everybody who is going to support the 
NEA would have to agree it has gotten very political, and the Federal 
Government has been the primary endorser of very controversial pieces 
of art. This art has been antithetical to our traditions and to our 
mores.
  One of the great publishers of magazines and newspapers and a 
candidate for President, H.L. Mencken, said it best in this quotation:

       After 20 years,
he said,

     of active magazine publishing and newspaper publishing, I 
     cannot recall a single writer who really needs government 
     assistance. That is, not one of any talent whatsoever. A 
     great many pretenders, of course, are doing badly. But I 
     cannot see that it would be of any public benefit to 
     encourage them in their bad work.

  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is the NEA has often not provided art 
that we can be proud of. It has been in large part social experiment 
for the elite. Some of the art produced was antithetical to our values. 
I do not support the Johnson amendment. Let's remember our history for 
almost 200 years when the government did not provide federal funding 
for the arts.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I must say I find it most unfortunate 
that we are still here listening to continuing political attacks on the 
NEA. I strongly support, and I think it goes without saying, the 
contributions the NEA has made to cultural standards in this country.
  But I want to say now, as one who served as the Republican leader on 
the subcommittee that wrote the reforms in the early 1990s to deal with 
those questions of standards of decency and to protect against the 
controversial sexual and religious themes and, indeed, blasphemous 
themes, I want to say that as the Republican leader who wrote the 
reforms we put in protections and reforms in that legislation so that 
we would not be violating the

[[Page H6002]]

community standards of decency. In fact, just last month the U.S. 
Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to have those standards of 
decency.
  Now, with respect to this question of whether or not abuses are 
continuing in the so-called Corpus Christi project, I can tell my 
colleagues categorically that no NEA funding was used under that, and 
let us not use this as a stalking horse or as a diversion. Let us 
support the Johnson amendment.
  Mr. Chairman. I rise to urge this House to vote to support the NEA 
and vote for this amendment. I find it most unfortunate, and can not 
explain the irrational political attacks on the NEA. These attacks are 
bred of ignorance or willful, crass, and disingenuous political abuse.
  Since its formation over thirty years ago, 2nd National Endowment of 
the Arts has provided the public side of a very valuable public-private 
partnership to foster the arts. The people in this room represent the 
private side of that partnership. For urban, suburban, and rural areas 
alike.
   Nevertheless, there were abuses in recent years that became public 
in the early 1990's. There were blasphemous and irreverent productions 
that clearly violated community standards.


                           ``corpus christi''

  Now, all of us have been hearing from constituents about a play 
``Corpus Christi,'' which many people mistakenly believe was supported 
by the NEA. I want you to know that NEA funding did not support this 
play!
  Should this event prove to show that the reforms we instituted have 
to be strengthened, then I can assure all our members that I will lead 
that effort and close any loopholes in current law.
  In 1990, I served as Republican leader of the subcommittee that re-
wrote NEA regulations to establish new decency standards and outlawed 
NEA support for projects with controversial sexual and religious 
themes, and those which violated community standards of decency.
  In the past month, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these standards, 
saying the federal government CAN consider general standards of decency 
and the ``values of the American public'' in deciding which projects 
should receive cash grants.
  The N.E.A. has provided the critical support which allowed production 
of such American classics as the original ``Driving Miss Daisy,'' ``The 
Great White Hope,'' and a ``Chorus Line.'' The N.E.A. has brought us 
the television programs ``Live from the Lincoln Center'' and ``American 
Playhouse.''
  All told * * * over 11,000 artists have received fellowships from the 
Endowment. They've won dozens upon dozens of Pulitzer Prizes, Macarthur 
Awards, and National Book Club Awards.
  Let's continue to support this worthwhile organization. Vote for this 
amendment. Support the Arts.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Largent) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to bring back a chart that we looked at just a 
few minutes ago and have kind of a little different perspective on what 
we were doing. The gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) just 
mentioned some of the reforms.
  When we go down this chart of NEA reforms, the gentleman from Florida 
and the gentleman from Illinois, the Cliff Stearns and the Phil Crane 
of the world who have been fighting this fight for dozens of years, and 
other people in this conference, trying to highlight the abuses of this 
program, I think here are some dividends that have been paid.
  There is a $400,000 grant in Kansas in March of 1997, a review of 
that art project. It was called ``Santa's Workshop'' and it had Santa 
Claus masturbating. So this fairly recent phenomenon here of 1997, of 
where we do not quite have it right.
  But the people who have the courage to come up here and say that this 
is not a proper thing to spend taxpayer money on, and have highlighted 
the abuse and the way the NEA is run, should be proud that we have made 
progress.
  The subcommittee chairman should be proud of what he has been able to 
do, because that $400,000 grant to produce art showing Santa 
masturbating is more money than the entire arts agencies in Arkansas, 
Delaware, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, 
Puerto Rico and all the U.S. territories received combined.
  Whether we consider that program art or not, whether we consider it 
the proper role of the Federal Government, this has been a poorly run 
Federal agency where 25 cents of every dollar goes into administration 
and most congressional districts receive little, if any, support from 
it.
  It is an elitist organization, out of touch with the American people 
in terms of business management, out of touch with the American public 
in terms of what art is. We are making small progress, and that is 
something to be thankful for. But we can set our watches by this 
debate, because it will happen again next year, and one year we will 
take this pot of money and give it to the communities to let them come 
up with programs better than we can do here. That day is coming.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
  (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Johnson 
amendment. As a congressional appointee by the Speaker to the National 
Council of the Arts, I have been monitoring the NEA and found that 
significant and positive changes have been made by this agency and 
Congress to ensure that taxpayers' funds are spent wisely and not on 
obscene and offensive art.
  Like many others, before the NEA undertook these changes, some of 
which were internal and some of which were dictated by Congress, before 
that time I supported efforts to reduce, prioritize, or eliminate 
funding for the Endowment. I now think we should give the NEA a chance 
to work under new guidelines and mandates of law that now govern the 
agency and that we should level-fund it.

                              {time}  1445

  In recent weeks I have heard reports that NEA funded a theater called 
Project Corpus Christi, a play portraying Jesus as having sex with his 
apostles. I am glad to report the NEA did not fund this project. The 
Manhattan Theater Club, the theater involved in this controversy, did 
receive funds from the NEA but for a separate and noncontroversial 
play.
  I think we should support, level fund this endowment.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, when we are on a tight budget, we have to 
make choices. We cannot buy expensive tickets to the theater or even go 
to the movies if we can barely afford to buy our food and pay our rent.
  At a time when we are talking about a debt in this Nation of $5.5 
trillion, when we are talking about balancing the budget, it is 
difficult to explain to the American people why we need to spend $98 
million for such a program as we are talking about here today.
  We all support the arts, but it does not seem fair to make the 
hardworking people of this country pay for exhibits that are only art 
by name, because in many cases they are pornographic, they are profane, 
and would be viewed with disgust by the majority of the people who see 
it.
  When we are trying to balance the budget, as I mentioned, when we are 
trying to reduce the size and the scope of the Federal Government, can 
anyone honestly place arts on the same level as, say, providing for our 
national defense and improving our Nation's infrastructure, improving 
or saving Medicare and Social Security?
  The National Endowment for the Arts has proven time and time again 
that they cannot be trusted as good stewards of the people's money. 
This is a travesty and a slap in the face of those people who call 
themselves Christians and who believe in the Christian faith and the 
religious values that have made this Nation great. I think we must show 
the American people that we are serious about changing the way 
Washington spends their money, and I think we should eliminate the 
National Endowment for the Arts.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Johnson amendment.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)

[[Page H6003]]

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  As cochair of the Congressional Members Organization on the Arts, I 
represent over 140 Members of this House, bipartisan Members, who are 
dedicated to the survival of the NEA because we know that one of the 
greatest benefits is that it touches a broad spectrum of the 
population, both rural and urban, young and old, rich and poor, and 
everyone in between.
  The arts are an important part of our economy, recognized by the 
Conference of Mayors of the United States, which has given us its 
strongest support and said that NEA must survive because of the 
economic benefits it means to every city in the United States.
  When we spend $98 million on the NEA, we provide the first link in a 
delicate system that supports 1.3 million full time jobs in all the 50 
States, providing $3.4 million back to the Federal treasury in income 
taxes. I know of no other investment we make as Members of Congress 
that brings back to the treasury such an incredible return.
  But it is more than that. Test after test has shown that each child 
exposed to the arts is a better student.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
the Johnson amendment. There is no question that art serves many 
purposes. It communicates powerful emotions that are often difficult to 
express in other ways.
  Yet art is best judged in the context of individual creativity and 
independent thought, not through a Federal bureaucracy. And freedom of 
artistic thought is very important to our society. We do not need a 
Federal agency determining which art is worthy of government funding 
and which is not. Citizens and private groups should decide what they 
think is quality art and spend their money to fund it accordingly. When 
the NEA gives grants to art projects, taxpayers are put in the position 
of supporting art they may find objectionable.
  A recent congressional oversight study found private giving to the 
arts is at an all-time high. In fact, private individuals outspent the 
NEA 100-to-1. When it comes to supporting the arts, the private sector 
is where it is at. Local and State governments do likewise. Art thrives 
not on government handouts but on thousands of individual acts of 
creativity.
  The NEA is no longer needed to fund art. Instead, it serves as a 
prime example of government overreaching its sphere of influence.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she 
may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding and I rise in support of Federal funding for the arts and 
funding for the NEA.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it appalling that we are even debating whether 
to cut the funding of the National Endowment of the Arts today.
  We spend more on the Marine Corp Band than we do on the NEA. In fact, 
we give less to the arts than any other western country. Even during 
the Middle Ages the arts were something to be protected and preserved 
and their importance was understood.
  They were not mistaken. The arts are good for the public, and study 
after study shows that children who are exposed to the arts do better 
in school and have higher self-esteem.
  The money from the National Endowment for the Arts touches the lives 
of millions of Americans.
  At the Metropolitan Museum of Art, thousands of people flood in and 
out of their doors each day.
  The American Ballet Company travels around the country bringing the 
grace of ballet to every area of our country.
  Before the NEA was created in 1965, there were only 58 orchestras in 
the country; today there are more than 1,000.
  Before the NEA, there were 37 professional dance companies in 
America; now there are 300.
  Before the NEA, only one million people attended the theater each 
year; today over 55 million attend annually.
  Mr. Chairman, the benefits of the arts and the NEA are evident, and I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting full funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she 
may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as one of the members of the Council on the 
Arts, I rise in strong support of the Johnson amendment and want to 
associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the NEA, and I do so 
not only as a proponent of federal support for the arts, but also as 
one who has seen first-hand the inner workings of the NEA.
  Along with Mr. Ballenger and Mr. Doolittle, I have the privilege of 
serving as one of six Congressional members on the National Council on 
the Arts, which basically serves as the Board of Directors for the NEA. 
Among the distinguished members of the National Council are Father Leo 
O'Donovan, the president of Georgetown University; and Wallace McRae, a 
third generation livestock rancher from Montana and the author of four 
volumes of poetry. Let me also point out that the new chairman of the 
NEA, William Ivey, is the former director of the Country Music 
Foundation.
  This is not a radical group, needless to say. In reviewing and voting 
on NEA grant applications, the members of the National Council take 
their responsibilities to U.S. taxpayers very seriously. They are 
united by their commitment to making the arts accessible to all 
Americans--which is what this debate is all about.
  Now we all know that NEA opponents delight in telling tabloid-like 
stories about objectionable projects funded by the NEA. But let's be 
clear on the facts. Out of more than 112,000 NEA-funded grants over the 
past 32 years, only 45 were controversial. That's less than four one-
hundredths of one percent of all grants. Most importantly, reforms 
instituted by Congress and internally by the NEA have restructured the 
grant process so that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated.
  We didn't abolish the Department of Defense because of $500 toilet 
seats and we didn't abolish the Navy because of the Tailhook scandal. 
We certainly shouldn't abolish the NEA because of a few projects years 
ago were controversial. It's simply absurd.
  One of the standards by which we judge a civilized society is the 
support it provides for the arts. In comparison to other industrialized 
nations, the United States falls woefully behind in this area--even 
with a fully-funded NEA. In a nation of such wealth and cultural 
diversity, it is a tragic commentary on our priorities that year after 
year we must engage in a protracted debate about an agency that spends 
less than 40 cents per American each year--and in return benefits 
students, artists, teachers, musicians, orchestras, theaters, and dance 
companies and their audiences across the country.
  But let's be honest--this isn't a fight over money. The Republican 
leadership wants to eliminate the NEA because they are afraid of 
artistic expression in a free society. This battle isn't about 
defending the values of mainstream America--this is about the GOP 
pandering to Pat Robertson and the Religious Right.
  Polls overwhelmingly show that the American public supports federal 
funding for the arts. And if those reasons are not compelling enough 
for some, let's just talk dollars and cents. For every $1 the NEA 
spends, it generates more than 11 times that in private donations and 
economic activity. That is a huge economic return on the government's 
investment. And you certainly don't need to be from New York to see the 
impact of the arts on a region's economy.
  The Republican assault on the arts--on cultural expression itself--is 
an outrage--and it must be defeated.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to 
close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut, as the proponent of 
the amendment, has the right to close.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. And how much time do I have remaining, 
Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has 3 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) has 
3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the government has an important role in 
funding the arts. Two years ago some of us thought we could combine two 
good principles; fund the arts, but do it by replacing the NEA with a 
block grant directly to the State arts commissions. We thought we had a 
viable compromise that would end the annual debate; an honorable effort 
to broaden

[[Page H6004]]

the base. That failed. The block grants are not viable.
  We need to fund the NEA and we need to increase the funding for the 
NEA. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Connecticut in 
making sure that will happen.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I would encourage my colleagues to read the report that we issued 
last year: A Creative and Generous America, The Healthy State of the 
Arts in America. Because the arts in America are healthy. What is 
failing is the continued failure of the National Endowment for the 
Arts.
  It is not a broad-based program. The NEA has failed in its primary 
mission to make that happen. More than one-third of NEA funds go to six 
cities, and one-third of all congressional districts fail to get any 
direct funding. That means one-third of America does not even see the 
NEA. In short, the NEA makes up a minuscule portion of arts support in 
America.
  There is no credible evidence that the NEA has had anything to do 
with the recent growth and explosion in the arts. It is a failed small 
agency. And before my colleagues say how well it works, just a year ago 
63 percent of NEA grantees could not reconcile their project costs, 79 
percent had inadequate documentation of personnel costs, and 53 percent 
had failed to engage independent auditors.
  This agency needs to be overhauled if not eliminated.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the 
amendment offered by my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Nancy Johnson), to restore funding for the NEA.
  Mr. Chairman, the arguments in favor of limited funding are hollow 
and without merit. Government support for the arts is not a program for 
the elite. Eliminating the endowment will do nothing to reduce the 
deficit. The private sector cannot and will not provide sufficient 
funding to make up this loss in the credibility.
  Some of the many reasons most Americans believe in government support 
for the arts is it stimulates economic growth, it invests in our 
communities, they are basic to a thorough education. We know that 
student achievement and test scores in academic subjects improve when 
the arts are used to assist learning in math, social studies, creative 
writing and communication skills. We know SATs and ACTs are elevated by 
students who have had the arts training.
  I invite anyone who thinks the NEA is not needed to visit the Puppet 
Company Playhouse in Glen Echo Park, just a few miles from the Capital.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and to support the Johnson 
amendment.
  It's a two-hundred seat theater created out of a portion of an 
historic ballroom at Glen Echo Park. The audience is usually made up of 
children accompanied by their families and teachers, representing the 
cultural and economic diversity of Maryland, Virginia and the District 
of Columbia. An NEA grant allows the Puppet Co. to keep the ticket 
prices low so that many young families can attend the performances. The 
associates who run the Company work hard for modest salaries in the 
true spirit of keeping their company non-profit.
  I think most taxpayers would be pleased to know that they support 
such a worthwhile project.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment. 
It is the right thing to do.
  Art is how we remember. It is important, even vital, that we support 
and encourage the promotion of the arts so that the rich and cultural 
story of our past can be made available to future generations.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Ms. Wilson).
  Ms. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, for those of us who find ourselves 
supporting a gradual change, this is a difficult vote and a difficult 
amendment.
  I am rising today in opposition to this amendment for a variety of 
reasons but, in particular, I would have supported the efforts of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) several years ago to 
gradually privatize the National Endowment for the Arts, and I believe 
as a politician who also loves the arts, that politics and art rarely 
mix. And if there is one thing that this debate has shown us today, it 
is that.
  I think that the National Endowment of the Arts should move towards 
being a private national endowment over time. Unfortunately, having 
talked to the National Endowment of the Arts this morning, I found that 
while they were given authorization to begin development programs to 
raise independent funds a year ago, in that year they have only raised 
$50,000. That is not a real effort, in my view, towards moving toward a 
truly independent national endowment, and my vote today should be seen 
by supporters of the arts and seen by the National Endowment of the 
Arts as a clear encouragement to them to move towards privatization.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
for yielding me this time, and I certainly support her amendment.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I consider myself one of the most 
conservative Members of this body, and my record as one of the fiscal 
conservatives is a matter of record. But let me tell my colleagues, 
regarding the arguments I have heard today, this is a question about 
whether or not we give any money to the arts. It is that basic; that 
simple.
  This government has always supported the arts. From Washington, from 
Thomas Jefferson, from Abraham Lincoln, we have always, as a Nation and 
its founding leaders and through every administration, supported the 
arts.
  Now, I admit that some mistakes have been made, and I have 
highlighted those mistakes. But it is not our responsibility or duty 
here to abolish Federal Government participation in the arts. With 
those mistakes that have been made, it is our responsibility to correct 
those mistakes. If we need tax credits, if we need to change the 
project basis, let us do that. But this is about funding our museums, 
this is about funding our symphonies.
  Mr. Chairman, I have never seen a child who has attended or heard a 
symphony or visited a museum who would not benefit from this effort to 
fund the arts.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  As I listened to the debate, one thought kept crossing my mind, and 
that is how easy it is to be a philanthropist with other people's 
money. It is really easy to give away other people's money, $9.5 
million.
  The impression some Members would give us, and the movie stars, is 
that the arts and arts programs in this country are hanging by a 
thread, and if we do not fund the NEA all of the arts are going to go 
away. Well, the truth is that is not true.
  The fact is there are several people that are contributing to the 
arts community in our country today. One is the Federal Government. 
Now, not just the $98.5 million that we are trying to stop being funded 
to the NEA. There are over 200 programs funded by taxpayers that go to 
the arts: Holocaust Museum, Commission of Fine Arts, Indian Arts and 
Crafts Board, JFK Center for the Performing Arts, National Endowment 
for Children's Educational TV, NEH, National Gallery of Arts, the 
Smithsonian.
  How much money is the Federal Government spending of our tax dollars 
on the arts? Well, in 1997, it was $696 million, in 1998 it was $710 
million, and in 1999 it will be $815 million that is going to go to 
fund the arts. So we are great philanthropists with other people's 
money.
  Mr. Chairman, I will just finish by urging my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the Johnson amendment.

