[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6137-H6159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1999

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  As evidenced by the prior vigorous debate, all of us come to the 
floor of the House with our own passions and concerns.
  Let me first thank the chairman and the ranking member for being 
sensitive to some needs and concerns that I have that were debated at 
the time of the Johnson amendment on the National Endowment for the 
Arts but raised in a different context from the arguments that I will 
make today.
  I am prepared and was prepared to offer two amendments, because I do 
believe that the National Endowment for the Arts should have been 
funded at its fullest level of $136 million, and today I was prepared 
to offer that amendment.
  In fact, both the ranking member and the chairman realize that, in 
earlier years, the National Endowment for the Arts was funded up to at 
least $170 million and that was not enough. I also recognize and we 
recognize that the arts that are funded by the National Endowment for 
the Arts, despite the opponents, really do fund most of the nonprofit 
arts in this Nation.
  The reason why I have come to the floor to express my concern that 
the debate around the Johnson amendment was more to keep or to bring 
back $98.5 million, of which I believe is not enough, is because it 
strikes home.
  In Houston, Texas, the Alley Theater is an excellent representation 
of the value of the NEA and the arts in Texas. The Alley Theater is not 
a fabulously rich theater, and it represents a lot of our small 
theaters around the Nation. In fact, Houston represents the arts 
funding center, if you will, beyond the Mississippi, because that is 
the argument. Everything is East Coast or West Coast, and we stand up 
to represent middle America as someone who believes in the NEA.
  The Alley Theater is a family-oriented theater with over 200,000 
persons attending productions annually. To quote its director Paul 
Tetreault, the managing direction of the Alley Theater in Houston, 
``the NEA has given meaningful support to the Alley and its audiences 
for many years.''
  However, this year, Mr. Chairman, the Alley was denied funding for a 
production as a result of reduced budgets, and the director states 
that, ``It was a great surprise and disappointment to see that support 
interrupted at a time when the Alley is realizing great artistic 
achievements.''
  The director goes on to say that, ``Many other deserving theaters, 
museums, dance and opera companies have been even more deeply affected 
by having their grant requests denied. Their losses, like that of the 
Alley's, will have a collateral effect on the quality of life in the 
communities they serve, to the detriment of arts, education, commerce, 
and tourism.''
  Mr. Chairman, it is not only the Alley, but it is the Ensemble, it is 
the Mecca, it is many arts communities in our Nation and in our 
community.
  Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to offer at this time an amendment that 
would have supported the NEA at $136 million.
  Before I conclude, let me address the other amendment that I was 
prepared to offer. I would like to yield for a moment to the ranking 
member when I mention my other amendment that was to offer additional 
support up to $122 million for the National Endowment for the 
Humanities.
  We can discuss a lot of things, and we have many interests, from the 
interests of our forests and our trees, to the protection of our fish 
and wildlife, and certainly to the protection of our native Americans 
and the responsible treatment of them. But the NEA deals with our 
educational systems.
  Have my colleagues ever been to a library? Do they appreciate the 
culture of our Nation, the many different cultures? Have they ever 
visited the exhibition of The Many Realms of King Arthur at the local 
library? Have they ever read the diary of a 17th century New England 
midwife? That is the humanities. Do they watch an episode of the Civil 
War? Have they appreciated the history of slavery in America, 
philosophy, history, religion, art? That is about the humanities.
  What we have done by funding it or underfunding it and not giving it 
the amount that the administration had is to deny our country with the 
ability to teach its children of its great history.
  I do respect the chairman and I respect the ranking member, and let 
me just mention the fact very briefly that the chairman worked with me 
on the issue dealing with the Sojourner Truth Monument, and I am still 
working on that. But I do believe these are good amendments. It is my 
intent to withdraw these amendments, not without the frustration and 
concern that we are cheating our Nation's children, we are cheating our 
Nation's cultural arts, we are cheating our Nation's libraries.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) to ask the question, recognizing 
the hard work, recognizing what we did with both the Democratic effort 
but as well the Johnson amendment, can we work together, recognizing 
the responsibilities that we have on this issue of funding for NEH and 
NEA?
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the strong commitment of the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to the National Endowment for the Arts and 
Humanities.
  And I do remember, I served on this committee now for 22 years under 
the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) a time when 
we did have better funding for the National Endowment for the 
Humanities and the Arts, and frankly, I think the need is out in the 
country, in Texas, in Washington State, in Ohio, in Illinois, in 
Oregon. Everywhere in the country there are needs for these resources.
  I hope, as we get back to a balanced Federal budget, which I think we 
will

[[Page H6138]]

achieve at the end of this fiscal year, and as we go to the next 
Congress, hopefully those of us who return can continue to work to see 
if we cannot get a more reasonable level of funding. That is certainly 
my objective.
  We have had to deal with the realities of balanced budgets, and caps 
makes it difficult. But certainly, with the better future, with a 
balanced budget, I hope we can revisit this item, and I appreciate the 
leadership of the gentlewoman on these important issues.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, might I 
just make a special note of the ranking member of this committee as 
well, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), who has done a yeoman's 
task on this issue dealing with humanities and arts.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) did not hear me. I thanked him 
for our discussion on the Sojourner Truth, and I want to continue that. 
Remember, we had that discussion just a year ago.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I 
understand she will withdraw the amendment. We are faced with many 
needs and limited resources. We have done the best we can with what we 
have available.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I hope, 
however, recognizing that we can all gather maybe a commitment that 
those are valuable entities and look to further funding of those 
entities as we move forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
  Mr. Chairman, I speak with great expectation that my amendment to 
H.R. 4193--the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Bill of 1999 will be adopted.
  The committee's proposed budget for the National Endowment for the 
Arts (NEA) does seem generous at first ($98 million), especially when 
you consider that the level was originally pegged at $0. Although the 
committee's recommendation keeps the NEA at its 1998 levels, I firmly 
believe that we should provide the level of funding proposed by the 
Administration. Therefore, my amendment restores the funding for the 
NEA to $136 million.
  This restoration is offset by a reduction in the United States Fish 
and Wildlife's construction fund and a reduction in the national park 
Service's operation fund.
  Although some seek to keep funding for the NEA at its 1998 levels, we 
should strive for progress, not stagnation. The opponents of funding 
for the NEA are quick to trot out the occasional bad choices made by 
the NEA. However, it is important to highlight and inform the American 
public of the vast majority of activities funded by the NEA.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what this debate is about. The quality of life 
for Americans and their families and children throughout this country. 
This is not about the few bad choices made by the NEA in the past. This 
is about the ability of children and families to view productions of 
plays and musicals; the ability of children and families to experience 
art and art education; the ability of a child to travel across town to 
an outdoor play with his father and mother and share in a meaningful 
family outing where the love of a family can be shared; where a 
community can come together in peace; where the quality of life for 
residents in a city can be improved by an arts event that both educated 
and entertains.
  What is the need to summarily eliminate an area of the Federal 
Government that is working. Funding for the NEA represents less than 
six-ten-thousandths (0.0006%) of the entire Federal budget. With that 
six-ten-thousandths percent (0.0006%), the NEA is still the largest 
single source of funding for the nonprofit arts in the United States. 
This investment of the United States Government is an investment in the 
quality of life for families and children. It spawns investment and 
giving to the arts by the American people, private and corporate 
donors. However, increased demands on all sectors of private giving 
have recently presented corporate and individual donors with tough 
choices. How can we expect private donations to the arts to increase, 
when we do not keep our commitment to the NEA. This is the time that 
the Federal Government should be making an investment in the NEA; not 
closing it.

  Who are we really hurting if we do not fund and support the arts? We 
are hurting middle class and poor America. Seven point five (7.5%) of 
funding for the NEA goes directly to projects in under-served 
communities. Through access and outreach related grants, the NEA has 
helped to make the arts accessible to millions of Americans who could 
not otherwise afford them. What does that mean? It means that children 
in poor communities will not have access to plays, musicals, stage 
productions, and arts education that serve to increase the quality of 
life and overall educational value of American children. We are hurting 
the very people that we are sent here to help. We are hurting families 
who are trying to raise their children to respect the community. Mr. 
Chairman, we are hurting America.
  Keeping funding for the NEA at the 1998 level will not only 
negatively affect cities, but it will also negatively affect rural, 
small town communities. NEA grants serve communities in both urban and 
rural areas. In most small towns across the country, traveling tours, 
exhibits, and concerts are the major exposure to the live performing 
arts that children receive. The small town and rural communities can 
not afford to support a full symphony, orchestra, or museum.
  Funding for the NEA is not a Republicans versus Democrats issue. 
There are even Republicans that support level funding for the NEA. It 
is not a conservative versus liberal issue. Funding for the NEA is a 
cultural issue. Important cultural, educational, and artistic programs 
are funded by the NEA. Business leaders, educators, cities, States, and 
even law enforcement officials support funding for the NEA. After 
schools arts programs keep kids off the streets. We have all heard the 
phrase an idle mind is the devil's workshop. If we are able to reach 
kids and take them off of the streets via an after school arts program, 
then why don't we. Funding for the NEA exposes inner city minority 
children to Hamlet and to Othello.
  The NEA makes the arts accessible to all Americans. There is no doubt 
that a people and culture without a preservation of the arts in history 
are doomed. I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I speak with great expectation that my amendment to 
H.R. 4193--The Department of Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Bill of 1999--will be adopted.
  My amendment raises the appropriations level for the National 
Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) from the $96,800,000 recommendation 
by the Appropriations Committee to the $122,000,000 level requested by 
the Administration. The offsets will come from the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife fund and the National Park Service Operation fund.
  I work with my local librarian.
  The NEH is vital to our educational systems and provides numerous 
services in the area of the humanities. The NEH provides grants to 
individuals and institutions. These grants support valuable aspects of 
the humanities such as research in the humanities; educational 
opportunities for teachers; preservation of texts and materials; 
translations of important works; museum exhibitions, television and 
radio programs; and public discussion and study.
  The humanities encompass a wide variety of subject matter. They are 
all around us and evident in our daily lives. When you visit an 
exhibition on ``The Many Realms of King Arthur'' at your local library, 
that is the humanities. When you read the diary of a seventeenth-
century New England midwife, that is the humanities. When you watch an 
episode of The Civil War, that is the humanities, too. The humanities 
include the study of literature, history, philosophy, religion, art, 
history, and archaeology.
  NEH also provides many educational tools for children. Most recently, 
the NEH has provided students with the educational foundations 
necessary for the use of the internet. NEH maintains EDSITEment, a 
gateway Web site that provides links to 49 sites carefully selected for 
their quality of educational content and design. Instead of having to 
sift through more than 65,000 humanities-related sites on the Web, 
anyone seeking the best humanities education materials on the Internet 
can easily find and access them through EDSITEment. Each site comes 
with lesson plans offering suggestions on how to use the materials 
effectively in the classroom.
  NEH works closely with schools and is currently awarding grants to 
schools around the nation through an initiative called ``Schools for a 
New Millennium,'' which will enable those schools to become models of 
how teachers, principals, librarians and the community can fully 
incorporate CD-ROMs and the Internet into their everyday teaching.
  NEH also continues to fund the development of excellent new 
humanities Web sites and CD-ROMs in areas such as the American wars in 
Asia, ancient cultures of North America, Spanish colonial history, U.S. 
women's history, and Chinese history and culture.
  The Internet places a vast, sometimes disorienting wilderness of 
information at everyone's fingertips. NEH seeks to provide teachers, 
students and other curious people with a map to the educational 
treasures that can be found out there.
  To increase its efficiency, the NEH is organized into three 
divisions--Education and Research, Preservation and Access, and Public

