[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6125-H6137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4193.

                              {time}  1647


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4193) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1999, and for other purposes, with Mr. Petri (Chairman pro tempore) in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Tuesday, July 21, 1998, title II was open to amendment at any point.
  Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?


                    Amendments Offered by Mr. Regula

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to offer amendments en bloc, which are at the desk, notwithstanding 
that they address portions of the bill not yet read, and without 
prejudice to further amendments to that portion of the bill that is 
pending.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Amendments offered by Mr. Regula:
       Page 69, line 15, strike ``$320,558,000'' and insert 
     ``$365,550,000''.
       Page 70, line 17, strike ``$630,250,000'' and insert 
     ``$675,250,000''.
       Page 70, line 19, strike ``the excess'' and all that 
     follows through ``4502)'' on line 21 and insert 
     ``$64,000,000, which shall be transferred to this account 
     from amounts held in escrow under section 3002(d) of Public 
     Law 95-509 (15 U.S.C. 4501(d))''.
       Page 70, line 22, strike ``$150,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$161,000,000''.
       Page 70, line 24, strike ``and shall not'' and all that 
     follows through ``4502)'' on page 71, line 1.
       Page 71, line 4, strike ``$120,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$129,000,000''.
       Page 71, line 5, strike ``$30,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$32,000,000''.
       Page 123, after line 14, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 339. Section 3003 of the Petroleum Overcharge 
     Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986 (15 U.S.C. 4502) is 
     amended by adding after subsection (d) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section are 
     repealed, and any rights that may have arisen are 
     extinguished, on the date of the enactment of the Department 
     of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1999. After that date, the amount available for direct 
     restitution to current and future refined petroleum product 
     claimants under this Act is reduced by the amounts specified 
     in title II of that Act as being derived from amounts held in 
     escrow under section 3002(d). The Secretary shall assure that 
     the amount remaining in escrow to satisfy refined petroleum 
     product claims for direct restitution is allocated equitably 
     among the claimants.''.

  Mr. REGULA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the consideration en 
bloc of the gentleman's amendments?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I offer these amendments on behalf of the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), a valued member of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox); 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and myself.
  The gentleman from Colorado, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the 
gentlewoman from Texas have worked tirelessly to find an acceptable 
offset for increases in energy conservation and have in coordination 
with the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and 
Budget identified excess receipts that can be used for that purpose. 
The amendment also partially restores cuts to the fossil energy 
research and development program. I appreciate the efforts of the 
gentleman from Colorado, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment. It has 
been carefully crafted by the gentleman from Ohio, by the gentleman 
from Colorado, by the gentleman from Pennsylvania and by the 
gentlewoman from Texas. I would like to say that she has been a real 
leader and concerned about the fossil energy program. This will benefit 
that program.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas for whatever comments she would 
like to make.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just simply say that the fossil energy research 
and development program provides invaluable service by protecting the 
environment and by increasing the efficiency of power generation.
  As my colleagues well know, we now face a crisis in Texas, 
overwhelmed by extreme and enormous heat, impacting my constituents and 
at the same time in the shadow of those terrible tragedies are major 
energy companies, oil and gas, who have the capacity to engage with the 
utilization of this particular resource these dollars and make energy 
more efficient and help those elderly, help those people suffering from 
the burdensome heat, help local government to establish a better energy 
source, more efficient source, and as well to help our domestic energy 
security problem and also our consumption.
  Mr. Chairman, I would greatly like to thank the gentleman from Ohio 
for the work he has done. My constituents in Texas will be most 
appreciative.
  I truly hope that my joint amendment with my colleagues to H.R. 4193, 
the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill of 
1999, will be adopted today.
  Our amendment raises the appropriations level for the Fossil Energy 
Research and Development program of the Department of Energy by $45 
million. We must continue to fully fund the Fossil Energy Research and 
Development program because it provides the invaluable service of 
protecting the environment by increasing the efficiency of power 
generation. More importantly, the program ensures that fossil energy 
technologies continue to progress in a manner that promotes emissions 
reduction and control and energy efficiency. The program also 
safeguards our domestic energy security, and given the fact that our 
Nation will continue to use fossil fuels well into the future, we must 
strive to fund this program in a manner that sustains its financial 
viability.
  The Fossil Energy Research and Development program is an invaluable 
government component due to the necessity of fossil fuels to our 
economy and economies of virtually every country around the globe. 
Today 85 percent of our domestic energy consumption is supplied by 
fossil fuels; by 2015, the contribution of fossil fuels will grow to 88 
percent.
  Every credible energy expert believes that the foreseeable national 
and global energy future, like the present, will be shaped 
predominantly by fossil energy.
  The benefits of fossil energy use--affordable prices, a stronger 
economy, greater employment, and a contribution toward improved

[[Page H6126]]

global prosperity--can be realized as we dramatically improve our 
environment.
  In the 2000-2010 timeframe, advanced technologies emerging from the 
Fossil Energy Research and Development program will permit U.S. 
industry to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and air toxics from 
existing power plants by 70-90 percent and reduce the cost of meeting 
existing and future regulations by over $7 billion per year.

  Advanced power systems, dominated initially by natural gas 
technologies and later including new generations of coal systems, will 
not only be cleaner and more efficient than current systems, they will 
produce lower-cost electricity. This combination of improved 
environmental performance and greater affordability will be critical if 
U.S. companies are to compete and win in the domestic market and a 
burgeoning global market. Opportunities for increased sales of U.S.-
technology could amount to $6-10 billion a year from 2001 to 2030. If 
we do not capture these market opportunities, foreign competitors and 
foreign technologies will.
  By assisting the domestic industry develop more effective and lower 
cost technologies to find and recover U.S. oil and natural gas, we can 
reduce the decline in domestic oil production by 1 million barrels per 
day and increase U.S. natural gas production by 2 trillion cubic feet 
per year beginning in the 2010-2015 timeframe. This increased U.S. 
production will directly benefit our economy by generating more than 
$11 billion a year in domestic oil and gas sales dollars that will stay 
in this country rather than flowing to foreign suppliers.
  Technologies emerging from this Federal R&D program provide U.S. 
policy makers with a more affordable alternative to future ``command-
and-control'' environmental regulations. Particularly in regard to 
emissions of greenhouse gases and air toxics, our programs could 
potentially save the U.S. economy billions of dollars in costly new 
regulations.
  While we work toward a more efficient, affordable energy future, the 
U.S. taxpayer expects Government to ensure the greatest possible 
domestic security today. Our 20-year investment in the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve has created the world's largest emergency oil 
stockpile.
  Moreover, I believe that the Federal Government has a major role--
indeed a responsibility--in making that vision a reality.
  Finally, the heat crisis in Texas and the city of Houston, which I 
represent, stands to partly be addressed in future years by the 
development of cheaper, more efficient environmentally safe energy 
resources. My constituents are being overwhelmed by huge energy costs 
because of the heat. My senior citizens are most victimized and are 
caught up with choosing life-saving coolness over other needs.
  The additional monies in this amendment will also help in improving 
the weatherization needs of properties that require it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment--it is for our future!
  Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my thanks to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). As he was expressing yesterday quite 
aptly, we are seeking the right kind of balance in this bill on these 
two important and very constructive areas of public investment, in both 
fossil energy research and in increased efforts in energy efficiency 
and conservation. I am very, very happy that we have been able to find 
a way to solve this problem and thank the gentleman very much for his 
continued interest, flexibility and willingness to work this out.
  Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate your cooperation regarding these 
en bloc amendments, which were worked out with the invaluable 
assistance of Congressional Budget Office as well as the Department of 
Energy and other representatives of the Clinton administration.
  With these amendments, we will remedy one of the major imbalances in 
this bill, produce savings in energy and money, and benefit the 
environment as well. The amendments shift funds from an escrow account 
held by DOE so as to add $45 million to the energy conservation and 
efficiency accounts. That total includes a $9 million increase for the 
weatherization program; $2 million more for State energy grants; and an 
increase of $34 million for other energy-conservation purposes, 
including the building technology, industry, and transportation 
programs.
  As the Chairman mentioned, the amendments also restore somefunds cut 
yesterday from the fossil energy programs.
  As I've said before, we need to continue making investments in energy 
conservation and efficiency, because the track record of these programs 
shows they will pay off many times over.
  That's not just my opinion. It's also the view of the President's 
Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology. They've estimated that 
past R&D investments in energy efficiency are already saving consumers 
about $170 billion every year--and they've urged continued investments 
in this area.
  And the payoff isn't just in money, but also in energy savings, in 
less dependence on imports, and in reductions in air and water 
pollution.
  We need to maintain our momentum in all these areas. That's why I 
regretted that this part of the bill not only didn't include all the 
funding requested, but actually was below the 1998 level. These 
amendments help redress that imbalance.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, it will also help us 
substantially in weatherization.
  Mr. DICKS. Absolutely.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  The amendments were agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Parker

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

       Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Parker:
       Page 81, line 8, strike ``Provided further'' and all that 
     follows through ``funding agreements:'' on line 21.

