[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6039-H6052]
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. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), who, along with the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter), have been two of the people who worked the 
hardest to try to bring their vision of reform to the National Forest 
system, to ensure sustainability, to ensure the fact that timber roads 
are built properly, that we have the highest environmental standards 
and that we improve these roads and protect our natural heritage.
  I regret very much that the gentleman and I have not always seen eye 
to eye, but I regret the fact he is not going to be with us next year. 
I have enjoyed working with the gentleman.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just 
thank my good friend from Washington (Mr. Dicks). Everyone in the 
country listening to the debate should understand that there is no one 
in the Congress of the United States that is responsible for cutting 
down more trees than the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. No, that is not true.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate 
the gentleman for his phenomenal victory that he has been able to 
maintain over the course of the last many, many years in this body.
  But, on a serious note, we ought to recognize a great warrior in 
politics, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) certainly 
fulfills that description. His defense of making certain that we do 
have proper forestry management in this country is something that I 
have come to understand better because of the debates that he has 
fostered on the House floor, and it is important for those of us who 
want to protect our Nation's forests to understand that our forests 
have to be managed.
  But also it is important for us to make certain that we are not 
providing taxpayer subsidies to lumber companies that do not need them, 
lumber companies that have made tremendous profits as a result of the 
largess of the taxpayers and the people of our Nation and the national 
heritage of our country, which has the most phenomenal and beautiful 
forests of any country on the face of the Earth.
  I recognize that we need to strike a balance in terms of the types of 
policies and recognize that it does take taxpayer revenues to support 
the management of our forests, and we ought to be honest and the Forest 
Service ought to be honest about what accounts they really need to 
have, and how much money they need to have, in order to properly manage 
our forests.
  If there are roads that need to be improved, if there are damaged 
areas of our forest that need to be tended to, if there are fire roads 
that need to be built, we ought to build those roads, and we ought to 
put the money in the account that the Forest Service needs. But what we 
ought not to do is turn around and give subsidies to lumber companies 
that simply do not need them. Far too often in the past we have 
commingled those funds and had a complete misunderstanding about what 
actually we were paying for.
  I believe that the administration's policy, which I know the chairman 
of the committee has now gone along with, as well as my friend the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), which gets rid of the purchase-
a-road credit program, which suspends the forest subsidies, the lumber 
subsidies we were giving to the timber companies, which recognizes that 
we ought to have and continue this moratorium into the future, until we 
get an honest accounting of what in fact the Forest Service needs and 
what they do not need.
  I have never backed away from asking for taxpayer dollars for 
legitimate needs of the people of this country. Where there are 
legitimate needs of our forests, we ought to provide the funding. But 
we ought not to be mixing up and providing funding to lumber companies 
that are simply using subsidies that they do not need in order to make 
more and more profits.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for the efforts they have 
made, and also want to say the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) has 
an amendment which is coming up which I believe will once again 
highlight some of the discrepancies and issues that need to be 
addressed further in order to clarify exactly what accounts we ought to 
be putting money in and what accounts we should not be putting money 
in.
  I do want to thank my good friend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks), and recognize the great contribution he makes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the 
remarks of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and compliment all 
the parties and the goodwill of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy). We had a spirited debate on this issue last year, as we all 
know, and I think we have reached a reasonable compromise. I hope that 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) will look at the 
numbers. I think we have done in the bill much of what the gentleman is 
suggesting there in terms of funding reconstruction of roads, trying to 
improve forest health, and making the forest a viable part of our 
Nation's recreation resources.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for one 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the forest is a viable part of our Nation's 
recreational resource, as well as a source of wood fiber under proper 
circumstances. Unfortunately, I will not be able to use my two-by-four 
as evidence this year, so I will point out, so

[[Page H6040]]

I have not wasted all this time, that the price of a two-by-four eight 
feet long has gone in 10 years from $1.75 to $3.09, so that has an 
impact on the cost of housing.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
yield further, I would just like to point out once again that that poor 
old piece of board that the gentleman is holding there that came from 
some lovely tree that was growing in one of our Nation's wonderful 
forests did not end up in fact costing a whole lot more. What ended up 
costing a lot more was the profits to the lumber company, was the 
profits to the guys that are cutting the trees, was the profits to the 
guys that are marketing that lumber, and none of it went to the 
taxpayer. But we could have this debate all over again, if the 
gentleman wants to get into it.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of points in the bill that we expect 
to get to in conference that I hoped I might be able to discuss with 
the chairman of the subcommittee.
  In particular the bill already includes, Mr. Chairman, as you know, 
an increase in funding for the management of the National Wildlife 
Refuge System. I strongly support that increase, among other reasons 
because it is my understanding that such sites as the Rocky Mountain 
Arsenal Refuge and the Two Ponds Refuge, both located in the 
metropolitan Denver area, would be examples of the kind of refuges that 
would benefit from this increase. I hope the chairman can confirm my 
view in that respect.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The increase 
provides for addressing operational and maintenance backlog 
requirements for all the refuges.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments on that. I also anticipate that the gentleman's bill 
will pass and we will get to conference, and anticipate this is 
something that may come up when we do reach conference with the Senate. 
Section 118 of the Senate bill addresses funds transferred for 
activities aimed at the recovery of endangered fish species in the 
upper Colorado River Basin and the San Juan River Basin, and limits 
what is termed the overhead that can be charged against those funds.
  I hope the chairman would review this matter when we do go to 
conference to see if a similar provision could be included in the final 
version of the bill, which I think would be a good idea.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, of 
course, the gentleman will be a conferee, and I think we will all be 
pleased to take a closer look at this provision in the conference.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's consideration, 
and thank him for the opportunity to have this conversation.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues, who I know are waiting 
patiently to offer further amendments to this bill, that I rise for the 
purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the subcommittee chairman, who 
a year ago at this time worked long and hard with me and other 
concerned Members of Congress on a bicameral and bipartisan basis to 
secure the congressional authorization and appropriation of $260 
million to do a major forest land acquisition in my congressional 
district. The forest land in question includes the acreage known as the 
Headwaters Forest, one of the last if not the last unentered, unlogged 
stand of old growth redwood and Douglas fir forest land in private 
ownership.
  We believed a year ago, as we believe today, that this is a very 
important land acquisition for the American people, worthy of Federal 
taxpayer support. The agreement also included participation by the 
State of California government and by State taxpayers to the tune of 
$130 million in order to consummate this particular acquisition.
  Again, I want to emphasize to my colleagues how important the 
chairman's leadership was on this issue and how diligently and for 
many, many days we worked, again on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, to 
secure the necessary congressional approvals for this agreement.
  In light of that, Mr. Chairman, I am very dismayed that the State 
government has not approved their share of the funding to date. In 
fact, as we meet and deliberate this annual spending bill, the State 
legislature and the Governor of California, Pete Wilson, continue in 
deliberations over the State budget for the fiscal year 1999 that was 
due on July 1st of this particular year.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to confirm tonight through this colloquy my 
understanding that the Headwaters Forest, or this forest land 
acquisition, was, again, only agreed to after many, many weeks of 
negotiations among the gentleman's committee, the authorizing 
committees, the staff that worked very hard on this particular 
provision of last year's Interior appropriations spending bill, and the 
Clinton Administration, and that the terms and conditions of this 
proposed acquisition are fair to all parties, including the private 
landowners who are party to this agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, is it your intention to change any of these conditions 
or deadlines that are called for in the agreement that was inserted 
into last year's Interior appropriations spending bill and, therefore, 
effectively codified into law?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague that these 
negotiations were very difficult, and, of course, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs) played a major role in achieving an agreement. 
But, in the end, we struck an agreement that addressed the concerns of 
all parties.
  Let me assure my colleague, I will not support any efforts by the 
administration or the Congress to change any of the deadlines that were 
negotiated as part of this very costly and very controversial 
acquisition.
  Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I know that we had to 
convince the chairman that this acquisition was worthwhile to get his 
personal support, and, again, Federal taxpayer funding in the hundreds 
of millions of dollars.
  So I would ask the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) to again 
confirm my understanding: Before the Federal Government provides the 
$260 million that was authorized and appropriated for the Headwaters 
Forest acquisition, including $10 million in mitigation to the local 
government in Humbolt County, California, that the State of California 
is required to provide $130 million as its share of this acquisition.
  As I mentioned, currently certain legislators, the Democratic 
leadership of the California State legislature, are holding up funding 
for Headwaters in an effort to obtain further environmental concessions 
beyond those agreed to by the Federal Government and the State of 
California Government, in conjunction with the property owner.
  Therefore I am rising tonight, Mr. Chairman, to express that concern 
that these efforts will in fact kill the agreement that was worked out 
a year ago, and I would like to know if the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Regula) shares these concerns?

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. REGULA. I agree with the gentleman that it would be a shame if 
this agreement falls apart after all the laborious negotiations because 
some people wish to make changes at the eleventh hour.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, once again I want to 
thank the gentleman for his help and his vision and his good counsel.
  I will wrap up very briefly by saying I really believe this is our 
last best chance to see this particular forest land acquisition become 
a reality. I am concerned when I see newspaper headlines, and I intend 
to insert these articles in the Record under general leave, but I am 
concerned when I see newspaper headlines as recently published: 
``Activists' Demands Jeopardize Deal for Headwaters Forest;'' 
``Headwaters Forest Plan Has Politicians at Loggerheads,'' again 
referring to the State budget deliberations in Sacramento.