[[Page H6139]]

Program--and three offices--Challenge Grants, Federal/State 
Partnership, and Enterprise.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following statement for the Record in 
support of the Regula-Skaggs-Fox amendment, and I thank the chairman 
for his leadership in this bill and in the House:
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentleman from Ohio, the Chairman of 
the Committee, for working with Mr. Skaggs and myself to develop this 
alternative that addresses the concerns we had raised in our previous 
amendment. I believe that the amendment as offered will go a long way 
to help in addressing our concerns about energy conservation and, in 
particular Weatherization assistance. I appreciate the willingness of 
the Chairman to work with us on this alternative and commend him again 
for his hard work on this very difficult appropriations bill. I also 
wish to thank Mr. Skaggs for his help in working with me on this issue 
of mutual importance and commend him for his commitment to this cause.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
through page 123, line 14, be considered as read, printed in the 
Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 92, line 12 through page 123, line 14, 
is as follows:

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 302. No part of any appropriation under this Act shall 
     be available to the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture for the leasing of oil and natural 
     gas by noncompetitive bidding on publicly owned lands within 
     the boundaries of the Shawnee National Forest, Illinois: 
     Provided, That nothing herein is intended to inhibit or 
     otherwise affect the sale, lease, or right to access to 
     minerals owned by private individuals.
       Sec. 303. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or 
     distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote 
     public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on 
     which congressional action is not complete.
       Sec. 304. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 305. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency shall be obligated or expended to 
     provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal 
     servants to any officer or employee of such department or 
     agency except as otherwise provided by law.
       Sec. 306. No assessments may be levied against any program, 
     budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by this Act 
     unless advance notice of such assessments and the basis 
     therefor are presented to the Committees on Appropriations 
     and are approved by such Committees.
       Sec. 307. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act 
     of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the 
     ``Buy American Act'').
       (b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement 
     made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 308. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified 
     as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located 
     on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands 
     in a manner different than such sales were conducted in 
     fiscal year 1995.
       Sec. 309. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended by the National Park Service to 
     enter into or implement a concession contract which permits 
     or requires the removal of the underground lunchroom at the 
     Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
       Sec. 310. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for the AmeriCorps program, 
     unless the relevant agencies of the Department of the 
     Interior and/or Agriculture follow appropriate reprogramming 
     guidelines: Provided, That if no funds are provided for the 
     AmeriCorps program by the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
     Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999, then none of the funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for the 
     AmeriCorps programs.
       Sec. 311. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used: (1) to demolish the bridge between Jersey City, New 
     Jersey, and Ellis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian use of 
     such bridge, when it is made known to the Federal official 
     having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such 
     pedestrian use is consistent with generally accepted safety 
     standards.
       Sec. 312. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to accept or process 
     applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim 
     located under the general mining laws.
       (b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not 
     apply if the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for 
     the claim concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with 
     the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all 
     requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the 
     Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode 
     claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised 
     Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and 
     section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill 
     site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by 
     the applicant by that date.
       (c) Report.--On September 30, 1999, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a report on actions taken by the 
     Department under the plan submitted pursuant to section 
     314(c) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
       (d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent 
     applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the 
     request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party 
     contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to 
     conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill 
     sites contained in a patent application as set forth in 
     subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the 
     sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party 
     contractor in accordance with the standard procedures 
     employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of 
     third-party contractors.
       Sec. 313. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for the purposes of 
     acquiring lands in the counties of Gallia, Lawrence, Monroe, 
     or Washington, Ohio, for the Wayne National Forest.
       Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     amounts appropriated to or earmarked in committee reports for 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service by 
     Public Laws 103-138, 103-332, 104-134, 104-208 and 105-83 for 
     payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract 
     support costs associated with self-determination or self-
     governance contracts, grants, compacts or annual funding 
     agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Indian 
     Health Service as funded by such Acts, are the total amounts 
     available for fiscal years 1994 through 1998 for such 
     purposes, except that, for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
     tribes and tribal organizations may use their tribal priority 
     allocations for unmet indirect costs of ongoing contracts, 
     grants, self-governance compacts or annual funding 
     agreements.
       Sec. 315. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     fiscal year 1999 the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 
     Interior are authorized to limit competition for watershed 
     restoration project contracts as part of the ``Jobs in the 
     Woods'' component of the President's Forest Plan for the 
     Pacific Northwest to individuals and entities in historically 
     timber-dependent areas in the States of Washington, Oregon, 
     and northern California that have been affected by reduced 
     timber harvesting on Federal lands.
       Sec. 316. None of the funds collected under the 
     Recreational Fee Demonstration program may be used to plan, 
     design, or construct a visitor center or any other permanent 
     structure without prior approval of the House and the Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations if the estimated total cost of 
     the facility exceeds $500,000.
       Sec. 317. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to require any person to vacate real property where a 
     term is

[[Page H6140]]