  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes onerous language in 
the bill which dramatically alters current law as it relates to Indian 
health services.
  The Indian Health Service was established to provide direct health 
care to Indian tribes by providing hospitals, clinics and health 
professionals on reservations. Initially these health services were 
provided and operated directly by the Indian Health Service, which 
continues to do so on many reservations. However, in the early 1970s 
during the 93rd Congress, Congress passed legislation allowing tribes 
direct operation of their health services under contract with IHS if 
they wanted to do so and were able to comply with the terms of the 
statute.
  Public Law 93-638 provided further that those tribes exercising this 
contracting option would be entitled to the same compensation for 
contract support costs that IHS would receive were the agency providing 
direct service, costs which the agency would no longer incur. This all 
worked relatively well for a while with a number of tribes taking over 
direct operation of their health services and receiving funding to 
offset their contract support costs although most tribes never received 
the full funding to which they were entitled.
  In recent years with the growth of tribal self-governance and self-
determination, more and more tribes began to contract for direct 
operation of their health services. Unfortunately, the IHS found itself 
unable to meet its statutory obligation to provide funds for contract 
support costs and established a queue system where tribes could take 
over their health services and receive a promise of funds at such time 
as funds became available. The agency failed to meet its contract 
obligations or legal requirements under the statute, and today there is 
a funding shortfall of some $65 million.
  To address this shortfall, the committee has included language that 
would pro rate available funds to all contracting tribes. In other 
words, we cannot get a bigger pie, so we will just cut the pie into 
smaller pieces. While the committee has increased total funding by $26 
million, considering the level of the shortfall, which is $65 million, 
this will be far from adequate to prevent some tribes from receiving a 
smaller piece of the pie.
  While this appears like an equitable solution on the surface, such an 
approach fails to recognize that some tribes, specifically those that 
have been providing their own health services for the longest time and 
as such have been receiving full compensation for their contract costs, 
will under this bill incur significant reductions in their funding for 
contract support costs and which will negatively impact their provision 
of direct health services. The Mississippi Choctaw Indian nation could 
lose as much as $1 million a year. That is a lot of money to a tribe 
with only 8,000 persons. They operate a hospital, numerous community

[[Page H6127]]

health clinics, and the only renal care facility in the area. They have 
played by the rules and the language in this bill is hurting them.
  Notwithstanding the fact that the IHS has for years been in violation 
of current law, albeit with the acquiescence of the impacted tribes, 
passage of this bill with this pro rated provision intact will 
drastically alter current law, renege on contractual obligations to all 
contracting tribes, and let a Federal agency off the hook at the 
expense of the people it is supposed to serve, thereby rewarding it for 
failing to change and properly manage its mission.
  I do not believe that an appropriation bill is the appropriate 
vehicle for such a change in the law, nor do I believe that Congress 
should be a party to fixing a Federal agency's mistake and problem at 
the expense of Indian tribes. I recognize the problem of the funding 
shortfall for contract services and I empathize with those tribes that 
are receiving little or no reimbursement of their contract support 
costs. However, this is a significant problem that deserves a thorough 
hearing and action by the authorizing committees.
  Furthermore, to my knowledge, not one tribe was consulted or even 
informed that the committee was taking this action. We are punishing 
tribal incentive and leadership without so much as a consultation. This 
provision does not fix the problem, it exacerbates it and it delays a 
solution. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reject 
this exercise in bureaucratic and congressional arrogance.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I 
reluctantly have to oppose the amendment simply because, as the 
gentleman from Mississippi points out, there is a serious problem here. 
The difficulty is that if we strike the language, it will result in one 
tribe maintaining their level of funding while perhaps 100 other tribes 
will get a shortfall, or nothing.
  What we have tried to do is have equity in the distribution of the 
money that is available to the tribes to administer their programs and 
their self-determination contracts. In fact, in order to try to address 
the problem, we added $26 million to the Indian Health Services for 
this specific purpose.

                              {time}  1700

  We are not sure. It may be that the tribe of the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Parker) would end up getting as much under the new 
system as the old, or possibly a little less. But the difficulty is 
that you have at least 100 other tribes that get a shortfall. I think 
in fairness to all the tribes there has to be an across-the-board 
distribution, rather than to give just those who happen to be up at the 
starting gate early.
  I recognize that they did take a responsibility for their own self-
determination and that they were out front on that, and I certainly 
commend them. It is a challenge to try to be fair to everybody involved 
here. The administration, frankly, ducked the issue. If you look at the 
request they submitted to us, they took a pass on it because they did 
not want to recommend the money that was necessary to solve it.
  So we took it on ourselves in the committee, in fairness to the tribe 
of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker) and all the rest of the 
tribes, to try to reach some kind of an equitable solution. I will say 
that BIA is doing this now. They try to spread it across the board to 
give everybody a little help.
  The bottom line is, if we adopt the Parker amendment we are going to 
shortfall probably 99 or 100 other tribes. I can understand the 
gentleman's desire to help his tribe.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I say, with all due respect to the 
gentleman from Ohio, we keep referring this as the tribe in my State. 
This will affect all of the tribes that have worked extremely hard 
trying to abide by the rules that we put into place. Understand, it is 
not just one tribe.
  The National Congress of American Indians has sent a letter to us, to 
the chairman of the committee, explaining that this would be 
detrimental. We are talking about all of the Indian nations 
understanding that we have once again broken our word to them as far as 
what we want them to do. And because we have not fulfilled our 
responsibility, we are putting them in a terrible position.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand. We did 
have the letter from the American Congress, and they asked us to fix 
it, and we tried. We added $26 million, but that is not quite enough to 
accomplish I think what the gentleman would find desirable. What we 
would find desirable would probably take $60 million. The only 
difficulty is we did not have $60 million.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield again?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, on page 3 of their letter, let me just read 
just a couple of sentences. It says ``We are also deeply concerned with 
the language beginning on line 8, page 81 of the bill, which instructs 
IHS to alter its current contract support cost system to a `pro rata 
proportion' system. We ask you to support Representative Mike Parker's 
amendment to strike this language from the bill.''
  So if we want to do what they want, they explain to us exactly what 
needs to be done.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
This is exactly what the Republican Congress is trying to do, is 
privatize a lot of these issues.
  Mr. REGULA. Absolutely.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Where we ask someone to privatize and to save money 
and they go through the extraordinary function to do that, then I think 
that we ought to honor that and not renege on our promise.
  I do not have any Indian tribes in my district, but I think it is 
terrible what this country has done to Native Americans, and this is 
one area in which I think we can stand out, take a step and be counted, 
and help our Native Americans. I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman is 
saying, but we are trying to encourage all the tribes to privatize. 
But, unfortunately, to accomplish this goal we need a lot more money. 
As I said, the administration in their budget submission just ducked 
the whole issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, they ducked the issue. So it is not a 
question of privatizing, it is a question of trying to help all these 
tribes, to encourage them to do self-determination contracts.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. REGULA. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with the gentleman on 
that issue, but I do disagree that it is on privatization because these 
tribes have done that. They have been successful. They saved money. We 
are trying to get the rest of the tribes to do the same. But let us not 
penalize those tribes that have gone and done this problem that we have 
asked them to do. That is what the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Parker) in his amendment is asking us to do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, we are trying to achieve what the 
gentleman is talking about. That is why we put in the $26 million extra 
that we had to find somewhere else.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We will support the gentleman in doing that. Let us 
just not penalize the tribes that have gone through it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are not sure whether we will or not, 
depending on how the distribution turns out. The Indian Health Service 
says that adding $26 million will have minimal negative impact on a 
tribe such as what the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker) 
described, and be the fairest way to do it. That is a matter of 
fairness.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