[[Page H6041]]

                [From the Press Democrat, June 29, 1998]

          Activists' Demands Jeopardize Deal for Headquarters

                           (By Mike Geniella)

       As recently as late February, negotiators trying to 
     complete public purchase of the target tract of ancient 
     redwoods in private ownership were patting themselves on the 
     back, confident the North Coast's longest running 
     environmental controversy had been resolved.
       Four months later, a $380 million agreement to buy 
     Headquarters Forest from Pacific Lumber Co. is on the verge 
     of collapse, the result of the increased demands by 
     environmental leaders who felt frozen out of the process and 
     vanishing patience on the part of a tough Texas tycoon who 
     owns the trees.
       At stake is the future of 3,000 acres of old growth 
     redwoods in southern Humboldt County that have become a 
     national symbol of environmental problems and, for 
     environmentalists, a harbinger of a ``mess extinction'' of 
     plants and animals that some wildlife biologists say is 
     already underway.
       Originally destined to be turned into lumber Headwaters 
     Forest helped galvanize anti-logging protests in the early 
     90s and prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-Calif., and the 
     Clinton administration to make the controversy a personal 
     challenge. After months of tough negotiations, Feinstein 
     eventually brokered a purchase arrangement with Pacific 
     Lumber that would create a 7,500-acre redwood preserve with 
     Headwaters as it centerpiece.
       But environmentalists, who were not privy to most of the 
     negotiations, felt shut out of the process and now are 
     demanding further review of the settlement.
       Sierra Club representative Elyssa Rosen said because 
     critical environmental provisions were negotiated behind 
     closed doors, ``The loopholes in the deal are so big you 
     could drive a logging truck through them.
       Environmentalists have enlisted the support of Democrat 
     state legislators, including Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-
     Martin of Duncans Mills, who are now holding up the state's 
     $130 million share of the purchase price in hopes of 
     increasing protections for 200,000 acres of other redwoods 
     owned by Pacific Lumber.
       ``Proponents are saying adequate protections are there, but 
     we really don't know that,'' said Strom-Martin.
       To Pacific Lumber officials, criticism of the agreement is 
     simply another example of a familiar political gambit in 
     which environmentalists seek and get concessions, then up the 
     ante again, knowing that in the meantime Headwaters trees are 
     not being cut.
       ``They keep moving the goal posts,'' Charles Hurwitz, whose 
     Maxxam Inc. owns Pacific Lumber, complained earlier this 
     year.
       Pilloried by environmentalists for not agreeing to more 
     environmental safeguards, Hurwitz and Pacific Lumber are also 
     coming under fire from their own industry for making too many 
     concessions to state and federal agencies, which industry 
     executives fear will become standard for all.
       Meanwhile, Feinstein and other public officials who support 
     the pact are increasingly frustrated, arguing that if it is 
     not consummated soon, any practical chance of permanently 
     protecting Headwaters may be lost.
       ``This is it. We're not going to get another chance,'' said 
     Feinstein.
       The senator, who presided over the Washington, D.C. talks 
     on behalf of the Clinton administration, said last week that 
     she's deeply concerned that the agreement might collapse if 
     critics persist in their tactics.
       ``If this agreement fails at the state level, it will send 
     a very strong signal to the federal government. I can assure 
     you a $250 million congressional authorization to protect 
     Headwaters won't happen again,'' said Feinstein.
       Saying she's respectful of state lawmakers' concerns 
     Feinstein said, ``I truly hope we can find a way to work this 
     out. But the bottom line is that time is marching on, and if 
     we don't do this deal now, it will never be done.''
       Representatives of the Wilson administration say the same 
     political stopwatch is running at the state level.
       ``If the Legislature doesn't include the state funding in 
     this year's budget, the chances are virtually nil we can ever 
     resolve this controversy,'' said state Resources Secretary 
     Doug Wheeler.
       Hurwitz representatives said last week they're done 
     dealing.
       ``We've negotiated this deal over many, many months, and 
     along the way won bipartisan support in Congress and approval 
     from state and federal scientists. What more could anyone 
     ask?'' said Hurwitz spokesman Bob Irelan.
       If the Headwaters deal falters, Pacific Lumber and Hurwitz 
     vow to renew claims in federal court that the government, 
     through regulatory constraints, has effectively confiscated 
     its old-growth timberlands.
       Critics argue that Hurwitz couldn't possibly win such a 
     case--known in legal parlance as a ``takings'' argument--
     because he still can derive economic benefit from Pacific 
     Lumber's remaining timberlands.
       But legal experts suggest the issues are more complex.
       ``Frankly, there continues to be a state of confusion 
     surrounding the `takings' issue,'' said Jerold Kaplan, a 
     Harvard University professor and former senior fellow at the 
     Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in Cambridge, Mass.
       Based on recent court cases, including Supreme Court 
     rulings, Kaplan said, ``Government still has the upper hand, 
     and has since the 1920s. But there has been a slight shift in 
     the direction of granting further protections to property 
     owners since 1987, although I must emphasize slight,'' said 
     Kaplan.
       Hurwitz has hired a high-profile Southern California 
     attorney who specializes in takings cases, and he's more 
     sanguine about Pacific Lumber's chances, saying the company 
     could win $500 million or more in damages if its takings 
     lawsuit is pursued.
       ``What the critics don't get is that we're not alleging the 
     government is ?????? ing regulatory restraints on our 
     operation,'' said lawyer Michael Berger of Santa Monica. 
     ``What's wrong is that government is protecting the 
     environment at the expense of a private property owner.''
       ``The real issue is, who's going to pay for that 
     protection?''
       Environmentalists, however, argue that the stakes are so 
     high that the Headwaters agreement must be modified.
       State Sen. Byron Sher, a Palo Alto Democrat, said if the 
     public looks beyond ``the hype over the deal to save the 
     Headwaters Forest, you'll see that taxpayers may not be 
     getting their money's worth.''
       Outlining his position in a recent opinion piece, Sher said 
     he believes the proposed 7,500-acre Headwaters preserve alone 
     is not worth the $380 million price tag.
       Sher argued the price can only be justified ``if the public 
     can be assured that the side agreement--a giant string 
     attached to the purchase known as a habitat conservation 
     plan--won't imperil the future of endangered species on 
     Pacific Lumber's 200,000 acres.
       Because funding of the state's $130 million share of the 
     Headwaters deal is dependent on a required two-thirds 
     majority in the Legislature, Sher is confident critics can 
     muster enough votes to block legislative approval.
       But Feinstein and other proponents argue it's unfair for 
     Sher and his supporters to try to renegotiate key provisions 
     of an agreement that was reached only after more than 100 
     hours of intense, face-to-face negotiations among state, 
     federal and Pacific Lumber Co., representatives in 
     Washington, D.C.
       Wheeler, Pete Wilson's chief negotiator during the 
     Headwaters talks, said he finds it ``troubling that at this 
     late date a few members of the Legislature are attempting to 
     substitute their judgment for that of state and federal 
     scientists who have negotiated very stringent requirements.''
       According to Wheeler, the choice is clear.
       ``Either legislators seize the opportunity now, or lose it 
     for all time to come,'' he said.
       Ultimately, for environmentalists, the question may be 
     whether no deal is better than a bad deal.
       ``That's a tough call,'' said the Sierra Club's Rosen. ``I 
     think most parties would really like to see the agreement go 
     forward. But the Sierra Club is going to have to see 
     something better on the table before we can support state 
     approval.''

            [From the San Jose Mercury News, July 18, 1998]

         Headwaters Forest Plan has Politicians at Loggerheads


            saying it's not enough, Sher holds up agreement

                            (By Paul Rogers)

       For the past 12 years, environmental activists have chained 
     themselves to trees and hung off the Golden Gate Bridge 
     trying to save the ancient redwoods of Northern California's 
     Headwaters Forest from logging.
       Yet in perhaps the most important showdown yet, the 
     struggle has moved away from the TV cameras and the police in 
     riot gear to a new arena: Gov. Pete Wilson's office.
       And now it's crunch time.
       A $380 million deal to buy 7,500 acres of the forest from 
     Pacific Lumber Co. of Humboldt County is tangled up in 
     negotiations this weekend among ``The Big Five''--Wilson and 
     the top Sacramento lawmakers haggling over the state's 
     budget.
       One person more than any other is responsible for holding 
     up the redwood deal: state Sen. Byron Sher, D-Redwood City. 
     And environmentalists couldn't be happier.
       Congress already has approved $250 million for the deal. 
     The remaining $130 million must come from Sacramento.
       But the deal shortchanges taxpayers and doesn't go far 
     enough to protect salmon streams or old-growth trees, Sher 
     says. So, the 70-year-old Standford University law professor, 
     widely viewed as the environmental dean of the Legislature, 
     earlier this year succeeded in pulling the state's $130 
     million share out of the budget, where Wilson wanted it. 
     Instead, Sher wrote a separate bill demanding tougher logging 
     rules across the Pacific Lumber's remaining 200,000 acres as 
     a condition of receiving the money.
       But he has found himself caught in a powerful bipartisan 
     squeeze from Wilson--California's most powerful Republican--
     and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein--the state's most powerful 
     Democrat--both of whom painstakingly negotiated the deal with 
     Pacific Lumber owner Charles Hurwitz and now want to see it 
     survive.
       ``It's high noon for this deal,'' said Carl Pope, national 
     executive director of the Sierra Club. ``Byron Sher is under 
     a tremendous amount of pressure. I'm delighted he has been 
     firm.''
       The question now is who will blink. The answer could come 
     any day now. Wilson and the Republicans could go along with 
     Sher and require the tougher standards. That could happen 
     under a scenario where Wilson

[[Page H6042]]

     compromises on Headwaters to win from Democrats his top goal, 
     a cut in the state's car licensing fees. But one risk is that 
     Hurwitz will walk away from the table. Or top Democratic 
     negotiators--Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, D-San 
     Francisco, and Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, D-Los 
     Angeles--could abandon Sher, cutting a deal with Wilson that 
     gives them what they want on issues such as education 
     funding.
       Environmental and timber lobbyists have spent weeks 
     frenetically trying to sway lawmakers.
       ``Of course I'm nervous,'' said John Campbell, president of 
     Pacific Lumber, based in Scotia, near Eureka. ``We've spent 
     over 10 years at this. And now at the 11th hour people are 
     saying it's not enough.''
       Sher's bill, said Campbell ``is too restrictive. The 
     company could not remain economically viable.''
       Feinstein also says Sher is driving too hard a bargain.
       ``There have been at least 10 separate efforts to save 
     Headwaters over the last 12 years,'' she said, describing 
     herself as ``incredulous.'' ``Every one of them has failed. 
     This saves virtually more redwood than any other effort I 
     know of.''
       If Sher keeps pushing for a stricter deal, she said, that 
     could endanger $250 million in federal money already approved 
     by Congress and signed by President Clinton.