                              {time}  1500

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 30 
remaining seconds.

[[Page H6005]]

  I urge support of my amendment in the strongest terms possible. This 
body votes R&D tax credits to support the creativity necessary to an 
entrepreneurial society. We support NIH funding to create the knowledge 
base for medical innovations.
  We must support NEA dollars to support the infrastructure for a 
strong, vital, national, creative culture community of the arts. We 
must do no less if we are to have the quality-inspired leadership that 
this Nation needs in our democracy.
  If my colleagues have never been in a HOT school, a higher order of 
thinking school, go. It will demonstrate why NEA dollars count now and 
in the future.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of my colleague Nancy Johnson's amendment to restore $98 million in 
funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. For a small and 
carefully safeguarded investment of taxpayer money, NEA funds 
activities that enrich all aspects of our society.
  We will hear a good deal today about the economic benefits NEA offers 
to our local communities--and that's right. Last year, we invested $98 
million in the NEA. This investment supported 1.3 million full-time 
jobs in local communities, generated an estimated $37 billion in 
economic activity, and returned almost three and one half billion 
dollars to the federal treasury in income taxes. Clearly, any 
investment which provides a return of nearly 35 times your initial 
investment is worth continuing. Since FY96, the NEA has directly 
contributed over $3 million in awards to the Connecticut economy, and 
19 individual awards were recommended last year.
  But more important is the immeasurable contribution that NEA makes to 
our nation's art and music, creativity and talent. When we invest in 
NEA, we add to the store of artistic expression in the world. We add to 
the human spirit. And that is the most important investment of all.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and fund this 
important program.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for continued funding for the National Endowment for the Arts because 
the NEA broadens public access to the arts for all Americans.
  The latest Lou Harris poll found that 79% of Americans support a 
governmental role in funding the arts. Furthermore, 57% said they favor 
the federal government funding the arts. Federal funding for the arts 
is a good investment because the arts contribute to our society both 
financially and educationally.
  From a financial standpoint, the NEA is an investment in the economic 
growth of our communities because the non-profit arts community 
generates an estimated $37 billion in economic activity, returns $3.4 
billion in income taxes to the federal government each year, and 
supports 1.7 million jobs.
  Federal funding for the arts is also a catalyst for leveraging 
private funding since recipients of NEA grants are required to match 
federal grants up to 3 to 1. It is also important to recognize that the 
NEA's budget represents less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the 
federal budget and costs each American less than 38 cents per year.
  Our communities benefit from an investment in the arts when art is a 
part of a comprehensive educational program and last year, the NEA made 
arts education a top priority. In 1997, the NEA invested $8.2 million 
in support of K-12 arts programs. Through these programs, the NEA opens 
creative doors to million of school children, including ``at-risk'' 
youth. Participation in the arts improves overall student learning, 
instills self-esteem and discipline and provides creative outlets for 
self expression. The arts also help prepare America's future high-tech 
workforce by helping students develop problem-solving and reasoning 
skills, hone communication ability and expand career skills for the 
21st century. In my extensive work with education and technology, I see 
how important arts education is to developing our future workforce.
  Exposing children to the arts is even more important now that we know 
how crucial the first 3 years of a child's life are to full mental and 
emotional development. Even at the very beginning of life, children 
respond to music and visual stimuli. The NEA increases opportunities 
for parents and teachers to share art with children who may not 
otherwise have such opportunities.
  In Michigan, the NEA supports mentoring programs, in-school 
performances and apprenticeships in local school districts, colleges 
and universities. These programs have enriched the cultural fabric of 
our community. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the 
continued funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, in ardent support 
of the National Endowment for the Arts. I commend my colleague, Nancy 
Johnson, for her perseverance on this issue and thank Chairman Regula 
for bringing to the floor a fine Interior Appropriations bill.
  Every day, arts programs across the United States are helping 
Americans. CityKids is an educational program in New York City, and let 
me describe for you what one of the students told me:
  Chayka wrote:

       My grandfathers, grandmother, father and uncle were all 
     alcoholics. I lived in the projects oldest of 5 girls to a 
     single mother and all I had was my ambition, drive, 
     determination, and talent. The arts . . . has kept me sane. 
     Now I've taken these skills that I've learned and through the 
     arts I educate thousands of youths. It makes communicating to 
     my peers about teen pregnancy, drugs, abuse, and racism heard 
     effectively.

  The National Endowment for the Arts is a powerful symbol for 
improving the quality of our lives and the refining of our communities. 
The arts clearly enhance community livability; attract industry; create 
jobs; increase the tax base; and enrich us all. Dance, theater, and 
music encourage personal achievement in our communities. In a time when 
we have balanced the budget, lowered taxes, and improved education in 
our country, we can take the time to appreciate the creative 
opportunities made possible by local arts organizations and the NEA.
  The NEA does touch us in our communities. For instance, this weekend 
the 21st Annual New York Philharmonic Free Concert will take place at 
Heckscher State Park in my district on Long Island. Every year, this 
concert brings together 40,000 people and this free concert is made 
possible because the NY Philharmonic receives a grant from the NEA to 
offer free concerts throughout New York State and the region. 40,000 
people take advantage of this opportunity and benefit from the NEA--
families who otherwise may not have the occasion or the money to hear 
classical music.
  As a result of Federal arts funding, the American people have gained 
access to a greater range of nonprofit arts organizations. Since 1965, 
the number of professional nonprofit theaters has grown from 56 to over 
425; large orchestras have increased from 100 to over 230; opera 
companies from 27 to over 120; and dance companies from 37 to over 400. 
Additionally, countless small chamber and choral groups, museums, art 
centers, cultural festivals, cultural organizations and writers guilds 
have sprouted up in small towns, rural communities, medium-sized cities 
and suburbs throughout every corner of America. A Congressional 
initiative that allocated 7.5 percent of all NEA arts funding to help 
develop arts programming in under-served areas specifically helped us 
reach this outcome.
  Over the past few years, Congress has instituted changes that have 
allowed for important reforms. I'd like to take a moment to highlight 
an excellent program that has been instituted in response to 
Congressional concerns about the fairness of the distribution of NEA 
grants. The new ArtsREACH program is designed to send grants to states 
that have historically been under-served. Specifically, ArtsREACH will 
provide direct planning and technical assistance grants to communities 
in targeted states to create coalitions of cultural organizations, 
local government and community arts agencies. They will work together 
to ensure that the arts are an integral part of achieving community 
goals. ArtsREACH will target local arts and civic leaders and help them 
to use the arts to build stronger communities. In fact, the United 
States Conference of Mayors recently passed a unanimous resolution 
endorsing ArtsREACH.
  The arts make a difference in helping to solve everyday challenges. I 
have seen first-hand how the arts build communities. Public funding for 
the arts combined with private sector giving has had a profound impact 
upon the health, education and economy of our nation. Business leaders 
are building upon the economic stimuli and social problem-solving 
abilities created by the arts to nurture further growth at the local 
level. The arts enrich the lives of all Americans because they speak to 
our economic, intellectual and spiritual well-being. In my home state 
of New York, organizations supported by the arts provide 174,000 jobs. 
Nonprofit arts organizations alone have an economic impact of nearly 
$4.1 million.
  Not only do the arts contribute to a stronger community, they also 
help prepare job-seekers and enhance creativity in the workplace. When 
hiring employees, more and more businesses are looking for those 
qualities developed through education and exposure to the arts.
  The U.S. Department of Labor's report on the Secretary's Commission 
on Achieving Necessary Skills recently highlighted the important role 
of arts education in achieving many ``core competencies'' for the 
workplace, including creative problem solving, allocating resources, 
team building, and exercising individual responsibility. Employers 
recognize that individuals with a strong background in arts have the 
creative talent to innovatively approach challenges.

[[Page H6006]]

  The arts inspire me and millions of Americans. On the cusp of a new 
millennium, when we are actually aware of our legacy and our future, 
the time is right to reinvest in our identity and to ensure that we 
remain a world leader culturally as well as economically.
  I urge my colleagues to continue funding the National Endowment for 
the Arts. Help the arts flourish in small towns and inner cities across 
our great nation.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in strong support of 
the amendment by my colleague from Connecticut. The arts enrich our 
culture, our humanity, our communities, and our economy, and I am 
pleased to vote for this amendment to restore funding to the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  The small investment the government makes in the NEA--its budget is 
only .01 of our national budget--serves as a catalyst for local, state 
and private investment in the arts, and bolsters an industry that 
provides millions of jobs across the nation.
  We see the results of this investment in Connecticut's thriving arts 
community. Connecticut's nonprofit arts industry--and it truly is an 
industry--contributed an estimated $1.3 billion to the state's economy 
in 1996, and provided jobs for roughly 30,500 people.
  Just last month, New Haven demonstrated again how the arts can both 
build our economy and bring our community together. Performers from 
around the world came to New Haven for the annual International 
Festival of Arts and Ideas. An estimated 80,000 people traveled to New 
Haven to visit this summer's festival and enjoyed the artists, dancers, 
musicians and craftsmen. The arts means travel and tourism, money and 
jobs for the city of New Haven.
  The arts build our economy, enrich our culture and feed the minds of 
adults and children alike. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, as a Member of Congress who supports the 
arts, I believe that the Federal government should remain an important 
contributor in this area.
  Critics point to a few controversial grants that the National 
Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has made, and I agree that some funding 
decisions may have been unwise. However, in recent years, the NEA has 
taken strides to eliminate controversy from the grant process by 
eliminating ``individual grants'' and ``subgrants.''
  In fact, most of the funding from the agency is directed toward the 
cultural life and diversity of our country--to people of all ages, to 
people in our inner cities, in our suburbs, and in our rural 
communities.
  In Delaware, the NEA provides assistance to the Delaware Division of 
the Arts and the Delaware Humanities Forum so they may grant funding to 
the Delaware Symphony Orchestra, the Delaware Theater Company, Opera 
Delaware and many other community and school activities.
  When it comes to partnership between private, state, and Federal 
funding of the arts the NEA sets an outstanding example. According to 
the agency, one endowment dollar attracts twelve dollars or more from 
state and regional arts agencies as well as corporations, businesses 
and individuals.
  In fact, NEA funded programs generate economic activity through 
tourism, urban renewal and economic development throughout the nation. 
According to the NEA, non-profit arts programs contribute an estimated 
$37 billion to the economy and are responsible for 1.3 million jobs.
  It is also important to note that most industrial countries have a 
national budget for the arts and humanities. The United Kingdom, 
Canada, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Sweden not only have 
national budgets for the arts, but in most cases, provide more funding 
for the arts than the United States.
  Federal support of the NEA opens the door to the arts for all 
Americans, sets a standard for private and public investment 
partnerships and generates economic development in our communities. In 
light of these facts, the Federal government can not neglect its 
responsibility in continued support of the arts, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the Johnson amendment to restore NEA funding.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlelady from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] to restore 
$98 million in funding for fiscal year 1999 for the National Endowment 
for the Arts.
  Many speakers today will describe the overall value and worth of the 
NEA. They will note how we all benefit from the NEA, in every single 
one of our congressional districts and states.
  We all know the NEA devotes 40% of its budget to partnerships with 
state and regional arts agencies, funding that is directed to projects 
tailored to those communities.
  Before the NEA existed, only five states had state-funded arts 
councils. Today, all fifty states have such councils.
  All of our constituencies benefit from NEA funds, programs that only 
costs taxpayers 36 cents each year.
  In return, arts agencies, arts organizations, and arts programs and 
activities provide substantial social, educational and economic 
benefits.
  I would like to speak, however, about two NEA grants to small local 
and regional museums in my district, the 3rd Congressional District of 
Massachusetts.
  This year, the NEA awarded the Worcester Art Museum in Worcester, MA, 
a grant of $120,000 to support the creation and presentation of an 
exhibition on the lost Roman city of Antioch.
  It is very fitting that the NEA supported this exhibition, which is 
the culmination of archaeological and artistic effort by the Worcester 
Art Museum undertaken throughout this century. One of the many breath-
taking sights in the museum is to come upon the Antioch mosaics, which 
were installed around 1937, the result of a partnership between the 
Worcester Art Museum and various universities and museums in the United 
States and France to excavate the Antioch site between 1932 and 1939. 
Building on this work over the following decades, the Worcester Art 
Museum has become renown for one of the finest collections of Roman 
mosaics in the United States.
  The NEA grant will support the creation of the exhibition, the 
accompanying catalogue, and the education programs--especially those 
for children--that will be part of this major exhibition of art and 
artifacts from Antioch. The exhibition will then travel to Texas and 
Ohio, where it will also enrich the lives of citizens, scholars and 
school children in those communities, as well.
  Another smaller grant by the NEA was also awarded this year to the 
Higgins Armory Museum, a small museum in Worcester, MA that is among 
the best armory collections in the world. The exhibition schedule of 
the Higgins Armory Museum includes a series of professional development 
workshops for teachers, and visits by approximately 25,000 students 
from some 500 public and private schools throughout the six-state New 
England region.
  The NEA provided a modest $5,000 grant to support an upcoming 
exhibition entitled, ``Road Warriors: Knight Riders.'' This unique and 
creative exhibit will educate the general public about the medieval 
period of armor worn by mounted knights with a more contemporary icon, 
namely the various uniforms of motorbike culture. The exhibit will 
especially reach out to young people with education programs.
  I am proud of the strong artistic and cultural heritage of central 
Massachusetts, and I am equally proud of the vibrant artistic community 
that is actively engaged in cities and towns throughout my district 
today.
  On behalf of them and on behalf of the communities of Central 
Massachusetts that benefit economically, culturally and socially from 
their presence, I urge all my colleagues to support the Johnson 
amendment to restore funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.


                                         Worcester Art Museum,

                                     Worcester, MA, June 19, 1998.
     Hon. James P. McGovern,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Jim: I am writing to encourage your support of the 
     President's proposed increase in funding for the National 
     Endowment of the Arts to $136 million for FY 1999. As a 
     strong supporter of the arts in our community, you already 
     realize how important federal funding is to the Worcester Art 
     Museum's ability to sustain a high caliber of exhibitions and 
     services.
       As you know, the Worcester Art Museum has recently received 
     a grant award from the NEA to support its upcoming 
     exhibition, Antioch: The Lost Roman City, scheduled to begin 
     its national tour in Worcester in the Fall of 2000. This 
     matching award not only signifies a level of project 
     excellence on a national level but provides the leverage for 
     securing additional funding sources needed for the execution 
     of his exhibition. When an exhibition or project receives the 
     NEA's ``stamp of approval,'' other funders are more inclined 
     to follow suit. This federal funding will enable 
     approximately 170,000 viewers the opportunity to understand 
     and learn about the ancient city and culture of Antioch, an 
     opportunity that would not be possible without the initial 
     support of the NEA.
       I thank you in advance for your advocacy on behalf of the 
     Worcester Art Museum and cultural institutions nation-wide 
     and encourage your continued efforts to reinforce the 
     importance of federal arts funding and its impact on the 
     economic and cultural health of our communities.
           Sincerely,
                                                    James A. Welu,
                                                         Director.
                                  ____
                                  


                                        Higgins Armory Museum,

                                     Worcester, MA, June 30, 1998.
     Hon. James P. McGovern,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman McGovern: The Higgins Armory Museum was 
     the recipient recently of a $5,000 grant from the National 
     Endowment for the Arts helping to fund the Museum's 1998-1999 
     winter and spring special exhibition. These annual events are 
     an integral part of the Museum's ongoing educational 
     programming which is designed not

[[Page H6007]]

     only as a benefit for the Museum's general audiences, but 
     also as a collaborative effort with local and regional 
     educators to tie in with public and private school 
     interdisciplinary curriculum. The exhibition schedule each 
     year includes a series of professional development workshops 
     for teachers, and visits to the Museum by approximately 
     25,000 students representing some 500 public and private 
     schools throughout Massachusetts and the entire six-state New 
     England region.
       I am writing to you on behalf of our Board of Trustees to 
     express appreciation to you and your colleagues in Congress 
     for the important part you play in making this kind of 
     financial support available. It is extremely meaningful to 
     institutions like ours if we are to continue providing the 
     kind of educational and cultural programs to the audiences we 
     serve.
       When you are in the Worcester area and your schedule 
     permits, we would welcome the opportunity to show you the 
     Museum and how these federal dollars are being used. We'd 
     also like to express our very sincere thanks in person. We 
     are extremely proud of our institution, and I'm confident 
     that you would be also. So please consider this an official 
     invitation, and let me know whenever you can come to see us.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Kent dur Russell,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Johnson 
amendment to restore $98 million in funding for the National Endowment 
for the Arts. As a member of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee, 
I have learned a great deal about the NEA in the last few years. I know 
that the NEA would admit it has made mistakes in the past, but it has 
instituted a series of management reforms to ensure that those types of 
problems will not recur. Even given those problems, opponents of the 
NEA can point to only a handful of questionable grants out of hundreds 
of thousands that have been awarded during the 32-year history of the 
NEA. After hearing real people and real artists discuss what the NEA 
has brought to them and to their communities, I know that the NEA is an 
incredible catalyst for bringing people together and expressing, in a 
creative fashion, the full range of the human experience.
  The National Endowment for the Arts is successfully working to bring 
arts to underserved communities, through after school youth programs 
that are introducing our young people to the power of creative 
expression as an alternative to violence, and through folk and 
traditional arts that remind us of our common bond and what it means to 
be an American.
  Moreover, the American public supports public funding for the arts. A 
Louis Harris poll indicates that, by a decisive 79 percent to 19 
percent margin, a better than 3-to-1 majority of the American people is 
convinced that it is important that there should be federal, state, and 
local councils for the arts to develop new programs, research and 
provide financial assistance to worthy arts organizations. By 57 
percent to 39 percent, a clear majority of the American people favor 
the Federal Government funding the arts.
  Let's stop playing politics with this agency and follow the direction 
of the American people on this issue. Support the Johnson amendment and 
restore funding for the arts.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, today we have the opportunity to continue 
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. The fact is that the 
NEA is an essential component of cultural programs across the country. 
Not only in big cities, but in rural communities and small towns. In 
northern Michigan, where communities are rich with pride in their 
unique culture and heritage, eliminating the NEA's role as a source of 
state endowments and grant funding will effectively silence many 
quality programs. I have received many letters from local arts 
councils, senior centers, community theaters, youth programs and 
museums detailing the positive effect their programs have had and how 
even a small amount of federal funding can impact their program. The 
arts draw these communities together to celebrate and to educate each 
other. The past controversy over the NEA has led to reform and 
restructuring of that organization. the NEA has a new Chairman, Bill 
Ivey. These reforms and this chairman should be given the opportunity 
to prove themselves, not be stripped of their funding, support the 
Johnson Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 253, 
noes 173, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 312]