[[Page H6128]]

  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, minimal impact, that is like a foot of 
water.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, these are IHS's words, not mine.
  Mr. PARKER. I have to tell the gentleman, it will mean a difference 
of $949,000 a year. That is a massive amount of impact.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time. To one tribe?
  Mr. PARKER. To one tribe.
  Mr. REGULA. I cannot say one way or the other, because I can only 
take the information from Indian Health Service. I, like the gentleman 
from California, have no tribes whatsoever in the State of Ohio, 
certainly not in my district.
  What we are trying to do is get a fair distribution. We are just 
trying to solve a problem that everybody is ducking, that is the bottom 
line, and do it in the fairest way we know how.
  I think if the amendment prevails, it means that many of these tribes 
will get nothing or very little to help them develop the self-
determination contracts. I think the bottom line is the body has to 
decide whether they want to be fair and across-the-board, help maybe 
100 tribes or help whatever number is.
  Some of the tribes have taken an initiative and have gone ahead on 
this self-determination. I can understand what they are saying. But I 
hate to close the door on all the rest of them by giving those that are 
already getting this money and letting them keep it, and we have the 
$26 million to improve the base.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the problem really, is lack of funds, is it 
not, rather than anything else? There should be enough money to take 
care of the tribe of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker).
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Yates).
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, if we do this, some of the tribes will be 
left without any money.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman is 
saying, and I know the budget constraints and the caps. But at the same 
time, I think the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker) is trying to 
say that these tribes have earned what they have done through 
privatization in managing their own health care system and that the 
others have not. We want the others to do the same thing. There is not 
enough money to do that. But let us not penalize those Native American 
tribes that have gone to the effort and created a system that is 
beneficial for all tribes.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is exactly right, except that 
we do not have enough money to do it. What the gentleman did was to put 
in as much money as we could. The administration did not request it. He 
added $26 million. So he agrees with the gentleman. This is what we 
ought to be doing, but we do not have the money to do it.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, let us put this in perspective. Let us take 
a tribe that has taken the initiative, and they are paying for their 
administrative cost, and they have done what we have asked them to do. 
What I have told the tribes, if the Federal Government wants to do this 
to you, all you need to do is sit back and say, ``We are not going to 
participate anymore, and now it is up to you to pay all of it. You have 
a statutory responsibility to come and pay for it.''
  They have saved us money. They have permitted us to have the 
additional funds that are there. I must tell my colleagues it is being 
totally unfair to these tribes that have taken the initiative and they 
have played by the rules. They have done what they wanted.
  That $26 million, by the way, does not all go to these tribes. We 
have salary increase in that. I think the net coming out is around $15 
million that is going toward the actual contract cost. So I appreciate 
the fact that what my colleagues have done is increase it by $26 
million, but I think that my colleagues are penalizing these tribes, 
and there is no reason to do that.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from 
Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. There is a reason. We do not have the money. It is just 
that simple.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we have not 
had the money for a long, long time. That does not mean we need to go 
and penalize these tribes for doing what we asked them to do.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what we are trying to 
do is get more tribes to go on the self-determination contracts, and 
that is the reason for the $26 million, and in the process not 
penalizing your tribes or those that are already on self-determination 
contracts.
  I wish we had enough money that we could make everybody whole. We do 
not know. The IHS says with $26 million it will be minimal. They do not 
give us a number. I am not sure where your $900,000 came from.
  But, I will yield. I do not want to prolong the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Parker).
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, what we have to understand is that these 
tribes are providing services that we would normally pay for. I realize 
that the committee, in its wisdom, has tried to be fair and be able to 
include more people.
  Mr. REGULA. That is right.
  Mr. PARKER. We do not achieve the purpose that we are looking for if 
we penalize individual tribes out there that have been trying to do 
what we ask them to do. We have changed the rules on them again. It is 
not the first time the Federal Government has done that to Indian 
nations.
  I think sometimes we all forget, it is a little basic thing in 
American history, but these are sovereign nations and we should treat 
them as such. We would never do this type of a thing to another nation 
without understanding that there would be retaliation of some type.
  These nations can very easily, that have paid for their own 
contracting costs, they could very easily sit back and say, ``Then it 
is up to you. You have a statutory obligation to provide health service 
to our people. You pay for it. You handle the whole thing.''
  That, in effect, would put IHS in a situation that they do not want 
to be put in. They know that they could not provide those services. 
They know that these Indian nations have saved them tremendous amounts 
of money, tremendous amounts of work, and that there would be no way 
that they could do that.
  So I think that in all fairness, this needs to move to the 
authorizing committee. We need to work something out so that we can 
eventually move toward full funding.
  These Indian nations that are in the queue are receiving health 
services. They are not being paid for contract services, as are the 
nations that have taken the incentive and are in the program, but they 
are still receiving health care services now.
  So I think that this amendment makes total and complete sense.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I cannot agree with the 
gentleman on that. What we have tried to do is to get more of the 
tribes, encourage more of the tribes to go to self-determination 
contracts, which as the gentleman points out is the right way to do it. 
It is not necessarily saving us a lot of money because we still have to 
pay for their health care costs, and what this money does is to help 
pay the administrative costs.

[[Page H6129]]

  It will not reduce that. We used the $26 million number as a way to 
take care of those that were already on self-determination contracts, 
while at the same time encouraging other tribes to take the same steps. 
We have historically tried to make the Native Americans more self-
dependent.
  We have to resist the amendment because what we have tried to do is 
accomplish what we thought was fairness in the way we have constructed 
the bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Parker), is the point the gentleman is trying to make here that a 
number of tribes have entered into self-determination contracts with 
the Indian Health Service, and the Indian Health Service has failed to 
live up to its obligations to fund these tribes that have taken on 
self-determination, and the unfortunate consequence of what the 
chairman is trying to do, and I think he was trying to do something to 
benefit all the tribes, is that we then do not live up to the 
commitments that we made to those people who decided that they wanted 
to go the route of self-determination? So are we penalizing them and 
rewarding people who are not willing to go the route of self-
determination? Is that basically the argument?

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PARKER. That is it. There is not much else to say. I do not 
question the motives of the chairman of the subcommittee, nor the 
ranking member. They are two of the finest people we have had in this 
House or ever served in the House. They care about the Indian Nations. 
But I must tell the gentleman that the language in the bill which 
attempts to try to help everyone, you are penalizing people who have 
given their word.
  I must tell the gentleman, there is a working group now between the 
Indian Nations and the IHS, and they are discussing what should be done 
and how it needs to be handled. What we are doing is precluding what 
they are going to look at and what they are going to decide. They may 
come up with some ideas that none of us have thought about. We are 
including that in this language.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the other problem with 
this is the tribes were not consulted before we made this decision. I 
am very upset that the administration in its budget, I completely 
concur with the chairman, completely punted on this issue. They did not 
have any money to address this or not very much.
  We tried to correct this, but, I think, unfortunately, what we are 
going to do here if we do not accept the gentleman's amendment is to 
penalize those people who have not entered into self-determination 
agreements, and then punish those that have. I think that will be 
unfortunate. Maybe we can work this out between now and the conference.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, in the interim, we have received statistics 
from IHS. I think the problem here really is that the other body put 
zero in their mark. We have $26 million. The $26 million will address 
the problem, because there are 250 tribes now receiving contract 
support and 23 not receiving it. So the $26 million will not only take 
care of the 23 we want to get in under contract support, but will 
probably result in tribes such as yours getting a cost of living 
increase above what they are receiving now.
  I think what they are doing in the letter is addressing a problem 
created by this bill in the other body, which is zero, and not 
addressing it with the $26 million we have in our bill. This is 
something we have to resolve in conference.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, those 
numbers, I have a lot of respect for the IHS and for their wisdom 
through the decades. They have been so right so many times. But let me 
just look at this. The numbers do not quite come together.
  When you are talking about that $26 million that is going to have an 
increase to cover those other tribes, I know they sent you that note, 
but let me just point out, we have a $65 million shortfall. We have 
gotten that from IHS.
  Now, the $26 million, to my calculation, you are around $40 million 
short. But you are worse than that, because all the $26 million does 
not go directly to support services. So you are in a situation where, 
let us just be conservative and say okay, it is $40 million short. You 
are still lacking some money. You are not going to be able to provide 
those services as we have promised.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, 
eliminating the $26 million is not going to solve the problem.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not eliminate the $26 
million. We only address the matter of contract authority and removing 
the language of removing the queue. We do not say anything about 
removing the $26 million, because it is in another part of the bill. So 
I want to make sure, whatever we do, I do not want to remove the $26 
million.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman is asking to do is take 
care of his tribe and take money away from the other tribes, because 
the committee, has not put enough money into this bill. What the 
gentleman ought to be doing, I think, is asking for more money in his 
amendment, rather than a rearrangement of whatever money there is in 
the bill.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, to my 
good friend, that is the solution, and I appreciate that. But I must 
tell the gentleman, I have some of the same problems that the ranking 
member does as far as finding that money.
  What I want to do is create a situation that the authorizing 
committees look at this thing, that the study group that is in place 
between IHS and the Indian tribes be able to come up with some 
recommendations to us on what needs to be done and the way it needs to 
be handled, and, if we do move in this direction, that we move into it 
in a much more logical fashion with more thought. What I do not want to 
do is hurt these tribes that have been doing what we asked them to do. 
We asked them to do it, they did it, and they did it in good faith.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I think 
what ought to be done is for the chairman and for me to take this 
problem into the conference and see if we can get more money, rather 
than to rearrange the way it is distributed; let us try to get more 
money so we can provide the money for the tribes that have followed the 
new rules. But we do need more money in order to take care of all the 
tribes, I do not think there is any question about that. But to 
rearrange it so some money goes to your tribe and none for the others, 
I think is unfair.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask a question 
of the chairman. Is the gentleman saying we cannot take care of all the 
self-determination tribes? In other words, the problem is we have got 
so many people who signed up to do self-determination, that we cannot 
take care of all of them? Is that the problem?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the 
gentleman is absolutely right. The problem with this amendment is it 
will take care of those who got to the head of the line, and those that 
were slow getting up to the line will get cut out.
  What we are trying to do is to make it fair for everybody, and we 
feel that the $26 million will allow those that were at the head of the 
line to continue to get what they were receiving, or very close to it, 
and will help the others to go to self-determination.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the problem I have is 
the letter here from the Indian Health Service says one tribe will only 
get 39 percent of what it got last year. That is a 61 percent 
reduction.