                             funds coveted

       ``There are murmurs back here from other senators about 
     what they would like to do with the money instead,'' said 
     Feinstein. ``I can say 100 percent that if this doesn't go 
     through, then the federal money is gone. I feel I've done 
     everything I could over a long period of time to get the best 
     I could. At some point people have to trust that and 
     recognize that.''
       Headwaters Forest, 15 miles south of Eureka, is the world's 
     largest privately owned old-growth redwood forest. It has 
     been a flash point of national controversy since 1985, when 
     Hurwitz, chairman of Houston-based Maxxam Inc., acquired 
     Pacific Lumber in a hostile takeover, doubled the rate of 
     logging and threatened to clear-cut Headwaters Grove.
       After huge protests, Feinstein and other officials reached 
     an agreement with Hurwitz in 1996 to buy 7,500 acres--about 
     half of it old growth--for parkland.
       The deal also requires Pacific Lumber to prepare a 
     ``habitat conservation plan'' for managing its remaining 
     200,000 acres of forest during the next 50 years.
       This week, details emerged in a 2,000-page document from 
     the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, negotiated with Pacific 
     Lumber.
       The plan calls for banning logging within 30 feet of 
     endangered salmon streams. By contrast, Sher's bill calls for 
     170-foot buffer zones.
       And although the plan would preserve 11 smaller old-growth 
     groves, Sher wants another, Owl Creek.
       He said he's not scuttling any deal, just representing the 
     taxpayers of California.
       ``I know that Senator Feinstein has invested a lot in 
     this,'' Sher said. ``She deserves credit for getting the 
     agreement. And she was instrumental in getting the 
     appropriation.
       ``But I don't believe I was elected by my constituents to 
     rubber-stamp a deal that was made behind closed doors in 
     Washington. The Legislature had no influence over it, and 
     then they say OK, give us $130 million.''
       If he were almost any other Senate member, Sher probably 
     would have been steamrollered by now.
       But on environmental topics, he carries considerable 
     influence.
       As an assemblyman in 1988, Sher wrote the state's Clean Air 
     Act. In 1989 he wrote the law that required California cities 
     and counties to reduce by 50 percent their trash, through 
     recycling, by 2000. He also has written laws to toughen 
     drinking water standards, monitor acid rain and put scenic 
     rivers off limits to dams.
       ``We have a responsibility to see if this is a good deal 
     for the state of California,'' said Sher. ``And frankly it 
     has serious flaws in it, particularly in protecting coho 
     salmon.''
       So far, Sher appears to be winning.
       In a key test on Thursday, Republican Cathie Wright of Simi 
     Valley attempted to put the $130 million in Headwaters money 
     back in the budget bill. She was rebuffed by budget 
     conference committee Chairman Mike Thompson, D-Napa.


                            deal is possible

       Thompson, who is running for Congress this November to 
     represent the North Coast district that includes Headwaters 
     Forest, signed on two weeks ago as a co-sponsor to Sher's 
     bill.
       ``Senator Thompson thinks the Sher bill makes the agreement 
     stronger,'' said Ed Matovcik, chief of staff for Thompson.
       Meanwhile, Wilson's staff hinted on Friday that he may be 
     willing to wheel and deal on Headwaters.
       ``It has been the administration's preference to pay for 
     the Headwaters agreement out of the general fund,'' said Ron 
     Low, a spokesman for the governor. ``That's the governor's 
     preference. But as to any deals, negotiations are ongoing.''
       To approve the funding in any form will require a two-
     thirds vote of the Legislature.
       If the entire deal collapses, environmentalists will be in 
     court fighting Hurwitz on each timber cutting plan. They say 
     that would be better than the precedent-setting deal.
       But the company says having the deal fall through would be 
     a disaster.
       ``I just hope the issue is put to bed,'' said Campbell. 
     ``It's crucial to our 1,500 employees. It will finish a very 
     divisive period on the North Coast. Otherwise, we're back to 
     square one.''

  So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman sharing my concerns and 
supporting me in entering into this colloquy so that hopefully, we can 
send a message to our counterparts in Sacramento that they need to get 
the job done and we should not miss this opportunity, because it is, in 
fact, our last best opportunity to make this forest land acquisition a 
reality.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington, the 
distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say this to my friend from 
California. We had a major debate a few years ago on the Riggs 
amendment. I stood up and urged that the company develop a multi-specie 
habitat conservation plan.
  Now, they negotiated for 2 years with the Federal Government. This is 
the most difficult negotiation that I can think of. I think the 
standards here are the highest in the entire country, including some of 
the standards that are developed in Washington State and are going to 
be imposed in this agreement.
  So I think the company, the Pacific Lumber Company, has been acting 
in complete good faith, and I would just hope that the legislature in 
California would provide the resources that they have committed from 
the State in order to bring this together. If anybody thinks that the 
standards here of a multi-specie agency are not really high, they just 
do not understand what is required under the Endangered Species Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Riggs was 
allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I think it is 
almost miraculous that they made it, and I hope that we can put this 
together, because I think it is a good agreement.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time and finishing this 
colloquy, I appreciate the gentleman's sentiments and I appreciate him 
joining with me and the chairman in sending that bipartisan message to 
Sacramento.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows:

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

                       Department of Agriculture

                             Forest Service

                     forest and rangeland research

       For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as 
     authorized by law, $197,444,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                       state and private forestry

       For necessary expenses of cooperating with and providing 
     technical and financial assistance to States, territories, 
     possessions, and others, and for forest health management, 
     cooperative forestry, and education and land conservation 
     activities, $156,167,000, to remain available until expended, 
     as authorized by law.

                         national forest system

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and 
     utilization of the National Forest System, and for 
     administrative expenses associated with the management of 
     funds provided under the headings ``Forest and Rangeland 
     Research'', ``State and Private Forestry'', ``National Forest 
     System'', ``Wildland Fire Management'', ``Reconstruction and 
     Construction'', and ``Land Acquisition'', $1,231,421,000, to 
     remain available until expended, which shall include 50 
     percent of all moneys received during prior fiscal years as 
     fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
     of 1965, as amended, in accordance with section 4 of the Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)).

                        wildland fire management

       For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression 
     activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency 
     fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands 
     under fire protection agreement, and for emergency 
     rehabilitation of burned-over National Forest System lands 
     and waters, $631,737,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such funds are available for repayment of 
     advances from other appropriations accounts previously 
     transferred for such purposes.

                    reconstruction and construction

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, $271,444,000,

[[Page H6043]]

     to remain available until expended for construction, 
     reconstruction and acquisition of buildings and other 
     facilities, and for construction, reconstruction, repair and 
     maintenance of forest roads and trails by the Forest Service 
     as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205: 
     Provided, That up to $15,000,000 of the funds provided herein 
     for road maintenance shall be available for the planned 
     obliteration of roads which are no longer needed: Provided 
     further, That the Forest Service may make an advance of up to 
     $200,000 from the funds provided under this heading in this 
     Act and up to $800,000 provided under this heading in Public 
     Law 105-83 to the city of Colorado Springs, Colorado for the 
     design and reconstruction of the Pikes Peak Summit House in 
     accordance with terms and conditions agreed to.


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of 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 
     Forest Service, $30,000,000, to be derived from the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended.


         acquisition of lands for national forests special acts

       For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of 
     the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the 
     Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San 
     Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests, 
     California, as authorized by law, $1,069,000, to be derived 
     from forest receipts.


            acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges

       For acquisition of lands, such sums, to be derived from 
     funds deposited by State, county, or municipal governments, 
     public school districts, or other public school authorities 
     pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 484a), to remain available until expended.

                         range betterment fund

       For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection, 
     and improvement, 50 percent of all moneys received during the 
     prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock on 
     lands in National Forests in the sixteen Western States, 
     pursuant to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as 
     amended, to remain available until expended, of which not to 
     exceed 6 percent shall be available for administrative 
     expenses associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation, 
     protection, and improvements.

    gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research

       For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $92,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund 
     established pursuant to the above Act.

               administrative provisions, forest service

       Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal 
     year shall be available for: (1) purchase of not to exceed 
     177 passenger motor vehicles of which 22 will be used 
     primarily for law enforcement purposes and of which 176 shall 
     be for replacement; acquisition of 25 passenger motor 
     vehicles from excess sources, and hire of such vehicles; 
     operation and maintenance of aircraft, the purchase of not to 
     exceed two for replacement only, and acquisition of 
     sufficient aircraft from excess sources to maintain the 
     operable fleet at 198 aircraft for use in Forest Service 
     wildland fire programs and other Forest Service programs; 
     notwithstanding other provisions of law, existing aircraft 
     being replaced may be sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in 
     value used to offset the purchase price for the replacement 
     aircraft; (2) services pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2225, and not to 
     exceed $100,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; (3) 
     purchase, erection, and alteration of buildings and other 
     public improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4) acquisition of land, 
     waters, and interests therein, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (5) 
     for expenses pursuant to the Volunteers in the National 
     Forest Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 558a note); (6) 
     the cost of uniforms as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and 
     (7) for debt collection contracts in accordance with 31 
     U.S.C. 3718(c).
       None of the funds made available under this Act shall be 
     obligated or expended to abolish any region, to move or close 
     any regional office for National Forest System administration 
     of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture without the 
     advance consent of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
        Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest 
     Service may be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management 
     appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency 
     rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters 
     under its jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe 
     burning conditions.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for assistance to or through the Agency for International 
     Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service in 
     connection with forest and rangeland research, technical 
     information, and assistance in foreign countries, and shall 
     be available to support forestry and related natural resource 
     activities outside the United States and its territories and 
     possessions, including technical assistance, education and 
     training, and cooperation with United States and 
     international organizations.
       None of the funds made available to the Forest Service 
     under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the 
     provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b unless 
     the proposed transfer is approved in advance by the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in House Report 105-163.
       None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be 
     reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
     procedures contained in House Report 105-163.
       No funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund of the Department of 
     Agriculture without the approval of the Chief of the Forest 
     Service.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, hereafter any 
     appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service may 
     be used to disseminate program information to private and 
     public individuals and organizations through the use of 
     nonmonetary items of nominal value and to provide nonmonetary 
     awards of nominal value and to incur necessary expenses for 
     the nonmonetary recognition of private individuals and 
     organizations that make contributions to Forest Service 
     programs.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, hereafter 
     money collected, in advance or otherwise, by the Forest 
     Service under authority of section 101 of Public Law 93-153 
     (30 U.S.C. 185(1)) as reimbursement of administrative and 
     other costs incurred in processing pipeline right-of-way or 
     permit applications and for costs incurred in monitoring the 
     construction, operation, maintenance, and termination of any 
     pipeline and related facilities, may be used to reimburse the 
     applicable appropriation to which such costs were originally 
     charged.
       Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to 
     conduct a program of 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 the Act of August 13, 1970, as amended by 
     Public Law 93-408.
       None of the funds available in this Act shall be used for 
     timber sale preparation using clearcutting in hardwood stands 
     in excess of 25 percent of the fiscal year 1989 harvested 
     volume in the Wayne National Forest, Ohio: Provided, That 
     this limitation shall not apply to hardwood stands damaged by 
     natural disaster: Provided further, That landscape architects 
     shall be used to maintain a visually pleasing forest.
        Any money collected from the States for fire suppression 
     assistance rendered by the Forest Service on non-Federal 
     lands not in the vicinity of National Forest System lands 
     shall hereafter be used to reimburse the applicable 
     appropriation and shall remain available until expended as 
     the Secretary may direct in conducting activities authorized 
     by 16 U.S.C. 2101 note, 2101-2110, 1606, and 2111.
        Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $1,500 is 
     available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official 
     reception and representation expenses.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, hereafter the 
     Forest Service is authorized to employ or otherwise contract 
     with persons at regular rates of pay, as determined by the 
     Service, to perform work occasioned by emergencies such as 
     fires, storms, floods, earthquakes or any other unavoidable 
     cause without regard to Sundays, Federal holidays, and the 
     regular workweek.
       To the greatest extent possible, and in accordance with the 
     Final Amendment to the Shawnee National Forest Plan, none of 
     the funds available in this Act shall be used for preparation 
     of timber sales using clearcutting or other forms of even-
     aged management in hardwood stands in the Shawnee National 
     Forest, Illinois.
        Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
     593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, up to 
     $2,250,000 may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial 
     assistance to the National Forest Foundation, without regard 
     to when the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative 
     expenses or projects on or benefitting National Forest System 
     lands or related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That 
     of the Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no 
     more than $400,000 shall be available for administrative 
     expenses: Provided further, That the Foundation shall obtain, 
     by the end of the period of Federal financial assistance, 
     private contributions to match on at least one-for-one basis 
     funds made available by the Forest Service: Provided further, 
     That the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a non-
     Federal recipient for a project at the same rate that the 
     recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching funds: 
     Provided further, That hereafter, the National Forest 
     Foundation may hold Federal funds made available but not 
     immediately disbursed and may use any interest or other 
     investment income earned (before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act) on Federal funds to carry out the 
     purposes of Public Law 101-593: Provided further, That such 
     investments may be made only in interest-bearing obligations 
     of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both 
     principal and interest by the United States.
       Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244, up to 
     $2,225,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall 
     be available for matching funds to the National Fish and 
     Wildlife Foundation, as authorized by 16