     expiring under a use and occupancy reservation in Sleeping 
     Bear Dunes National Lakeshore until such time as the National 
     Park Service (NPS) indicates to the appropriate congressional 
     committees and the holders of these reservations that it has 
     sufficient funds to remove the residence on that property 
     within 90 days of that residence being vacated. The NPS will 
     provide at least 90 days notice to the holders of expired 
     reservations to allow them time to leave the residence. The 
     NPS will charge fair market value rental rates while any 
     occupancy continues beyond an expired reservation. 
     Reservation holders who stay beyond the expiration date will 
     also be required to pay for appraisals to determine current 
     fair market value rental rates, any rehabilitation needed to 
     ensure suitability for occupancy, appropriate insurance, and 
     all continuing utility costs.
       Sec. 318. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     or any other Act providing appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, the Forest Service or the Smithsonian 
     Institution may be used to submit nominations for the 
     designation of Biosphere Reserves pursuant to the Man and 
     Biosphere program administered by the United Nations 
     Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
       (b) The provisions of this section shall be repealed upon 
     enactment of subsequent legislation specifically authorizing 
     United States participation in the Man and Biosphere program.
       Sec. 319. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act for any fiscal year may be used to designate, or to 
     post any sign designating, any portion of Canaveral National 
     Seashore in Brevard County, Florida, as a clothing-optional 
     area or as an area in which public nudity is permitted, if 
     such designation would be contrary to county ordinance.
       Sec. 320. Of the funds available to the National Endowment 
     for the Arts:
       (1) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an 
     individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a 
     literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or 
     American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
       (2) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure 
     that no funding provided through a grant, except a grant made 
     to a State or local arts agency, or regional group, may be 
     used to make a grant to any other organization or individual 
     to conduct activity independent of the direct grant 
     recipient. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit payments 
     made in exchange for goods and services.
       (3) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group, 
     unless the application is specific to the contents of the 
     season, including identified programs and/or projects.
       Sec. 321. The National Endowment for the Arts and the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities are authorized to 
     solicit, accept, receive, and invest in the name of the 
     United States, gifts, bequests, or devises of money and other 
     property or services and to use such in furtherance of the 
     functions of the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities. Any proceeds from such 
     gifts, bequests, or devises, after acceptance by the National 
     Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities, shall be paid by the donor or the representative 
     of the donor to the Chairman. The Chairman shall enter the 
     proceeds in a special interest-bearing account to the credit 
     of the appropriate Endowment for the purposes specified in 
     each case.
       Sec. 322. (a) Watershed Restoration and Enhancement 
     Agreements.--For fiscal years 1999 and 2000, appropriations 
     for the Forest Service may be used by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture for the purpose of entering into cooperative 
     agreements with willing State and local governments, private 
     and nonprofit entities and landowners for protection, 
     restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, and 
     other resources on public or private land or both that 
     benefit these resources within the watershed.
       (b) Direct and Indirect Watershed Agreements.--The 
     Secretary of Agriculture may enter into a watershed 
     restoration and enhancement agreement--
       (1) directly with a willing private landowner; or
       (2) indirectly through an agreement with a State, local or 
     tribal government or other public entity, educational 
     institution, or private nonprofit organization.
       (c) Terms and Conditions.--In order for the Secretary to 
     enter into a watershed restoration and enhancement 
     agreement--
       (1) the agreement shall--
       (A) include such terms and conditions mutually agreed to by 
     the Secretary and the landowner;
       (B) improve the viability of and otherwise benefit the 
     fish, wildlife, and other resources on national forests lands 
     within the watershed;
       (C) authorize the provision of technical assistance by the 
     Secretary in the planning of management activities that will 
     further the purposes of the agreement;
       (D) provide for the sharing of costs of implementing the 
     agreement among the Federal Government, the landowner(s), and 
     other entities, as mutually agreed on by the affected 
     interests; and
       (E) ensure that any expenditure by the Secretary pursuant 
     to the agreement is determined by the Secretary to be in the 
     public interest; and
       (2) the Secretary may require such other terms and 
     conditions as are necessary to protect the public investment 
     on non-Federal lands, provided such terms and conditions are 
     mutually agreed to by the Secretary and other landowners, 
     State and local governments or both.
       Sec. 323. (a) In providing services or awarding financial 
     assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
     Humanities Act of 1965 from funds appropriated under this 
     Act, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts 
     shall ensure that priority is given to providing services or 
     awarding financial assistance for projects, productions, 
     workshops, or programs that serve underserved populations.
       (b) In this section:
       (1) The term ``underserved population'' means a population 
     of individuals who have historically been outside the purview 
     of arts and humanities programs due to factors such as a high 
     incidence of income below the poverty line or to geographic 
     isolation.
       (2) The term ``poverty line'' means the poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a 
     family of the size involved.
       (c) In providing services and awarding financial assistance 
     under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act 
     of 1965 with funds appropriated by this Act, the Chairperson 
     of the National Endowment for the Arts shall ensure that 
     priority is given to providing services or awarding financial 
     assistance for projects, productions, workshops, or programs 
     that will encourage public knowledge, education, 
     understanding, and appreciation of the arts.
       (d) With funds appropriated by this Act to carry out 
     section 5 of the National Foundation on the Arts and 
     Humanities Act of 1965--
       (1) the Chairperson shall establish a grant category for 
     projects, productions, workshops, or programs that are of 
     national impact or availability or are able to tour several 
     States;
       (2) the Chairperson shall not make grants exceeding 15 
     percent, in the aggregate, of such funds to any single State, 
     excluding grants made under the authority of paragraph (1);
       (3) the Chairperson shall report to the Congress annually 
     and by State, on grants awarded by the Chairperson in each 
     grant category under section 5 of such Act; and
       (4) the Chairperson shall encourage the use of grants to 
     improve and support community-based music performance and 
     education.
       Sec. 324. None of the funds in this Act may be used for 
     planning, design or construction of improvements to 
     Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House without the 
     advance approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 325. None of the funds in this or any other Act may be 
     used to relocate the Woodrow Wilson International Center for 
     Scholars from the Smithsonian Institution to the Ronald 
     Reagan Building in Washington, D.C.
       Sec. 326. The Auditors West Building (Annex 3) located at 
     Raoul Wallenberg Place and Independence Avenue Southwest, 
     Washington, District of Columbia is hereby named the Sidney 
     R. Yates Building and shall be referred to in any law, 
     regulation, document or record of the United States as the 
     Sidney R. Yates Building.
       Sec. 327. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, not later than December 11, 1998, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall grant Chugach Alaska 
     Corporation an irrevocable and perpetual 250-foot-wide 
     easement for the construction, use, and maintenance of public 
     roads and related facilities necessary for access to and 
     economic development of the land interests in the Carbon 
     Mountain and Katalla vicinity that were conveyed to Chugach 
     Alaska Corporation pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act. The centerline of the easement is depicted on 
     the map entitled ``Carbon Mountain Access Easement'' and 
     dated November 4, 1997. Nothing in this section waives any 
     legal environmental requirement with respect to the actual 
     road construction.
       (b) Submission of Survey; Relinquishment of Unneeded 
     Portion of Easement.--Not later than 90 days after completion 
     of construction of roads and related facilities on the 
     easement granted pursuant to subsection (a), Chugach Alaska 
     Corporation shall submit to the Secretary of Agriculture an 
     as-built survey of such roads and related facilities and 
     relinquish to the United States those portions of the 
     easement Chugach Alaska Corporation deems not necessary for 
     future use.
       (c) Construction and Maintenance.--Construction and 
     maintenance of any roads pursuant to subsection (a) shall be 
     in accordance with the best management practices of the 
     Forest Service as promulgated in the Forest Service Handbook.
       Sec. 328. Section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134, as amended, 
     is further amended as follows: Under the heading ``Title 
     III--General Provisions'' amend section 315(f) (16 U.S.C. 
     460l-6a note) by striking ``September 30, 1999'' after the 
     words ``and end on'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``September 30, 2001'' and striking ``September 30, 2002'' 
     after the words ``remain available through'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``September 30, 2004''.
       Sec. 329. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds in this Act may be used to enter into any new or 
     expanded self-determination contract or grant or self-
     governance compact pursuant to the

[[Page H6141]]

     Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, for any 
     activities not previously covered by such contracts, compacts 
     or grants. Nothing in this section precludes the continuation 
     of those specific activities for which self-determination and 
     self-governance contracts, compacts and grants currently 
     exist or the renewal of contracts, compacts and grants for 
     those activities.
       Sec. 330. (a) Prohibition on Timber Purchaser Road 
     Credits.--In financing any forest development road pursuant 
     to section 4 of Public Law 88-657 (16 U.S.C. 535, commonly 
     known as the National Forest Roads and Trails Act), the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may not provide for amortization of 
     road costs in any contract with, or otherwise provide 
     effective credit for road construction to, any purchaser of 
     national forest timber or other forest products.
       (b) Construction of Roads by Timber Purchasers.--Whenever 
     the Secretary of Agriculture makes a determination that a 
     forest development road referred to in subsection (a) shall 
     be constructed or paid for, in whole or in part, by a 
     purchaser of national forest timber or other forest products, 
     the Secretary shall include notice of the determination in 
     the notice of sale of the timber or other forest products. 
     The notice of sale shall contain, or announce the 
     availability of, sufficient information related to the road 
     described in the notice to permit a prospective bidder on the 
     sale to calculate the likely cost that would be incurred by 
     the bidder to construct or finance the construction of the 
     road so that the bidder may reflect such cost in the bid.
       (c) Special Election by Small Business Concerns.--(1) A 
     notice of sale referred to in subsection (b) shall give a 
     purchaser of national forest timber or other forest products 
     that qualifies as a ``small business concern'' under the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.), and regulations 
     issued thereunder, the option to elect that the Secretary of 
     Agriculture build the road described in the notice. The 
     Secretary shall provide the small business concern with an 
     estimate of the cost that would be incurred by the Secretary 
     to construct the road on behalf of the small business 
     concern. The notice of sale shall also include the date on 
     which the road described in the notice will be completed by 
     the Secretary if the election is made.
       (2) If the election referred to in paragraph (1) is made, 
     the purchaser of the national forest timber or other forest 
     products shall pay to the Secretary of Agriculture, in 
     addition to the price paid for the timber or other forest 
     products, an amount equal to the estimated cost of the road 
     which otherwise would be paid by the purchaser as provided in 
     the notice of sale. Pending receipt of such amount, the 
     Secretary may use receipts from the sale of national forest 
     timber or other forest products to accomplish the requested 
     road construction.
       (d) Post Construction Harvesting.--In each sale of national 
     forest timber or other forest products referred to in this 
     section, the Secretary of Agriculture is encouraged to 
     authorize harvest of the timber or other forest products in a 
     unit included in the sale as soon as road work for that unit 
     is completed and the road work is approved by the Secretary.
       (e) Construction Standard.--For any forest development road 
     that is to be constructed or paid for by a purchaser of 
     national forest timber or other forest products, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may not require the purchaser to 
     design, construct, or maintain the road (or pay for the 
     design, construction, or maintenance of the road) to a 
     standard higher than the standard, consistent with applicable 
     environmental laws and regulations, that is sufficient for 
     the harvesting and removal of the timber or other forest 
     products, unless the Secretary bears that part of the cost 
     necessary to meet the higher standard.
       (f) Treatment of Road Value.--For any forest development 
     road that is constructed or paid for by a purchaser of 
     national forest timber or other forest products, the 
     appraised value of the road construction shall be considered 
     to be money received for purposes of the payments required to 
     be made under the sixth paragraph under the heading ``FOREST 
     SERVICE'' in the Act of May 23, 1908 (35 Stat. 260, 16 U.S.C. 
     500), and section 13 of the Act of March 1, 1911 (35 Stat. 
     963; commonly known as the Weeks Act; 16 U.S.C. 500). To the 
     extent that the appraised value of road construction 
     determined under this subsection reflects funds contributed 
     by the Secretary of Agriculture to build the road to a higher 
     standard pursuant to subsection (e), the Secretary shall 
     modify the appraisal of the road construction to exclude the 
     effect of the Federal funds.
       (g) Effective Date.--(1) This section and the requirements 
     of this section shall take effect (and apply thereafter) upon 
     the earlier of--
       (A) March 1, 1999; and
       (B) the date that is the later of--
       (i) the effective date of regulations issued by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to implement this section; and
       (ii) the date on which a new standard timber sale contract, 
     which is designed to implement this section and has been 
     published for public comment, is approved by the Secretary.
       (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any sale of national 
     forest timber or other forest products for which notice of 
     sale is provided before the effective date of this section, 
     and any effective purchaser road credit earned pursuant to a 
     contract resulting from such a notice of sale or otherwise 
     earned before that effective date, shall continue to be 
     subject to section 4 of Public Law 88-657 and section 14(i) 
     of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 
     472a(i)), and rules issued thereunder, as in effect on the 
     day before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 331. Section 6(b)(1)(B)(iii) of the National 
     Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 955(b)(1)(B)(iii)) is amended by striking ``One'' and 
     inserting ``Two''.
       Sec. 332. (a) Conditional Effective Date.--This section 
     shall take effect only if the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1999, does not appropriate at least 
     $6,000,000 in new funds for the management by the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority of the Land Between the Lakes National 
     Recreation Area in the States of Kentucky and Tennessee.
       (b) Transfer of Jurisdiction, Land Between the Lakes 
     National Recreation Area.--The Tennessee Valley Authority 
     shall transfer, without reimbursement, the Land Between the 
     Lakes National Recreation Area to the administrative 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture.
       (c) Management.--Upon the transfer of jurisdiction under 
     subsection (b), the Land Between the Lakes National 
     Recreation Area, hereinafter Recreation Area, is established 
     as a unit of the National Forest System, and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, 
     shall administer the Recreation Area in accordance with this 
     section and (except as provided in subsection (d)) the laws, 
     rules, and regulations pertaining to the National Forest 
     System. Except as provided in subsection (d), land within the 
     Recreation Area shall have the status of land acquired under 
     the Act of March 1, 1911 (commonly known as the Weeks Act; 16 
     U.S.C. 515 et seq.). The Secretary shall manage the 
     Recreation Area for multiple use as a unit of the National 
     Forest System, in conjunction with the original mission 
     statement of the Recreation Area emphasizing outdoor 
     recreation, environmental education, fish and wildlife 
     conservation, and regional development. The Secretary shall 
     conduct an inventory of all cemeteries located in the 
     Recreation Area and ensure public access to such cemeteries 
     for purposes of burials, visitation and maintenance.
       (d) Fees and Other Charges.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     may charge reasonable fees for admission to and the use of 
     designated sites in the Recreation Area or for activities in 
     the Recreation Area. No general entrance fees shall be 
     charged within the Recreation Area. Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, all amounts received from charges, user 
     fees, and natural resource utilization, including timber and 
     agricultural receipts, arising from the Recreation Area shall 
     be deposited in a special fund in the Treasury to be known as 
     the ``Land Between the Lakes Management Fund'', which shall 
     be available to the Secretary, without subsequent 
     appropriation, for the management of the Recreation Area, 
     including the payment of salaries and expenses.
       (e) Payments.--Federal lands within the Recreation Area 
     shall be subject to the provisions for payments in lieu of 
     taxes under chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code. 
     Notwithstanding the transfer of jurisdiction, the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority shall continue to be responsible for 
     payments under section 13 of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
     Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831l).
       (f) Transition.--(1) The transfer of jurisdiction under 
     subsection (b) should be effected in an efficient and cost-
     effective manner to minimize the disruption of the personal 
     lives of the Tennessee Valley Authority and Forest Service 
     employees affected by the transfer. Not later than 30 days 
     after the date on which this section takes effect, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Tennessee Valley Authority 
     shall enter into a memorandum of agreement to provide 
     procedures for the orderly withdrawal or transfer of officers 
     and employees of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the transfer 
     of property, fixtures, and facilities, the interagency 
     transfer of officers and employees, the transfer of records, 
     and such other transfer issues as the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority and the Secretary consider to be appropriate. The 
     agreement shall provide for a transition team consisting of 
     Tennessee Valley Authority and Forest Service employees.
       (2) In order to provide for a cost-effective transfer of 
     the law enforcement responsibilities between the Forest 
     Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority, the law 
     enforcement authorities designated under section 4A of the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831c-3) are 
     hereby granted to special agents and law enforcement officers 
     of the Forest Service. The law enforcement authorities 
     designated under the 11th undesignated paragraph under the 
     heading ``surveying the public lands'' of the Act of June 4, 
     1897 (30 Stat. 35; 16 U.S.C. 551), the first paragraph of 
     that portion designated ``General expenses, Forest Service'' 
     of the Act of March 3, 1905 (33 U.S.C. 873; 16 U.S.C. 559), 
     the National Forest System Drug Control Act of 1986 (16 
     U.S.C. 559b-559g) are hereby granted to law enforcement 
     agents of the Tennessee Valley Authority, within the 
     boundaries of the Recreation Area, for a period of one year 
     from the date on which this section takes effect.
       (3) Unless terminated for cause, all permanent Tennessee 
     Valley Authority employees at the Recreation Area shall be 
     guaranteed