[[Page H6130]]

  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, that letter speaks to the 
Senate bill, which is a zero. It is not referring to the $26 million 
that we put in our bill. I think one of the problems here is that you 
are trying to address problems, situations, created by the Senate bill 
at zero, and not recognizing that we have taken, I think, a very 
progressive step.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me read this. It says this in a letter 
to Mr. Yates on July 20. ``For example, one tribe would see its 
contract support payment reduced by $949,000, or 39 percent, between FY 
98 and FY 99. Such unanticipated reduction would adversely affect 
health care delivery among these tribes by requiring them to decrease 
important administrative support staff and functions or to divert 
funding for health care services to support activities that were 
formally funded by the contract support costs.''
  This is a letter from Donna Shalala.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, when we received the letter 
we checked with IHS, and they advised us that that letter was drafted 
by OMB based on the Senate number. That is the advice we got.
  Mr. DICKS. Is the gentleman telling me OMB has not figured out which 
is the House and which is the Senate?
  Mr. REGULA. Well, the gentleman said it.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, please 
understand, we are making decisions here without going through an 
authorizing committee. We are legislating on an appropriations bill, 
where the National Congress of American Indians, and I know there are a 
lot of people who have never heard of it, but let me tell you, these 
people represent all the Indian tribes, they have said, do not do this 
to us. Keep your word.
  I might say to the gentleman that those people that are in the queue, 
that all of a sudden everybody wants to help, what are they going to 
feel when we break our word to those that have done what we asked them 
to do? How are they going to feel? How much confidence are they going 
to have in us?
  I feel that we need to keep our word, do what we said we were going 
to do, and resolve this problem in the authorizing committee, and move 
forward when we go to that point and have the Committee on 
Appropriations try to get the money necessary.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess I do not have, as I mentioned, a Native 
American tribe in my district. California has a lot of Native 
Americans, and I think it is more on principle than it is anything 
else. I could be hurting, maybe, some of the tribes in the San Diego 
area by supporting this amendment, but, on principle, if we ask 
somebody to do something and they do it, and they save us money, then 
we ought to reward that. And if there is a penalty, the penalty should 
come on the tribes that do not. I think that is what the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Parker) is saying.
  I also acknowledge the fact that we do not have enough money to do 
what we said we were going to do. But if there is a penalty, then it 
ought to penalize the ones that have not. That is the reason that I 
rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. We need to keep our word.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Parker 
amendment. The tribe that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker) 
has mentioned today happens to be my in home district, the Mississippi 
Band of Choctaws, which I believe is probably one of the best models, 
if not the best model, in the Nation of tribal leadership and self-
determination.
  They have taken the steps where, 20 or 30 years ago, a generation 
ago, you had the highest rates of unemployment, of illiteracy, of poor 
health care; now they have the best in health care, they have world 
class facilities, they have the best in education. They have invested 
in manufacturing facilities and we now have the lowest unemployment in 
this area of my State that we have had in 30 years, and it is because 
they have done what we asked them to do. They have taken the steps 
consistent with the Indian Self-determination Act of 1975.
  What I am concerned about is here we are breaking that commitment, 
breaking our word, in essence abrogating a contract. We are penalizing 
and punishing those who have taken the right steps.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend and thank the ranking member and chairman for 
their efforts of addressing this problem and adding $26 million where 
the Senate did nothing. The problem we have and the problem that the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker) has is we are trying to fix it 
on a pro rata basis. We do not distinguish or differentiate between the 
good tribes and good leaders that have taken the action under self-
determination and those who have not.
  Now, we think there are several violations of principle. One, 
breaking the word, breaking a contract, and penalizing those who have 
done the right thing. What we are trying to do is find a way to support 
the $26 million, but to see if there is a better way to apportion and 
allocate whatever funding is made available, so we do distinguish 
between those who have taken the steps consistent with the Self-
determination Act.
  So I would urge the chairman and ranking member to work with us, to 
see if there is a better way. There is a working group right now that 
is trying to take steps, in consultation with all parties, to find a 
better solution to this. All we are asking is for the time to find a 
better way, a better approach, consistent with our principles.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, let me point out. I want to make sure that 
everyone knows that the appropriating subcommittee has gone farther 
than anyone has ever gone in the past in trying to rectify this 
problem. I also want people to know that the administration has done 
nothing. They have sent up letters saying ``you have created a 
problem,'' but they did not try to resolve that problem before coming 
up here. They dumped it in our laps. I realize that.
  But I also know that we are in a situation where we have got to do 
something, and I think that it is very important that we send the right 
message to these Indian tribes, and that we let them know that 
privatization is the correct way to go and that they are able to depend 
on us, that we will follow through.
  One thing that I do not want, and this bothers me a great deal, this 
subcommittee has been good enough to put an additional $26 million in. 
Whatever happens on my amendment, if it should pass, I would hate to 
see this committee move back from their position and remove $26 million 
or decrease that amount. That would be something that I think would be 
not only hurtful to the Indian tribes, it would send the wrong message 
to them as far as what we are trying to do. So, from a very personal 
standpoint, I want to make sure that this $26 million stays in the IHS 
funding.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, we 
have talked about IHS and their input into this process, but let me 
read from a letter from Secretary Shalala.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Cunningham was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, the letter from Secretary Shalala reads, 
``The implementation of a pro rata proportionate distribution of 
payments for contract support costs will result in the reduction of 
funding to a significant number of tribes,'' we are not talking about 
just one tribe, ``a significant number of tribes and tribal 
organizations that have assumed,'' have taken the responsibility and 
the steps required of them, ``that have assumed the operation of IHS 
health programs.''

