[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.
____________________