[[Page H6142]]

     employment by the Tennessee Valley Authority for a minimum of 
     five months following the date on which this section takes 
     effect. The Tennessee Valley Authority shall provide affected 
     employees of the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Recreation 
     Area with a severance/compensation package based on 
     established practices of the Tennessee Valley Authority. 
     Funding for the activities prescribed for the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority in this section is to be derived only from 
     one or more of the following sources: nonpower fund balances 
     and collections; investment returns of the nonpower program; 
     applied programmatic savings in the power and nonpower 
     programs; savings from the suspension of bonuses and awards; 
     savings from reductions in memberships and contributions; 
     increases in collections resulting from nonpower activities, 
     including user fees; or increases in charges to private and 
     public utilities both investor and cooperatively owned, as 
     well as to direct load customers. Such funds are available to 
     fund the activities under this paragraph, notwithstanding 
     sections 11, 14, 15, 29, or other provisions of the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority Act, as amended, or provisions of the TVA 
     power bond covenants. The savings from, and revenue 
     adjustments to, the TVA budget in fiscal year 1999 and 
     thereafter shall be sufficient to fund the aforementioned 
     activities such that the net spending authority and resulting 
     outlays for these activities shall not exceed $0 in fiscal 
     year 1999 and thereafter. Within 30 days of enactment of this 
     Act, the Chairman of the TVA shall submit to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations an itemized list of the 
     amounts of the proposed reduction and increased receipts to 
     be made pursuant to this section in fiscal year 1999. By 
     November 1, 2000, the Chairman of the TVA shall submit to the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations an itemized 
     list of the amounts of the reductions and increased receipts 
     made pursuant to this paragraph for fiscal year 1999.
       (g) Advisory Board.--Within 90 days after the date on which 
     this section takes effect, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     establish a 17-member citizen advisory board to advise the 
     Secretary on environmental education in the Recreation Area 
     and means of promoting public participation for the land and 
     resource management plan for the Recreation Area.
       Sec. 333. (a) Any appropriations contained in this Act or 
     any other Act for the operation or implementation of the 
     Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 
     (hereinafter ``Project'') shall be obligated or expended only 
     as provided in this section.
       (b) Within 120 days of the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall--
       (1) prepare and submit to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate the report 
     required by section 323(a) of the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (111 Stat. 
     1543, 1596-7), including any additional information necessary 
     to correspond with the requirements of this section;
       (2) distribute for advisory purposes to each national 
     forest and each resource area or other relevant planning unit 
     of the Bureau of Land Management within the region 
     encompassed by the Project (hereinafter ``Project forest'') 
     all relevant scientific findings of the Project and the 
     report required by paragraph (1); and
       (3) conduct and complete the orderly closing of the offices 
     of the Project.
       (c)(1)(A) Within 90 days after the completion of the 
     requirements of subsection (b), each Forest Service 
     Supervisor of, or Bureau of Land Management official with 
     jurisdiction over, a Project forest shall review the resource 
     management plan or other land use plan for the Project forest 
     (hereinafter ``plan''), and, as they may relate to the 
     specific resources and conditions existing on the Project 
     forest as of the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     scientific information and report provided pursuant to 
     subsection (b)(2) and any policies made applicable to the 
     Project forest prior to the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and determine whether an amendment to or revision of the plan 
     is warranted.
       (B) If the determination is made pursuant to subparagraph 
     (A) that a plan amendment or revision is warranted, 
     preparation of the amendment or revision shall be completed 
     within 12 months or 18 months, respectively, of the date of 
     the determination.
       (2) To the maximum extent practicable, any plan amendment 
     or revision prepared pursuant to paragraph (1)(B) shall 
     provide for management standards appropriate to the specific 
     conditions of individual sites and avoid the imposition of 
     general standards applicable to multiple sites.
       Sec. 334. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 1998 in the 
     roads and trails fund provided for in the fourteenth 
     paragraph under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' of the Act of 
     March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 843; 16 U.S.C. 501), shall be used by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, without regard to the State in 
     which the amounts were derived, to repair or reconstruct 
     roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands or 
     carry out and administer projects to improve forest health 
     conditions, which may include the repair or reconstruction of 
     roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands in 
     the wildland-community interface where there is an abnormally 
     high risk of fire. The projects shall emphasize reducing 
     risks to human safety and public health and property and 
     enhancing ecological functions, long-term forest 
     productivity, and biological integrity. The Secretary shall 
     commence the projects during fiscal year 1999, but the 
     projects may be completed in a subsequent fiscal year. Funds 
     shall not be expended under this section to replace funds 
     which would otherwise appropriately be expended from the 
     timber salvage sale fund. Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to exempt any project from any environmental law.
       Sec. 335. Section 5 of the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 974) is amended as follows:
       In subsection (b) strike ``$3,000,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$5,000,000,000''.
       In subsection (c) strike ``$300,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$500,000,000''.
       In subsection (d)(4) strike the final ``or''.
       In subsection (d)(5) strike ``$200,000,000 or more'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``not less than $200,000,000 but less 
     than $300,000,000'' and strike the final period and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``;''.
       After subsection (d)(5) insert the following 2 new 
     subsections:
       ``(6) not less than $300,000,000 but less than 
     $400,000,000, then coverage under this chapter shall extend 
     only to loss or damage in excess of the first $300,000 of 
     loss or damage to items covered; or
       ``(7) $400,000,000 or more, then coverage under this 
     chapter shall extend only to loss or damage in excess of the 
     first $400,000 of loss or damage to items covered.''.