[[Page H6131]]

                              {time}  1730

  And then later in the letter it says, ``We therefore must object to 
the proposed proviso in S. 2237, since the tribes have not been 
consulted and since the abrupt and unforeseen funding reductions to 
many of the tribes currently receiving these payments would have a 
severely disruptive effect on health care delivery by these tribes.''
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to the gentleman 
that he read a letter from the Secretary of HHS expressing great 
concern, but in the submission of the budget she underfunded them $147 
million.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I understand and agree with the 
Chairman.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  According to the letter from the Congress of American Indians, we are 
going to need approximately $300 million to take care of all of the 
needs of all of the tribes under this program. Mr. Chairman, $26 
million, of course, as the gentleman from Mississippi pointed out, is a 
pittance. But the problem, as I see it, is lack of money. We just do 
not have enough money in this bill to take care of all of the tribes.
  I am told by staff there are 30 tribes that have not received any 
money under this arrangement. I do not think that is fair, either, just 
as the gentleman points out that the new distribution would severely 
penalize the tribe in his district. But the Congress is trying to find 
out, it does not agree with the $300 million figure. What it is trying 
to do is find out how much money is actually needed.
  That is why I suggested earlier, as we go into the conference, I for 
one, and I am sure the chairman too, will try to find out how much 
money is realistically available. $26 million is all we could 
realistically put up at this time, that is all the money we can get in 
order to take care of the need not only for your tribe, I say to the 
gentleman from Mississippi, but for the California tribes as well and 
for the other tribes that now are not getting any money.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, the tribe that I referred to in my State is 
not in my district, but I feel strongly that it is up to us to keep our 
word.
  This problem is so great that we have to look at it from a variety of 
different ways, and I must say that preempting the study group between 
the HHS and the Indian tribes, I think we need more information before 
we have a basic change in the law, which the bill, as it is right now, 
without my amendment, the bill changes current law drastically, going 
all the way back to 1975. And I think in 1975 when the gentleman was 
here, I think that the gentleman made the right decision at the time, 
and I am just trying to reaffirm that decision, and I ask people to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if we do not accept the amendment, it will 
allow more tribes to participate, and I do not think it will penalize 
the tribes represented by the gentleman from Mississippi. If we accept 
the amendment, or if the amendment is passed and the $26 million is 
left in, it will be a great windfall for the tribes who are already 
getting money, because those that would be getting it now will get the 
$26 million divided among them and the other tribes will still be out 
in the cold.
  It is not a matter of changing the law. This has been going on a long 
time in the BIA. It is a matter of distributing the money equitably. 
Unfortunately the administration, as I said earlier, ducked the issue. 
In fact, they funded Indian health $147 million less than last year, 
which is a mystery to me, given the testimony that the ranking member 
heard, as did I, that there are a lot of health problems in the Indian 
Community. But I do not think in fairness we want to give a big 
windfall to the tribes that are now getting funds with the $26 million 
we put in. We want everybody to get in on the mix.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, may I say that I do not consider it a big 
windfall. I think that the tribe, on the basis of the explanation given 
by the gentleman from Mississippi, deserves that money, but to do so at 
the present time without having all of the figures will penalize some 
of the other tribes. I therefore will stand with the chairman in 
keeping things as they are in the hopes that we can get the information 
we need before we go into the conference where we can make some 
adjustments.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say there is a $65 million 
shortfall. We have added $26 million. That leaves us $39 million, I 
mean around $40 million. There is still a shortfall there. So this 
windfall, supposed windfall is not a windfall, it is still a shortfall.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, we just do not know what the figures 
actually are, according to what the staff tells me. The gentleman has 
certain figures. We are trying to get the figures from the proper 
authorities so that we are in a position to do justice to the tribes 
that the gentleman has as well as the other tribes.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
if I could suggest to the chairman and ranking member possibly one 
solution. The controversy here is over the allocation of whatever funds 
are available. The $26 million is greatly appreciated, but if it is 
done on a pro-rata basis, there is no distinction or difference between 
those who have taken steps consistent with the Self-Determination Act.
  We would like to work going into conference, work with the 
administration, work with the working groups to see if there is a 
better way of allocation that would still try to address the needs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Yates was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentleman might want to 
withdraw his amendment at this time and let the chairman and I try to 
correct the situation as we go into the conference.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ranking member's 
suggestion but I do not think that it would be wise to do that, because 
I think that this issue is so important, I think that it is necessary 
that we all focus on what we are trying to do, and I think that my 
amendment moves in the direction of at least putting the gentleman in 
the conference so that he is able to deal with the Senate.
  We already have the $26 million in there, and I know this discussion 
is going to occur on into the future, and I also know that the 
gentleman will not remove the $26 million.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi will be 
postponed.


          Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Miller of California

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

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Miller of California:
       Page 68, beginning at line 13, strike ``for indirect'' and 
     all that follows through line 16 and insert the following: 
     ``may not be used for indirect support activities (as defined 
     in the Forest Service Handbook).''.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year three 
committees came together, the Committee on

[[Page H6132]]

Appropriations, the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee on 
Resources, to hear about the problems, the financial problems of the 
U.S. Forest Service. The Committee on Resources and the Committee on 
the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations gathered to hear the 
GAO's report on a decade's worth of reports that they have done over 
the past years which conclude that the lack of financial performance 
accountability has resulted in inefficiency and waste by the Forest 
Service.
  To make the Forest Service accountable, I think the way to do this is 
to take their off-budget funds and subject them to appropriations. The 
Forest Service has 23 special accounts amounting to more than one-third 
of their total budget, according to the Congressional Research Service. 
These funds, which now receive little congressional oversight, ought to 
be subject to appropriation, and I have introduced legislation to do 
that.
  But this bill, this current bill does nothing to improve the Forest 
Service's accountability. In fact, it moves in the opposite direction 
by sanctioning the agency's use of forest restoration funds for 
administrative overhead costs. It permits the same abuses to occur with 
salvage funds, and it rewrites the roads and trails fund to allow those 
funds to be diverted to vaguely defined forest health projects.
  My amendment does not address all of these issues but, in effect, it 
requires that the funds that are intended for forest restoration be 
used as Congress intended, not as a slush fund by the Forest Service 
for administrative costs.
  By contrast, the committee's bill would allow up to 25 percent of 
these restoration funds to be used for so-called indirect expenses. 
This, in effect, ratifies the current practices, the current practices 
that so many Members of these three committees were shocked at when 
they were told about them by the GAO. The GAO told us that in reporting 
its fiscal year 1995 financial results, the Forest Service could not 
identify how it spent $215 million, $215 million out of $3.5 billion in 
its operating fund programs with respect to these forest restoration 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, these are funds that when the Forest Service has a 
forest sale and the loggers go in and they log that tract of land, 
whether it is a few acres or a couple hundred acres, whatever extent 
that the logging practice is in, these are funds that the Congress of 
the United States made a determination would go in after the logging is 
done, replant that area, restore that area so that we would get a new 
generation of trees; we would put the forest back into a position so 
that it might be logged in the future, or it might be used for other 
forest values such as recreation or what have you. That is supposed to 
be done on a sale-by-sale basis.
  However, because of accounting practices within the Forest Service, 
what we now see them doing is not doing it on a sale-by-sale basis, but 
collecting the revenues on a sale-by-sale basis, putting them into a 
slush fund and now subsidizing the administration of the Forest 
Service, as opposed to going back and replanting and reforesting those 
sales and those areas that belong to the public.
  What has the result been? The result has been that reforestation has 
not kept up with the cutting in the forests; that a number of areas 
where reforestation has taken place, it has been a complete failure, 
and we now have these huge scars on the public lands. If one visits 
some areas in northern California and southern Oregon and some of the 
Western States, we will see massive scars upon the land where 
reforestation has been a failure. But rather than go back in and fix 
those and reforest them to get those trees to grow again, what we see 
is they are diverting this to the overhead of the Forest Service.
  Again, the GAO told the three committees when they were assembled 
earlier this year that the Forest Service does not have the financial 
management information and controls needed to ensure compliance with 
these Reforestation Fund Act monies and the prohibition limiting these 
funds for expenditure in individual sale areas to the collection from 
those same sale areas. What they told us was that the Forest Service, 
because it lacks accountability, because it lacks financial controls, 
has created a slush fund that is not being used for the purposes for 
which the public intended.
  The diversion of these funds now in this last year was some 31 
percent of the $166 million that were supposed to be used for 
reforestation of the timber sale areas. Instead of planting trees, 
instead of improving watersheds, instead of improving wildlife habitat, 
we were buying furniture, we were turning on the lights, and we are 
engaged in funding the overhead of the Forest Service.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think what has become very 
clear is that we have to start curbing these financial abuses by the 
Forest Service.
  This amendment does that. That is why this amendment has the support 
of not only the environmental groups but almost all of the taxpayer 
organizations that look at these practices and ask the question, is the 
American public getting a fair bang for its dollar? Is the American 
public getting a return on its dollar invested, and is the law being 
followed in terms of what the public has an expectation of with respect 
to, in this case, reforestation programs?
  As we look at these programs from an environmental point of view, or 
as we look at these programs from a taxpayer point of view, they fall 
far short in their accountability to the public, and they fall short 
because of that lack of accountability in their obligations to the 
environmental charge of these funds under this law. That is why this 
amendment should be accepted by the committee and by the House. I plan 
to ask for a vote on this. This is a very high priority of both the 
taxpayer organizations and the Forest Service organizations.
  Again, many of us sat through these hearings and we were quite 
stunned at the extent to which the Forest Service accountability and 
financial controls have lapsed. We were also heartened, I think, by the 
fact that the Forest Service brought in professional financial managers 
to start to bring this back into control. But we have to begin with 
this legislation in this fiscal year and stop the diversion of these 
off-budget funds.
  I would hope eventually that the authorizing committees, and if not, 
then the appropriating committees, will bring these funds back onto 
budget and make them subject to appropriation so that the American 
taxpayer understands where the money is being spent and what the 
benefit is, and we can make a determination each year as to whether or 
not the public interest is being served and if, in fact, the mission of 
the Forest Service as determined by the Congress is being served.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) is 
absolutely correct. I am sure it will shock him for me to say that. 
But, in general, he is absolutely correct with respect to what is 
happening in the Forest Service today and its mismanagement of funds 
and lack of knowledge of what is actually happening within this very 
huge agency.
  Unfortunately, his amendment is misdirected, while his thesis is 
correct.
  We have all seen the General Accounting Office report and are 
shocked, indeed, with respect to their criticism of the Forest Service 
and to how lacking the Forest Service is in accountability.
  However, the Committee on Agriculture has held three hearings on this 
very issue, and we have come to the conclusion that certainly there 
must be something done. For that reason, there is a bill introduced, 
which will be marked up on Tuesday, July 28, and scheduled for the 
floor on August 6, which addresses not just the K-V Fund issue, as the 
gentleman's amendment does, but addresses a whole array of management 
techniques and problems that the Forest Service continually has, plus 
overhead.