[[Page H6044]]

     U.S.C. 3701-3709, and may be advanced in a lump sum as 
     Federal financial assistance, without regard to when expenses 
     are incurred, for projects on or benefitting National Forest 
     System lands or related to Forest Service programs: Provided, 
     That the Foundation shall obtain, by the end of the period of 
     Federal financial assistance, private contributions to match 
     on at least a one-for-one basis funds advanced by the Forest 
     Service: Provided further, That the Foundation may transfer 
     Federal funds to a non-Federal recipient for a project at the 
     same rate that the recipient has obtained the non-Federal 
     matching funds.
        Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be 
     available for interactions with and providing technical 
     assistance to rural communities for sustainable rural 
     development purposes.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 80 percent of 
     the funds appropriated to the Forest Service in the 
     ``National Forest System'' and ``Reconstruction and 
     Construction'' accounts and planned to be allocated to 
     activities under the ``Jobs in the Woods'' program for 
     projects on National Forest land in the State of Washington 
     may be granted directly to the Washington State Department of 
     Fish and Wildlife for accomplishment of planned projects. 
     Twenty percent of said funds shall be retained by the Forest 
     Service for planning and administering projects. Project 
     selection and prioritization shall be accomplished by the 
     Forest Service with such consultation with the State of 
     Washington as the Forest Service deems appropriate.
        Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be 
     available for payments to counties within the Columbia River 
     Gorge National Scenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and 
     (2), and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
        The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to enter into 
     grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements as appropriate 
     with the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, as well as with 
     public and other private agencies, organizations, 
     institutions, and individuals, to provide for the 
     development, administration, maintenance, or restoration of 
     land, facilities, or Forest Service programs, at the Grey 
     Towers National Historic Landmark: Provided, That, subject to 
     such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture may 
     prescribe, any such public or private agency, organization, 
     institution, or individual may solicit, accept, and 
     administer private gifts of money and real or personal 
     property for the benefit of, or in connection with, the 
     activities and services at the Grey Towers National Historic 
     Landmark: Provided further, That such gifts may be accepted 
     notwithstanding the fact that a donor conducts business with 
     the Department of Agriculture in any capacity.
        Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be 
     available, as determined by the Secretary, for payments to 
     Del Norte County, California, pursuant to sections 13(e) and 
     14 of the Smith River National Recreation Area Act (Public 
     Law 101-612).
        For purposes of the Southeast Alaska Economic Disaster 
     Fund as set forth in section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134, 
     the direct grants provided in subsection (c) shall be 
     considered direct payments for purposes of all applicable law 
     except that these direct grants may not be used for lobbying 
     activities.
       No employee of the Department of Agriculture may be 
     detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by this 
     Act to any other agency or office of the Department for more 
     than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or 
     office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office 
     for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of 
     assignment.
       The amount obligated during fiscal year 1999 from the 
     Knutson-Vandenberg fund provided in section 3 of the Act of 
     June 9, 1930 (commonly known as the Knutson-Vandenberg Act; 
     16 U.S.C. 576b), for indirect support activities (as defined 
     in the Forest Service Handbook) may not exceed 25 percent of 
     total amount obligated from such fund during such fiscal 
     year.
       The amount obligated during fiscal year 1999 from the 
     timber salvage sale fund provided in section 14(h) of the 
     National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a(h)) 
     for indirect support activities (as defined in the Forest 
     Service Handbook) may not exceed 25 percent of total amount 
     obligated from such fund during such fiscal year.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                 fossil energy research and development

       For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy 
     research and development activities, under the authority of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), 
     including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 
     and equitable interests in any real property or any facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for 
     conducting inquiries, technological investigations and 
     research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and 
     disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social 
     and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 
     performed under the minerals and materials science programs 
     at the Albany Research Center in Oregon, $320,558,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That no part of 
     the sum herein made available shall be used for the field 
     testing of nuclear explosives in the recovery of oil and gas.

                      alternative fuels production


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Moneys received as investment income on the principal 
     amount in the Great Plains Project Trust at the Norwest Bank 
     of North Dakota, in such sums as are earned as of October 1, 
     1998, shall be deposited in this account and immediately 
     transferred to the general fund of the Treasury. Moneys 
     received as revenue sharing from operation of the Great 
     Plains Gasification Plant shall be immediately transferred to 
     the general fund of the Treasury.

                 naval petroleum and oil shale reserves

       For necessary expenses in carrying out naval petroleum and 
     oil shale reserve activities, $14,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the requirements of 
     10 U.S.C. 7430(b)(2)(B) shall not apply to fiscal year 1999: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, funds available pursuant to the first proviso under 
     this head in Public Law 101-512 shall be immediately 
     available for all naval petroleum and oil shale reserve 
     activities.

                          energy conservation

       For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation 
     activities, $630,250,000, to remain available until expended, 
     including, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     excess amount for fiscal year 1999 determined under the 
     provisions of section 3003(d) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 
     4502): Provided, That $150,000,000 shall be for use in energy 
     conservation programs as defined in section 3008(3) of Public 
     Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507) and shall not be available until 
     excess amounts are determined under the provisions of section 
     3003(d) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4502): Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public 
     Law 99-509 such sums shall be allocated to the eligible 
     programs as follows: $120,000,000 for weatherization 
     assistance grants and $30,000,000 for State energy 
     conservation grants.

                          economic regulation

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Office of Hearings and Appeals, $1,801,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                      strategic petroleum reserve

       For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facility development and operations and program management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $160,120,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                   energy information administration

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Energy Information Administration, $68,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


            administrative provisions, department of energy

       Appropriations under this Act for the current fiscal year 
     shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase, 
     repair, and cleaning of uniforms; and reimbursement to the 
     General Services Administration for security guard services.
       From appropriations under this Act, transfers of sums may 
     be made to other agencies of the Government for the 
     performance of work for which the appropriation is made.
       None of the funds made available to the Department of 
     Energy under this Act shall be used to implement or finance 
     authorized price support or loan guarantee programs unless 
     specific provision is made for such programs in an 
     appropriations Act.
       The Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings, 
     equipment, and other contributions from public and private 
     sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other 
     agencies, Federal, State, private or foreign: Provided, That 
     revenues and other moneys received by or for the account of 
     the Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of 
     products in connection with projects of the Department 
     appropriated under this Act may be retained by the Secretary 
     of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for 
     plant construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-
     sharing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing 
     contracts or agreements: Provided further, That the remainder 
     of revenues after the making of such payments shall be 
     covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided 
     further, That any contract, agreement, or provision thereof 
     entered into by the Secretary pursuant to this authority 
     shall not be executed prior to the expiration of 30 calendar 
     days (not including any day in which either House of Congress 
     is not in session because of adjournment of more than three 
     calendar days to a day certain) from the receipt by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of 
     the Senate of a full comprehensive report on such project, 
     including the facts and circumstances relied upon in support 
     of the proposed project.
       No funds provided in this Act may be expended by the 
     Department of Energy to prepare, issue, or process 
     procurement documents for programs or projects for which 
     appropriations have not been made.
       In addition to other authorities set forth in this Act, the 
     Secretary may accept fees and contributions from public and 
     private sources, to be deposited in a contributed funds 
     account, and prosecute projects using such fees and 
     contributions in cooperation with other Federal, State or 
     private agencies or concerns.
       The Secretary, in fiscal year 1999 and thereafter, shall 
     continue the process begun in fiscal year 1998 of accepting 
     funds from

[[Page H6045]]

     other Federal agencies in return for assisting agencies in 
     achieving energy efficiency in Federal facilities and 
     operations by the use of privately financed, energy savings 
     performance contracts and other private financing mechanisms. 
     The funds may be provided after agencies begin to realize 
     energy cost savings; may be retained by the Secretary until 
     expended; and may be used only for the purpose of assisting 
     Federal agencies in achieving greater efficiency, water 
     conservation and use of renewable energy by means of 
     privately financed mechanisms, including energy savings 
     performance contracts and utility incentive programs. These 
     recovered funds will continue to be used to administer even 
     greater energy efficiency, water conservation and use of 
     renewable energy by means of privately financed mechanisms 
     such as utility efficiency service contracts and energy 
     savings performance contracts. The recoverable funds will be 
     used for all necessary program expenses, including contractor 
     support and resources needed, to achieve overall Federal 
     energy management program objectives for greater energy 
     savings. Any such privately financed contracts shall meet the 
     provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-
     486 regarding energy savings performance contracts and 
     utility incentive programs.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                         Indian Health Service