                               AYES--253

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--173

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)

[[Page H6008]]


     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Dixon
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     John
     McDade
     McNulty
     Norwood
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1521

  Mrs. BONO changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, today during the fiscal year 
1999 Interior appropriations bill vote on the amendment by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to continue funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts, I intended to vote ``no'' for her 
amendment. I thought I voted ``no'' for her amendment. The voting 
machine indicated a ``yes'' vote. I would like the Record to show that 
I intended to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, for the Members that are asking, it is our plan to roll 
votes until 5:30. At that time we will catch up whatever amendments 
would be pending and we may have to rise for a suspension that has to 
be done today. When we reconvene, we will then roll votes again until 
8, or let us say 8:30. Hopefully if everybody works at it, I think we 
can finish this bill today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Jones) for a colloquy at this point.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity 
to discuss the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse which is owned and operated by 
the National Park Service. The lighthouse, the tallest in the world, is 
located along the Outer Banks of North Carolina, which is a beautiful 
part of my district.
  The lighthouse is being threatened by the ocean and beach erosion. 
Two proposals are currently being debated on how best to save this 
historical structure. Either relocate the lighthouse inland or to 
stabilize the lighthouse where it is by building an additional groin to 
complement the three that are already in place.
  As we have both mentioned in previous conversations, the moving of 
the lighthouse would change the character and the historical importance 
of this structure. At this time, I am curious if the subcommittee has 
taken a stance on how best to save the lighthouse.
  Mr. REGULA. The subcommittee has not taken an official stance. 
However, the subcommittee believes the historical structure can be 
saved in a more cost-effective way than relocating it inland.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Ohio knows, the Senate 
Interior appropriations bill provides $9.8 million for the relocation 
of the lighthouse. However, the House bill does not address the issue. 
When the Interior conference convenes, does the gentleman intend to 
accept the Senate position or choose an alternative?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am committed to supporting a proposal to 
save the taxpayer money while protecting the lighthouse. I am currently 
working with other Appropriations Committee members to provide the 
appropriate money necessary for the construction of the fourth groin 
during the conference committee.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's commitment and 
look forward to working with him during this process.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Bob Schaffer) for a colloquy.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the 
manager of the bill for a moment of his time to discuss a program of 
particular importance to me and many of my colleagues, the National 
Black Footed Ferret Conservation Center.
  Mr. REGULA. I would be pleased to join in a colloguy with the 
gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, 
the National Black Footed Ferret Conservation Center is of critical 
importance to these highly endangered species. The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service has decided to relocate this facility to an area near 
Fort Collins, Colorado, to take advantage of the area's habitat, 
infrastructure and proximity to educational and research institutions. 
I am grateful for the chairman's support of $1 million for the 
construction of the facility. However, I respectfully request full 
funding of the President's request in order to construct this important 
facility. An additional $800,000 was appropriated in the Senate bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize the many challenges the gentleman faces 
with balancing competing needs and projects, but I would like to 
emphasize the importance of this facility and the role that it plays in 
the survival of the species. I respectfully ask the gentleman to work 
in conference to secure full funding for this important project.
  Mr. REGULA. As the gentleman from Colorado pointed out, there are 
many competing demands on the limited funds provided in this bill. I 
feel we have done as well as we could. However, I recognize the 
importance of the National Black Footed Ferret Conservation Center in 
recovering endangered species as well as its importance to public 
education. While we cannot meet every request, I assure the gentleman 
that I will keep his concerns in mind as we reconcile the differences 
between the House and Senate bills in conference.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman's commitment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) has 
asked me to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, 1998 marks the centennial of Guam's relationship with 
the United States. As the gentleman knows, during World War II, Guam 
was the only American territory occupied by the Japanese. The people of 
Guam were steadfast in their desire for Americans to return to the 
island. The Japanese were aware of this loyalty. As a result, many 
islanders were persecuted and tortured for their loyalty to the United 
States. The gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) has stated his concern 
that, unlike other Americans, the people of Guam have never received 
full reparations for the atrocities they experienced during World War 
II. He has fought for recognition and eventual reparations to the 
people of Guam.
  Mr. REGULA. I am aware of the gentleman from Guam's concerns and 
efforts in this area.
  Mr. YATES. The gentleman from Guam has also noted that $400,000 has 
been added to the technical assistance program in the Insular Affairs 
account without specific designation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Yates, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Guam has expressed his 
interest in having $300,000 of those funds allocated to establish a War 
Restitution Study Commission to verify claims from the people of Guam 
for the purpose of determining amounts of individual compensation for 
those who suffered atrocities. Is the gentleman aware of the gentleman 
from Guam's request?
  Mr. REGULA. I am aware of the gentleman from Guam's request that 
funds be made available for this purpose, and I believe that once such 
a commission is authorized, consideration should be given to providing 
funds to meet this need, along with consideration of other territorial 
needs.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. YATES. I thank the gentleman, and I agree with him. I thank him 
for entering into this colloquy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the first paragraph.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       Bureau of Land Management


                   management of lands and resources

       For expenses necessary for protection, use, improvement, 
     development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification, 
     acquisition of easements and other interests in lands, and 
     performance of other functions, including maintenance of 
     facilities, as authorized by

[[Page H6009]]

     law, in the management of lands and their resources under the 
     jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, including the 
     general administration of the Bureau, and assessment of 
     mineral potential of public lands pursuant to Public Law 96-
     487 (16 U.S.C. 3150(a)), $596,425,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $2,062,000 shall be available for 
     assessment of the mineral potential of public lands in Alaska 
     pursuant to section 1010 of Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 
     3150); and of which $3,000,000 shall be derived from the 
     special receipt account established by the Land and Water 
     Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 4601-6a(i)); 
     and of which $1,500,000 shall be available in fiscal year 
     1999 subject to a match by at least an equal amount by the 
     National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, to such Foundation for 
     cost-shared projects supporting conservation of Bureau lands; 
     in addition, $32,650,000 for Mining Law Administration 
     program operations, including the cost of administering the 
     mining claim fee program, to remain available until expended, 
     to be reduced by amounts collected by the Bureau and credited 
     to this appropriation from annual mining claim fees so as to 
     result in a final appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $596,425,000, and $2,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, from communication site rental fees established by 
     the Bureau for the cost of administering communication site 
     activities: Provided, That appropriations herein made shall 
     not be available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, 
     wild horses and burrows in the care of the Bureau or its 
     contractors.


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Skaggs

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Skaggs:
       Page 2, line 13, insert ``(decreased by $1,000,000)'' after 
     ``$596,425,000''.
       Page 3, line 6, insert ``(decreased by $1,000,000)'' after 
     ``$596,425,000''.
       Page 69, line 15, insert ``(decreased by $500,000)'' after 
     ``$320,558,000''.
       Page 70, line 17, insert ``(decreased by $3,000,000)'' 
     after ``$630,250,000''.
       Page 70, line 22, insert ``(increased by $20,000,000)'' 
     after ``$150,000,000''.
       Page 71, line 4, insert ``(increased by $16,000,000)'' 
     after ``$120,000,000''.
       Page 71, line 5, insert ``(increased by $4,000,000)'' after 
     ``$30,000,000''.

  Mr. SKAGGS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is sponsored by me and my 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox). It will remedy, I 
believe, one of the major imbalances in this otherwise pretty good 
bill, producing savings in energy and money and, in the process, 
providing some real benefits to the environment.
  The amendment that we are offering would shift funds from elsewhere 
in the bill to add $40 million to the energy conservation and 
efficiency accounts. That includes a $16 million increase for 
weatherization, $4 million for State energy grants, another $10 million 
for building technology programs, and increases of $5 million each for 
the industry and transportation energy conservation programs in the 
bill.
  These are investments we need to make as a country, because the track 
record that has already been established shows that they pay off many, 
many times over. The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and 
Technology, for instance, has estimated that past investments in these 
areas have produced improvements in efficiency that are already saving 
American consumers $170 billion a year. Even if they have exaggerated 
this by 50 percent, which I do not believe they have, this is clearly a 
great return on investment.
  It is also not just about money. The companies that, for instance, 
make home appliances, report that new appliances benefited by the kind 
of R&D that these programs support use significantly less energy than 
older ones, 50 percent less for refrigerators, for example. A 1995 
study by the Department of Energy shows that well over three quads, 
that is, I believe, three quadrillion Btu's of energy, can be saved if 
the department and industry can continue to work in this area to 
replace old appliances with efficient new ones.
  Similarly, experts at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 
estimate we can save another 10 quads of energy by the year 2020 if we 
will accelerate, as these programs will do, if we can accelerate the 
use of advanced energy efficient building, heating, lighting, and 
related technologies in new housing and other construction in this 
country, all of which can be done without increasing building costs.
  Transportation is another area where increased efficiency pays off, 
even when, as now, oil prices remain low. Transportation accounts for 
fully two-thirds of this country's oil consumption. The Department of 
Energy and industry are working to reduce this by a million barrels a 
day which will, in turn, greatly aid in our efforts to bring down air 
pollution.
  There are also immediate payoffs for the weatherization and State 
grants programs. The Oak Ridge National Labs reports that in 1996 
weatherization meant a savings of 33 percent in the gas used to heat 
weatherized homes while, overall, that program and State energy 
programs have a favorable cost benefit ratio of about two to one.
  We really need to maintain momentum in these areas. That is why, 
while I regret that I need to suggest to the Members that we have 
offsets in some other accounts, this will really move the country ahead 
in dealing with these pressing needs for energy conservation.
  The offsets that are included in this amendment include a million 
dollars from BLM's Wild Horse and Bureau Program and from two of DOE's 
programs, Oil Technology and Advanced Turbine Research, both of which, 
I think, do not produce the kind of returns on investment that we have 
enjoyed in the efficiency and conservation areas. They are not bad 
programs, but I think it will serve us well to give them somewhat less 
emphasis while we beef up in these other conservation areas.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me just point out to my colleagues, 
that, while the bill now nominally funds these programs at about $630 
million, a big piece of that really is an accounting change from last 
year's approach. An apples to apples comparison would be $586 million, 
down significantly from this fiscal year.
  By comparison, if we were really just keeping on the course that we 
were on as recently as 1995, adjusted for inflation, we would be 
spending about $860 million this coming fiscal year on these programs. 
I think that would have been a wise investment. But at least let us 
keep making the progress that this amendment will enable us to make. I 
urge my colleagues' support for it.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Skaggs) in offering the Skaggs-Fox energy conservation amendment. I 
have been a strenuous supporter of funding, as many of my colleagues 
have, for the Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program and the 
State Energy Conservation Program funded through the Department of 
Energy accounts in the Interior Appropriations bill. These programs go 
to the heart, Mr. Chairman, of the Federal Government's cooperation and 
community based solution to the needs of the people.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) for working 
with me on this amendment in supporting increased funding for these 
important programs. I also want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) and his excellent staff for their work on this very difficult 
appropriations bill.
  I am concerned that, under the bill, energy efficiency programs at 
the Department of Energy will be reduced by $25 million below fiscal 
year 1998 levels and approximately $200 million under the budget 
request.
  We urge the support of the House for a reallocation of funding within 
the bill in order to better serve our Nation's energy, economic, 
environmental, and security needs. This is the most important vote in 
favor of energy efficiency during the past 5 years, and we need 
Members' help.
  The bipartisan amendment will add about $16 million for the Low-
Income Weatherization Program, which helps over 60,000 low-income, 
elderly and disabled citizens weatherize their homes each year, in both 
cold and hot climates.
  We propose to add back $4 million to the State Energy Program, which 
produces enormous energy savings for schools, hospitals, and other 
partners with State government and the private sector. We propose to 
add another $20

[[Page H6010]]

million to energy conservation programs in transportation, buildings, 
and industry. Major innovations in lighting, windows, building design, 
industrial energy efficiency, and automotive technology can be traced 
to these programs. A recent study estimated that these types of 
programs save our economy over $170 billion per year.
  The proposed cuts will actually hurt real people and will hurt our 
Nation's important environmental, economic, and energy security goals. 
Weatherization helps low-income Americans through the installation of 
insulation and otherwise improving the energy efficiency of homes. On 
average, these improvements can save poor households over $200 a year 
in energy costs. That can make a huge difference in each family.
  The State Energy Program provides leveraging of funds to conduct 
energy improvements in schools and hospitals so that more money can go 
into education and health care. This program reaches into small 
business and homes to reduce energy costs and apply innovative 
technologies to solve our energy challenges.
  Our amendment is supported by a broad coalition, Mr. Chairman, of 
low-income advocates, business groups, and energy and environmental 
groups, including the National Association of State Energy Officials, 
the National Community Action Foundation, the National Association of 
State Community Services Programs, the National Association of State 
and Utility Consumer Advocates, the American Council for an Energy 
Efficient Economy, the Alliance to Save Energy, the U.S. Public 
Interest Research Group, the Substantial Energy Coalition, the Sierra 
club, and the list goes on.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Skaggs-Fox amendment and place a 
higher priority on people, our environment, and our national energy 
strategy.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, this Congress has failed to adequately 
support energy efficiency programs that work for the American people. 
This is a failure born of shortsightedness and is particularly 
troublesome given the challenges our Nation confronts in the next 
century. With regions around the world competing to develop the most 
efficient economies possible, we are holding ourselves back in this 
race by declining to support energy conservation.
  The Department of Energy's renewable energy and efficiency programs 
have been extremely successful. These programs have saved American 
consumers billions, and I underscore the word billions, of dollars in 
utility bills. They have made housing more affordable for low and 
moderate income families, and these vital programs have helped 
communities nationwide reduce air pollution levels that burden local 
industry and threaten public health.
  The evidence is clear, energy efficiency is a wise investment, an 
investment with substantial return for consumers, business and the 
environment. Every dollar cut from energy efficiency programs 
represents a lost opportunity to make our buildings and motor vehicles 
more efficient and less costly for manufacturers and owners. These cuts 
in energy funding take dollars directly out of the pockets of our 
constituents.
  I believe that the American people want government that works. They 
want a government that saves money and improves our quality of life. 
The amendment before us will restore adequate funding for programs that 
achieve these important goals.
  Mr. Chairman, a wise man once said that those who fail to see the 
forest through the trees are doomed to get lost in the woods. We are 
lost indeed. I ask all my colleagues to support the Skaggs-Fox 
amendment so that we may find a way to a cleaner environment and a 
stronger economy.
  I ask simply that we look at the heat waves that are affecting our 
cities across this Nation, how it is we are handing out simple fans to 
people and how many senior citizens are suffering because of lack of 
energy efficiency to the point where they will not put on their air 
conditioning system because the energy costs are so hard for them to 
burden. That is but one example across our Nation. From Massachusetts 
to Illinois to California to Texas and Florida, energy efficiency is 
important if we are going to deal with global change.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this committee over the last number of years has 
already reduced the fossil energy funding by 30 percent over the last 3 
years. Over the same period, we have increased conservation funding by 
14 percent.
  I represent an area which has extreme coal reserves. We had 10 years 
ago 12,000 coal miners. We have today 2,500 coal miners. They do not 
work in eastern Pennsylvania. They work in western Pennsylvania.
  We have done everything we could to increase the efficiency of 
burning coal. We have 600 years of coal deposits so we are trying to 
find ways to use this energy resource. We right now are more dependent 
on foreign oil than we were in 1974 when I came to Congress.
  We actually had long lines. We had to line up at a gas station to get 
gas in part of the time when I first came to Congress because of the 
shortage. Gasoline prices were over $2.00, and at the time the Saudis 
told us, you had better increase your fossil fuel research, do it more 
efficiently or you are not going to have the reserves, you are not 
going to burn coal efficiently and consequently you are going to depend 
on us more and more.
  We started a program. Because we could not work fast enough, we were 
not as efficient as quickly as we would like, we have not been able to 
accomplish our goal. On the other hand, we have come up with what we 
feel is reasonable funding over a long period of time so that when this 
oil from overseas dries up, we will have the reserves and the efficient 
energy from coal that we need.
  If we have further cuts in fossil energy, it will result in increased 
emissions and increased energy consumption due to continued reliance on 
outdated technology.
  We have done a marvelous job over the years in reducing emissions. In 
the area I represent, in all of western Pennsylvania, as a matter of 
fact, you had big globs of coal dust and steel deposits, iron ore 
deposits on the automobiles at one time. We have cleaned all that up. 
Ninety-eight percent of what goes in the air has been cleaned up 
substantially, and this has come about because of the research that we 
have done.
  This would be a drastic blow to the areas that are doing research on 
fossil energy if we were to cut the money from this area to increase 
conservation.
  So I would ask the Members to consider very carefully that we have 
these massive deposits of coal which we need to increase the efficiency 
and effectiveness, and the only way we can do it is by fossil fuel 
research. We want to continue that program. I would hope we would 
defeat this amendment.

                             {time}  1545.