[[Page H6133]]

  Now, it is shocking that many of the funds that the gentleman 
mentioned, there are five of them, he addresses only one, these funds 
have something like 30 percent overhead attached to them. That is 
unacceptable. And as we have gone into the question of the management 
of the forests, which we recognize that there some direction must be 
taken by the Congress to straighten up what is obviously a total mess.
  Now, if we follow the gentleman's amendment only on the K-V Fund, we 
may well interrupt a personnel problem within the K-V Fund, which could 
impact habitat restoration and reforestation efforts and the issues 
that we are all interested in and that we all want to see completed.
  So, here I think is the choice: the language that I think is a 
beginning in the Interior bill, but allow the authorizing committee, in 
this case the Committee on Agriculture, to carefully walk through this 
whole issue, bring it to the floor for the study of the Committee, and 
take the whole issue, rather than just a part of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to include the gentleman from 
California in on any language that he would propose in an overall 
attempt to take care of a very difficult issue, rather than take in an 
amendment today with little opportunity to discuss. Let us go through 
the authorizing process. We will bring a bill that I think will address 
many of the gentleman's problems and we would be happy to include him 
in that discussion.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Smith) for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his 
remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I think as the gentleman said, he shares our dismay at 
what we heard in the reports from GAO and from the Forest Service. 
Hopefully, their acknowledgment of that is the beginning of a change. 
But let me say in this case, and I did not as I said in my statement, I 
believe that all of these should be brought on budget and the 
appropriators should have some say in how this is being done.
  But this last time, it was 35 percent. The committee says 25 percent. 
That level of overhead is just unacceptable when we are struggling to 
do the reforestation programs that we all know are necessary as part of 
watershed management and going back and trying to correct some mistakes 
and all the rest of it.
  I would urge the gentleman from Oregon to have his hearings and to 
have the authorizing committees make these things, but also I guess we 
are at the end of the session here. This is the beginning of the fiscal 
year. I still think that this amendment is very important if we are 
going to stop this.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand 
this is a rifle shot at the issue. Let us take the whole issue under 
consideration and bring it back to the floor when we have the whole 
thing addressed.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller) is that we would propose to reduce this 25 
percent to 20, which will be 10 percent less than we are using now. The 
problem is that if we adopt this amendment, we leave the K-V Fund out 
there without any direction.
  That fund is used for habitat improvement, reforestation, and a lot 
of very good environmental issues. I am most reluctant to, but I would 
have to characterize this amendment as being antienvironment, and I do 
not think that the gentleman from California wants to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I would agree that we should get this on budget and put 
us in charge as a Congress, in administering these funds on a line item 
basis. But I do not think it is good management, as proposed in this 
amendment, to take away the ability to manage the program and leave the 
program out there like a ship without a rudder. These programs are very 
important environmentally for reforestation, for habitat improvement, 
for other legitimate forest health issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with the gentleman from California 
in getting this on budget, reducing the amount that is going to 
administration, and ensure that the funding actually achieves the 
environmental objectives that are very much a part of it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his comments. We are quickly trying to assess his 
offer. I think a couple of our colleagues have something they want to 
say on this and maybe we can chat about this.
  But there is a problem with respect to ongoing litigation, so this 
has to be done sort of right, I guess, not to prejudice some parties. 
So, we can talk.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to use the money 
for environmental objectives, and to do that there has to be some 
mechanism to manage the fund. I think the amendment just takes away the 
mechanism without addressing the issue of how we expend the funds. I 
think we really need to get it on budget and manage it more correctly.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield, let us not pretend like this is the only 
administrative money available to the Forest Service. The Subcommittee 
on Interior Appropriations unfortunately makes a huge amount of money 
available for administrative overhead to run these programs, and for 
them to siphon off this huge amount of overhead to get these programs 
on the ground and get them working is just unconscionable. But it is 
not like it would leave them without administrative overhead. It would 
leave them without a place that they could go without accountability, 
but they still have administrative money for these functions.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I would like to 
say to the gentleman that if there is any way in the conference process 
that we can make some changes to make this fund totally accountable, I 
am very much for that, because I think accountability is an essential 
element of any program that we manage. And since we have to appropriate 
the funds, it should be accountable to those of us that serve on these 
respective committees.
  I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), I would 
like to work with him to achieve that objective. But I would be 
reluctant to support the amendment under these circumstances without 
having some additional changes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, here is the problem before us. The administration and 
this Congress have been starving the Forest Service, while giving them 
ever more and more expensive obligations, many of which have tremendous 
merit. If we look at the backlogs to meet the environmental guidelines 
of the President's forest plan in my region, it would sop up virtually 
the entire budget of the United States Forest Service.
  We are simply not funding many meritorious activities. The 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) was going to offer an amendment 
yesterday, with which I disagreed, but I agreed with the program she 
wanted to augment. If we look at her augmenting those programs, it 
would take them up to 30 and 40 percent of the annual objective; again, 
programs that benefit the environment, that reinvest in our forests.
  We have been treating our forests like cash cows for much too long, 
and now people are unwilling to reinvest in the resource. That is 
pointed out by this issue of the K-V Funds. The K-V Funds are spent for 
meritorious purposes, reforestation and related environmentally 
beneficial activities consequent to timber sales. Everybody agrees that 
those are activities that should be carried out.
  But the problem here is that since we are starving the Forest Service 
in many other budgets, they are attributing an, I think, unusually high 
overhead to this program so that they can move their funds around. And 
they are very, very messy and unaccountable accounting practices which 
we have held hearings on.

[[Page H6134]]

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), 
whom I consider one of the experts on these issues in the House, let me 
give some of the information that we have received from the Forest 
Service for the benefit of our colleagues who are trying to learn about 
this.
  It says:

       Eliminating the K-V overhead indirect costs will have 
     substantial repercussions for the agency. The indirect 
     nonproject costs of the agency cannot be eliminated and 
     support accomplishment of program work. Costs such as rent, 
     utilities unemployment comp, and program supervision are 
     necessary costs to support K-V accomplishments.