                         indian health services

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5, 
     1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of 
     the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian 
     Health Service, $1,932,953,000, together with payments 
     received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b) 
     for services furnished by the Indian Health Service: 
     Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal 
     organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any 
     other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the 
     grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available 
     to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year 
     limitation: Provided further, That $12,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic Health 
     Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $377,363,000 for 
     contract medical care shall remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2000: Provided further, That of the funds 
     provided, up to $17,000,000 may be used to carry out the loan 
     repayment program under section 108 of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act: Provided further, That funds provided in 
     this Act may be used for one-year contracts and grants which 
     are to be performed in two fiscal years, so long as the total 
     obligation is recorded in the year for which the funds are 
     appropriated: Provided further, That the amounts collected by 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the 
     authority of title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act shall remain available until expended for the purpose of 
     achieving compliance with the applicable conditions and 
     requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
     Act (exclusive of planning, design, or construction of new 
     facilities): Provided further, That funding contained herein, 
     and in any earlier appropriations Acts for scholarship 
     programs under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 
     U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2000: Provided further, That amounts received 
     by tribes and tribal organizations under title IV of the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act shall be reported and 
     accounted for and available to the receiving tribes and 
     tribal organizations until expended: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the amounts 
     provided herein, not to exceed $194,781,000 shall be for 
     payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract or 
     grant support costs associated with contracts, grants, self-
     governance compacts or annual funding agreements between the 
     Indian Health Service and a tribe or tribal organization 
     pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as 
     amended, prior to or during fiscal year 1999.

                        indian health facilities

       For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and 
     equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities, 
     including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans, 
     specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase 
     and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers; 
     and for provision of domestic and community sanitation 
     facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act 
     of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
     Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and 
     titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with 
     respect to environmental health and facilities support 
     activities of the Indian Health Service, $313,175,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated for the planning, design, construction or 
     renovation of health facilities for the benefit of an Indian 
     tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land for sites to 
     construct, improve, or enlarge health or related facilities.

            administrative provisions, indian health service

       Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service 
     shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109 but at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent 
     to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under 
     5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; 
     purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints; 
     purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and 
     renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms 
     or allowances therefore as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are 
     concerned with the functions or activities for which the 
     appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved 
     conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or 
     activities: Provided, That in accordance with the provisions 
     of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, non-Indian 
     patients may be extended health care at all tribally 
     administered or Indian Health Service facilities, subject to 
     charges, and the proceeds along with funds recovered under 
     the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651-2653) 
     shall be credited to the account of the facility providing 
     the service and shall be available without fiscal year 
     limitation: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     law or regulation, funds transferred from the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service 
     shall be administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian 
     Sanitation Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated to the Indian 
     Health Service in this Act, except those used for 
     administrative and program direction purposes, shall not be 
     subject to limitations directed at curtailing Federal travel 
     and transportation: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, funds previously or herein made 
     available to a tribe or tribal organization through a 
     contract, grant, or agreement authorized by title I or title 
     III of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
     Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450), may be deobligated and 
     reobligated to a self-determination contract under title I, 
     or a self-governance agreement under title III of such Act 
     and thereafter shall remain available to the tribe or tribal 
     organization without fiscal year limitation: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available to the Indian 
     Health Service in this Act shall be used to implement the 
     final rule published in the Federal Register on September 16, 
     1987, by the Department of Health and Human Services, 
     relating to the eligibility for the health care services of 
     the Indian Health Service until the Indian Health Service has 
     submitted a budget request reflecting the increased costs 
     associated with the proposed final rule, and such request has 
     been included in an appropriations Act and enacted into law: 
     Provided further, That funds made available in this Act are 
     to be apportioned to the Indian Health Service as 
     appropriated in this Act, and accounted for in the 
     appropriation structure set forth in this Act: Provided 
     further, That with respect to functions transferred by the 
     Indian Health Service to tribes or tribal organizations, the 
     Indian Health Service is authorized to provide goods and 
     services to those entities, on a reimbursable basis, 
     including payment in advance with subsequent adjustment, and 
     the reimbursements received therefrom, along with the funds 
     received from those entities pursuant to the Indian Self-
     Determination Act, may be credited to the same or subsequent 
     appropriation account which provided the funding, said 
     amounts to remain available until expended: Provided further, 
     That, heretofore and hereafter and notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, funds available to the Indian Health 
     Service in this Act or any other Act for Indian self-
     determination or self-governance contract or grant support 
     costs may be expended only for costs directly attributable to 
     contracts, grants and compacts pursuant to the Indian Self-
     Determination Act and no funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act shall be available for any contract support costs 
     or indirect costs associated with any contract, grant, 
     cooperative agreement, self-governance compact, or funding 
     agreement entered into between an Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization and any entity other than the Indian Health 
     Service: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, hereafter any funds appropriated to the 
     Indian Health Service in this or any other Act for payments 
     to tribes and tribal organizations for contract or grant 
     support costs for contracts, grants, self-governance compacts 
     or annual funding agreements with the Indian Health Service 
     pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as 
     amended, shall be allocated and distributed to such 
     contracts, grants, self-governance compacts and annual 
     funding agreements each year on a pro-rata proportionate 
     basis regardless of amounts allocated in any previous year to 
     such contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or annual 
     funding agreements: Provided further, That reimbursements for 
     training, technical assistance, or services provided by the 
     Indian Health Service will contain total costs, including 
     direct, administrative, and overhead associated with the 
     provision of goods, services, or technical assistance: 
     Provided further, That the appropriation structure for the 
     Indian Health Service may not be altered without advance 
     approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.

[[Page H6046]]

                         OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

              Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531, 
     $13,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act 
     are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups 
     including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands 
     residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and 
     all others certified as eligible and not included in the 
     preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the 
     Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any 
     single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985, 
     was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi 
     Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such 
     household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be 
     provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided 
     further, That the Office shall relocate any certified 
     eligible relocatees who have selected and received an 
     approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a 
     replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the 
     land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.

                        Smithsonian Institution

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as 
     authorized by law, including research in the fields of art, 
     science, and history; development, preservation, and 
     documentation of the National Collections; presentation of 
     public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation, 
     dissemination, and exchange of information and publications; 
     conduct of education, training, and museum assistance 
     programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for 
     terms not to exceed 30 years), and protection of buildings, 
     facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to 5 replacement 
     passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and cleaning of 
     uniforms for employees; $346,449,000, of which not to exceed 
     $48,076,000 for the instrumentation program, collections 
     acquisition, Museum Support Center equipment and move, 
     exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum of the 
     American Indian, the repatriation of skeletal remains 
     program, research equipment, information management, and 
     Latino programming shall remain available until expended, and 
     including such funds as may be necessary to support American 
     overseas research centers and a total of $125,000 for the 
     Council of American Overseas Research Centers: Provided, That 
     funds appropriated herein are available for advance payments 
     to independent contractors performing research services or 
     participating in official Smithsonian presentations.

        construction and improvements, national zoological park

       For necessary expenses of planning, construction, 
     remodeling, and equipping of buildings and facilities at the 
     National Zoological Park, by contract or otherwise, 
     $4,500,000, to remain available until expended.

                  repair and restoration of buildings

       For necessary expenses of repair and restoration of 
     buildings owned or occupied by the Smithsonian Institution, 
     by contract or otherwise, as authorized by section 2 of the 
     Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), including not to 
     exceed $10,000 for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $44,500,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $4,500,000 is for the Security System Modernization Program: 
     Provided, That contracts awarded for environmental systems, 
     protection systems, and exterior repair or restoration of 
     buildings of the Smithsonian Institution may be negotiated 
     with selected contractors and awarded on the basis of 
     contractor qualifications as well as price.

                              construction

       For necessary expenses for construction, $2,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


           administrative provisions, smithsonian institution

       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     initiate the planning or design of any expansion of current 
     space or new facility without the advance approval of both 
     the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     prepare a historic structures report, or for any other 
     purpose, involving the Holt House located at the National 
     Zoological Park in Washington D.C.
       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     pay any judgment resulting from a complaint filed by Geddes, 
     Brecher, Qualls & Cunningham in the United States Court of 
     Federal Claims regarding the National Museum of the American 
     Indian Mall Museum.
       The Smithsonian Institution shall not use Federal funds in 
     excess of the amount specified in Public Law 101-185 for the 
     construction of the National Museum of the American Indian.

                        National Gallery of Art


                         salaries and expenses

       For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of 
     Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and 
     administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by 
     the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the 
     public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9, 
     Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the 
     treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum, 
     and art associations or societies whose publications or 
     services are available to members only, or to members at a 
     price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 
     5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for 
     protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance, 
     alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches, 
     and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and 
     repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by 
     contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms, 
     or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms 
     and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $57,938,000 of 
     which not to exceed $3,026,000 for the special exhibition 
     program shall remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     all functions and activities of the National Gallery of Art 
     funded herein shall be subject to the requirements for a 
     Federal entity under the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 
     U.S.C. App. 3).


            repair, restoration and renovation of buildings

       For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and 
     renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or 
     occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or 
     otherwise, as authorized, $6,311,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for 
     environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior 
     repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of 
     Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded 
     on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.

             John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts


                       operations and maintenance

       For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and 
     security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
     Arts, $12,187,000.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses for capital repair and 
     rehabilitation of the existing features of the building and 
     site of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, 
     $9,000,000, to remain available until expended.

            Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of 
     the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356) 
     including hire of passenger vehicles and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $5,840,000.

                 National Endowment for the Humanities


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $96,800,000, shall be available to the National Endowment for 
     the Humanities for support of activities in the humanities, 
     pursuant to section 7(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, $13,900,000, to remain available until  
     expended, of  which $9,900,000 shall  be available to the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of 
     section 7(h): 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 subsections 
     11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding 
     fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been 
     appropriated.