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make clear that the amendment that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) and I are proposing does not 
touch the $113 that is in the bill for coal. It deals with oil recovery 
research and the gas turbine program, a big piece of which was once 
managed by Westinghouse, which I think now has been sold off to a 
foreign company, Seimans. So we are trying to look for the most bang 
for the buck and are not going after the coal account.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate what the 
gentleman is saying. Even though that company was sold off with less 
than 50 percent to Seimans, it will still be run by an American 
company. Of course, that research ties in. We are continually trying to 
work with fossil fuel, oil research and so forth to increase the 
efficiency of these resources in the United States. So that is the 
reason I am so concerned about cutting fossil research.
  Mr. SKAGGS. If the gentleman would yield further, I do not think we 
are in disagreement at all about the goal. I believe it can be 
demonstrated that the kind of payback we get, already demonstrated by 
technology in use in the economy, has really made a much greater 
contribution toward oil independence, for instance, than is likely

[[Page H6011]]

to come from the other programs that we are cutting.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know the gentleman 
may think that, but we are over 50 percent dependent today. Then we 
were 34 percent dependent. So it is all relative, in how dependent we 
are.
  In the short term the gentleman may be right. But, long-term, we 
could have a breakthrough with one of these research projects and 
reduce the emissions and increase the efficiency substantially. So we 
think this is a counterproductive amendment, and we would hope Members 
would vote against it.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Fox-Skaggs amendment. The 
committee's recommendation for energy conservation is over $630 
million. This is an increase of 14 percent above the 1996 level. By 
comparison, the other Department of Energy programs in the bill, fossil 
energy research, Strategic Petroleum Reserve operations and the Naval 
Petroleum Reserve operations have been decreased by 34 percent since 
1996.
  The General Accounting Office has been monitoring the use of funds in 
the Energy Conservation Program and reports that there is more than 
$265 million in funding appropriated in prior years for energy 
conservation programs that is yet to be spent by DOE. That is on top of 
the $630 million recommended by the committee for fiscal year 1999.
  I know there are those who say that fossil energy research is bad, 
but energy conservation and energy efficiency research is good. Let me 
remind my colleagues that traditional fossil fuels will continue to 
account for the vast majority of our energy needs for the foreseeable 
future. Improved technology for extracting and using fossil fuels will 
do more to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions than most of 
the programs funded under the energy conservation account.
  The advanced turbine system program has great potential for improving 
efficiency and lowering emissions. The portion of this program that has 
traditionally been funded in the energy conservation account receives 
great support; however, the portion traditionally funded in the fossil 
energy account does not. That just does not make sense.
  Again, we have that old false argument: fossil is bad, conservation 
is good. The fossil energy research program, the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve operation and the Naval Petroleum Reserve operation have all 
tightened their belts. They are focused; they have streamlined their 
operations and substantially reduced their appropriations requirements 
over the past 3 years.
  On the other hand, the energy conservationists have displayed an 
attitude that ``we want to continue to do everything we have done in 
the past, and any new programs that require more funding.'' That 
attitude is unacceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee has done the responsible job of providing 
funding for energy conservation programs. The proposed offsets to 
increase energy conservation funding are totally unacceptable, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat this amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, when I was a kid, my mother always told me to work 
smarter, not harder. For the largest part of the 20th Century, the 
United States has worked harder, not smarter. We have fought making 
automobiles more efficient, we have fought making homes more efficient, 
we have fought making industry more efficient because we felt we lived 
in a world of inexhaustible energy.
  We also believed simultaneously that this fossil fuel or nuclear fuel 
which we were consuming would have no impact upon the environment. 
Well, it turns out that there is a negative impact on both the economy 
and upon the environment if we use fuels that are not as efficient, not 
as smart, as those that are the best available.
  But what has happened over the years is that the energy conservation 
strategy, one which over the last 20 years since the first oil shock 
has proven to be very effective as a mechanism for having us rethink 
our relationship with energy, still is battled by the forces of old 
energy, shall we call it, and that old energy is so powerful that 
notwithstanding their dominant role in the provision of energy in our 
country and around the world, they still believe that they should be 
beneficiaries of handouts inside of the Federal budget.
  Now, what the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) is offering this 
afternoon is a very modest amendment, one which will adjust the Federal 
budget in terms of our priorities so that the energy conservation, the 
``working smarter, not harder'' strategy which does not get the rest of 
the subsidies, the rest of the benefits that the other more powerful 
energy industries in America receive, move just a little bit of this 
money, just a very small amount of the money over into this agenda. 
This is ultimately the way in which, it seems to me, we should be 
wanting to deal with Kyoto, that we should be wanting to deal with this 
global warming issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the CO2 that is emitted up into the 
atmosphere is a relatively small percentage, yes, of the overall 
atmospheric gasses, but because it creates a cover over our sky, it 
creates a greenhouse effect, as the earth's warming sends up these rays 
which then are reflected back down.
  Now, how long do we want to go? How many weather forecasts are we 
going to have to see before we begin actually investing in an 
alternative strategy; not displacing the old strategy, but having a 
better and more sensible mix for the 21st Century?
  That is what the Skaggs amendment is all about. It is moving our 
energy agenda to the 21st Century, so that we have the proper strategy 
to deal with these environmental issues, and, ultimately, economic 
issues which will face our country.
  So I congratulate the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) for his 
amendment, and I hope that it is adopted by all the Members here today. 
There could be no more important amendment. In fact, if the President 
was ever going to veto a bill, I would hope it would be over an issue 
like this, because it is so directly related to the future of our 
relationship between energy and the environment.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's support for 
the amendment. I know the gentleman is extending his remarks to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure Members understood, I am 
sure the gentleman from Massachusetts does, that these accounts in this 
bill this year have been cut by about $24 million under fiscal year 
1998, and that is a very important fact to keep in mind.
  There was some reference to the fact that we had increased funding 
here. We have not. The bill proposes to cut it by $24 million. The 
amendment we are offering would make that up plus a little bit more, 
but it is not as if it is anything more, as the gentleman pointed out, 
than a modest change.
  Finally, I am sure the gentleman's mother instructed him as well that 
the cheapest energy is the energy you save, which is what this 
amendment is all about.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
absolutely correct. When we pass legislation out here mandating better 
appliance standards, after all, what is a utility? What is a coal or 
oil or nuclear power plant? All it is is the combined demand of 
refrigerators and stoves and toasters. If we make them more efficient, 
we reduce the need for us to have to pollute the atmosphere for the 
children of the next generation. Support the Skaggs amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that we get the facts out. 
The committee has heard all of this and we made a balanced judgment. We 
already have $265 million in that account for efficiency from prior 
years that is unspent. You add that to the fact that in our bill 
efficiency gets twice as much as fossil research. With the $265 million 
that is unspent, energy efficiency would have three times as much as 
fossil.

[[Page H6012]]

  We need balance. Obviously the committee does not quarrel with 
efficiency, or we would not have given double the amount of money to 
efficiency that we gave to fossil. But, on the other hand, we want to 
have some security.
  We are spending $200 million a year on the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve and the oil that is there. Why? To be secure from oil 
shortfalls from the Middle East. We fought a war called Desert Storm. 
Do you think we would have been there had there not been oil under the 
desert? No way.
  So there are a lot of factors that have to be considered. Obviously 
efficiency is important, but security is also important.
  I am struck by the fact that for every barrel of oil we take out, we 
leave two in the ground. Now, with research on fossil energy, we will 
improve that record. If we could just get two barrels out for every 
barrel we leave in the ground, we would have a lot more oil, and we 
would be a lot less dependent on foreign sources for petroleum.
  It is a matter of balance. Efficiency is great, but I likewise say 
fossil research is great. Some of the money that would be in the Skaggs 
amendment and the Fox amendment would go to the big three auto makers. 
Do you think they need to have additional money to do research so they 
can make their vehicles more efficient? We found out that simply by 
mandating the miles per gallon, that we are getting the efficiency and 
competition from around the world that has brought that about. They do 
not need to have additional subsidies.
  Where does this money come from? For those of you that are concerned 
about the environment, it comes out of the Bureau of Land Management's 
Wild Horse and Burro Program. That program has enough problems without 
reducing their funding. Instead of taking money out of that, we ought 
to see how we can better manage the BLM wild horse program. It takes 
money out of the turbine program. Why are we spending money on turbine 
research? So we can use our fossil energy sources more efficiently.
  Anyone will tell you we are going to be dependent on coal, we are 
going to be dependent on petroleum, we are going to be dependent on the 
fossil sources. So let us concentrate on not only efficiency, but how 
to make fossil energy more efficient, in getting it out of the ground 
and making it available.
  The turbine program is very effective, as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has pointed out. The other programs in fossil 
I think are giving us a better handle on resources.
  When you look down the road with a growing economy and a growing 
population, the need for fossil resources will be much larger, and if 
we do not put money in fossil research, we are going to become more and 
more dependent on other nations, other sources, for our security, 
because petroleum is essential to every facet of life.
  Therefore, I think it would be very unwise as national policy to not 
just double efficiency, but because of the $265 million in unspent 
funds, we would triple it.

                              {time}  1600

  I think it ought to be 50-50, frankly. Fifty percent on efficiency, 
50 percent on fossil, and perhaps we should have an amendment that 
takes some out of energy efficiency and puts it in fossil.
  Mr. Chairman, we have tried to strike a reasonable balance in the 
committee, and the Members endorsed this policy as we have it today. I 
urge the Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Vote for security in 
terms of our access to petroleum domestically, our access to the more 
efficient way to use our coal resources, and at the same time recognize 
that we have a balance in terms of efficiency.
  I think the bill is a common sense, responsible approach, and I urge 
Members to vote ``no'' on the Skaggs-Fox amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I had not originally intended 
to speak on this amendment because it involves dear friends on both 
sides of the issue. But I had intended to speak on the importance of 
the fossil energy R&D programs which, in the Committee on Science, 
which I have the privilege of serving on, we have consistently tried to 
support over the years. We have recognized the value of increased 
efficiency brought about by research on fossil energy.
  I am also one of the greatest exponents of energy conservation R&D 
because I understand the importance of saving energy.
  So what we have here is a situation which requires balance. Now, on 
balance, I am inclined to support the position taken by the chairman of 
the committee. I would point out that what he has had to do in the 
House is to take a substantially smaller allocation than in the Senate 
and make that allocation cover in some reasonable way a number of 
accounts which have to be covered. Now, obviously, his decision is 
somewhat short of absolute perfection, but I am not sure that we have 
the wisdom in this body to achieve absolute perfection.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) said, that the allocation for fossil energy R&D only represents 
half as much as the allocation for energy conservation, and it may not 
be wise to take even more from fossil energy R&D in order to increase 
some of these very valuable energy conservation R&D programs.
  I would suggest that we focus on an end-game strategy whereby in 
conference with the Senate we may be able to reach agreement on some 
slight increases in both of these accounts. It will not be a great 
deal, I am sure, but we are about $75 million under what the Senate has 
appropriated in these 2 areas. I think that the Chairman might be able 
to figure some way to squeeze an extra few million into these accounts 
as the bill comes out of the conference so we can come a little bit 
closer to the Senate figures. This is what I am going to urge and I 
think it is a reasonable approach.
  I would be very concerned if I had to make a judgment between how to 
divide scarce dollars between these two accounts, because both of them 
are very important to me. We have had to face a situation where the 
committee has recommended considerably less than the President has 
recommended for both of these accounts. If I had my way, I would accept 
what the President recommends on both of these accounts. However, I am 
unlikely to have my way.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect for the gentleman's 
analytic insights in all of this and was privileged to serve on his 
committee for a few years, so I hesitate to challenge him in this 
respect.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman hesitates, but 
he will go ahead.
  Mr. SKAGGS. But I will go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
  I assume the gentleman does recognize that we are already getting 
huge payoffs, real money, real energy saved presently from the 
conservation and efficiency efforts, whereas the prospects for eventual 
savings down the road for some of these other programs in the fossil 
area are just that. We believe they will produce these results, but 
they really do not have anything like the track record on energy saved 
presently that we are able to get from these dollars going into 
conservation.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
point of view on this, and I would not quarrel with it, but I would 
point out that there are other factors here. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), in his usual eloquent way, pointed out that 
we have a situation here where energy conservation is being battled by 
the forces of old energy, old energy being of course fossil energy. 
Well, being sort of old myself, I think I tend to come down on the side 
of the forces of old energy. There are some old people working in these 
old energy fields that need jobs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Brown of California was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, there is a matter of the 
social dislocation caused by the impact of what

[[Page H6013]]

we are spending here, and I recognize that, as I think all of us should 
recognize, that in the long run, fossil energy is what we may have to 
depend upon when all of the more esoteric forms of energy have 
contributed as much as they can to our economy.
  Coal, as a practical matter of fact, is still the largest source of 
energy that we have in this country or in the world, and we might as 
well learn to get the absolute, most effective use of that coal in the 
long run without neglecting of course the importance of saving energy, 
which I cannot quarrel with.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, our amendment does not touch coal.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I accept that. Now let us get together and 
fight to get a little bit more money for these accounts when we go to 
conference with the Senate, and I trust the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Skaggs) will be a conferee.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do so to express in the strongest possible terms 
support for the Fox-Skaggs amendment which will restore needed funds 
for energy conservation programs, including low-income weatherization. 
That is very important, if one comes from the northeast part of the 
United States. Even with these added funds, the programs will still be 
funded at significantly lower levels than they were 4 years ago.
  Now, I know it is not easy to be in the position of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), as the chairman, to deal with all of the 
competing requests. I think he has done a magnificent job overall, but 
I think the bill needs a little tweaking and I would think that he 
would not mind a little tweaking.
  These programs are needed now more than ever before. We are actually 
more dependent today in 1998 on foreign oil than we were at the time of 
the Arab oil embargo, and we know even more how burning fossil fuels 
can harm the environment. That is a serious consideration, and we are 
in a more competitive economic environment, which makes efficiency of 
the essence.
  These conservation programs take a sensible approach to addressing 
those needs. They do not mandate any actions; they underwrite efforts 
that create new methods to save energy, help get those methods put into 
practice, and particularly important, help poor Americans take 
advantage of these methods.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to do what they have done in the 
past and restore funding for these important programs. Let me commend 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox), particularly. He has been a 
real leader in this effort since he first came to the Congress, and I 
think emphasizing programs that try to demonstrate that government is 
compassionate and can appreciate the problems of those who are in 
special circumstances is very important, and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox), has done that. I think it is also very 
important to encourage the type of research into energy conservation 
that we are calling for here.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, would not the gentleman agree, though, that 
if we spend 3 dollars on conservation efficiency, for every 1 dollar we 
spend on fossil research, that that is a pretty hefty balance in favor 
of efficiency. They have to go together, because the boilers, for 
example, will allow us to burn coal, get more Btus out of a lump of 
coal, and it gives us more security rather than depending on imports. 
We are faced with 60 percent of our petroleum coming from offshore here 
in the very near future, and we do not want that to happen.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, that is a cause for real concern, and as 
my dear friend and colleague knows, I have been a supporter of the 
clean coal technology program that some of my friends who probably were 
labeled green are somewhat offended by that, and I never could quite 
understand the logic.
  But let me say in terms of this amendment, this bill here today, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox), and the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Skaggs), have done an outstanding job. They deserve our support.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. 
However well-intentioned, the gentlemen's turbine research offset is 
unfortunate.
  In 1992, the Federal Government entered into a commitment with the 
Nation's gas turbine developers to develop a new generation of turbine. 
It would break through the temperature barriers that limit today's 
turbines; it would be more efficient, it would be more economical, and 
it would be much cleaner, so clean that it could be placed in the most 
environmentally constrained regions of the country.
  Together, government and industry took the risk, and it is about to 
yield terrific results. The United States is on the verge of having 
turbine technology that no competitor can touch. In the coming year, 
the first prototypes will be assembled. In the year 2000 they will be 
tested, fulfilling the government's 1992 commitment. By 2001, the 
United States will be building and using a turbine that will be 
superior to any other in the world. Once that is done, our Nation will 
have a large share of what is expected to be a huge and growing market 
for advanced turbine technologies.
  As the program has progressed, the developers who moved forward have 
been expected to pick up larger and larger shares of the costs. As the 
concepts have matured, industry's cost-sharing has exceeded 60 percent. 
Although industry now provides the major funding, our government's 
commitment must be honored.
  If Congress withdraws its support, U.S. leadership in this field will 
be jeopardized. It is possible the program can be completed without 
government backing, but no one knows how long that would take, and we 
would run the risk of having this program caught up, passed up by 
foreign competition.
  But if we honor our commitment, when the program is completed, we 
will have the best turbine in the market. Government support is still a 
critical part of this program. It is still a part of our commitment of 
1992, and therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Skaggs 
amendment on energy efficiency and conservation programs.
  I appreciate the difficulty in balancing the critical needs of our 
country in preparing the Interior Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 
1999. However, today I rise in strong support of the Skaggs amendment 
to restore much needed funding for our country's energy conservation 
programs. Of particular interest to my home state of Florida is the 
recommended $10 million increase in funding for building technologies.
  The windows and glazing programs, which is funded through the 
Building Technology Category, provides funding for a promising new 
technology with enormous energy saving potential for the commercial 
windows market. I am hopeful that the Skaggs amendment will lead to a 
funding increase in the windows and glazing programs, which would allow 
the further development of plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition 
(PECVD) techniques for electrochromic technologies. This technology 
provides a flexible means of controlling the amount of heat and light 
that pass through a glass surface providing significant energy 
conservation opportunities. The Department of Energy estimates that 
placing this technology on all commercial building windows in the 
United States would produce yearly energy savings equivalent of the 
amount of oil that passes through the Alaskan pipeline each year.
  In recognition of the importance of this technology, the State of 
Florida has provided over $1.2 million toward the advancement of PECVD 
techniques for electrochromic applications. The program is being 
undertaken in conjunction with the University of South Florida and 
utilizes the expertise and patented technology of the National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. The State of Florida's program 
has made significant progress toward making electrochromic windows a 
reality. This program is an excellent example of successful technology 
transfer from a national laboratory as well as an example of a 
successful public/private partnership.
  The Florida program is consistent with industry priorities and goals 
of the Department of Energy's windows program. Earlier this year, 
twelve other members of the Florida

[[Page H6014]]

Congressional Delegation joined me in sending a letter to Chairman 
Regula and Ranking Member Yates in support of PECVD funding to help 
further the development of this important technology. A significant 
portion of our country is experiencing the hottest summer on record, I 
believe this only helps illustrate the importance of our conservation 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Skaggs for his commitment to energy 
conservation in his years in this House, and I urge my colleagues to 
join me in support of the Skaggs amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula), chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, today I intended to offer an amendment to provide 
funding to prevent the spread of a serious threat to our Nation's urban 
ecology. Action to stem the incursion of these pests is required 
immediately if we are to control and isolate this ecological hazard.
  Humans are not directly threatened by this insect; nevertheless, the 
flora that makes our communities livable and aesthetically pleasing 
places to inhabit is imperiled.
  The Asian Longhorn is a tree killer. The beetle prefers to gestate in 
the leafy, deciduous trees that line roads and avenues in urban and 
suburban neighborhoods. In killing our trees, the beetles implant their 
larvae in the bark of healthy trees. The larvae feeds off the tree's 
wood to grow, eventually felling their hosts, and then moving on to 
repeat this devastating cycle elsewhere.
  The ability of this insect to multiply and spread rapidly throughout 
our entire region is what makes the prompt action of our government, in 
conjunction with local authorities, so necessary. Currently, a 12-block 
area on Chicago's north side has been infected with the Asian Longhorn. 
Local ecologists fear that the zone of infestation may be larger than 
this area and are currently conducting expansive searches throughout 
the city to identify other infestations.
  Dealing with this threat is no easy task. The remediation of this 
intruder requires a painful solution. The felling of inspected trees is 
the only proven means of preventing the spread of Asian Longhorn 
throughout America.