                           Tulare Conveyance

       Sec. 336. (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (c) and 
     (d), all conveyances to the Redevelopment Agency of the City 
     of Tulare, California, of lands described in subsection (b), 
     heretofore or hereafter, made directly by the Southern 
     Pacific Transportation Company, or its successors, are hereby 
     validated to the extent that the conveyances would be legal 
     or valid if all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States, except minerals, were held by the Southern Pacific 
     Transportation Company.
       (b) Lands Described.--The lands referred to in subsection 
     (a) are the parcels shown on the map entitled ``Tulare 
     Redevelopment Agency-Railroad Parcels Proposed to be 
     Acquired'', dated May 29, 1997, that formed part of a 
     railroad right-of-way granted to the Southern Pacific 
     Railroad Company, or its successors, agents, or assigns, by 
     the Federal Government (including the right-of-way approved 
     by an Act of Congress on July 27, 1866). The map referred to 
     in this subsection shall be on file and available for public 
     inspection in the offices of the Director of the Bureau of 
     Land Management.
       (c) Preservation of Existing Rights of Access.--Nothing in 
     this section shall impair any existing rights of access in 
     favor of the public or any owner of adjacent lands over, 
     under or across the lands which are referred to in subsection 
     (a).
       (d) Minerals.--The United States disclaims any and all 
     right of surface entry to the mineral estate of lands 
     described in subsection (b).
       Sec. 337. The final set of maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier 
     Resources System'', dated ``October 24, 1990, revised 
     November 12, 1996'', and relating to the following units of 
     the Coastal Barrier Resources System: P04A, P05/P05P; P05A/
     P05AP, FL-06P; P10/P10P; P11; P11AP; P11A; P18/P18P; P25/
     P25P; and P32/P32P (which set of maps were created by the 
     Department of the Interior to comply with section 220 of 
     Public Law 104-333, 110 Stat. 4115, and notice of which was 
     published in the Federal Register on May 28, 1997) shall have 
     the force and effect of law and replace and substitute for 
     any other inconsistent Coastal Barrier Resource System map in 
     the possession of the Department of the Interior. This 
     provision is effective immediately upon enactment of this Act 
     and the Secretary of the Interior or his designee shall 
     immediately make this ministerial substitution.
       Section 405(c)(2) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1645(c)(2) is amended by striking ``September 30, 
     1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 2000''.

                              {time}  1830


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Kildee

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kildee:
       Page 123, after line 14, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 338. Section 123(a)(2)(C) of the Department of the 
     Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (111 
     Stat. 1566), is amended by striking ``self-regulated tribes 
     such as''.

  Mr. KILDEE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would clear up an ambiguity 
caused by last year's Interior appropriations bill regarding the 
ability of the National Indian Gaming Commission to carry out its 
congressional mandates. It is technical in nature, and

[[Page H6143]]

it is supported by the administration as well as the majority and 
minority of the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, I am aware of the amendment. 
On this side of the aisle we will accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: Amendment No. 18 offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Parker); and amendment No. 15 offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Miller).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                   Amendment No. 18 Offered by Parker

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 135, 
noes 289, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 319]

                               AYES--135

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Camp
     Capps
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Coyne
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Engel
     English
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fossella
     Furse
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (WI)
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     LoBiondo
     Manton
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Shays
     Smith, Adam
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vento
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker

                               NOES--289

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Hunter
     Markey
     Moakley
     Poshard
     Radanovich
     Serrano
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1856

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  Messrs. BURTON of Indiana, ROEMER, BERRY, LUTHER, GEJDENSON, LaFALCE 
and ABERCROMBIE, and Ms. LOFGREN, Ms. HARMAN, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas 
and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. MORAN of Kansas, ADERHOLT, BLILEY, LEVIN, TORRES, FILNER, 
HILLEARY, HASTERT, STUPAK, ARMEY, PETERSON of Minnesota, FOSSELLA, 
VENTO, BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado, REYES, BARCIA, LoBIONDO, and DEUTSCH 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 15 Offered By Mr. Miller of California

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 15 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 182, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 320]

                               AYES--236

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr

[[Page H6144]]


     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--182

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Clay
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Hunter
     John
     Kelly
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey
     Moakley
     Poshard
     Radanovich
     Serrano
     Smith, Linda
     Stearns
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1902

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 320, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Part 3 amendment printed in House Report 105-637 offered by 
     Mr. Young of Alaska:
       Page 123, after line 14, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 338. (a) Moratorium on Federal Management.--None of 
     the funds made available to the Department of the Interior or 
     the Department of Agriculture by this or any other Act 
     hereafter enacted may be used prior to October 1, 2000, to 
     issue or implement final regulations, rules, or policies 
     pursuant to title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Conservation Act to assert jurisdiction, management, or 
     control over the navigable waters transferred to the State of 
     Alaska pursuant to the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 or the 
     Alaska Statehood Act of 1959.
       (b) Effective Date of 1997 ANILCA Amendments.--Section 
     316(d) of Public Law 105-83 is amended by striking ``December 
     1, 1998'' and inserting ``October 1, 2000''.
       (c) Repeal.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall be repealed on 
     December 1, 1998, unless on or before that date an amendment 
     to the constitution of the State of Alaska has been adopted 
     which the Secretary of the Interior has determined would 
     enable Alaska statutes to be enacted which provide the 
     priority required in section 804 of the Alaska National 
     Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3114) in the 
     taking on public lands of fish and wildlife.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a component of a 
broad effort in Alaska to resolve a long running debate over 
subsistence hunting and fishing. This amendment affects no other State. 
It concerns only Alaska.
  My amendment extends until October 1, 2000, a current moratorium on a 
Federal takeover of Alaska's fish and game resources. However, the 
extension of the moratorium is effective only if the State of Alaska 
adopts a constitutional amendment to resolve the subsistence debate. If 
a constitutional amendment is not in place by December 1, 1998, the 
moratorium does not extend under this amendment.
  Now the State of Alaska has until election day to decide whether to 
amend its Constitution. I am hopeful my State can come to a resolution 
in time. But I strongly believe my amendment is necessary to forestall 
and prevent a Federal takeover while the State proceeds in this effort.
  A Federal moratorium is necessary because Federal control of Alaska 
fish and game would be devastating to the wildlife, and especially the 
people of Alaska. A Federal takeover is not my choice, and should not 
be Alaska's choice either.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. De Fazio

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Page 107, beginning at line 19, strike section 328 (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly).

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is an important issue before the 
House. A number of years ago, in the 1996 Budget Act, the demonstration 
program in the appropriations bill was extended to collect fees among 
the various Park Service, Forest Service, BLM and Fish and Wildlife 
Service units. The idea was to see if it was feasible, see if it could 
be done in a way that was accountable, see if it could be done in a way 
that would augment the scarce resources of these agencies for 
meritorious purposes, and then come back with a review. That review 
will come to the Congress, by law, next March. So next March, this 
Congress will receive a full accounting of the fee demonstration

[[Page H6145]]

program among the various units of the Federal Government, and there 
are problems with this program.
  There is such a multiplicity of programs with exclusive and 
overlapping jurisdictions out there that, in my own home State, if you 
visit the Deschutes Forest and you buy a pass to park at the Deschutes 
Forest, you cannot use it next door in the Willamette Forest, and if 
you buy a parking pass in the Willamette Forest, you cannot use it in 
some parts of the Deschutes Forest. And if you buy a pass in the 
Deschutes Forest and the Willamette Forest, you cannot use it in the 
Siuslaw Forest. If you have one for the Siuslaw Forest, the Willamette 
Forest and the Deschutes Forest, you cannot use it at Crater Lake.
  Now, this is going on in other people's districts and States 
throughout the West. People who live in rural areas, who live adjacent 
to forests, who live on in-holdings in forest, to park at a trail head 
have to pay $25.
  It has also seen very steep increases in fees at various park units 
around the country. We have seen the fees go from $3 to $10 per person 
and $5 to $20 per person at Yosemite, $10 to $20 per vehicle at 
Yellowstone, and the list goes on.
  We need to review this program. We are going to receive a report, the 
United States Congress will receive a report, on this unauthorized tax. 
Make no mistake about it. If you oppose this amendment, you are voting 
to continue a tax on millions of Americans who visit our public lands 
in the United States in a mishmash fashion with no accountability, for 
no purpose that you can actually discern in many cases, because the 
accounting at the Forest Service and other agencies is so poor.
  Eighty percent of the money was supposed to go in the Forest Service 
last year. Fifty-three percent of the money collected went to 
administration, and they were not enforcing it and offering tickets 
last year. This year they are going to be writing tickets. There is 
going to be even more overhead expense in the program. This program 
needs to be reviewed. It needs to be properly authorized by the 
committees.
  My amendment would not terminate the program, it would merely say 
that the appropriators, this bill, cannot extend for two years beyond 
1999 into the next century this program without authorization.
  I do not think it is too much to ask, that a tax like this levied 
upon millions of Americans recreating on their public lands be 
authorized by Congress, that we review it, that we have some 
accountability.
  We will hear that some of the money, particularly in the Park 
Service, is being spent for meritorious things. That may well be true, 
but let us have a full accounting. Let us authorize it. Let us do it in 
a way so that you do not have to plaster your whole windshield with 
passes until you are peering through a little tiny slot there as you 
drive around the western United States and trying to figure out what 
additional passes you need to paste and which ones you are going to 
have to take off at 25 bucks a hit or more.
  This is not a program that is well run. There is too much overlap, 
too much multiplicity, and it is very egregious upon people who live 
close to public lands.
  So I would urge Members to vote for this amendment, which means you 
are voting simply to say we will receive a report in March, and then we 
will authorize or not authorize an extension of these fee programs. 
Maybe it will be authorized for the Park Service and not for the Forest 
Service, and maybe other restrictions will be placed on it. Maybe we 
will require intergovernmental or interagency agreements so people will 
only have to buy one or two passes, instead of five or ten different 
passes at a very, very high cost to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the committee might accept this 
amendment and decide that it would be wise to get this authorized 
before the tax is extended.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As 
chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands and 
having sat on that committee for 18 years, we have played with this 
idea for a long time. It is interesting to go to our national parks. In 
1915, it cost $10 to go into Yellowstone National Park. In 1996, it 
cost $10 to go into Yellowstone National Park.
  Look at the 374 units of the Park Service and how difficult it is to 
maintain them. I do not think a day goes by that I do not get a call 
from a superintendent or a forest supervisor or a BLM land manager that 
says, ``Mr. Chairman, I need this, that or the other, and I do not have 
enough money.'' That puts us in a position of going back and looking 
for a supplemental thing or something else.
  The best deal in America by far is the public lands and the national 
parks. Where else can you take your family and go into the Yellowstone 
National Park for now, what, $10 or $25, or the Grand Canyon, all these 
places that are visited on a regular basis.
  I like to go around and talk to people who go into those parks. It is 
kind of a fun thing to do. The next time I would advise some of our 
Members to do that. Walk into Yellowstone in the area and look at that 
retired CEO who is driving in in an $80,000 Winnebago and pulling a 
$30,000 Suburban. And, oh boy, we are going to ask for another 10 
bucks? Big deal.
  In fact, it is not uncommon for those of us on the Subcommittee on 
National Parks and Public Lands to get money from people who say, 
``Boy, no one ripped us off like we ripped you folks off.'' And now we 
give these people an opportunity to pay a little money to go into our 
national parks, to go into the public lands. I still think it is the 
best deal we have got. And to take away that tool that we have now 
given forest supervisors, that we have now given park superintendents, 
to have some money they can use in their own hands, to me it would be 
foolish and disregarding the history we have, which is extremely 
successful, and I do not feel that would be a wise thing to do.
  I strongly oppose this amendment. If we do not defeat this amendment, 
we will just be back asking for more money and it will have to come out 
of the general fund, and I do not think that is a very good idea.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman think, and I realize he 
is on the authorizing committee and we have not authorized this, but 
does the gentleman think it is reasonable that two adjoining forests 
should require two different $25 trail head parking fees? I mean, that 
seems a little bit steep, and then the next forest over is requiring 
yet a third one. So one can cover an 80-mile stretch and have to pay 
$75 just to park at trail heads. I think there needs to be a little bit 
better coordination. Would the gentleman at least agree to that point? 
It is an actual case example from my home State.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I understand the gentleman's 
question.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the question is, if I go to the Deschutes 
Forest and pay $25 for a trail head parking pass, it is not good in the 
next door Willamette Forest, and it is not good in the Siuslaw Forest. 
If I buy one in the Willamette Forest, it is not good in the Siuslaw 
Forest. But the one in the Willamette Forest is good in some other 
forest. I mean, one has to get a road map to figure out which of the 
forests have reciprocity and which do not. It is very, very, very 
complicated and potentially very costly.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say this. This 
has been kind of an experimental thing we have been moving into. Little 
by little I would hope we would come to the point that we are able to 
encourage the States to have one.
  I am not saying this is a perfect program; I do not think anybody 
does. But we have started down the road of having people pay a user 
fee, so to speak, or a camping fee, and I think it is coming out very 
well.
  I would admit to the gentleman, yes, there are some bugaboos in it, 
there are some problems, but I think right now we are headed in the 
right direction and we will be able to take care of our parks.
  Let me just say to the gentleman, we have a tremendous amount of 
backlog on in-holdings and repair. I could come up to billions of 
dollars just on our