                Institute of Museum and Library Services


                       office of museum services

                       grants and administration

       For carrying out subtitle C of the Museum and Library 
     Services Act of 1996, as amended, $23,405,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                       administrative provisions

       None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any 
     grant or contract documents which do not include the text of 
     18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
     to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may 
     be used for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That funds from nonappropriated sources may 
     be used as necessary for official reception and 
     representation expenses.

                        Commission of Fine Arts


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a 
     Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $898,000.

[[Page H6047]]

               national capital arts and cultural affairs

       For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190 
     (20 U.S.C. 956(a)), as amended, $7,000,000.

               Advisory Council on Historic Preservation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $2,800,000: 
     Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for 
     compensation of level V of the Executive Schedule or higher 
     positions.

                  National Capital Planning Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National 
     Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C. 71-71i), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $5,954,000: 
     Provided, That all appointed members will be compensated at a 
     rate not to exceed the rate for level IV of the Executive 
     Schedule.

                United States Holocaust Memorial Council


                       holocaust memorial council

       For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Council, as 
     authorized by Public Law 96-388 (36 U.S.C. 1401), as amended, 
     $31,707,000, of which $1,575,000 for the museum's repair and 
     rehabilitation program and $1,264,000 for the museum's 
     exhibitions program shall remain available until expended.

                             Presidio Trust


                          presidio trust fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out Title I of the Omnibus 
     Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, $14,913,000 
     shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available 
     until expended. The Trust is authorized to issue obligations 
     to the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 
     104(d)(3) of the Act, in an amount not to exceed $25,000,000.

  Mr. REGULA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill through page 92, line 11 be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ensign

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ensign:
       Page 56, line 2, after ``$156,167,000'' insert ``(increased 
     by $5,300,000)''.
       Page 40, line 14 after ``$37,304,000'' insert ``(decreased 
     by $5,300,000)''.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment 
because we need this extra money to go into this account so that we can 
bring this extra money to Lake Tahoe. The Tahoe Regional Planning 
Agency, which is a bistate agency, has said that we need $6 million for 
clarity improvement in Lake Tahoe.
  First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the efforts of the 
chairman of the subcommittee who has included $700,000 in the bill for 
erosion control around Lake Tahoe, and I know that the people of Nevada 
thank the chairman for doing this. However, I think that it is 
important to point out the dire situation Lake Tahoe is experiencing.
  First let me say that I grew up at Lake Tahoe. It is a wonderful area 
and it is still. Even with the decrease in the quality of the clarity 
of the water, Lake Tahoe is still one of the jewels of the entire 
world. It is a place where people come from all over this country and 
literally around the world to see its magnificent beauty.
  However, in the last 20 years the lake has lost 25 percent of its 
clarity. If one flies over Lake Tahoe, one used to be able to see so 
far down just from the naked eye from an airplane and be able to see 
huge boulders. There is a visible difference, just with the naked eye, 
where one can see the difference in the clarity in the last 20 years.
  We are at a crossroads. Each sediment particle carries nutrients that 
spur algae growth in the lake, and this hurts the clarity. We all need 
to work together. Commitments have been made and it is time for 
Congress to step up to the plate in our efforts.
  Lake Tahoe is an area rich in history and heritage, and we must 
protect the tranquility of not only the lake itself, but of the 
surrounding areas. Protection of environmentally sensitive lands and 
maintenance of water quality should be our highest priority.
  The list of activities that are necessary to protect this natural 
pristine treasure is very long. Supporting this amendment and supplying 
this much-needed funding is the first step in our long journey to 
protect the lake.
  Millions visit this Alpine community each year, while thousands of 
families call it home every day. Environmental groups and grassroots 
organizations have recognized the importance of immediate action to 
save Lake Tahoe, and just last year, the President and Vice President 
traveled to Lake Tahoe to personally listen to the challenges in 
protecting this national treasure.
  Nevada, California, and the administration have made strong efforts 
to focus on the lake and take further actions, whatever actions are 
necessary for its preservation. It is time for the Members of this body 
to do the same and support this environmental initiative to save our 
beloved treasure before it is too late.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENSIGN. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and commend him for 
his leadership role in helping to preserve Lake Tahoe and the 
environment surrounding it. The gentleman has been a leader on this 
issue during his term in the United States Congress and certainly all 
of us appreciate that.
  There is no doubt that Lake Tahoe is a national treasure. In fact, 
over 130 years ago, Mark Twain, when he first crossed the Sierras and 
set gaze upon the Lake Tahoe Basin, said that Lake Tahoe was the 
fairest land in all the world, and that remains so today.
  However, today the health of the lake is at risk. As my colleagues 
have heard, algae growth is reducing the visibility by more than 30 
feet today in the lake. Algae growth is primarily due and responsible 
from erosional runoff. It is the health of the forest that is 
responsible for that algae growth due to runoff.
  Today, one out of every three trees is either dead, dying or decayed, 
which sets up a rare fuel environment for wildland fire, which will 
have a catastrophic effect on not only the human loss of life in the 
area, but also property loss, as well as increasing the erosional 
runoff by an enormous proportion.
  The resulting massive erosion will only add to the problems of the 
lake clarity. This money will go to improving the health of that 
forest, which will ultimately help the health of the lake as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I 
thank the gentleman from Nevada for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENSIGN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate the 
efforts of the gentlemen, both gentlemen from Nevada, to protect Lake 
Tahoe. In fact, it is in large part due to their efforts that the 
$700,000 appropriated in this bill for erosion control is the largest 
amount of money ever dedicated to this effort.
  While I regret that I cannot support the gentleman's amendment, if he 
would agree to withdraw the amendment, I will work with him in 
conference to address his concerns.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
chairman's remarks.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Ensign was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, let me just close by saying that Lake 
Tahoe, let us not forget, is a place where people come from all over 
the world and they think it is incredible beauty when they look at the 
lake. But those of us who grew up there and have been there for any 
length of time can see with our visible eye the decreasing clarity in 
the lake, and this is a treasure we cannot afford to lose. It is too 
important.
  So I appreciate the work that the chairman is going to do on behalf 
of Lake Tahoe.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Regula, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Ensign was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield to me briefly, 
I

[[Page H6048]]

was interested in both of the gentleman's comments about apparently 
unification taking place in the lake. Is it caused by runoff from the 
surrounding national forests bringing nutrients in?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, there are several causes for the increase 
in the clarity. The nutrients that are coming in due to erosion is 
probably one of the biggest parts. There is also, unfortunately, from 
northern California the air pollution coming over the Sierras is also 
causing the nitrogen to get down, which is food for the algae. So there 
are two problems that are really kind of almost exacerbating each other 
and decreasing clarity is the result.
  So we need to work on this. Erosion control is a very important part, 
but we also need it in other places.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the 
clarification.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent at this time to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Nevada?
  There was no objection.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Furse

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

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Ms. Furse:
       Page 56, line 18, insert before the period at the end the 
     following: : Provided, That, of the funds made available in 
     this paragraph, $130,176,000 shall be for timber sales 
     management, $87,654,000 shall be for watershed improvements, 
     and $168,018,000 shall be for recreation management.

  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is tell my 
colleagues what this amendment does.
  This amendment takes $80.5 million from the timber management line 
item and the National Forest Service section of the Interior 
Appropriations bill and it reallocates that money to watershed 
improvement and recreational management.
  Let me also say what it does not do. It does not cut money for road 
maintenance; it does not eliminate the Federal commercial timber 
program; it does not affect forest stewardship or personal use sales, 
and it does not prevent Americans from obtaining fire wood and 
Christmas trees.
  How did I arrive at the $80.5 million? That number is derived from 
adding together the money lost, lost, I repeat, on commercial timber 
sales in individual forests in all nine Forest Service regions. I added 
them together and we have a total of $80.5 million. It allocates that 
money to some things that will really improve our forests.
  What does it do? It allocates money to restoration, to restoration of 
watershed. Why do we do that? Because not only are watersheds vital to 
drinking water supply, they are critical to the survival and 
restoration of healthy fish populations in the West and in other parts 
of the country.
  It puts money to recreation management; $20 million is sent to 
recreational management, because recreation is going to be more and 
more the use of our national forests, and we need to get our Forest 
Service ready and able to deal with that. Recreation is a huge 
contributor. It contributes over $105 billion to the GDP, or nearly 85 
percent of the total forest system contribution. It results in over 2.7 
million jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, a study by the American Sports Fishing Association says 
that angling in the national forests generates $8.1 billion. Fishing 
and other wildlife activities generate more than $200,000 of full-time 
equivalent jobs in the United States.
  So my amendment is sensible; it is environmentally sensible, and it 
is economically sensible.
  Mr. Chairman, I will tell my colleagues why I am not alone in 
thinking that. I have here over 40, 40 editorials from national 
newspapers across the country supporting the Furse amendment. 
Organizations and groups have worked together to support this 
amendment.
  Now, I believe that the national forest is getting on the right 
track. I believe that it is going that way. However, I think that we 
need to go a little further.
  Now, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, sometimes circumstances, 
circumstances make having the right thing happen impossible, despite 
goodwill and good intentions. When I joined this Congress, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) said to me, he said, ``You 
know, Elizabeth, victory comes not to the pretty, but to the 
persistent.''
  Well, under these circumstances I think it is wise to be persistent 
and patient, although I will continue, I hope, to be pretty. Eventually 
the outcome is what I am striving for: Better forests, better forest 
management.
  My mentor, my personal mentor and hero, Nelson Mandela, President of 
South Africa, knew that it was important to be persistent. He added 2 
years, stayed in jail 2 years longer in order to achieve what he 
thought was the best thing for South Africa, for his beloved South 
Africa.