  According to the May 6, 1998, report on indirect charges in five 
funds, the K-V Fund paid for $51,169,000 in fiscal year 1997. As 
mentioned above, if K-V could not pay for these costs, the Forest 
Service's appropriated funds would have to be responsible for them. 
This would result in less program accomplishment in reforestation, 
timber stand improvement, wildlife, watershed improvements, and other 
appropriated resource areas.
  In addition, the plain language of the National Forest System 
Appropriation excludes general administrative support to funds such as 
K-V. Therefore, to charge appropriated funds would place the Forest 
Service in violation of its National Forest System Appropriations 
language on GA, and in violation of congressional intent, if not 
appropriation language on all other direct costs.
  So, I understand why we would like to preserve the funds, but we have 
to pay it somewhere. If we do not pay the indirect costs of the K-V out 
of the K-V Fund, then we will take money away from all of those other 
programs and things like timber stand reforestation improvement and 
wildlife, which the gentleman and I are both strong supporters of. How 
do we answer this?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I said as I spoke, 
the objectives of the K-V Fund are meritorious. The question is how 
much goes to overhead? And I would say that 25 percent where they are 
attributing rent for a Forest Service employee who works in a ranger's 
station, attributing all of those, if we add up all the overheads and 
the indirects we find that in part it is going to the chief's salary. 
It is going here because the chief spends 4 percent of his time on K-V 
Fund, so 4 percent of his salary.
  I mean, when we add them up, they do not add up to 100 percent. So my 
concern is that we are not getting as much money on the ground as we 
should. I certainly would not want to get an unintended effect here 
which would be to deprive them of any capability of managing and 
investing these funds. But I think the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller) is trying to make the point that the 25 percent number is 
arbitrary and too high.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn), chairman of the authorizing subcommittee. He 
points out that a recent report by the General Accounting Office 
revealed the Forest Service diverted over $220 million from the K-V 
Fund into bureaucratic overhead between 1993 and 1997.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The time of the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Yates, and by unanimous consent, Mr. DeFazio was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the law does not permit the K-V Fund to be 
used for any other purpose, certainly not for the administrative 
expenses. And what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has said 
is true, that if we do not use this money from the K-V Fund, we will 
have to get it from somewhere else. We will have to use appropriated 
funds for this purpose if we object to their present day practice, 
because the money is essential for carrying out the needs of the Forest 
Service.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I have tremendous 
respect for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). I think the 
problem that we are having here, to address his concerns, is between 
some of us on the authorizing committee who have held hearings on the 
Forest Service budgeting and accounting practices and feel that money 
is being moved around in ways that are not accountable and being spent 
in ways that are not provided for under law; that we are not getting 
the full bang for the buck of the K-V Fund's investment on the ground 
in environmental restoration because it is being diverted on overhead 
that is not just legitimately overhead for the K-V program.
  Certainly, there is legitimate overhead for the program. But other 
more general overhead purposes of the Forest Service, which I would 
agree, since the Forest Service, as I said earlier, is not getting 
enough funds in many other programs.

                              {time}  1800

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The time of the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. DeFazio was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DeFAZIO. So I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Yates) that I think we have some essential grounds for agreement, but 
the problem is I see the Forest Service doing things like the argument 
over purchaser road credits last year. I could come to the floor and 
list project after project they were doing purchaser roads credits, 
which truthfully had little to do with the timber sales that they were 
conducting, but they were meritorious recreation, road, and 
environmental projects and restoration flood damage repair that they 
could not otherwise pay for.
  So I think the bottom line we keep coming back to is there is not 
enough money to fulfill their missions, particularly their mission as 
it relates to the environment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate and thank the 
gentleman for yielding to me. I appreciate the point he has made.
  What we have here is a situation that over time has developed to now 
an extravagance, that any time the Forest Service has something they 
want that the Congress does not go along with or somebody does not go 
along with in Washington, they reach into the restoration funds.
  The purpose of these funds was, and the gentleman represents areas 
that are much more affected than mine, the purpose of these funds was 
to try to do restoration on the theory that forests were on a, cycle 
and that we would make an agreement to cut them and make an agreement 
to reforest them and to start the new cycle of trees, and future 
generations could make determinations. But what we now see is over a 
third of the funds, or about a third of the funds, have now been 
subject to a diversion, to a simple wish list of local forest people, 
of managers, about what they want in terms of administrative overhead, 
with no bars.
  And what came to a head in March of this year was the total 
unaccountability of the system with respect to a basic fundamental 
forest law, the Vince Vanderberg funds for reforestation.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Miller of California, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. DeFazio was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue 
to yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. So, Mr. Chairman, this is an effort to try 
to repair.
  Let us understand something. The Senate is at zero. The Senate has 
made a determination that this practice is an outrage; that this is 
contrary to everything that the authorizers in these committees and the 
appropriators want to do. But this is something that has just grown up 
and kind of gone off.
  And now the question is are we going to enable them to continue to do 
this practice which is working to the detriment of taxpayers and 
working to the detriment of the environment?

[[Page H6135]]

  I just think that this is just fundamental. This is one of those 
things where, once again, we have kind of bad fiscal policy here mixed 
with the environment, and it ends up with bad policy for everyone. And 
that is why the taxpayers' organizations are supporting this amendment, 
that is why the environmental organizations are supporting this 
amendment.
  Because, in fact, if we can bring this back under the control of the 
Committee on Appropriations, if we can make these people go into the 
regular fund for administrative overhead, which is millions and 
millions and millions of dollars for the Forest Service, then we can 
have some accountability in this program, and we can go back to many of 
the areas in the gentleman's State, in my State and other Members' 
States that have never been properly reforested.
  And the cry always is, there is not money to do this. Well, 
apparently the money has been diverted for a whole host of reasons, 
most of which most Members of Congress never knew about until the joint 
oversight hearing, where it was exposed in the GAO reports and the 
Inspectors General reports.
  And I am just dealing with one of these funds. This is true of a 
whole series of these funds where they have now determined this is 
somehow their God-given right, to go in there and dip into costs that 
they want to cover that the Congress has not approved.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. In a memo which the 
Forest Service produced yesterday in opposition to the Furse amendment, 
they said the Forest Service is working to reduce overhead and increase 
expenditure clarity and accountability through better financial 
management. Well, I think they need a little pushing, because the 
results of that hearing were absolutely disastrous.
  Basically, they are not auditable at this point in time. There is no 
accountability. How can we say we are going to take 25 percent of these 
needed K-V funds for reforestation and environmental investment and 
divert it arbitrarily for whatever purpose?
  Twenty-five percent is high in anybody's book. But for an ongoing, 
existing agency which does not have to go out and rent new space, does 
not have to go out and buy new vehicles, does not even have to hire new 
employees, because for many of them it is only part of their time, 25 
percent seems very high to me and an arbitrary number.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding once again.
  The gentleman was at the hearing, and I think the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) was there when they said that they could not 
identify how they spent $215 million. $215 million. They also went on 
to say that $7.8 billion in value reported with respect to assets and 
properties and plants and equipment was erroneous
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Miller of California, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. DeFazio was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The value they placed on their property, 
their plant and their equipment was erroneous; they do not know if that 
is really what it is worth. $7.8 billion, and $215 million in 
expenditures, and we do not know if it is accurate or not. We have no 
way of knowing that. Why? Because over a period of time these funds 
were created, they were off budget, and they started using them as a 
slush fund for all of these purposes for which they no longer then had 
to account.
  And due to the work of the three committees, and they should be 
commended for this effort, this has now been exposed and this now has 
to be changed around. And because of those hearings, the Senate has 
made a determination that this is going to stop. This is going to stop. 
They are not going to use 30 percent of the money that people expect to 
be put on the ground to reforest our lands, to be committed to a wish 
list from people beyond their allotted administrative overhead.
  I thank gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time once again, I thank the 
gentleman. And just in summary, I do not think anyone can defend what 
has been going on and we need some resolution. And we feel that we need 
to move that issue forward, at least into the conference.
  So we are hopeful Members will support this amendment supported by 
environmental groups, taxpayer groups and others to bring some 
accountability, and to better accomplish the environmental 
reforestation and other goals of the Forest Service which are being, in 
fact, woefully underfunded by this body. And that is something we will 
also have to deal with in future appropriations.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THUNE. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I just to want emphasize the point that this effort is an 
effort in unintended results. And I want to read into the record the 
impact that would occur should this amendment be adopted, and I think 
that all will agree that these kinds of results are unacceptable.
  For instance, the Forest Vegetation Management and Reforestation 
account would be impacted by $20.5 million, which is 45,000 acres, 75 
percent of all that is totally planned. Timber Stand Improvement, $10.7 
million, 42,000 acres, 58 percent of all total planned. Wildlife 
Habitat Management, $4.9 million, 30,000 acres. Inland Fisheries 
Habitat, $1.2 million. Anadromous Fish Hatcheries Habitat Management, 
$1.6 million. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species, $.4 
million. Watershed Improvements, $2.8 million, et cetera.
  Mr. Chairman, I just point out again that I think we have not thought 
through this amendment. It is a perilous journey we are on here. Let us 
back away, let us go through the process of hearings, let me bring a 
bill to the floor which will address this whole thing, and we will 
address as well the gentleman from California's program.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Let me just say that in the Senate, not exactly a radical body in 
American politics, and very protective of Western resource policy, in 
their bill they are silent on this matter, and they said, ``The 
committee is very concerned about rapidly increasing indirect expenses, 
including overhead, and the related effect on the availability of funds 
for accomplishment of on-the-ground objectives.'' The point raised by 
the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). ``As noted by the 
General Accounting Office.''
  They go on in their language to say, ``For example, the committee is 
aware of a proposal to cap the ratio of indirect to total expenditures 
from the five trust funds of the administrative Forest Service at a 
level of 25 percent. Although the committee is concerned with the rapid 
increase from 15 to 27 percent the rates of indirect or total 
expenditures over the last 5 years, the committee does not propose to 
cap for the following reasons.''
  Okay? The point is this: We are not going to get into ratifying, and 
they anticipate this language, we are not going to get into ratifying a 
practice that is just there because of sloppiness; that is just there 
because people do not want to live within the budget constraints that 
this Congress makes a determination, and they are using these funds for 
any old purpose they want. They are not related to K-V, and that is the 
point.
  And I thank the gentlewoman, Mr. Chairman, for getting the time so 
that I could put the Senate report on record.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.