                              {time}  1615

  To date, there is no known usable pesticide to eradicate the beetles.
  Sadly, infected trees will have to come down. In parts of New York 
City, the site of an early infestation last year, more than 1,000 trees 
were felled to prevent the beetle's spread. The Federal Government 
provided technical support and $500,000 in assistance to New York with 
replanting efforts in affected communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge us to do the same in Illinois. The amendment I 
intended to offer would have appropriated $1 million for beetle 
eradication and the replacing of trees in infected areas. I feel 
strongly that our potential spread of this foreign intruder and the 
danger it poses to our urban ecology warrant Federal assistance to 
avert ecological disaster.
  Our memory of past ecological disasters should serve us well in 
rising to the challenges presented by the Asian Longhorn. As all baby 
boomers remember, our Nation's trees were visited by another alien 
pestilence in the 1960s. During that decade, Dutch Elm Disease killed 
hundreds of thousands of graceful elm trees in cities and towns 
throughout America. The quality of life was diminished. Property values 
declined.
  Since that period, many urban areas have never recovered their 
forestry resources. We can ill afford another blight of this nature.
  In Chicago, an aggressive tree planting program works to make the 
city green once again. The Asian Longhorn beetle threatens to derail 
our community's effort to make a beautiful, ecologically safe 
landscape.
  Stopping this pest before it spreads and replacing the trees lost to 
accomplish this goal are enterprises worth funding by Congress. Future 
generations will thank us for our foresight.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Gutierrez) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, it was in the early 1960s, I think 1963 or 1964, that 
the United States was invaded by Beatles from abroad. It was a 
different kind of ``beetle'' back then. Now, we have beetles in the 
congressional district that I represent. Asian Longhorn beetles.
  Mr. Chairman, let me echo some of the comments that the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) just made. Last week, the Asian Longhorn 
beetles were found infecting a dozen blocks in the Ravenswood 
neighborhood in Chicago's North Side in my congressional district. City 
officials and scientists from the United States Department of 
Agriculture are still trying to determine the extent of the 
infestation.
  This threat is very real. This beetle came to the United States in 
wooden packing crates from Asia. A few years ago the Asian Longhorn 
beetle turned up in New York. It killed thousands of trees and cost 
more than $4.3 million to kill them.
  Experts tell us this invader could wreak the same kind of destruction 
in Chicago and, if allowed to spread, pose a threat to hardwood forests 
around the country.
  Because this problem was just discovered, we did not have time to 
work with the subcommittee to find a way to address this issue. But we 
would appreciate any effort that the chairman could make as this bill 
goes to conference with the other body to find funding or a way to help 
the City of Chicago address this problem.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will not offer my 
amendment today, but instead will ask that the honorable gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula) chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the 
Committee on Appropriations, encourage the Forest Service to consider 
the situation in Chicago concerning the Asian Longhorn beetle 
infestation, and urge the Forest Service to devote necessary resources 
to eradicate the beetle and help the City of Chicago quickly replace 
the trees lost during this undertaking.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gutierrez was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I might say to the gentleman from Illinois, 
I am very sympathetic because Ohio's elms have been devastated by the 
Dutch Elm disease, which is an infestation carried by beetles. The 
gentleman understands that limited resources are available to the 
Forest Service for this purpose. However, I recognize the threat posed 
by the Asian Longhorn beetle, and we will encourage the Forest Service 
to examine this situation, along with other similar problems, because 
one of the things that makes our cities beautiful are the trees.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        wildland fire management

       For necessary expenses for fire preparedness, suppression 
     operations, emergency rehabilitation; and hazardous fuels 
     reduction by the Department of the Interior, $286,895,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 
     $6,950,000 shall be for the renovation or construction of 
     fire facilities: Provided, That such funds are also available 
     for repayment of advances to other appropriation accounts 
     from which funds were previously transferred for such 
     purposes: Provided further, That unobligated balances of 
     amounts previously appropriated to the ``Fire Protection'' 
     and ``Emergency Department of the Interior Firefighting

[[Page H6015]]

     Fund'' may be transferred and merged with this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That persons hired pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 
     1469 may be furnished subsistence and lodging without cost 
     from funds available from this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 1856d, sums received 
     by a Bureau or office of the Department of the Interior for 
     fire protection rendered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1856 et seq., 
     Protection of United States Property, may be credited to the 
     appropriation from which funds were expended to provide that 
     protection, and are available without fiscal year limitation.


                    central hazardous materials fund

       For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior 
     and any of its component offices and bureaus for the remedial 
     action, including associated activities, of hazardous waste 
     substances, pollutants, or contaminants pursuant to the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), 
     $10,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, sums recovered from or 
     paid by a party in advance of or as reimbursement for 
     remedial action or response activities conducted by the 
     Department pursuant to section 107 or 113(f) of such Act, 
     shall be credited to this account to be available until 
     expended without further appropriation: Provided further, 
     That such sums recovered from or paid by any party are not 
     limited to monetary payments and may include stocks, bonds or 
     other personal or real property, which may be retained, 
     liquidated, or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary and 
     which shall be credited to this account.


                              construction

       For construction of buildings, recreation facilities, 
     roads, trails, and appurtenant facilities, $6,975,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                       payments in lieu of taxes

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20, 
     1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), $120,000,000, of 
     which not to exceed $400,000 shall be available for 
     administrative expenses: Provided, That no payment shall be 
     made to otherwise eligible units of local government if the 
     computed amount of the payment is less than $100.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Sanders:
       In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR--
     Bureau of Land Management--payments in lieu of taxes'', after 
     the first dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased 
     by $20,000,000)''.
       In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY--fossil 
     energy research and development'', after the dollar amount, 
     insert the following: ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is also 
supported by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and does two important 
things that I believe most Members of this body agree with.
  First, it deals with a very serious problem of underfunded mandates, 
of forcing citizens in close to 1,800 counties in 49 States to pay more 
in local property taxes than they should be paying because the Federal 
Government has fallen very far behind in its payment in lieu of taxes 
on federally owned land.
  In my own State of Vermont, over 50 towns in our southern counties 
are affected, including Bennington, Rutland, Addison, Windham, and 
Windsor Counties. This amendment addresses the overall problem of 
underfunded payments in lieu of taxes by increasing funding for this 
program by $20 million, from $120 to $140 million.
  Mr. Chairman, in real dollars, PILT payments to counties and towns 
all across this Nation have been decreasing for a very long time. In 
real dollars since 1980, appropriations for payment in lieu of taxes 
have decreased by nearly $60 million, a one-third decline. And while 
this amendment will not rectify by any means the entire problem, it 
will at least allow communities around this country to know that we 
understand their problem and that we are making some real attempts to 
address it by appropriating an additional $20 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I should add that the authorization level for PILT 
today is approximately $257 million, over twice the appropriation 
level. In other words, the authorizers understand the problems facing 
the communities, but unfortunately in recent years the appropriation 
process has not followed suit.
  Mr. Chairman, the PILT program was established to address the fact 
that the Federal Government does not pay taxes on the land that it 
owns. These Federal lands can include National Forests, National Parks, 
Fish and Wildlife Refuges, and land owned by the Bureau of Land 
Management.
  Like local property taxes, PILT payments are used to pay for school 
budgets, law enforcement, search and rescue, fire fighting, parks and 
recreation, and other municipal expenses.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the important point that I think has to be 
made. There has been a lot of talk in this body in recent years about 
fiscal responsibility and about devolution, respect for counties, 
towns, and cities; saying we are the Federal Government, we have all 
the power, but you have got to respect the other agencies of government 
throughout America.
  If we are serious about these concepts, then it is time for Congress 
to pay its bills. That is what this issue is about. The U.S. Government 
owns property and we should begin making the payments in lieu of taxes 
that we are supposed to.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would begin to address the unfunded 
mandate by increasing the payments in lieu of taxes program to 
approximately where it was 10 years ago. That is all we are trying to 
do.
  Mr. Chairman, the $50 million that we are using for these purposes, 
the purposes include $20 million for payment in lieu of taxes, $30 
million for deficit reduction. Over a $5 trillion national debt; this 
amendment begins to address that issue. The funds would be transferred 
and offset from the Fossil Energy Research and Development Program.
  In this regard, let me quote from the report of the fiscal year 1997 
budget resolution, the Republican resolution. And this is what that 
resolution says, and I quote:
  The Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars on research 
and development since the oil crisis in 1973 triggered this activity. 
Returns on this investment have not been cost-effective, particularly 
for applied research and development which industry has ample incentive 
to undertake. Some of this activity is simply corporate welfare for the 
oil, gas, and utility industries. Much of it duplicates what industry 
is already doing. Some has gone to fund technology in which the market 
has no interest. End of quote.
  That is the Republican budget resolution, not Bernie Sanders.
  I should mention, Mr. Chairman, that over the years we have put $15 
billion into fossil energy programs. That is a lot of money.
  Let me conclude by saying this. This amendment is endorsed by the 
National Association of Counties, by the Taxpayers for Common Sense, by 
Friends of the Earth, by Rural Public Lands Council, by the Sierra 
Club, by USPERG and Public Citizens.
  This amendment is good environmental policy and it is good public 
policy in the sense that it tells communities all over America that we 
are going to pay our bills.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment to help 
accomplish what I believe is long overdue, to begin addressing an 
inequity to the taxpayers in over 1,700 counties whose homes are 
located near lands owned by the Federal Government.
  In fiscal year 1998 my home State of Kentucky is anticipating an 
estimated decrease of $62,000 in PILT funding to eligible county 
governments. While I do not doubt the benefits of continued investments 
in fossil fuel developments, I remind my colleagues that we are looking 
at an authorized program that is only funded at an estimated level of 
46 percent.
  In my own district, it is difficult to justify to the good citizen of 
Edmonson County, the home of Mammoth Cave National Park, that it must 
accept a decrease in PILT funds while the Congress continues to fund 
$320 million to research activities and programs that ought to be borne 
mostly by the private sector.
  The fact is PILT funding is critically important to county 
governments that must rely on these annual payments to provide many 
basic services to their citizens, from education to solid waste 
management.
  These services, by the way, often benefit the Federal lands and 
facilities.

[[Page H6016]]

 In fact, Edmonson County today is providing a costly 24-hour ambulance 
service for the National Park Service, as well as its own residents.
  Unfortunately, Edmonson County was one of 56 counties in my State of 
Kentucky that experienced a decrease in PILT payments in 1997. With an 
annual budget of $629,000, a cut of $3,000 translates into either 
reduced public services or higher local taxes. In a county with a per 
capita income of less than $7,200, the importance of PILT funds cannot 
be overestimated.
  These dollars are stretched to help pay county employees' salaries, 
administrative expenses, and the modest salaries paid to the local 
magistrates. At a time when Congress is encouraging State and local 
governments to accept more responsibility, an increase of PILT payments 
becomes more essential to help provide public services and much-needed 
relief to local taxpayers in Edmonson County and the thousands of other 
counties in which Federal lands are located.
  However, let me assure my colleagues that the case of Edmonson County 
is not a unique situation. Without the increased funding proposed in 
the Sanders amendment, hundreds of county governments will again be 
shortchanged by the Federal Government. In the current fiscal year, an 
estimated 190 counties will have to absorb cuts in PILT funding greater 
than $100. Even worse, 11 States will see reductions of $1,000 or more.
  I want to remind my colleagues that the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act 
calls on the Federal Government to compensate local governments to 
offset losses in property taxes due to Federal ownership of lands 
within their boundaries. The 105th Congress now has the opportunity to 
finally honor that commitment and to help reduce our deficit. A vote 
for the Sanders amendment is a vote for taxpayer fairness.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, not because of 
the merits of the proposal put forth by the sponsors but because of the 
offsets that they are proposing.
  They are proposing $50 million in reductions in the Fossil Fuel 
Research and Development Program. I say, Mr. Chairman, we in this 
country are dependent upon research and development in our fossil fuel 
program. We have a tremendous problem in this country in that we are 
dependent upon foreign oil. My colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), highlighted that a few moments ago.
  In the United States we purchase 6.8 billion barrels of oil per year. 
Half of that is imported. That situation is probably only going to get 
worse with the recent discovery of oil in the Caspian Sea. We should 
not be reducing research and development into our fossil fuel program; 
we should be increasing it.
  We now have the technology to convert coal and waste coal into liquid 
fuels; however, that needs to be perfected. As was mentioned many times 
during the debate on the last amendment, we have between 300 and 500 
million years of coal reserves right here in the United States. That is 
more in coal reserves than the rest world has in oil reserves. I ask my 
colleagues to think about that.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to be dependent upon our coal reserves, 
we need to invest in research and development so we can perfect 
technologies that we already know and so we can be looking into the 
next century to find alternative uses for the huge coal deposits that 
we have in this country.

                              {time}  1630

  I am very proud to represent northeastern Pennsylvania, where we have 
the largest anthracite coal deposit in North America, arguably the 
largest deposit in the world. It is a high Btu, low sulfur fuel that we 
cannot continue to turn our backs on by reducing the investment in 
research and development in fossil fuels. Because, quite frankly, that 
is what we have been doing over the last several appropriation cycles.
  So I encourage all my colleagues to reject this amendment, to 
continue to invest in our own natural resources so we can be prepared 
for the next century.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentleman from Minnesota, (Mr. Oberstar), 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), and the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Cannon) for their hard work and diligence on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor I rise in strong support of this 
amendment, which would restore desperately needed funding for the PILT 
program. Each year thousands of counties across the Nation lose out on 
millions of dollars in property tax revenue simply because the Federal 
Government owns the property. In my district, the Federal Government 
owns large portions of the land. For example, approximately 70 percent 
of Gogebic County is in the Ottawa National Forest.
  Since the Federal Government does not pay property taxes on its own 
land, the PILT program was established to compensate our counties for 
the land the Federal Government owns. Since its adoption in 1976, the 
PILT program has neither kept pace with its authorized funding level 
nor with the true cost of providing services in support of Federal 
lands. In fact, the PILT program is currently funded at less than half 
of its authorized level.
  Rural counties rely on PILT payments to provide essential services, 
such as education, law enforcement, emergency fire and medical 
research, search and rescue, solid waste management, road maintenance, 
and other health and human services that need to be provided on Federal 
property. Without adequate funding for this program, rural counties 
will struggle to provide these vital services.
  Mr. Chairman, if the Federal Government was required to pay taxes on 
the property it owns like any other individual or corporation, it would 
have been delinquent a long time ago for failure to pay taxes. The 
Federal Government has decided that it is in the best interest of this 
Nation to own and protect and to keep certain land. This does not mean 
that we must penalize our local communities because they have the 
fortune that the Federal Government has jurisdiction over these lands. 
It is irresponsible for the Federal Government to take these lands off 
the tax roles and then not justly compensate these local communities.
  Mr. Chairman, this is only a small increase in the PILT program, but 
its impact and importance to rural counties is tremendous. In fact, Mr. 
Chairman, 49 of the 50 States receive PILT payments. I urge my 
colleagues to cast a vote for equity by voting in favor of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, once again I wish to thank the gentleman from Vermont 
for his authorship of this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
just want to add one point.
  The subsidies for fossil fuels are targeted in the Green Scissors 
1998 report, which is supported by organizations representing more than 
8.5 million environmentalists, taxpayers and deficit hawks. So this is 
a popular concept that we are addressing, and I thank the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his strong support.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words to speak in support of the Sanders amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases payments in lieu of taxes 
funding for counties and schools by $20 million for fiscal year 1999. 
More than 20 years ago this Congress recognized a serious inequity that 
existed in areas containing a high percentage of Federal property. 
Because the Federal Government does not pay taxes on its own property, 
these areas were left without any source of funding to provide for 
local schools and county services.
  In 1976, we attempted to correct this inequity and provided funding 
in the form of payments in lieu of taxes, or PILT payments. However, 
since providing these payments, this Congress has failed to fully fund 
the PILT program. Each year 1,789 communities in 49 States lose needed 
Federal payments due to the failure of the Federal Government to 
appropriately compensate

[[Page H6017]]

these communities for lost property tax revenue on federally owned 
lands. The Sanders amendment corrects this shortcoming and provides an 
increase of necessary funding for communities in my own State of 
California.
  To put this into perspective, many of the areas that will receive 
this funding were under water in January of 1997, when midwinter storms 
caused severe flooding. At that time the State of California suffered 
approximately $1.8 billion in damage. Each of the 10 counties in my 
district was declared a natural disaster area. The additional dollars 
in PILT payments are sorely needed to rebuild after the serious 
disaster.
  There are other reasons, however, to support this amendment. This 
money goes directly to local schools and rural counties who can least 
afford any loss of funding. In one California county recent funding 
losses have forced a school district to completely cut out 
extracurricular activities, including sports and field trips, food 
service for one of its elementary schools, library services, two-thirds 
of its transportation services, all fine arts programs, teacher 
training courses, its school nurse program and all capital 
expenditures.
  If these same cuts had been made in an urban and inner city area, 
lawsuits would have been filed and services leveled would have 
necessarily been restored.
  Mr. Chairman, we hear a lot of discussion over the need for Medicare 
and the need to provide medical services for many of our elderly 
residents. Before any of our citizens can receive Medicare or Medicaid 
assistance, they first must have roads to travel on to get to the 
hospitals, ambulances to carry them in, when needed, and hospitals to 
go to. By underfunding our rural counties, we have forced these 
counties to cut back on these kinds of county services.
  Other county services that have been cut include search and rescue, 
law enforcement, snow plowing, bridge maintenance and all local ground 
support for maintenance of Federal lands. If these county services were 
to go away, the Federal Government would not have an infrastructure in 
place to service its public lands. When visitors get lost on public 
lands, it is the county search and rescue that comes to their aid, and 
when visitors on public lands need police protection, that need is 
filled by county services.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Sanders amendment because it gives 
necessary assistance to counties otherwise left without a source of 
funding. I urge my colleagues to vote for public schools and county 
services by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California for his support and for his eloquent remarks. I would just 
mention, Mr. Chairman, that in terms of the offset that we are talking 
about, fossil energy programs have received over $15 billion in 1995 
dollars in Federal funding since 1974.
  Maybe it is about time we pay attention to the counties and the small 
towns in California and Vermont.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Vermont.
  The gentleman from Vermont is attempting to increase funding for the 
Payment in Lieu of Taxes program to reimburse localities for their lost 
tax revenue because of national parks, military installations and other 
Federal lands within their borders. This is an important issue, and the 
gentleman from Vermont and his colleagues raise some important 
arguments. I know that in my State of Pennsylvania there are some 
worthy local governments that are hoping to see a needed increase in 
their Payment in Lieu of Taxes. But I cannot support this amendment 
because of what is being cut in order to pay for this.
  The fossil energy program at the Department of Energy is very 
important for the work it does to support cost-shared research and 
development to make the energy resources we use the cleanest and 
cheapest they can be. This program is not very well known, except maybe 
here in the House around July of every year when it seems to be the 
most convenient and popular offset for a number of other important 
programs that deserve funding. But the fossil energy research at the 
Department of Energy is fulfilling the vital function of protecting our 
energy security, increasing efficiency, and making our energy use 
cleaner.
  Domestically, the simple fact is that U.S. resources, like oil, coal 
and natural gas, are the main sources we rely on. The Department of 
Energy's Energy Information Administration reports that 85 percent of 
our energy currently comes from fossil fuels. This figure will go up, 
not down, in the coming years. By 2015, 88 percent of the energy we 
consume will come from fossil fuels. Our national appetite for energy 
continues to grow and it is expected that by the year 2015 our energy 
needs will grow by almost 20 percent.
  Internationally, in the new post-Cold War world, I think we all know 
what a wide range of uncertainties that the U.S. faces that have the 
potential to disrupt our energy imports. Fossil energy research helps 
make us make the most of our domestic energy resources as well as 
stretch to the maximum the fuels we do import. Here at home, fossil 
energy is the biggest thing we have going, so we ought to make the most 
of it.
  Renewable fuel research, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, and a lot 
of other options make a lot of sense too, and I think we should do more 
work in those areas. But oil, natural gas and coal are what our 
domestic energy distribution is currently based on, and that fact is 
not going to change overnight no matter what advancements we make in 
using other energy sources.
  The emerging renewables, solar, wind and geothermal, currently supply 
less than 1 percent of the energy needs in the United States. I have 
nothing against these alternative energy sources, and I think they can 
help diversify our Nation's energy mix, but under any realistic 
scenario they will only supply a small fraction of our energy needs for 
the next decades. On the other hand, our Nation is going to rely more 
and more on natural gas in the future. It is a clean burning fuel, and 
it can solve many of our energy and environmental problems.
  But where are we going to get this gas and how much are we going to 
pay for it? We still need technological advancements to economically 
produce the trillions of cubic feet of natural gas located in 
difficult-to-access geological settings within our borders, and that is 
the work that fossil fuel research is doing.
  There is also coal, our most abundant energy resource. I am sure most 
Americans do not realize that coal supplies 55 percent of our 
electricity. Increasingly stringent environmental regulations are 
making coal power generation and pollution control more expensive. 
Innovative, low-cost approaches to environmental controls are needed. 
The efficiency of power generation also needs to be improved to make 
sure we get every bit of available energy out of the coal we burn.
  There is simply no way we can give up the use of our vast domestic 
coal deposits and yet still keep energy prices affordable and keep our 
economy competitive. That is also something that the fossil fuel 
research program is working on.
  Finally, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont cuts $50 
million from the fossil energy research to pay for only a $20 million 
increase in the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program. The remaining $30 
million would go to deficit reduction. I would like to say that I think 
we all know there has been a lot of good work on this issue of cutting 
the deficit, and there is definitely a lot more work to do, but the way 
this amendment is structured, I am concerned that this may simply be a 
gratuitous swipe at this year's easy target, fossil energy research, 
depositing the $30 million in change for deficit reduction.
  Fossil energy research offers tangible benefits to the American 
economy and does not deserve to be viewed in this light. Fossil energy 
research does not deserve this $50 million cut. Mr. Chairman, I urge 
defeat of this amendment.