                              {time}  1945

  And so although it is very difficult for me because of the heroic 
work of the environmental movement and the activists, I have decided 
today in order to protect my beloved forests that they can better get 
the overwhelming support that they need and deserve in another area. 
Because we already have a very good agreement in this bill, I think 
that it is important for me to announce my intention to withdraw my 
amendment so that another time it will get a majority of support.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that people will not forget that these forests 
do not belong to the timber companies or to the forest agencies or even 
to Members of Congress
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just want to commend 
the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) for offering her amendment. 
Persistence is a word that we will long identify with her in this 
effort. The gentlewoman from Oregon and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), who was here earlier, have been two very, 
very persistent people who have started off in amendments that received 
very few votes. The gentlewoman did it on the rider. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has done it on forest roads.
  We saw this Congress arrive at a point where both of those policies 
have been discredited. They have been dramatically changed. And as was 
pointed out, we are headed in a direction now for the first time with 
this agreement that recognizes what I believe is the reality of the 
forests, the reality of the West.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Furse was 
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would 
continue to yield, that reality is that our populations, along with the 
national populations, seek to have these forests properly managed, not 
there just for a single purpose.
  Many of our colleagues on the other side and many on our side have 
talked about multiple use. For the first time we are talking about real 
multiple use that recognizes the watershed value of these forests, that 
recognizes the timber value of these forests, that recognizes the 
habitat value of these forests, that recognizes the recreational value 
of these forests.
  Many of the problems that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and 
the members of the committee are having to deal with and spend money on 
are having to make up for very bad forest policy in the past, where we 
have huge scars on our landscape and huge scars on our waterscape. Now 
we are spending billions of dollars to go back and try to restore these 
forests, to reclaim these forests, to replant these forests. And it is 
much more expensive to do it this way than to do it right the first 
time, the kind of policy that has been articulated on behalf of our 
forests in the past by the gentlewoman.
  This amendment that the gentlewoman is offering to move these monies 
toward those priorities, recognizing the need, recognizing the urgency, 
I do not have to tell the gentlewoman as a resident of the Northwest, 
or myself as a resident of California, we are on an

[[Page H6049]]

urgency timetable here if we are, in fact, going to salvage some of 
these species that are at risk in terms of the fisheries and in terms 
of that habitat.
  So, I also want to recognize the gentlewoman's very serious and 
pragmatic judgment about the withdrawal of this amendment because of 
the agreement that is in place. But that agreement is in place because 
of her persistence over the years, along with others, on these 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, it was lonely in the beginning, but it turned out to be 
the majority position, and I think clearly recognizes in the agreement 
in this bill that this is the majority position of this Congress.
  I think we have further to go. I think we have more to do. And we do 
really in fact have to make these multiple use lands so they recognize 
all of the competing values for these forest lands. It is not just the 
value of timber, as important as that is.
  So, I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon, one, for offering the 
amendment; two, for her decision here; but thirdly, for her service in 
Congress and especially on these issues where I have had a chance to 
work with her. For really being a voice of reason and a voice of change 
with respect to forest policy in this country, I thank the gentlewoman.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is a great joy to 
have worked with the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). I think 
that we send today a message that the United States is a trustee. It is 
a trustee and has a legal duty, an enforceable legal duty to manage the 
public resources in the most responsible manner. And that means getting 
the best value for our resources.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I hope next year, and I feel very confident that 
this issue will come again. I will not be in this Congress next year. I 
will be watching from the sidelines. But I think that next year we will 
move our forests to the way that it was supposed to be, for public use, 
not for private use.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the decision of the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Furse) to withdraw this amendment. I think that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Washington, 
the gentlewoman from Oregon, we all share a common goal, and that is a 
sustainable forest policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I held the first watershed restoration conference in 
the Pacific Northwest, the Vice President attended, to try and help 
work with the administration as they spent $1.2 billion over 5 years to 
try and not only implement Option 9, but to help the communities in 
this region that had been hurt by the decision to dramatically reduce.
  I can remember, as can the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the 
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, when we harvested around 4 
billion board feet. That is now down to less than a billion board feet. 
That I think is about a 75 or 80 percent reduction. The National Timber 
Program has been reduced from 10 billion board feet down to 3.5 billion 
board feet. So I think there has been a recognition on the part of the 
Congress that what we were doing was not sustainable.
  Now we have the job, the daunting challenge to deal with some of the 
problems, one of which the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture laid on 
us this year, that we need to do road maintenance repair work of about 
$10 billion.
  So, we have got serious problems out there. And I compliment the 
gentlewoman from Oregon for her persistence and her judgment. We have 
not always agreed on every single issue, but we have agreed on many. 
And I think that my hope here is that we can work together, that we can 
end an era of confrontation and bring people together, work out 
reasonable solutions from the grassroots up and restore these 
ecosystems, restore these watersheds, restore these salmon runs. That 
should be our goal. And the gentlewoman's support for the fish has been 
probably the hallmark of her career, and that is something that we all 
agree upon.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might use this time to enter 
into a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, for a number of years the 
Members of this House, including the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter), of the Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), have advocated for the elimination of 
Federal funding for the Purchaser Road Credit program, a program which 
used Federal funds to subsidize timber companies for the roads they 
built. I would like to say that I respect the long-standing commitment 
of the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Massachusetts to 
this issue.
  It is my understanding that the bill before the House does not 
include any funding for this particular program. Is that the Chairman's 
understanding?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield, that is 
correct.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, as part of the agreement on the Purchaser 
Road Credit that has been struck, I understand that several Members who 
would otherwise have supported this amendment are been forced to vote 
against my amendment. And so although 40 editorials across the country 
is a good beginning in educating the public and the House on the 
taxpayer losses associated with the commercial program, it is my 
understanding that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) may revisit this issue next 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage the House to support fiscally and 
environmentally responsible forest management reform.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, 
I thank her for her comments and I would say that that is it what we 
attempted to do the bill.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, is it the gentleman's intention that once 
the Interior Appropriations bill reaches the conference committee, that 
he will advocate to maintain the House's position with respect to 
eliminating the funding for the Purchaser Road Credit?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, yes, that is correct. It is my intention to 
strongly advocate the House position on this and all other matters when 
this bill reaches the conference committee.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Regula) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). As we see this 
movement towards responsible management, it is absolutely necessary 
that the forest be better managed for wildlife, for recreation, and for 
public good.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment proposed by Representative Furse to cut funding for the 
federal timber sales program. This amendment attempts to force the 
Forest Service into a ``zero-cut'' policy, which would be disastrous 
for many rural communities as well as the health of our national 
forests.
  The federal timber sales program is a critical component of the 
Forest Service's active management of our national forests. Lacking 
reasonable harvesting of timber and scientific management practices, 
our forests become vulnerable to a host of health threats. In fact, 
Missouri's State Forester and the President of the National Association 
of State Foresters, Marvin Brown, recently wrote in a letter to 
Agriculture Chairman Bob Smith that, ``Timber sales are being used to 
accomplish many goals, including reducing vulnerability to wildlife, 
eliminating pests, and improving fish and wildlife habitat.'' The 
essential point here is that timber sales are consistent with achieving 
our environmental goals for our forests.
  It is also important to note that logging activities in our national 
forests are not at all excessive, as some members of the extremist 
environmental community would have us believe. The fact of the matter 
is that there will be 18 Billion Board Feet of NEW growth in our 
national forests this year, while the Forest Service proposes to 
harvest less than \1/4\ of that, approximately 4 Billion Board Feet.
  Finally, I urge the House to consider the damaging economic 
consequences of this amendment. The timber industry in the state of 
Missouri accounts for approximately 20,000 jobs and $3 billion dollars 
in economic activity. These are family-owned businesses, hard-working 
folks. Their work is an important part of our local economies in 
Southern Missouri and a key element in the wise management of our 
National Forests. If the Furse amendment were to pass, the lives and 
livelihoods of good people would be disregarded in favor of an 
extremist agenda. I urge a strong NO vote on this amendment.

[[Page H6050]]

  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to an amendment 
that will be offered during consideration of the Fiscal Year 1999 
Interior Appropriations bill by the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Furse.
  This amendment would decimate the U.S. Forest Service timber sale 
program by reducing the budget for forest management.
  Over the last few years, we have endured contentious debate on the 
floor of the House regarding the Forest Service's Purchaser Road Credit 
Program.
  Last year, a commitment was made by several Member of Congress on 
both sides of the debate to reach a compromise that would eliminate the 
program, while still providing funding for road maintenance.
  After many months of discussion, a good faith agreement was reached 
that removed the Purchaser Road Credit program from this year's Forest 
Service budget with the understanding that no further amendments would 
be offered on this issue.
  It is imperative that we allow this compromise to move forward 
unchanged.
  Too often, Members with divergent points of view have difficulty 
coming together to find solutions to problems pitting rural America 
against those advocating stricter public land use policies. Today, we 
have an opportunity to defend a compromise that clears this hurdle.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Furse Amendment. The hard work 
that went into crafting this delicate compromise should not be wiped 
out by arbitrary cuts to important forest management activities.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding. (Thank you to Regula; Yates, for 
his years of service; Chairman Smith, Stenholm, and others for their 
work and leadership on this issue.) Thank you, Mr. Kennedy, for your 
years of service. Ms. Furse, I enjoy our time on Commerce Committee, 
you have my respect--but on this one you are wrong!
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Furse amendment. We 
have heard many arguments today on both sides of this issue about 
topics like the environment and the economics of the timber program.
  While these are certainly important issues, I am afraid that lost in 
this debate is the impact this amendment would have on working families 
and rural communities.
  In my district in northern Michigan, and in districts like mine 
across the Nation, our national forests are a vital part of our economy 
and livelihood.
  Timber is one of the largest industries in northern Michigan, 
especially in the Upper Peninsula, and is an integral part of its 
economic base.
  With three national forests in my district, thousands of working 
families literally rely on these forests and the timber program to put 
food on the table.
  Many people think of the timber industry as giant businesses that 
slash and clear cut forests simply for profit.
  The truth is, however, that the majority of people in the timber 
industry are family businesses--``mom and pop'' operations that are 
struggling to make ends meet and that truly care about the forests and 
the environment.
  The timber program has already been reduced by 70 percent since 1991. 
The Furse amendment would only serve to further hurt these family-run 
businesses.
  In addition, the Furse amendment would severely impact rural 
communities across this nation.
  By law, counties with national forest lands receive payments equaling 
25 percent of federal timber revenues. These communities rely on these 
payments to provide funding for schools, roads, and emergency services.
  In FY 1997, local governments received $220 million for these 
important programs. Because of this, the National Association of 
Counties strongly opposes this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is bad for working families, bad for 
rural communities, and bad for schools. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the Furse amendment.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the recently withdrawn amendment certainly should have 
been withdrawn, because the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse), my 
friend, had this amendment exactly correct. There will be room with her 
amendment, should her amendment have passed, to harvest firewood and 
Christmas trees. That will be the end of any harvest practically on the 
public forests.
  We know that there are more than 40 million acres, Mr. Chairman, that 
are in jeopardy of catastrophic fire in this country. We also have 
followed Chief Dombeck's suggestion that unless we manage forests, 
quote, manage forests, we indeed will lose our public forests.
  The most effective tool we have, obviously, to fight catastrophic 
fire or to eliminate insect disease, is a timber sale program and 
managing forests. The amendment would have basically eliminated all 
U.S. timber sales and that, indeed, threatens the health of our 
forests.
  I want to quote Chief Dombeck because he is right on point on this 
issue.

