[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.
____________________