[[Page H6146]]

parks alone that we cannot figure out how to get the money. We had 28 
miles of impassable road in Yellowstone; no one could drive down it. We 
had a water system out in the Grand Canyon, a sewer system out in 
Yosemite. We have a problem down in the Everglades. I could give the 
gentleman a list a mile long, but nobody is coming up with the money. I 
think it would make a lot of sense to have a users' fee to take care of 
this.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me read the list of people and organizations that 
support the fee program: National Parks and Conservation Association; 
Natural Resources Defense Council; National Trust for Historic 
Preservation; the Secretary of the Interior. And I quote Secretary 
Babbitt: ``We believe that the strong support for the fee program is 
because most receipts remain in the recreation area in which they are 
collected to be used to improve visitor services and protect 
resources.'' He goes on to say that this is a great program.
  The Secretary of Agriculture states: ``I firmly believe that changes 
in the program would be detrimental to the recreation fee demonstration 
program.'' Again, the Department of Interior, the Director of the Fish 
and Wildlife Service: ``The demonstration program begun in 1996 has 
been a tremendous success.''
  Again from the Department of Interior: ``All the agencies strongly 
support this program. I have spoken to superintendents in a number of 
parks. They are very strongly in support of it.''
  I asked the superintendents, how does the public feel? They said, 
``We have no complaints.'' People think this is one of the great 
bargains to come in when they know that the money is staying in the 
park. That is the important feature here.
  Under the old law, the fees that were collected, before we changed 
the law as part of creating the demonstration program, the fees 
collected went to Treasury instead of staying in the park. Now they 
stay in the park, and they are using them to enhance the visitor 
experience, improve the camp sites, fix the sanitary facilities, things 
that are important to visitors.
  Mr. Chairman, our delegation recently visited Muir Woods and the 
superintendent told me many people say, ``That is not enough. Here, 
take a couple of extra dollars as part of the fee program.''
  This is working wonderfully well.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman, and I 
completely understand the gentleman's concern about proper 
authorization, nothing that we have done here would stop the 
authorization committees from going ahead and maybe correcting some of 
the problems that Mr. DeFazio has properly pointed out. But what I see 
based on our trip is that we have such a huge backlog of maintenance 
that needs to be done.
  The national parks are the crown jewels of this country, and in every 
park, the Olympic, Mt. Rainier National Park, the North Cascades, 
Yosemite, they have a backlog of work that totals billions and billions 
of dollars. For the first time we have gotten people used to the idea 
of a user fee, and that they ought to pay a little something when they 
visit the parks.
  A few people complained when the fee program first started. Now 
however, overwhelmingly, when they know we are on the level, when they 
know that 80 percent of that money is going back to their park, then 
they support this program. Also, Secretary Babbitt has asked for it to 
be extended. Secretary Glickman, our former colleague, has asked for it 
to be extended.
  We had the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Hansen), supporting the fee program. No one has done a better job of 
demonstrating concern for our parks than he has been. The gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has been the champion on the Committee on 
Appropriations. We have all supported him. I think we ought to keep 
this program, and I urge the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to go 
ahead and work on any refinements to the authorization.
  The basic concept is solid, and the American people overwhelmingly 
support it. We have a lot of work to do. We have a chance here to stop 
the decline of the parks and start seeing them restored. This is a 
historic opportunity, and I urge that we stay with the committee 
position because it is the right thing to do.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments. I would point out this will generate $500 million 
over five years, and as my colleagues can see, it is strongly 
supported.
  The gentleman mentioned 80 percent stays in the park, and the other 
20 percent goes to parks such as Golden Gate where we do not have a 
fee, where there is not a single collection point, but it all stays in 
the park or the forest system, National Wildlife Refuge, and or BLM. 
All of the agencies support it; the public supports it. I think the 
program is absolutely very constructive, and I would strongly urge the 
Members to defeat this amendment.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a very interesting position here. I 
find myself opposing the demonstration fee program, and having to find 
myself on the opposite side of my own Chairman.
  However, the fact is that I think that we have had sufficient time to 
see how the demonstration fee program is really working, and as it was 
first conceived, it has not worked well as far as the public is 
concerned.
  The fact is that I really do think that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Hansen) is right, and perhaps for the national parks where there is a 
lot of high maintenance, and where there are facilities that need 
upkeep, we need to revisit that with the demonstration fee program. But 
as the demonstration fee program has been conceived of and is being 
extended in this bill, it is not working well.
  Mr. Chairman, let me give an example. Last weekend I was home in 
Idaho and a woman who has 8 children told me about the fact that they 
were able to take their family to their church camp, and as always the 
family looked forward to going to the church camp, and as the little 
children piled out of the car and they gleefully set up camp and got 
their bunks all ready and everything set, the little boys took off to 
climb the hill behind the church camp. They had been doing this for 
years, and it was a favorite hill, but the ranger said, ``Oh, I'm 
sorry, you can't climb that hill anymore, you must stay on the church 
camp property.''
  ``Why can't we climb the hill?''
  ``Well, you need a pass, and it will cost $5 a person to go climb the 
hill,'' the hill that family had been climbing for years.
  ``Well, then let us go down to the lake.''
  ``Oh, no, you can't go down to the lake, you can't go on that trail. 
That too takes a permit.''
  So what was a properly conceived of idea, for good reasons, is 
working out poorly. And I have received hundreds of calls in my office 
about how confusing and discouraging it is for people in Idaho and the 
Western States to be able to access the recreation and the outdoors 
that we have in our Western States and that we are so proud of, and, by 
the way, should be sustained with taxpayers' money.
  So I would like to see us revisit this. I think the way it is 
conceived of now is not right, and I do again want to say, I do support 
fees for the high maintenance areas that have a lot of buildings and 
maintenance.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that very much. In fact, I was 
in the gentlewoman's State in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, 
one of the most beautiful places in the country, and we need to do a 
lot of good work there.
  But the point I was trying to make earlier, the gentlewoman is on the 
authorization committee, and there is nothing that we are doing here 
today that would stop the authorizers from making certain refinements 
in this program. And what I would urge the gentlewoman to do, with the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and

[[Page H6147]]

the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller), is for the authorizing committee to come up 
with whatever refinements are necessary to make this even a more 
acceptable program.
  The thing that I worry about is, it is the old adage, you pay for 
what you get. And if we want the parks to be stellar and world class, 
we are going to have to fix them up. We are way behind on maintenance.
  So I would really urge the gentlewoman to try to, in the 
gentlewoman's committee, and I know the gentlewoman is a leader in her 
committee, to try to help us refine this program, because we need it.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's thinking there, as I usually do in these issues. The 
gentleman has been a leader in these issues for years.
  But the fact is, as the demonstration fee program has been conceived 
of and as extended for 2 years, it is not working well, and the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) also sits on the committee, and I 
know that we would all like to see a new program of some sort put 
forth. I certainly have my ideas, as I have expressed on the floor. But 
as it is conceived of now, and as it is being extended, it is not 
working well.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the key here is the word 
``demonstration.'' Demonstration to me means let us go out and see if 
it will work, and then let us review it. In fact, there is a logical 
review point: Next March.
  This bill extends for 2 years beyond October 1, 1999 the 
demonstration program, after it is no longer a demonstration, with all 
of its faults intact. The logical thing to do is not extend it now. The 
Committee on Appropriations could come forward next year with an 
extension, if we fail to authorize it in the authorizing committee, and 
again legislate on an appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. DeFazio, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Chenoweth 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. So the key here, Mr. Chairman, is that as to the 
demonstration program, there is going to be a report rendered. We may 
very well find that the Park Service is doing a tremendous job with it. 
I think we will find that the Forest Service and some of the other 
agencies have tremendous problems with the program.
  We can then authorize it in due time, have an authorization in place 
for the Committee on Appropriations for next year. This is not a 
crisis. The program will be continued between this year and next year 
under existing law. It is just I object to extending it for another 2 
years, because then I do not believe the authorizers will ever get to 
it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, the point is that if we wait 
until 1999 to do this, then we get to the end of the fiscal year. There 
would be uncertainty about whether we have the program or not. The 
thing that is good about having this now, is that we have established 
it and people are used to it. They have accepted it. Now we should not 
create uncertainty.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman does 
have a very good point, but the fact is that in the authorizing 
committee we can come up with a new program that has been properly 
authorized.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I thank the Chairman for the recognition to me as a member of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  As the night is wearing on and these very important amendments are 
being debated, I want to speak out of turn. As my colleagues may know, 
this appropriations bill of the Subcommittee on Interior is the last 
one that our distinguished ranking member from Illinois (Mr. Yates), 
will be participating in.