       We are hearing calls increasingly for a zero-cut policy for 
     the National Forests. I am opposed to this position. Both 
     science and common sense support active management of 
     National Forests.

  And he is right.
  Now, this idea went so far that it should have been withdrawn, but it 
also indeed threatens the health of our forests. It is not only 
economically unreasonable; it jeopardizes jobs throughout the United 
States nationwide. It places economic and social stability problems 
within communities, and it interferes with public education floor 
funds. It is an extreme, extreme position. It is a Sierra Club 
position. That is what it is.
  I point to the charts to indicate to my colleagues what has occurred 
here since 1982, but specifically since 1997 and 1998. As my colleagues 
can see, the timber program has dramatically decreased, and with the 
Furse amendment in 1999, we can see the yellow would be almost in half. 
And then in the year 2000, almost no harvest in our public forests.
  So, what has happened? What has happened is obvious to everyone. What 
has happened in this country is our imports have dramatically 
increased. Obviously, we need the wood. The demand for wood is there. 
So here go the imports up to almost 12 billion board feet and timber 
sold, as reported in 1996, almost 3.5 billion in the United States. 
Almost 12 billion imported, 3.5 billion from our forests. Beyond that 
it has placed greater pressure, of course, upon private timber lands 
and our State lands.
  Yes, every forest lost money. Well, if we eliminate 85 percent of the 
harvest, they are going to lose money. What else lost money? The 
wildlife and fisheries program lost money. The forest fire suppression 
program lost money. The wilderness program lost money. Every Forest 
Service program lost money. They are below cost. Maybe we ought to 
eliminate the whole thing. That is the theory. Should we eliminate the 
management of forests in America because we have reduced, of course, 
the impact of harvest? Therefore, they are all below cost. Obviously, 
that is the wrong way to go, of course.
  This amendment is about eliminating the timber sale completely. Zero-
cut is not protecting our national forests, it is wasting them.
  The national forests are growing over 16 billion board feet every 
year, plus another 6 billion of timber that dies from insects and 
disease every year. Yet in 1997 we harvested only 3.3 billion board 
feet and again we may lose many millions of acres to fire. Certainly we 
would if an amendment like this were ever adopted.
  The zero-cut policy, as I have indicated, would shift production to 
other countries, cost Americans jobs, hurt communities, injure the 
forests, and is certainly no benefit to anyone, even those who believe 
that the wildlife and the environment are the most cherished parts of 
our national heritage. This amendment would destroy even those 
cherished items.

                              {time}  2000

  It is a good idea for her to withdraw this amendment, and it is a bad 
idea for it to be brought up ever again.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it has come to my understanding that after debating 
this issue the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) is going to pull her 
amendment without allowing it to go for a vote. I understand why the 
gentlewoman is not going to let this come to a vote. She clearly does 
not have the votes in the House to support this extreme radical 
measure.
  For years we have argued and debated over possible corporate welfare 
within the Forest Service road credit purchaser program. As of this 
year, this program no longer exists. Now we learn the argument was 
really not over the road credit purchaser program but was really over 
the extremist agenda of

[[Page H6051]]

advocating zero cut on our national forests, a euphemism for which is 
below-cost timber sales.
  This policy strips the Forest Service of its single most effective 
tool for maintaining forest health and reducing the risk of 
catastrophic fire. The Forest Service estimates that more than 40 
million acres of our national forests are threatened with destruction 
by catastrophic wildfire. With a full range of management options, the 
Forest Service can reduce this threat of catastrophic fire.
  I would like to ask my colleagues which of these two forests that we 
have pictures of would they want for their children? On the left we see 
a forest that is not managed.
  Now, I might mention that I represent a district in northern 
California that has 11 national forests in it. I have examples of both 
of these forests within my district. Again, the picture on the left is 
an unmanaged forest. We know a lot about all the rain we have been 
receiving, at least in California, this year. What we do not remember, 
sometimes we forget that of the last 12 years, 7 of those 12 years have 
been drought years.
  California, unlike so much of the rest of the Nation, is a desert 
during the summertime, and when there is this competition for moisture, 
what we see is this unnatural type of state that we see on the left. 
Without the ability to be able to go in and thin these forests out and 
remove the dead and dying timber, what we will see, rather than the 
forest on the right, which is a managed forest, where we remove dead 
and dying timbers, what we see is a situation like this.
  In 1994, in the United States, we had 5 million acres of timber that 
burned; that were catastrophic; where there is nothing left. In 1996 we 
had 6 million acres burned. So it is really up to us. Are we going to 
manage our forests in a prudent way or are we going to allow them to 
burn, as we see in this picture to my left?
  I am very pleased, again, that the gentlewoman from Oregon has 
removed this very ill thought out amendment of hers, but I believe it 
is time that we begin to bring balance to the management of our forests 
and not allow the extreme environmentalists to run it by politics.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, what the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) was trying 
to do in bringing her amendment before the House was to give us the 
opportunity to talk about the future direction of the Forest Service. 
Specifically, we need to determine what its priorities are; that is to 
say, what the Forest Service priorities should be in managing the 
national forests and how the Forest Service should spend the money 
allocated to it.
  Historically, the Forest Service has brought a great emphasis on 
timber production. The gentlewoman from Oregon was not saying in her 
amendment that timber production should be shut down entirely, as some 
have inferred, that is not the case, but that it should be put in 
context among the other purposes of the Forest Service. Commercial 
timber harvests should pay their own way and should not receive direct 
or indirect subsidies from the taxpayer.
  Here are a few principles that we support: The national forests are 
owned by all the American people and should serve the diverse interests 
the American people have in the forests. Those diverse interests 
include watershed protection, recreational use, wildlife habitat, as 
well as timber production.
  Watershed protection probably serves the greatest number of people 
today. According to the Forest Service, the greatest number of direct 
forest users are recreational users, and recreational users produce the 
greatest amount of forest revenues. These facts should be taken into 
account in planning the Forest Service budget.
  According to the Forest Service's own recent report, it lost $88.6 
million on below-cost timber sales last year alone, where the costs of 
arranging these sales exceeded by that amount the revenue derived from 
those sales. We should face facts: Below-cost sales are subsidized. We 
have been giving away our jointly-owned resources.
  There are cases where a below-cost sale may clearly support a public 
good, such as improving a watershed. But more often it is simply a 
giveaway of public resources to a private interest; what has been 
called corporate welfare. We have heard a lot of rhetoric about how 
people should stand on their own and not get help from the government. 
We have heard a lot of talk about how efficient private industry is in 
creating jobs. We have heard lots of rhetoric about the futility of 
propping up uneconomical activities and how we should let the market 
rule. Well, it is time to apply all of that rhetoric to resource 
extraction. It is time to say that if a timber operation is not 
economical and cannot survive without free or cheap public timber, 
maybe it needs to change.
  We are pleased to see the plan to end purchaser road credits. We hope 
it holds and we hope that all the people who pledge to support it will 
pledge to keep it in the conference version of this bill, but we do 
need to go beyond that. We have to modernize the Forest Service and 
modernize its budget to take into account what we have learned about 
forests, to take into account and give a much more prominent role to 
the other purposes of forests that more and more Americans care about, 
and to stop giving trees away just to keep the machine running or just 
because that is the way we have always done it.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a minute to just direct the 
attention of the House to the fact that we have been able to work out a 
very thorny issue here in the House; namely, this whole business of the 
road credits.
  As my colleagues know, there was a debate on this floor, I think, for 
a period of about 3 years, with people really lined up against 
themselves and 180 degrees apart. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Herger) deserves an awful lot of credit for the effort to try to bring 
people together. He met with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), people who 
were in direct opposition to him and, through a long process of 
negotiation and talk, we have essentially been able to reach an 
agreement that will give us a more market-oriented approach to the way 
in which we, in fact, do these timber roads.
  Now, not everybody is thoroughly happy with the solution, but I have 
to tell my colleagues that this is one of those times when we fought 
for 2 or 3 years and I happen to believe that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger) is the guy that deserves the most amount of 
credit because he said we ought not to keep fighting on this. The other 
side has some legitimate points, we have some legitimate points, and 
let us try to work it out.

  For those environmentalists who have been worried about the road 
building, if, in fact, it is true that there are subsidies, there will 
be fewer roads built. They will only be built where it makes economic 
sense. At the same time, for those who are concerned that we not shut 
down all appropriate road building, it also will make economic sense to 
those whenever they move forward, and to those who are worried about 
saving some money and not providing subsidies to anybody, we have been 
able to deal with that.
  So I think this is a win, win, win. For one of the few times in this 
House on a very tough environmental issue, I think we have had 
successful regulation. I want to praise the gentlewoman from Oregon 
(Ms. Furse) for agreeing not to pursue her amendment. That would not be 
the wise thing to do. My understanding is she has withdrawn her 
amendment, will not have a vote on it, which is entirely appropriate, 
and maybe this is the model that we can use to resolve a number of 
environmental issues where people of good heart all feel the same way.
  I would like to say one other thing about the gentleman from 
California. He feels very strongly about the fact that sometimes those 
on the other side do not understand that there is actually some 
destruction done in the name of environmental protection when, in fact, 
he has a view that there are things that we can do to make the 
environment more secure. He has been able to lead the way and stand in 
the breach, at times under very emotional issues on the environment, 
and to be a real leader. So I want to compliment him.
  I am very happy that I was in the middle of this for the period of 
the last

[[Page H6052]]

3 years, and I think this is a very good success, and I want to thank 
the chairman of the subcommittee, the great Member, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula), for his outstanding work.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I wish to thank the chairman for his kindness, and also I do believe, 
although we disagree, that the first amendment had merit. Obviously, I 
would have supported it, but I hope we can recognize that even though 
the amendment was not put to the floor for a vote, that there are 
issues that we should all discuss about saving our forests and our 
trees and hope that we will continue this discussion.
  Mr. Chairman, my only concern, and I would like to yield to the 
gentleman as we rise, we are still continuing in title II for tomorrow 
as we resume; is that my understanding?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's understanding is correct.
  I would also add that I think we have an agreement among many people 
that the forests have a multipurpose potential for the public. It is a 
matter of how we achieve that in the best possible way.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's 
kindness and I think we can continue to go forward and work these 
issues out.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 4193) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior 
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________