[[Page H6136]]

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  To the debate focus, I would point out to the gentleman from 
California that it is not any old purpose. It is whatever the Secretary 
of Agriculture, who is one of our former colleagues, determines it be 
used for. And what the gentleman is saying is that he has no confidence 
in the Secretary of Agriculture.
  But aside from all that, this amendment takes out the ability to 
manage these funds. So suddenly we have a sizable chunk of money, 
probably $150 million or more, with no ability to manage it. It is just 
there. The Treasury will be happy. They will have the money. And 
instead of spending it on timber stand improvement, wildlife habitat 
management, inland fisheries habitat management, anadromous fisheries 
habitat, threatened, or endangered species, watershed improvements, 
instead of that, the money goes to the Treasury.
  Now, we recognize what the gentleman is saying, that this is a 
problem. We are trying to get it under control. We have reduced the 
amount that can be expended on indirect charges from 35 percent to 25 
percent. The authorizing committee is addressing this problem and is 
trying to get it on budget where it belongs and eliminate the problems 
that have happened. We have to phase it out over a period of 3 years 
simply because there are a number of projects that are underway that 
need to be completed.
  We have tried very strenuously, and the gentleman from Washington is 
part of the subcommittee, to make accountability a part of our goal. I 
do not disagree with the gentleman from California. We want 
accountability; he wants accountability. But I do not think just 
striking out the management money, without having a mechanism to allow 
these programs to be finished, to allow the transfer, is good 
legislating.
  We are sympathetic to the gentleman's goals and would try to address 
those as much as possible in conference, but I would have to resist the 
amendment at this point. It is not a good way to approach it.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
chairman for his comments, and I must agree with him. I think that the 
goal here is laudable, but I think the Miller amendment goes too far. 
It is an extreme approach to the reasoned approach that the 
subcommittee has taken deliberately, not without consideration.
  I have just been in hearings regarding the Forest Service and 
regarding the need to control and limit their expenses. Our 
subcommittee has been deliberate about this. And I think the 
representations of the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture are 
very well taken. He makes a good point. We will have hearings, we will 
have an analysis of the problem, but to, in sort of an extremist way, 
say we are just going to cut this off now, without good knowledge, I 
think makes no sense.
  So it does go too far too fast. With all due respect to the gentleman 
from California, I just think we need to be very careful about how fast 
and how deliberate we are on this whole issue.
  The Interior bill, the one that we are going to vote on here today, 
takes an important, responsible, incremental step to management 
improvement. And that should be our goal, not this whacking away at 
this account and really harming the environment.

                              {time}  1815

  Frankly, I think that is what the consequences will be. Chairman 
Smith, Chairman Regula and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) 
all mentioned the environmental protections that I think would be lost 
by adopting this amendment.
  So I urge very clearly that we vote no on this amendment and continue 
our deliberation of this whole issue and try to resolve it in a 
reasoned manner, not slashing and cutting.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), I 
hope to end this debate.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Let me just say, it is suggested that somehow this is a radical 
amendment and somehow we are moving too far too fast in the name of 
trying to protect both the resources and the public treasury.
  Again, I refer my colleagues to the Senate report. ``Although 
concerned about the agency's history of poor commitment and 
accomplishment, the Committee is reluctant to establish caps on 
overhead expenses which may inhibit efforts to improve accountability. 
To improve accountability, it is needed.''
  Later they finally say, ``The committee is concerned that a cap of 25 
percent would lead to an automatic and in some cases unwarranted draw 
on these trust funds that would divert these needed funds from on-the-
ground projects.''
  That is the United States Senate. That is the Committee on 
Appropriations dealing with forest policy. They are concerned that the 
answer that has been selected by this committee is exactly contrary to 
what needs to be done, that once they put a cap on they are ratifying 
the process and the process is nowhere in law, the process is growing 
up because of dysfunctional behavior by the Forest Service in not being 
able to live within a budget.
  They have not been able to live within a budget because they have a 
honey pot over here called K-V funds and they just reach in there and 
grab out whatever they need when they have a little bit of a shortfall. 
That is why the Senate has this language in the report. That is why 
they have it here.
  Because, with all due respect, we have not broken the habit of these 
people. This is this next fiscal year. This is this next fiscal year. 
This is the money that is going to go into effect in October. And if we 
do not change this, these people are going to be right back in there 
reaching in there right up to the old armpit with the taxpayers' money 
because they cannot get Congress to approve of something.
  The Senate recognizes this. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller) did not discover this. The Senate Committee on Appropriations 
discovered this, and they recognize that a cap is to ratify bad 
behavior.
  This is like giving a drunk a beer instead of a straight shot. These 
people are incapable of keeping their hands off of this money that is 
supposed to go into improving our forest and reforesting the forest 
after we have these timber sales. They have violated this law across 
the board, and all of a sudden we are supposed to believe that they 
repent.
  Well, the Senate did not believe it, and that is a pretty fairly 
conservative body, Republican dominated; and it is dominated by people 
from the Western states who have an interest in the forest practices, 
and they have determined that this is against the public interest and 
bad for the environment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to say that I 
join the chairman and say I want to work with him on this as well. We 
have got to get an answer on this. I have been a strong supporter of 
the K-V funds, which use of money for reforestation.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has made his point. We 
will see what happens on the amendment. But even if it does not 
succeed, I still think we have got to work on this. And I certainly am 
going to want to work with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and 
those who pledged to the gentleman in the well that we will come back 
with a substantive answer on this. I think the point is that we have 
got to fix this, it is broken.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield 
further, I thank the gentleman; and I would say I appreciate and I 
listened. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is a man of his word and 
he is a man of honor, and he was at the hearing and he was as disturbed 
by this as I am now, and that is serious, and I want to just say also 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) because he obviously has great 
pride in the Forest Service and has spent his entire public career 
dealing with this agency.
  I do not doubt their word for a moment. All I am saying is we cannot 
start out this year by ratifying this practice that is nowhere allowed 
on the books of the Congress.

[[Page H6137]]

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula), the chairman.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller), does the Senate address what happens to the ``honey pot'' 
or do they just send it back to the Treasury? Because, apparently, they 
take out the money to administer the fund but do not address the 
problem.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not think they did 
anything. They just did not deal with the issue.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman would further yield, that is what I 
mean, they walked away from it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Because, apparently, as they point out in 
the report, they anticipate this language, so they have taken a 
position. Rather than ratifying the practice, they will deal with it 
when they get to conference.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is time to vote. We have had a 
very good and spirited debate.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________