                              {time}  1930

  I wanted to take the opportunity to just interrupt the debate for a 
moment before the evening goes on too long to pay tribute to the 
gentleman.
  In the course of the development of this legislation in the 
subcommittee and the full committee and the rest, I think many members 
of the Committee on Appropriations have sung his praises, have talked 
about his great leadership, and I know that I can speak for every 
person in this body on this one subject, that the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Yates) is indeed a gentleman.
  People have praised the fact that he is a legislative virtuoso. He 
has taught us all a great deal and we have commended him not only as a 
teacher and a legislator and a gentleman and a person who has been a 
mentor to so many of us, but I want to comment on him as a great 
American patriot.
  As chairman for a long time of this subcommittee, and as ranking 
member, he has protected the beautiful natural resources of our great 
country. Thank you for your patriotism, Sid.
  As the chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee, he has 
spoken out so eloquently about protecting freedom of expression in this 
country. Thank you very much for doing that, Sid, and for protecting 
the freest of expression in the arts and the rest.
  So he is not only a great leader, teacher, mentor, legislator, 
gentleman, but a great patriot.
  I am reminded of what was said about Pericles when I think of the 
great Sid Yates when it was said of Pericles, ``He was a lover of the 
beautiful and he cultivated the spirit without a loss of manliness.'' I 
cannot think of anyone that applies to more than the distinguished, the 
very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
  Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, Mr. Yates, for your leadership.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) very much for yielding to me. I want to join 
and associate myself with her remarks and to add a couple of my own, 
just to say that for 24 years I have served with the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Yates) about half as long as Mr. Yates has served, and I 
wish to say what an incredible pleasure it has been for me as a public 
servant to watch him and to admire his beliefs in our public 
institutions.
  I know him as one deeply involved in the issues of this subcommittee, 
the Interior and natural resources issues and the arts and the cultural 
issues. He has witnessed many political trends and political fads and 
schemes of popularity and unpopularity. But I think what we have seen 
is that he has stood fast for a great portion for the protection of not 
only our free speech and our free expression, but the protection and 
the preservation of our culture and our history in the way that no 
other Member of Congress has.
  He embodies the very, very best, the very, very best in public 
service. At a time when we see so much venom and so much attack in our 
public arena, to have you here, Sidney, has been a gift to all of us 
who try to hold our profession, this institution, the American public 
in the highest possible regard that we can.
  His span of service and commitment is something that if each us every 
day that we walked into this Chamber, and every day we exited, if we 
could just recommit ourselves in his image of that public service, we 
would do this country a great favor.
  I thank the gentleman so very, very much for giving so much of his 
life to this country. I admire him and wish him the very, very best.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to Sid Yates, the 
patriot, thank you for protecting our culture, our Constitution, and 
our countryside. It has been the greatest privilege of my political 
career to call you colleague. Thank you, Mr. Yates.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, a few hours ago the gentlewoman from California (Ms.

[[Page H6148]]

Pelosi) and I were clashing over the issue of normal trade relations 
for China. But at this moment, I want to rise to associate myself 
completely with the remarks that she just made about our distinguished 
ranking minority member, Sid Yates.
  It is going to be hard to imagine a debate on this bill next year 
without Sid Yates being involved in it, but we shall survive somehow. 
But his spirit will certainly linger with us as we continue the debate 
next year and in following years on this legislation.
  His advocacy, not only for the arts, but his advocacy for national 
parks and for preservation of lands in the United States has been 
extraordinary. And even though I have disagreed with him many times on 
many of the issues, I have always admired the perseverance that he has 
shown, the knowledge base that he comes from, and as the gentlewoman 
said, the civility with which he always approaches these issues.
  It is a lesson which many of us in this body who are so much newer, 
and we are all much newer than Sid Yates around this place, know that 
we could all take to heart.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe) for yielding me this time. I have said this to ``my chairman'' 
many times, that he is the epitome of everything that is good about 
citizenship in these United States. He has been everything that we have 
heard. I will not enlarge upon it. But I will make an additional 
comment, and that is that he has had a wonderful helpmate in his wife 
Addie. They have really been a great team. Many times she has been at 
the hearings and we love her as much as we do you, Sid. We carry the 
message to her that we have appreciated her, and I am sure she has been 
a wonderful influence on your life.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do want to use a 
moment to address the amendment at hand. Back to the business of the 
Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment. As a member 
of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, we have worked very 
hard, under the chairman's leadership, to address the operation on the 
maintenance shortfalls which exist at so many of our national parks, 
our Fish and Wildlife Refuges, on our other lands which are heavily 
utilized by the public.
  No one wants our parks or forests or refuges to deteriorate. These 
represent in many cases some of the most spectacular and beautiful 
treasures that we have in our country. In my own State of Arizona, the 
Grand Canyon park is certainly one of the most spectacular natural 
splendors in the world. We cannot and must not let the quality of this 
park slip through our hands. Yet the increasing pressure of the public 
is enormous.
  We have an enormous backlog of capital needs in all of our land 
management agencies and this is a problem that demands our attention, 
even as we seek to balance the budget and struggle to reduce our 
national debt. The utilization of our public lands is rising. We cannot 
expect appropriated funds to meet all of the increasing needs. We need 
to look for other solutions to this very troubling problem.
  That is what the fee demonstration program is about. I believe it is 
having a positive effect. I have to tell my colleagues it is in my 
area. It is used in one of the national forests in the heart of my 
district, and it was unpopular with a lot of people. But I think as 
people have begun to see that the money is staying there in the forest, 
that it is being used to address the problems of maintenance and 
operation that is so badly needed to build new restrooms for example, 
to build new trails, I think people begin to understand this is good. 
It is a user fee that really is doing what it ought to do.
  In Arizona, the Grand Canyon expects to collect $38 million in new 
money over 3 years. And at the Grand Canyon, this will be used to 
improve a transit center, a maintenance facility, back country trails, 
archaeological site, stabilization initiatives.
  Eliminating the program is not going to help address the critical 
backlog that we have on our Federal lands. So I hope that my colleagues 
will think very seriously about this amendment. Yes, we need to have 
the evaluation of it, but we need also to have some more time for it. 
We need to get more data.
  So I strongly oppose this amendment and hope that we will keep the 
demonstration fee program in effect. It is doing what Congress intended 
it do. Defeat this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kolbe was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I will join the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe) reluctantly in opposition to this. I have heard some discussion 
here about authorizing this type of program. The fact is, when I served 
in the capacity of subcommittee chairman, we tried several times to 
authorize this type of program. In fact, we did do some authorization 
with regard to it.
  The fact is that some of the fees that are included under this in 
terms of what I would call user fees, not entrance fees but user fees, 
are authorized and have long been authorized by the various land 
management agencies. But they choose, without the moral authority of 
Congress, to not implement those types of fees.
  Because of this fee demonstration program I think they are now into 
the swing of things. And the fact is as far as the entrance fees in 
terms of the parks and forests and some of the other areas which are 
authorized by this and necessary and working, they are dealing with 
buses, they are dealing with the tour boats that come into Saint Croix, 
as an example, that were paying no fees in terms of entrance. The 
buses, they are paying considerable fees now when they go through our 
various parks and they were paying literally nothing before.
  So the fact that it is in place, I would certainly work with the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and others that are concerned 
about the fact that there is a problem with regards to parking, with 
regards to user fees and so forth in these various areas. We need to 
work that out. But the fact is to assume that we are going to keep this 
authorized or get it reauthorized in the absence of keeping it in this 
appropriation bill, I think would be a big mistake.
  We not only need this; we need the pressure of this type of 
appropriation to keep the authorizing committee working and doing it. 
In the absence of that, I think it is going to get lost in the shuffle.
  So, I join in opposition to this amendment and in support of this 
program.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for his comments, and I would point out, as 
the gentleman mentioned, they have the authority now to have those 
fees, and that is absolutely true. But the reason they have not all too 
often is because it takes resources away from the parks or the forests 
to collect them, someone who could be doing law enforcement or building 
trails, and they could not keep the money in the park.
  Now they have the incentive to do so, because the money gets to stay 
in the park or national forest to do exactly the kind of maintenance 
and operational backlog work that needs to be done. So I think the 
gentleman is exactly correct.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, today I join with my colleagues, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) to 
offer a bipartisan, common sense amendment that will put an end to an 
outrageous tax increase on American families.
  Two years ago, the recreational fee demonstration program was slipped 
into a huge budget bill without adequate hearings or debate. This 
legislative maneuver authorized a variety of so-called user fees 
throughout our national forests and our national parks, but these fees 
are nothing more than regressive taxes on families who can least afford 
to pay them.
  Our amendment will delete this section of this bill that extends the 
life of

[[Page H6149]]

these taxes for 2 more years. If our amendment passes, this tax will 
expire in 1999, as was originally planned. It was planned as a pilot 
project to see if this is a good way to raise funds for our forests and 
parks. Before we extend the fee demonstration program, we need to stop 
and find out if it is a good plan.
  Mr. Chairman, in my district this new tax is called the Adventure 
Pass, and it has truly been a terrible adventure for thousands of my 
constituents who visit Los Padres National Forest, which is in our 
backyard up and down the central coast of California.
  While it is a very local issue for my district, it affects 40 of the 
155 national forests throughout this country. It is in all of our 
backyards.
  Since coming to Congress in March, I have received more angry calls, 
letters, and e-mails on this topic than almost any other matter of 
Federal policy, and I brought with me today here a sampling of the 
letters that I have received from people who have never contacted their 
Federal representatives on any issue and have been motivated to express 
their deep concerns to me.
  My hometown newspaper, the Santa Barbara NewsPress, which is the 
largest in the district, has eloquently captured, as colleagues can see 
the title here, ``End the adventure.'' This is the sentiment for this 
new tax and this editorial ends with this statement: ``The Forest 
Service should end the Adventure Pass for an extended and permanent 
hike.''
  Wealthy people might not think much of paying $5 to take their family 
for an afternoon hike or a twilight drive to watch the sunset. But for 
many working families in my district, this tax has basically eliminated 
a popular recreational activity and diminished our quality of life.
  Mr. Chairman, to make matters worse, American families already pay 
some of their hard earned money to the U.S. Government to maintain our 
national parks and forests.