[[Page H6018]]

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The splendid argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania misses the 
mark. We are not talking about fossil fuel research, we are talking 
about adequate funding and fair funding of payment in lieu of taxes, 
and our amendment on this matter in no way is a reflection adversely on 
the splendid work of the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking 
member of the subcommittee.
  The gentleman from Ohio has done a splendid job balancing all these 
interests. We understand the extremely difficult job he has had to do, 
and we appreciate the consideration for payment in lieu. We are just 
trying to rearrange the chairs on the deck of Good Ship Regula here.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, I think it is 
money instead of chairs.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, Mr. Chairman, the money in the bank of Good Ship 
Regula, then.
  But I was not only an author, original coauthor of payment in lieu of 
taxes. When I was administrative assistant, my predecessor, John 
Botnick, actually wrote the language that became in 1976 the payment in 
lieu of taxes legislation based on a very simple, elemental principle.

                              {time}  1645

  These lands: national forests, national wilderness areas, national 
parks, scenic waterways, are held in trust for all Americans to use and 
enjoy. But what about the neighbors to those wonderful national 
treasures, the neighbors, the communities, the people that live next to 
them who have to support the services provided for all those national 
treasures?
  Take a look in my own district. Cook County is 82 percent in public 
ownership. Lake County is 92 percent in public ownership. St. Louis 
County, which is about the size of the State of Massachusetts, is 62 
percent public ownership. That remaining small amount of land held in 
private hands has to provide the property taxes to support the services 
for all those 6-million-plus people who come from all over America to 
see these great national treasures.
  We have debated on this floor many times the Boundary Waters Canoe 
Area Wilderness in the Superior National Forest, land with water so 
pure that you can paddle along and drink the water right fresh from the 
rivers and the lakes, and they want it preserved for all Americans. 
That is terrific. But in order to do that, there are expensive 
landfills, there are expensive sanitation programs that St. Louis 
County and Lake County and Cook County all have to support that cost 
hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.
  St. Louis County's budget has gone up $77 million since we enacted 
the Payment in Lieu of Taxes. That is a 30-percent increase, even with 
being very frugal. But Payment in Lieu of Taxes has not gone up at all 
for them.
  And yet, when the fisherman with the fish hook caught in the eye from 
Iowa or Illinois who has gone up there to go fishing needs rescue, it 
is the St. Louis County, the Lake County and the Cook County sheriff's 
department and rescue department that are going to have to send the 
people out to haul those people out of the woods and save their lives. 
They have to be paid. Those services have to be paid for, and we are 
not keeping up with the cost.
  St. Louis County has 3,000 miles of county road to support the 
Superior National Forest and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area and the 
Voyageurs National Park. They are not getting any increase in funds for 
those counties to provide the support services that are necessary. That 
is what this amendment is all about. It is not us against them. It is 
not Minnesota or Vermont against Pennsylvania. It is all of us 
together.
  It is unfortunate we have had to deal with this account for coal 
research. But there has been, as has been said previously, billions of 
dollars in coal research, plenty of money for that and still plenty of 
money available for it.
  What we are saying is, keep faith and trust with the people who live 
in these national treasures to whom we said, ``We are going to help you 
keep pace.''
  The value of lands in St. Louis County in those areas that are held 
in national trust is 27 cents an acre, authorized funding under Payment 
in Lieu of Taxes. If those same lands were in timber production, as 
they well should be and could be, they would be valued at $2.59 an 
acre.
  Counties certainly take care of all the road and rescue and fire and 
safety and other needs of the county to provide for all the services 
that would be necessary to support that activity. We are not saying 
return those lands to private commercial development. We are saying 
keep them in national trust, but also keep our trust with the people 
who are neighbors to those national lands and let them keep pace. Why 
should they have to continue to dig ever deeper in the property tax 
that stretches them too far?
  This amendment restores a measure of fairness and equity to all those 
neighbors of these great national treasures.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Sanders amendment. The 
offset is not my first choice, but the issue of PILT is so important, I 
think, to rural America that I am supporting this amendment.
  The only thing sure in life is death and taxes. That is for my 
colleagues and I. But for the Federal Government, for 2 decades I feel 
they have straight-armed, they have stiffed rural America, because they 
took lands into public ownership with a promise to pay and have never 
delivered in 20 years what is a fair Payment in Lieu of Tax payment. 
The Federal Government today continues to purchase private land and 
remove it from the tax rolls and continues not to pay its fair share of 
taxes or PILT.
  What happens to my colleagues or I if we do not pay our taxes? Our 
property is sold, our taxes get paid. Maybe it is time for a Federal 
land tax sale to pay the debt that I think is owed to rural America. 
The Federal Government is the largest owner of land in America, where 
we are approaching 40 percent. We are the most delinquent taxpayer in 
the history of America.
  The Sanders amendment is a small step in the right direction. It does 
not solve the problem. And the question is asked, what is the impact 
when land is taken out of the tax base? It is the following: It has 
been devastating to rural America. Zero economic growth. Zero job 
creation. No aid for roads, water, sewer, and public schools and local 
services. A devastating impact.
  There are 1,789 counties involved, 49 states affected by this lack of 
Payment in Lieu of Taxes. Now, in Pennsylvania, where I come from, we 
pay $1.20 an acre. It was 60 cents in one of the last bills I helped 
get through. I had sponsored it for 6 or 8 years. I gave up sponsorship 
to get a House bill through the Senate, doubling it to $1.20.
  Now, we own 840 million acres approximately. If we were paying $1.20, 
the bill would be in excess of a billion dollars.
  Now, someone mentioned a few moments ago that this included military 
bases. That is not true, if my understanding is correct. There is 
impact aid which got a $40-million increase, a different budget or 
different part of the budget, different appropriations bill. But it is 
urban and suburban and it has been increased with some regularity and 
they get $640 million.
  Now, as I am look at it, when we remove property from the tax base of 
rural America, with no chance of economic growth, military bases bring 
jobs to the community, they bring stimulus to the community and the 
spin-off is tremendous, yet we are giving them $640 million. And that 
is a fairness issue.
  For two decades we have underfunded PILT. In 1994, when PILT was 
reauthorized, Congress developed a 5-year phase-in to make up for the 
forgone revenues caused by 17 years of inflation and they raised the 
authorization to $255.5 million for this year. Despite those good 
intentions, we are still stuck at $120 million, which is inadequate for 
the communities that have been shortchanged. $135 million is needed 
just to bring us to level funding.
  The Sanders amendment gives us a shot in the arm. I am from the East

[[Page H6019]]

and I know this is a Western issue, but it affects Pennsylvania and it 
affects this country. Public land owners need to contribute to local 
services, and for those of us who continue to support more and more 
ownership of land by the Federal Government, it is time to pay up.
  Too often issues affecting rural America are overlooked and 
subsequently underfunded. I am here to say today, as a new Member of 
this Congress, it is no different than when I went to the State senate. 
Rural America has been getting the short end of the stick in a lot of 
ways, and this is just one of them, because they do not have the united 
voice of urban-suburban America.
  It is time for the Government to pay up or turn back to the States or 
local governments this public land. And if we continue to not pay our 
share, maybe it is time for a tax sale, where we sell some of the 
Federal land to pay the tax base back to the local governments where it 
should be in the first place.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
perceptive remarks. He is right on the money, and I would again 
reiterate that since 1974 the Federal Government has put in over $15 
billion in fossil energy research while we are shortchanging rural 
America.
  According to the CBO, the beneficiaries of the Petroleum Research and 
Development program are some of the largest multinational corporations 
in the world, including Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, Texaco, Amoco, Phillips 
Petroleum, etc., shortchanging rural America, providing corporate 
welfare for large corporations that do not need it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, does Allegheny 
National Forest get many visitors?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, yes, it gets 
visitors.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman would yield further, do the visitors 
spend a lot of money in the communities?
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaTourette). The time of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this would not affect the 
Allegheny National Forest. The PILT payments do not affect the 
Allegheny National Forest. They affect some other land in my district.
  To the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), who I consider a good friend 
and an outstanding chairman, I think the PILT issue does not really 
affect the NF because they get timber payments. But it is so unfair, 
when we have taken all of this land out of the local tax base across 
this country. I am arguing for it for fairness for rural America.
  I come from the most rural district east of the Mississippi, and I 
will be tough on rural issues. I just think somehow this Congress has 
to pay up at some point in time and pay what should go back to local 
communities.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, would 
he favor putting this public land on the market and getting it back in 
the private sector?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
think there is public land owned in America, yes, that should go back. 
It would be better served in local communities' ownership, local, State 
government, yes.
  I think the Federal Government should not own 40 percent of America. 
I think we own too much land, and we have been accumulating it for 
decades, and that is a policy that should change.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was not planning on coming here to speak on this, but 
I have to. Simply sitting back in my office and listening to this 
discussion, my feelings, and the time that I worked with the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), my feelings for him are of great affection 
and normally I am on the same side. And in fact, as it comes to the 
Payment in Lieu of Taxes issue, my heart is with him.
  However, when they come after the fossil research, we are in a 
situation right now, I happened to be in Kyoto last December, and 
everybody is jumping up and down and screaming to us that the sky is 
falling, that we have to come up with alternative methods and cleaner 
methods of providing energy.
  I thought that the Skaggs amendment was interesting, because we were 
talking just previous to this about the comparison of conservation to 
doing clean fossil fuel technology. And the fact of the matter is, in 
conservation we can only do so much. It takes energy to run the world. 
It takes energy to run industry, to run our everyday lives. With 
conservation, we can do a lot but we can only do so much.
  The question then is going to be where will this energy come from? 
Will it be from domestic production? We have got so much coal, and if 
we have the ability, the fact of the matter is, yes, we have spent a 
lot of money on fossil technology and we have not hit the home run yet, 
but we are getting closer and closer every day.
  Just yesterday on the way down here I traveled through the district 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). I was down at Peach 
Bottom Nuclear Power Plant. And the fact of the matter is that even 
those who are proponents of nuclear energy say that they realize we are 
not going to build in our lifetime any more nuclear power plants. And 
right now we happen to have cheap oil. So at a time when 85 percent of 
the energy of this Nation is coming from fossil fuels, the question is 
where are we going to go?
  And by the year 2015, as my friend the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Doyle) and others have said, we predict it is going to be up to 80 
percent of our fuel usage from fossil fuel. We are going to see more 
and more nuclear power plants come off line.
  So if in fact global warming is a reality, how are we going to deal 
with this? How are we going to develop the kind of technology that is 
going to let this Nation be self-sufficient?
  Everyone wants to go after the fossil fuel technology. That is what 
is running this country. And, yes, I come from the coal fields of 
southern Ohio. I come from the coal fields of southwestern 
Pennsylvania. I lived in those two States almost all of my life. My 
family were miners of coal. And it was their labors beneath the soil of 
this country that gave this energy, this cheap energy to this country 
that allowed the industrial revolution to move forward. It allowed us 
to have the kind of life-style that we enjoy and have the power that 
this great country has today, because they went under the earth to dig 
that coal. And now we want to say to them, forget about it. We have got 
a problem with Payment in Lieu of Taxes. Let us forget about the coal 
miners.
  I am going to tell my colleagues what. When those capitalists in 
other parts of the world, like the Middle East, finally figure out how 
to get control of us, when they finally figure out how indeed they can 
hold us hostage like they did in the 1973 oil embargo, in the 1979 oil 
embargo, I sat in those lines, as many Members here did, waiting for 
fuel. We could get fuel on odd days if we happened to have an odd 
number, in even days if we happened to have an even number. We forgot 
about that because the price of oil has gone down.

                              {time}  1700

  But now we are going to attack the fossil fuels in order to solve a 
problem that has nothing at all to do with the fossil fuels.
  If in fact we are worried about global warming, if we are worried 
about having a certain style of life for our children and their 
children's children, we have to continue to invest in this technology. 
For the foreseeable future, we are dependent upon these fossil fuels. 
There is no way around it.
  I wish that my friends, who have a very valid point on payment in 
lieu of taxes, would have come up with a different offset. I would like 
to be able to support them. But what they are doing, I think, in my 
estimation is wrongheaded, and I would urge the Members

[[Page H6020]]

of this House to soundly reject my friends' amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we get the 
facts out. I understand the concern of my colleagues who would like to 
have more payment in lieu of taxes, but let me point out that their 
public lands generate an enormous flow of visitors, all of whom spend 
money and pay taxes on the purchases they make which flow to the 
respective governments. Two hundred seventy-eight million visitor days 
in the Park Service, 850 million visitor days in the Forest Service, 30 
million visitor days in the Fish and Wildlife, 65 million visitor days 
in BLM.
  Let me point out something else. This committee has cut fossil energy 
research by over 30 percent over the past 3 years in spite of the fact 
that we have become less secure as far as our energy needs. At the same 
time while we were cutting fossil research by 30 percent, we were 
adding 18 percent to PILT.
  It would be nice to have more PILT money obviously, but we have to 
strike a balance. We have to be less dependent on other resources 
around the world. We have to make our country's energy secure. None of 
this will mean anything if we do not have security as far as the access 
to energy.
  Electric utilities have made dramatic reductions thanks to fossil 
research. Let me point out that the fossil research is all matched. It 
is not all Federal money. That is the reason that the gentleman's 
amendment puts $20 million into PILT but takes $50 million out of 
fossil, because PILT spends out every dollar. Fossil will be spent out 
over a period of years as the research develops being matched by the 
private sector. This is not an unfunded mandate that we are addressing. 
That is an erroneous use of a term. This is giving counties money to 
compensate.
  These Federal lands do not send children off of the lands into the 
school system. They do generate an enormous flow of money from the 
visitors that come into the communities. Therefore, I think it is 
important that we keep the fossil programs going.
  EPA is proposing to reduce the small particulate requirement from 10 
to 2.5 PM. That is .04, the diameter of a human hair. How are we going 
to get to these mandates, imposed by EPA unless we continue a program 
of fossil research? Keep in mind we have reduced it already 30 percent 
over the 3-year period while we were increasing PILT by 18 percent. In 
22 eastern and midwestern States, the regulations will require a 
reduction in ozone and smog. How are we going to keep these plants 
operating unless we continue the research?
  Certainly, the private sector is committed to this. They match the 
money that we put into energy research dollar for dollar. I think it is 
vitally important to this Nation's future that we maintain this 
research in fossil. The new regulations are going to cost utilities $7 
billion. You talk about cost to your taxpayers if we do not give them 
more PILT. They are going to pay it in the electric bills if we do not 
do the fossil energy research.
  One of the great values of fossil energy research is the fact that we 
are holding down the cost of gasoline at the pump. We are holding down 
the cost of electricity, items that contribute substantially to the 
cost of living. That is a benefit to everybody in the United States. We 
have the world's strongest economy today on a per capita basis. Why? 
Because we have cheap energy, because our industries have modernized, 
because the people in this country work hard and they work smart, as 
one Member said earlier. But to do this we need to support the fossil 
energy research programs. I do not think it makes good sense in terms 
of national policy to reduce energy research further. We already are 
cutting it by 30 percent over the past 3 years.
  I understand why the Members who have public lands would like to have 
more money for their programs. But nevertheless we have to strike a 
balance. That is what we have tried to do in this subcommittee.
  I would urge Members to vote against this amendment. I do not think 
it is responsible public policy in terms of the 265 million Americans 
that would be affected adversely by failure to continue a strong 
program of fossil energy research.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out sections 205, 206, and 
     318(d) of Public Law 94-579, including administrative 
     expenses and acquisition of lands or waters, or interests 
     therein, $10,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended.


                   oregon and california grant lands

       For expenses necessary for management, protection, and 
     development of resources and for construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other 
     improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad 
     grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and 
     California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent 
     rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein 
     including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such 
     grant lands; $98,407,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That 25 percent of the aggregate of all receipts 
     during the current fiscal year from the revested Oregon and 
     California Railroad grant lands is hereby made a charge 
     against the Oregon and California land-grant fund and shall 
     be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury in 
     accordance with the second paragraph of subsection (b) of 
     title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 876).


               forest ecosystems health and recovery fund

                   (revolving fund, special account)

       In addition to the purposes authorized in Public Law 102-
     381, funds made available in the Forest Ecosystem Health and 
     Recovery Fund can be used for the purpose of planning, 
     preparing, and monitoring salvage timber sales and forest 
     ecosystem health and recovery activities such as release from 
     competing vegetation and density control treatments. The 
     Federal share of receipts (defined as the portion of salvage 
     timber receipts not paid to the counties under 43 U.S.C. 
     1181f and 43 U.S.C. 1181f-1 et seq., and Public Law 103-66) 
     derived from treatments funded by this account shall be 
     deposited into the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund.


                           range improvements

       For rehabilitation, protection, and acquisition of lands 
     and interests therein, and improvement of Federal rangelands 
     pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), notwithstanding any 
     other Act, sums equal to 50 percent of all moneys received 
     during the prior fiscal year under sections 3 and 15 of the 
     Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.) and the amount 
     designated for range improvements from grazing fees and 
     mineral leasing receipts from Bankhead-Jones lands 
     transferred to the Department of the Interior pursuant to 
     law, but not less than $10,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $600,000 shall be 
     available for administrative expenses.


               service charges, deposits, and forfeitures

       For administrative expenses and other costs related to 
     processing application documents and other authorizations for 
     use and disposal of public lands and resources, for costs of 
     providing copies of official public land documents, for 
     monitoring construction, operation, and termination of 
     facilities in conjunction with use authorizations, and for 
     rehabilitation of damaged property, such amounts as may be 
     collected under Public Law 94-579, as amended, and Public Law 
     93-153, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any provision to the contrary of section 
     305(a) of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1735(a)), any moneys 
     that have been or will be received pursuant to that section, 
     whether as a result of forfeiture, compromise, or settlement, 
     if not appropriate for refund pursuant to section 305(c) of 
     that Act (43 U.S.C. 1735(c)), shall be available and may be 
     expended under the authority of this Act by the Secretary to 
     improve, protect, or rehabilitate any public lands 
     administered through the Bureau of Land Management which have 
     been damaged by the action of a resource developer, 
     purchaser, permittee, or any unauthorized person, without 
     regard to whether all moneys collected from each such action 
     are used on the exact lands damaged which led to the action: 
     Provided further, That any such moneys that are in excess of 
     amounts needed to repair damage to the exact land for which 
     funds were collected may be used to repair other damaged 
     public lands.

[[Page H6021]]

                       miscellaneous trust funds

       In addition to amounts authorized to be expended under 
     existing laws, there is hereby appropriated such amounts as 
     may be contributed under section 307 of the Act of October 
     21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), and such amounts as may be 
     advanced for administrative costs, surveys, appraisals, and 
     costs of making conveyances of omitted lands under section 
     211(b) of that Act, to remain available until expended.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management shall be 
     available for purchase, erection, and dismantlement of 
     temporary structures, and alteration and maintenance of 
     necessary buildings and appurtenant facilities to which the 
     United States has title; up to $100,000 for payments, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, for information or evidence 
     concerning violations of laws administered by the Bureau; 
     miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement 
     activities authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be 
     accounted for solely on his certificate, not to exceed 
     $10,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the 
     Bureau may, under cooperative cost-sharing and partnership 
     arrangements authorized by law, procure printing services 
     from cooperators in connection with jointly produced 
     publications for which the cooperators share the cost of 
     printing either in cash or in services, and the Bureau 
     determines the cooperator is capable of meeting accepted 
     quality standards.
       Section 28f(a) of title 30, U.S.C., is amended by striking 
     beginning with the words ``The holder'' and continuing 
     through ``$100 per claim.'' and inserting in lieu thereof: 
     ``The holder of each unpatented mining claim, mill or tunnel 
     site, located pursuant to the mining laws of the United 
     States before October 1, 1998 shall pay the Secretary of the 
     Interior, on or before September 1, 1999 a claim maintenance 
     fee of $100 per claim site.''.
       Section 28g to title 30, U.S.C., is amended by striking 
     ``1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``1999''.

                United States Fish and Wildlife Service


                          resource management

       For necessary expenses of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, for scientific and economic studies, 
     conservation, management, investigations, protection, and 
     utilization of fishery and wildlife resources, except whales, 
     seals, and sea lions, maintenance of the herd of long-horned 
     cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, general 
     administration, and for the performance of other authorized 
     functions related to such resources by direct expenditure, 
     contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable 
     agreements with public and private entities, $607,106,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2000, except as 
     otherwise provided herein, of which $11,648,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for operation and maintenance of 
     fishery mitigation facilities constructed by the Corps of 
     Engineers under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, 
     authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1976, to 
     compensate for loss of fishery resources from water 
     development projects on the Lower Snake River, and of which 
     not less than $2,000,000 shall be provided to local 
     governments in southern California for planning associated 
     with the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) 
     program and shall remain available until expended:  Provided, 
     That not less than $1,000,000 for high priority projects 
     which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as 
     authorized by the Act of August 13, 1970, as amended: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $6,256,000 shall be used 
     for implementing subsections (a), (b), (c), and (e) of 
     section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, for 
     species that are indigenous to the United States (except for 
     processing petitions, developing and issuing proposed and 
     final regulations, and taking any other steps to implement 
     actions described in subsections (c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B)(i), or 
     (c)(2)(B)(ii)): Provided further, That of the amount 
     available for law enforcement, up to $400,000 to remain 
     available until expended, may at the discretion of the 
     Secretary, be used for payment for information, rewards, or 
     evidence concerning violations of laws administered by the 
     Service, and miscellaneous and emergency expenses of 
     enforcement activity, authorized or approved by the Secretary 
     and to be accounted for solely on his certificate: Provided 
     further, That hereafter, all fees collected for Federal 
     migratory bird permits shall be available to the Secretary, 
     without further appropriation, to be used for the expenses of 
     the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in administering such 
     Federal migratory bird permits, and shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That hereafter, pursuant to 
     31 U.S.C. 9701 and notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the 
     Secretary shall charge reasonable fees for the full costs of 
     the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in operating and 
     maintaining the M/V Tiglax and other vessels, to be credited 
     to this account and to be available until expended: Provided 
     further, That of the amount provided for environmental 
     contaminants, up to $1,000,000 may remain available until 
     expended for contaminant sample analyses.


                              construction

       For construction and acquisition of buildings and other 
     facilities required in the conservation, management, 
     investigation, protection, and utilization of fishery and 
     wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands and 
     interests therein; $66,100,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with statutory authority applicable to the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, $30,000,000, to be derived 
     from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to remain 
     available until expended.


            cooperative endangered species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), as 
     amended, $15,000,000, for grants to States, to be derived 
     from the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, 
     and to remain available until expended.


                     national wildlife refuge fund

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 17, 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $10,779,000.


               north american wetlands conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233, 
     as amended, $12,700,000, to remain available until expended.


              wildlife conservation and appreciation fund

       For necessary expenses of the Wildlife Conservation and 
     Appreciation Fund, $800,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                multinational species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the African Elephant 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4203, 4211-4213, 4221-4225, 
     4241-4245, and 1538), the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 
     1997 (Public Law 105-96), and the Rhinoceros and Tiger 
     Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5301-5306), $2,400,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That unexpended 
     balances of amounts previously appropriated to the African 
     Elephant Conservation Fund, Rewards and Operations account, 
     and Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund may be transferred 
     to and merged with this appropriation: Provided further, That 
     in fiscal year 1999 and thereafter, donations to provide 
     assistance under section 5304 of the Rhinoceros and Tiger 
     Conservation Act, subchapter I of the African Elephant 
     Conservation Act, and section 6 of the Asian Elephant 
     Conservation Act of 1997 shall be deposited to this Fund: 
     Provided further, That in fiscal year 1999 and thereafter, 
     all penalties received by the United States under 16 U.S.C. 
     4224 which are not used to pay rewards under 16 U.S.C. 4225 
     shall be deposited to this Fund, to be available to provide 
     assistance under 16 U.S.C. 4211: Provided further, That in 
     fiscal year 1999 and thereafter, not more than three percent 
     of amounts appropriated to this Fund may be used by the 
     Secretary of the Interior to administer the Fund.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations and funds available to the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for purchase of 
     not to exceed 104 passenger motor vehicles, of which 89 are 
     for replacement only (including 38 for police-type use); 
     repair of damage to public roads within and adjacent to 
     reservation areas caused by operations of the Service; 
     options for the purchase of land at not to exceed $1 for each 
     option; facilities incident to such public recreational uses 
     on conservation areas as are consistent with their primary 
     purpose; and the maintenance and improvement of aquaria, 
     buildings, and other facilities under the jurisdiction of the 
     Service and to which the United States has title, and which 
     are used pursuant to law in connection with management and 
     investigation of fish and wildlife resources: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the Service may, under 
     cooperative cost sharing and partnership arrangements 
     authorized by law, procure printing services from cooperators 
     in connection with jointly produced publications for which 
     the cooperators share at least one-half the cost of printing 
     either in cash or services and the Service determines the 
     cooperator is capable of meeting accepted quality standards: 
     Provided further, That the Service may accept donated 
     aircraft as replacements for existing aircraft: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior may not spend any of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act for the purchase of lands or 
     interests in lands to be used in the establishment of any new 
     unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System unless the 
     purchase is approved in advance by the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in the report accompanying 
     this bill: Provided further, That hereafter the Secretary may 
     sell land and interests in land, other than surface water 
     rights, acquired in conformance with subsections 206(a) and 
     207(c) of Public Law 101-618, the receipts of which shall be 
     deposited to the Lahontan Valley and Pyramid Lake Fish and 
     Wildlife Fund and used exclusively for the purposes of such 
     subsections, without regard to the limitation on the 
     distribution of benefits in subsection 206(f)(2) of such law: 
     Provided further, That section 104(c)(50)(B) of the Marine 
     Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407) is amended by 
     adding the words ``until expended'' after the word 
     ``Secretary'' in the second sentence.

[[Page H6022]]

                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanford

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanford:
       Page 16, after line 17, insert the following, and renumber 
     all lines accordingly:


                         technical corrections

       (a) Unit SC-03.--(1) The Secretary of the Interior shall, 
     before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, make such corrections to the map 
     described in paragraph (2) as are necessary to ensure that 
     depictions of areas on that map are consistent with the 
     depictions of areas appearing on the map entitled 
     ``Amendments to the Coastal Barrier Resources System'', dated 
     May 15, 1997, and on file with the Committee on Resources of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (2) The map described in this paragraph is the map that--
       (A) is included in a set of maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier 
     Resources System'' and dated October 24, 1990; and
       (B) relates to unit SC-03 of the Coastal Barrier Resources 
     System.
       (b) Unit FL-35P.--(1) The Secretary of the Interior shall, 
     before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, make such corrections to the map 
     described in paragraph (2) as are necessary to ensure that 
     depictions of areas on the map are consistent with the 
     depictions of areas appearing on the map entitled 
     ``Amendments to the Coastal Barrier Resources System'', dated 
     October 22, 1997, and on file with the Committee on Resources 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (2) The map described in this paragraph is the map that--
       (A) is included in a set of maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier 
     Resources System'', dated October 24, 1990; and
       (B) relates to unit FL-35P of the Coastal Barrier Resources 
     System.
       (c) Unit FL-35.--The Secretary of the Interior shall, 
     before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, revise the map depicting unit FL-
     35 of the Coastal Barrier Resources System to exclude Pumpkin 
     Key from the System.

  Mr. SANFORD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical correction that has 
been brought to our attention by the Fish and Wildlife Service. It is 
one offered by myself and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch). It 
is one that has been discussed with the majority and the minority 
without objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         National Park Service


                 operation of the national park system

       For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and 
     maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the 
     National Park Service (including special road maintenance 
     service to trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), and 
     for the general administration of the National Park Service, 
     including not less than $1,000,000 for high priority projects 
     within the scope of the approved budget which shall be 
     carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as authorized by 
     16 U.S.C. 1706, $1,333,328,000, of which not to exceed 
     $12,500,000 may be used for salaries and expenses of the 
     Denver Service Center, and of which not less than $600,000 is 
     for salaries and expenses associated with new hires of 
     mineral examiners at the Mojave National Preserve, and of 
     which $12,800,000 for research, planning and interagency 
     coordination in support of land acquisition for Everglades 
     restoration shall remain available until expended, and of 
     which not to exceed $10,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, is to be derived from the special fee account 
     established pursuant to title V, section 5201 of Public Law 
     100-203.


                  national recreation and preservation

       For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs, 
     natural programs, cultural programs, heritage partnership 
     programs, environmental compliance and review, international 
     park affairs, statutory or contractual aid for other 
     activities, and grant administration, not otherwise provided 
     for, $41,939,000, of which $4,500,000 is for grants to 
     Heritage areas in accordance with section 606 of title VI, 
     division I and titles I-VI and VIII-IX, division II of Public 
     Law 104-333.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Miller of California

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California:
       Page 17, line 22, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''
       Page 37, line 10, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(decreased by $2,000,000)''.

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this 
important amendment to the Interior appropriations bill which will 
provide urgently needed recreation and after-school opportunities for 
our Nation's youth. This amendment will rejuvenate the Urban Park 
Recreation and Recovery Program, or UPARR program which has languished 
for the last couple of years.
  The UPARR program, the Urban Park Recreation and Recovery Program, 
provides competitive matching grants of up to $200,000 to local 
communities to help them design programs to meet youth recreation 
needs. Research shows that many of our most serious youth-related 
problems, including juvenile crime, drug use, gang activity and teenage 
sexual activity occur most frequently during the hours immediately 
after the end of school when 5 to 7 million children go home alone 
every afternoon. The Urban Parks Program helps local communities to 
fund programs to reduce juvenile crime, to provide safe havens for our 
youth and to offer constructive academic or recreational opportunities 
after school. That is why the Urban Park Program is supported by the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Sporting Goods Manufacturers 
Association, the National Association of Police Athletic Leagues, Major 
League Baseball, the National Recreation and Park Association and the 
National Council of Youth Sports. Many other organizations support this 
effort.
  This program enables and makes small grants to communities to try to 
recover, to revitalize, to rehabilitate the recreational facilities in 
their communities so that they will then be able to offer young people 
an alternative to doing nothing or to getting into trouble in after-
school hours and on the weekends. This is an effort to try to reclaim a 
baseball field, to try to reclaim maybe a tennis court, to reclaim a 
recreational area for young people, swimming pools, bathhouses. Very 
often some of our older facilities have fallen into disuse. They have 
not been kept up. Now, what we see is in partnership with organizations 
like the Professional Golf Association, in partnership with the 
National Basketball Association, with the Sporting Goods Manufacturers, 
with Major League Baseball, we are coming together, attracting private 
money with these grants to revitalize these recreational facilities.
  This money is offset because I take it from an account where we are 
giving $11 million to the Northern Mariana Islands, and I am reducing 
that by $2 million for the purposes of the Urban Parks and Recreation 
Program. I am doing that because the money that goes to the Northern 
Marianas to date, they have been unwilling to match that money and that 
is a requirement of that money. Yet what we see is communities all over 
the country seeking to match the money from the Urban Parks Program. 
They have put up their money, they have gotten local sponsors, they 
have gotten the private sector to buy into these, and they want to use 
the money. But we see an account with respect to the Northern Marianas 
where there is over $80 million that is sitting there, sitting in their 
account, and they are unwilling to match it and now we are going to add 
another $11 million.
  What I am suggesting is we would be better to give that money to the 
city of Phoenix or to Pueblo or to Bridgeport or to Savannah or to 
Peoria or to Kokomo or Kalamazoo, where these communities are hungry to 
do something for their young people, they are hungry to try to combat 
crime problems, to combat drug problems, to create sporting activities, 
to create sporting teams, to create academic programs combined with 
sports programs so that young people will have these kinds of 
alternatives.

                              {time}  1715

  Rather than have this money languish in an account where the 
recipient of the money refuses to match it, we ought to give it to 
those communities that they are seeking to match it.
  There is a huge backlog of communities that are desiring this effort 
that have gone out and made the push, made the push within their 
private sector to gather resources to get in-kind contributions or to 
get monetary programs that have worked with citizen

[[Page H6023]]

programs where people volunteer to rebuild, to paint facilities, to 
recapture much of what many of us have experienced when we grew up when 
we knew the importance that recreation played in our childhood, and 
teaching us the rules of sportsmanship, and teaching us the discipline 
of practice, and teaching us how to engage with other individuals, and 
giving us productive time to use when we were not in school or not 
engaged in other activities.
  That is why it is important that we adopt this amendment. It will not 
harm. It will not harm the account with respect to the Marianas 
because, as I pointed out, they have a huge backlog of money that they 
have been unwilling to match for the purposes for which Congress has 
appropriated that money.
  So I would urge my colleagues, many of you have heard from your 
mayors, many of you have heard from the sporting good manufacturers, 
many of you have heard from volunteer organizations in your communities 
that are struggling, struggling to try to rebuild and recapture and 
revitalize these facilities.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. MILLER of California was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we owe it to our children. We 
now understand, there are studies, there, you stack them up, they are 
taller than I am, that tell us the most important time to capture the 
time of young people is that time from after school until the time that 
their parents or guardians come home. That is when most of the crime is 
committed by young people. That is when young people get into trouble 
most of the time.
  But in many, many communities, and if you look at the list of the 
communities that are making applications for this program, in many 
communities they simply do not have a constructive alternative to offer 
to these young people.
  We have done this with the UPARR program. We can continue to do it 
with the UPARR program, and we can do it in the constructive fashion so 
that we can take advantage of the energies of these young people and 
the willingness of the local communities to come up with the matching 
money, to come up with the local energy to create these facilities. I 
would hope that the House would approve this amendment, and I ask for 
an aye vote on this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has said we have heard 
from the manufacturers of tennis rackets, from the manufacturers of 
basketballs, tennis balls, guns, you name it, all these sporting goods 
outfits. Now we are going to hear from the people that work in the 
parks, that work in the forests, that work in the fish and wildlife, 
that work in BLM, and I am going to speak for them.
  The gentleman is asking them to fix the roof in their spare time. He 
is asking them to go out and repair bridges in their spare time. We saw 
that when we were out in Yosemite. The employees told us ``we did a lot 
of the work here to offset the damage from the big flood ourselves in 
our free time.''
  We had oversight hearings this year. We have $10 billion, not 
million, $10 billion of backlog maintenance. That is not my number. 
That is a number from the Director of the parks, from the Director of 
the Forest Service, from the Directors of the Fish and Wildlife 
Services, and from BLM, $10 billion of maintenance left undone.
  One of the people testified that, for every dollar of maintenance 
that is neglected, it costs $5 down the road. Let us not take money out 
of these programs. If we have extra money, let us address the backlog 
maintenance. Let us not worry about manufacturers of tennis rackets or 
baseball bats.
  That is what UPARR is. Build tennis courts. Build baseball fields. It 
is nice. But 47 States have surpluses. It is about time for them to 
come into this program. Let the States work with the local communities 
to provide these recreational facilities. I have not had any State 
offer money to deal with backlog maintenance on Federal lands. If you 
want to take care of those precious crown jewels that we keep talking 
about, we need any extra money that we have to be spent on backlog 
maintenance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. Nobody has been more diligent in trying to warn this Congress 
and the country about the backlog in the national parks and in the 
public lands with respect to maintenance and even, to some extent, and 
clearly, in acquisition.
  But let me say that is not the competition that this amendment is. 
This is money that is put into an account for the Northern Marianas. 
They have been unwilling over the last several years to match that 
money; and there is now, according to the budget, about $80 million 
sitting in that account.
  All I am suggesting is that we take that $2 million and help these 
cities. People are volunteering their time here. I work every weekend 
with organizations and try to help organizations that are paying for 
the ball fields and trying to recover these facilities so that they can 
use them for their children. So we are not matching volunteers here. We 
are matching an account that has more money in it than they can 
possibly use as opposed to this program where people can use it for 
recreational opportunities for the young people.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's point. 
Frankly, since the gentleman mentioned it, I am going to take a quick 
look at that and see if we cannot get that $80 million to put into 
backlog maintenance. I think that is a wonderful idea.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would support the 
gentleman. We can do it right now.
  Mr. DICKS. But, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, why does 
the gentleman not, for the gentleman's diligence and good work, at 
least give him the $2 million?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am going to suggest to the National 
Governors' Association that they adopt the Miller amendment. I think, 
with their surpluses and all but maybe a handful of States, 47 to be 
exact, they ought to take care of this. I do appreciate the gentleman 
calling to my attention this money that is available.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Now the gentleman is going to steal the 
money from me. No good deeds go unrewarded.
  Mr. REGULA. It could end up with about $9 billion of backlog instead 
of $10 billion if we can get that $80 million the gentleman has been 
telling us about.
  I realize it is not exactly apples and oranges. But all I am saying 
is that, when we are faced with $10 billion in backlog, when we are 
faced with our employees who are spending their free time, many of 
them, doing this work in our public lands facilities, I do not think we 
should start building tennis courts and golf courses and baseball 
fields in our communities. That is a local responsibility.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I appreciate that.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we can make that argument 
about a lot of efforts. But when we address the crime bill and we are 
looking at the priorities, this was one of them. The point is, this 
provides, you know, a small match that brings together a lot of private 
resources and some public resources at the local level. The governors 
of the State, unfortunately, this is not on their agenda. These are a 
lot of cities that are trying to provide some local recreation 
opportunities.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this ought to be in 
the crime bill.
  Mr. MILLER of California. It was.
  Mr. REGULA. I think that is a logical place to put it rather than to 
take money from our parks and our forests.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I am not taking them.
  Mr. REGULA. I understand, but the gentleman from California is not 
offsetting. But if that money is available, we would like to get it and 
use it for public lands.

[[Page H6024]]

  Mr. MILLER of California. But that is not my amendment.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment. Not to get 
into a fight with the chairman or anyone else, but I think that, in 
other parts of this budget, we are taking out all the money for summer 
jobs in this country.
  We are looking at cities filled with kids where, on the one hand, we 
are not going to help them get a summer job, and, on the other hand, we 
are not willing to put some money to invest in recreational facilities 
so that they can be involved in organized activities that will keep 
them out of difficulty.
  We all know from our own childhood, if not from someplace else, that 
idle hands are the devil's workshop. I remember in the crime bill 
discussion, we had an awful lot of people out here jumping up and down 
saying that midnight basketball was not a good idea. But if we go by 
the places even in this city at night where there is a light and a 
hoop, we will see kids playing basketball. I think we would rather have 
them doing that than some of the other things they can think of doing.
  For us to take $2 million out of $80 million that is sitting 
somewhere being unused because we have a law that says we have to put 
the money in there, we made some kind of deal, but they never match it. 
I am up here because Seattle put in a grant for $250,000, and we know 
how to use it. We have got the matched money ready to go, but we would 
like access to this money.
  I think there are cities all over this country where, whether you 
like it or not, as we have devolved programs from the Federal level 
down to the State level, there are lots of States dealing with lots of 
things they did not use to deal with, so they are unwilling to take 
care of the needs of cities.
  If somebody does not take care of the needs of cities, we are going 
to be in serious trouble in this country. So I urge the adoption of 
this bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me for a brief 
moment?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman mentions Seattle, 
Washington, I wanted to point out that in the past, funding has also 
contributed to the development of programs and projects such as the 
innovation project established in Tacoma, Washington. The goals of this 
innovative project were to provide at-risk youth alternatives to gangs 
and drugs through participation in outdoor recreation activities and to 
develop life skills such as self-esteem, leadership, decision-making 
and cooperation.
  The program was designed to operate as an extensive partnership 
involving professionals from the disciplines of parks and recreation, 
education, city government, social services and criminal justice.
  It was designed to operate year round with expanded activity during 
the summer months and over extended holiday periods. Youth participants 
were involved through various avenues such as schools, home school 
associations, youth service agencies, and neighborhood community 
centers.
  The program has provided various activities such as backpacking in 
Olympic National Park; whitewater rafting on the Thompson River in 
British Columbia; cross-country skiing in Mount Ranier National Park; 
winter camping, inner-tubing and snow shoeing in various winter sports 
areas; water safety instruction; fishing, canoeing, boating and 
swimming, mountain packing on designated State and Federal lands; 
weekly environmental education outdoor skills workshops, leadership 
training for advanced youth participants and youth hosteling and 
meeting travelers from around the world.
  I have listened carefully to my chairman, and it seems to me for this 
small investment if we can do and provide more opportunities for kids 
after school to be in programs like this, and if the Park Service can 
play a role in this, I certainly support the gentleman from California.
  I will work as hard as anyone on the backlog, but if we have got $80 
million sitting in a trust fund and the chairman can get $78 million of 
it for the backlog and we can get $2 million for this urban recreation 
thing, I think that is the kind of program the American people support. 
It is prevention of crime that we should be focusing on, and having 
some opportunities out there through this bill seems to me to be a good 
idea.
  I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, on the point both he and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) have made, if we go back into our 
childhoods, we all know the value of a coach, the value of the mentor, 
the value of the after-school recreation director that helped us get 
over some trouble spots when we were young children, when we were 
adolescents. That opportunity and that relationship is being denied to 
too many children today in America.
  This is a small effort. This is not going to solve a problem, but 
this has been an effective effort when we put the money into it. 
Unfortunately, the last couple of years it has languished, and I just 
think it is an important one that should be embraced by the House.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment of my good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). People should 
understand what is going on here, and again I will have to say that my 
understanding is limited as well, but my understanding of what we are 
talking about is an agreement that was reached with the Northern 
Mariana Islands as part of a change of their status that they used to 
be like all the other people who were appendages of the United States 
but they were not independent, nor were they States.
  In order to change their status and become not dependent on American 
welfare programs and not dependent on other social benefit programs, 
they decided to become somewhat independent and have more of a free 
enterprise approach to their economy.
  Part of the agreement that we made with them was to provide them 
certain infrastructure projects that cost a certain amount of money, 
and what we are talking about here is breaking an agreement or not 
setting aside the funds that are necessary or taking advantage of funds 
that may or may not be available that are in contradiction, and this is 
in contradiction to an agreement we have reached with these people in 
the Northern Mariana Islands.
  This stems from and, again, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller) and I have an honest disagreement on this, as do Republicans 
and Democrats have honest disagreements, as to what labor policy should 
take place in the United States but also in the Northern Mariana 
Islands.

                              {time}  1730

  I happen to believe in a less regulated society and less regulations 
dealing with labor law, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 
believes in more regulations for labor law to protect the interests of 
labor and protect the interests of various working people. I disagree 
with that philosophy. That is not the philosophy of the Republican 
Party, but I respect the concern of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller) about that.
  Unfortunately, the amendment we are talking about now, however, based 
on this opposition to this labor policy in the Northern Mariana 
Islands, is negating an agreement that we have reached with those 
islanders in order to have a change in their legal status.
  I would suggest that this is not the fair approach, not a judicious 
approach. Even though it can be argued that the funds may be better 
spent someplace else, an agreement has been reached. We would not want 
to break any other agreement with any other peoples around in order to 
fulfill these same obligations and opportunities for spending money 
that have been talked about today.
  So I reluctantly rise in disagreement, but I understand the honest 
philosophical motivations that the gentleman has in making his 
approach.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

[[Page H6025]]

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the 
gentleman, two points. One, I have been working on UPARR for many 
years, both on the resources side and on the crime bill side, and the 
only reason we are tapping this account is that this account is now 
building up an amount that is supposed to be matched on an annual 
basis. It has not been matched for the last several years, so we are 
just putting money into an account, when money is now hard to come by. 
It has $80 million in it unmatched, and to take $2 million for this 
fiscal year, if they spend the money, there is no harm to them. But 
there is no indication they can spend anywhere close to the $80 million 
because of the matching requirement that other communities have. It is 
an effort to try to address the crime problem here and use the money 
without harm.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think it is 
clear that the gentleman is accomplishing two things with one move, and 
that the gentleman honestly disagrees with some of the labor practices 
on the Northern Mariana Islands and is able to express that through 
this amendment, which also transfers funds to a program that the 
gentleman appreciates.
  However, I would say that I oppose this amendment still, but 
understand my colleague's desire in this attempt. But I would oppose 
it, because, number one, I do disagree with his theory on labor 
practices, as is happening in the Northern Marianas; and, number two, I 
would think we should make sure if we have reached an agreement with 
the Northern Mariana Islands and it takes a certain amount of money to 
fulfill that agreement, that we keep that in the budget so we can 
fulfill our pledge, rather than trying to do other things.
  There are many other things we can do with this money that we can 
argue are very beneficial to the people of the United States, but we 
made an agreement with these people and we should keep it. So I oppose 
the amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to say a few words in support of the amendment 
which would place $2 million in the Urban Recreation and Recovery 
Program. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has done 
something very good here, and I think the House recognizes there is no 
one among us who is more expert about this particular program, the 
value of it, the efficacy of the work that is done through this program 
and the need to put money into it.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has identified a source of 
funding which is not going to hurt anyone. The $2 million out of this 
$80 million from the Northern Mariana fund is money which is not being 
used. There is no likelihood this money is going to be matched by the 
Northern Marianas at any time in the near future. This is a very good 
program, and we really need to be funding it.
  There is a great deal of willingness on the part of many Members of 
the House, it seems, to spend money on prisons, but not as much 
willingness to spend money on parks; not as much willingness to spend 
money on prevention, rather than waiting until after the problem has 
arisen before we deal with it. That, I think, is a very serious 
mistake.
  There has been a recent study that was done by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation that said that if young people, high school age, are 
going to get into trouble, they are going to do so in those hours right 
after school lets out, the hours between 3 and 7 o'clock or so in the 
evening.
  One of the reasons people in those situations get into trouble is 
because there is nothing for them to do when school lets out. There are 
millions of young people in urban areas and in rural areas alike across 
this country that have no access to recreational facilities after 
school is out. By spending a few dollars on recreational programs, we 
can avoid the need to spend a great deal of money later on the 
construction of prisons and for other purposes in the criminal justice 
system.
  We know very clearly that if young people have access to recreational 
programs, if young people can hook up with a mentor, some older person 
that can establish a relationship with them, that their life is much 
less likely to take a bad turn and they are much more likely to develop 
into good, sound, solid citizens.
  Money spent on these recreational programs, money spent for these 
parks, is money well spent, and we are well advised to adopt this 
amendment. It is a good, sound, solid amendment, a good use for this 
funding.
  I urge all Members to get behind this amendment and support this 
expenditure of $2 million for our Urban Recovery and Parks Program. It 
is a very good purpose, a very good idea.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the Miller amendment. This is 
an amendment that would provide a very tiny amount of money for an 
authorized program, the Urban Park Recreation and Recovery Program. $2 
million is what would be proposed here, what is proposed here in the 
amendment. It has an offset, which is as benign as any offset that 
anybody could come up with in trying to fund something that is entirely 
legitimate.
  We are trying to find $2 million out of a $10-plus billion bill. That 
is $2 million. That is not two percent, it is 2/100ths of one percent 
of the $10-plus billion bill that we are talking about.
  Every Member in this body, from whatever district they hail from, 
whatever State, whatever kind of district, they have communities which 
could benefit from this kind of legislation.
  In my area, there are two communities that have asked for just 
$50,000 and $100,000 respectively under the Urban Park Recreation and 
Recovery Program, which has not been possible because there are no 
funds in that authorized program. They would, of course, have to match 
it. It is one of those cases where you build a partnership on the part 
of the Federal Government and the State or local government, 
particularly in this instance the local government, to do something 
which is of great benefit to people.
  So I would urge Members to listen to their mayors in those 
communities, or whoever is their chief operating officer, in those 
communities that are struggling to find recreational opportunities for 
their youth.
  It is summertime. There are so many opportunities for kids to find 
trouble. It is in the ballparks and the playgrounds, those active 
places for recreation, that kids go and stay out of trouble. Our public 
parks are where the McGwires and the Griffeys hit their first home 
runs, where the Grant Hills played their first competitive basketball.
  But beyond that, urban parks offer families brief refuge from urban 
decay, from bus exhaust and traffic congestion. The urban park, with 
its water fountains and little league baseball fields, is the place 
where the vast majority of Americans are going to be spending their 
leisure time this summer and around the clock, not just in the 
summertime, but around the clock. It is a place where many children 
first learn team sports. It is the place where families get together to 
fly a kite or bike or walk or rollerblade along a river greenway.
  One of my particular interests, Mr. Chairman, has been that many of 
our urban centers, particularly in the earlier settled parts of the 
country, many of our urban centers run along riverways that not so long 
ago functioned as industrial sewers. Because we have put billions of 
dollars, billions upon billions of dollars into the Clean Water Act 
over a period of years, and because of the more recent industrial 
restructuring that has gone on, these riverways now are a place that 
could be restored as green space to provide for recreation, a true 
wealth of recreation for use by our urban families.
  In those cases, communities that I could name one right after the 
another, and, again, every Member could name in their own districts, 
these communities need some help with the restoration to make these 
areas available for their families for recreation. That help could come 
clearly from the Urban Park Recreation and Recovery Program that we are 
proposing here, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) is 
proposing, just $2 million, with a benign offset to be used.
  Some communities have recreational facilities that are in such poor 
shape they endanger kids' safety and health. These dollars could help 
repair, reconstruct and rehabilitate such facilities.

[[Page H6026]]

 In the past, these grants have been provided recreation for the 
disabled, repaired swimming pools, resurfaced tennis and basketball 
courts, purchased picnic tables, created arts and craft areas, fitness 
trails and bocci courts for senior citizens.
  The public knows that this is money that is well spent. They expect 
money well spent to be appropriated by their government. So I urge 
support for the Miller amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today also in support of the Miller amendment to 
fully fund the administration's request of $2 million for the Urban 
Parks Recreation and Recovery, or UPARR. This invaluable program 
provides competitive matching grants for the revitalization of local 
recreation areas and the improvement of recreation programs and 
services in low income inner-city neighborhoods. These opportunities 
are targeted at urban youth and the expansion of pre and after school 
activities.
  Mr. Chairman, in my own district in the City of New Brunswick, which 
is located in the central part of New Jersey, UPARR grants have been 
used to renovate jogging paths and playing fields and to construct new 
playing fields at Buccleuch Park. The park is used as a recreational 
facility by local high school sports teams, as well as sports teams 
from Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
  In addition, a UPARR grant made additional renovations possible so 
that senior citizens and disabled persons from the senior citizen 
resource center next door could make use of the park's facilities. 
Other UPARR grants have facilitated similar activities at Feaster Park, 
Joyce Kilmer Park and Recreation Park, also located in New Brunswick.
  The National Park Service anticipates applications from 100 to 150 
urban localities across the country for UPARR grants in fiscal year 
1999, requests which will total approximately $20 million. The $2 
million that we are trying to add to the bill today with this amendment 
will enable the Park Service to award 10 to 15 grants, only 10 percent 
of those requested. This, as has been mentioned by my colleagues, is a 
modestly funded program, but one that has a large impact on those 
communities that are fortunate enough to receive these grants, as I 
know from my own City of New Brunswick.
  I urge my colleagues to support urban neighborhoods and urban youth 
by voting for the Miller UPARR amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       historic preservation fund

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the Historic 
     Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), and the 
     Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public 
     Law 104-333), $40,812,000, to be derived from the Historic 
     Preservation Fund, to remain available until September 30, 
     2000, of which $7,700,000 pursuant to section 507 of Public 
     Law 104-333 shall remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     National Park Service may hereafter recover all costs of 
     providing necessary services associated with historic 
     preservation tax certification, and such funds shall remain 
     available until expended.


                              construction

       For construction, improvements, repair or replacement of 
     physical facilities, including the modifications authorized 
     by section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and 
     Expansion Act of 1989, $149,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the Denver Service Center may 
     not levy any assessments against specific construction 
     projects.


                    land and water conservation fund

                              (rescission)

       The contract authority provided for fiscal year 1999 by 16 
     U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.


                 land acquisition and state assistance

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of lands or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with statutory authority applicable to the 
     National Park Service, $69,000,000, to be derived from the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $500,000 is to administer the State 
     assistance program: Provided, That any funds made available 
     for the purpose of acquisition of the Elwha and Glines dams 
     shall be used solely for acquisition, and shall not be 
     expended until the full purchase amount has been appropriated 
     by the Congress: Provided further, That from the funds made 
     available for land acquisition at Everglades National Park 
     and Big Cypress National Preserve, the Secretary may provide 
     for Federal assistance to the State of Florida for the 
     acquisition of lands or waters, or interests therein, within 
     the Everglades watershed (consisting of lands and waters 
     within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management 
     District, Florida Bay and the Florida Keys) under terms and 
     conditions deemed necessary by the Secretary, to improve and 
     restore the hydrological function of the Everglades 
     watershed: Provided further, That funds provided under this 
     heading to the State of Florida shall be subject to an 
     agreement that such lands will be managed in perpetuity for 
     the restoration of the Everglades.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. McGovern

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. McGovern:
       Page 19, line 7, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 70, line 17, insert after the dollar amount ``(reduced 
     by $30,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Before recognizing the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), the Committee will rise informally to receive a 
message.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Pappas) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________