                              {time}  1945

  This much user fee, therefore, represents a double tax and it is 
wrong.
  Let me be clear. I support adequate funding for the U.S. Forest 
Service, but let us find more equitable sources for this money. I 
support the DeFazio amendment that will require mining companies to pay 
their fair share for extracting profit from the public lands. And I 
support the Furse proposal to reduce the inflated subsidies paid to 
timber companies who make their money cutting down trees in public 
forests.
  It is just not fair that our constituents must pay a fee to hike, 
picnic or see a sunset in our national forests when big logging and 
mining companies get subsidies for their activities on these same 
public lands. What this amounts to is a direct subsidy from the pockets 
of working families to the offices of corporate America, and this is 
wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make a special appeal to my Republican 
friends. I have joined many of them to cut other unfair taxes, 
specifically the capital gains tax. Please join with us today to 
eliminate the unwarranted extension of an equally egregious tax on 
working Americans.
  Let us end the Recreational Pass Demonstration Project misadventure. 
This adventure pass which is a misadventure. Let us go back to the 
drawing board. Let us have hearings on this demonstration program and 
conduct a full and open debate on its merits.
  And perhaps in discussing it we need to separate the parks from the 
forests, because I believe there are different ways of collecting 
resources for each of these. And, also, it is a good idea that 80 
percent of the fees do come back to the local entity. But what is our 
surmise, and actually we have not studied this enough, but people are 
telling us that half of this amount of money in our local forests goes 
to enforcing the law; that we have turned our Forest Service workers 
into meter maids collecting these fees. That is what it appears to be 
like.
  That is what we need to study, and that is why I ask for support for 
the DeFazio-Herger-Capps amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote for the gentlewoman 
from the Santa Barbara News Press. Their editorial, entitled Adventure 
Pass Praise, states ``Let me start by saying I am proud to have 
purchased my adventure pass, and I strongly support the concept of user 
fees in our national forests.'' They are not a tax, they are user fees.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Capps) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Regula, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Capps was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman continue to yield?
  Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, this editorial is by Mark Lurie, whom the 
gentlewoman knows. Continuing to quote, ``What's the big deal? A 
carload of people for only $5.'' That's a carload. Not one person, a 
carload, for $5. ``How much for the same carload to go to the movies, 
five to seven times the cost?''
  The whole editorial says it is a great program. He strongly endorses 
it. And this, of course, is in the Santa Barbara News Press.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge the 
gentleman's letter to the editor. Here are some other letters.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, this is an 
editorial writer.
  Mr. CAPPS. Well, this is their official position on this topic at 
this time. Again, I ask for time to study this idea. I appreciate the 
gentleman's comments.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleague from Oregon in his concern 
about extending this so-called pilot program that charges due fees for 
patrons who recreate in our national forests and our national parks and 
use the Bureau of Land Management lands and Fish and Wildlife Services' 
wildlife refuges.
  I have to tell my colleagues that when the subject of pilot projects 
comes up in my State, people sort of roll their eyes and they go, ``Is 
that Washington-speak for a program that we say we will evaluate and it 
is supposed to go away but never goes away?'' This user demonstration 
fee program is a perfect example of why so many of my constituents 
distrust what we do in Washington, D.C.
  Again, this program was scheduled to last no more than 3 years. It 
was to be used in a limited number of sites. These tests were there to 
provide us with a snapshot view of what happens when we do a pilot 
program: What does this look like? What are the things good about it, 
what are the things wrong about it?
  But since the time that this pilot program was initiated, it is like 
somebody added a little bit of yeast and a little bit of sugar and it 
has just grown and grown and grown. They probably put it in a hot oven, 
too. Now it is used in over 100 sites and it is a program that is so 
confusing. I mean if we want to go and use the bathroom, we have to buy 
a 3-day pass.
  I support the parks, and I know we have huge needs in our parks. But 
what happens is in one of our programs it is not about building new 
trails, it is not about building new bathrooms. We have somebody who is 
getting rid of the volunteers so they can add a new person to collect 
the fees.
  And what do we get for these fees? Well, unbelievably, we do not 
know. Now, of the four agencies that have jurisdiction over this bill, 
the Forest Service, has made their numbers available to us, and what 
they show is this program barely pays for itself. So far, 53 percent of 
the funds that are collected has to be spent on collection costs. I do 
not think that is a very good deal.
  Now, maybe the other three agencies are doing a terrific job, but we 
do not know, and we will not find out until March of 1999. I would like 
to have the information before we continue this program. But what I do 
not think we should do is continue this program. It is sort of like 
saying, well, what we do not know will not hurt us and we are going to 
extend the program for another 2 years. I have to tell my colleagues 
that makes no sense to me.
  I think it is time to step back, take a look at the program, look at 
what works and what does not work. I urge

[[Page H6150]]

my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the DeFazio-Herger-
Capps amendment which would strike from this bill the automatic 2-year 
extension of the demonstration program.
  Many of us here in the House probably did not even know that we voted 
to authorize this program back in 1996 when we voted for the Balanced 
Budget Down Payment Act. And many of us probably would not have known 
that we were voting to extend the program for an additional 2 years if 
it were not brought to our attention by this amendment.
  Without the passage of this amendment, we will be perpetuating a 
program that has never had a hearing, never been debated in the 
committees of jurisdiction, and that is, unfortunately, putting a visit 
to a national forest, park, or recreation area out of the financial 
reach of many working Americans.
  I just want to give an example of the last point, and that is the 
Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area, which is in my 
district. Sandy Hook is an extremely popular location and is highly 
valued by its 2.5 million annual visitors. These people come from 
throughout the New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia metropolitan area to 
take advantage of the recreational, historical and educational 
resources at Sandy Hook, including bathing beaches, fishing areas and 
historic structures.
  Sandy Hook has always been really the one place in the area where 
people of all economic backgrounds have been able to enjoy a day at the 
shore, and we would like to help them keep it that way. Sandy Hook is a 
national resource, and as such it should remain affordable to everyone, 
and that includes moderate and low-income people.
  Now, under this recreational fee demonstration program, daily per-
vehicle beach user fees at Sandy Hook were doubled as of June 20th of 
this year from $4 to $8 on weekdays and from $5 to $10 on weekends. 
Such an increase, in my opinion, is exorbitant. It will put the cost of 
visiting Sandy Hook out of the reach for many working Americans, in 
effect turning them away from this national recreation area.
  I heard mention that people have not complained about these fee 
increases. Let me tell my colleagues that many of my constituents have 
complained to me, and loudly.
  I am also concerned about the false promises that have been made to 
justify the fee demonstration program. The extra money from the Feds is 
in no way sufficient to satisfy the multimillion dollar backlog of 
repair and rehabilitation needs at Sandy Hook. The fee demonstration 
program gives false incentives, in my opinion, to individual park units 
to raise park fees. The program gives the impression to Sandy Hook 
visitors that their increased generosity will result in significant 
park improvements from which they will benefit in the near future, and 
there is no reason to believe that that is the case at Sandy Hook.
  So I would simply urge my colleagues, again I used one example but I 
know there are many more, I would urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment so we can examine this program more closely before 
considering its extension.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, let us revisit where we are at with this 
amendment. It does not eliminate this demonstration user fee program, 
but what it does do is say it will not be extended for 2 more years 
beyond 1999. Beyond October 1st of 1999.
  What it says is we will receive a report, as required by the original 
demonstration fee program, on 3\1/2\ years of data in March of 1999. 
Then we will know. We will know how much is going to overhead, we will 
know how well this is working, we will know where the money is being 
spent, and then we can make decisions.
  If, indeed, the authorizers are incapable of acting, and I would 
question if it is this popular, knockdown popular as everybody says it 
is, that people are just thrilled to pay this money and they know it is 
going to a good cause, why would the authorizing committee have any 
problem in moving a bill? I know the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
would be happy to do that, if it is so popular.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the 
gentleman we had the discussion on this issue in the committee last 
year and the year before. We had this discussion, and if I remember 
correctly, the gentleman at that time opposed any movement of any bill. 
Is that correct?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I opposed the form which the--
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The form. The gentleman opposed it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. It is my time, Mr. Chairman, and I would continue.
  So the point here is we are going to get a report in March of 1999. 
We will know who is good and who is not.
  The Forest Service spent 53 percent on administration last year, 
probably more this year, including law enforcement personnel. A lot of 
money replacing their newest vandalism, which is the fee signs. The 
amount of money collected by the Forest Service last year was enough 
money to meet .06 percent of their backlog. Not 6 percent, not six-
tenths of a percent, but 6/100ths of 1 percent of their backlog.
  At that rate, yes, in 1,600 years of collections we could meet 
today's backlogs. But of course there would be a few more backlog 
projects in the 1,600 years.
  Yes, we do need additional funds. They should be appropriated. They 
should be requested by the administration and they should be 
appropriated. Perhaps we should ask the mining companies to pay a small 
fee for using the public lands, as opposed to dumping it on the back of 
individual taxpayers.
  The key thing here is that we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. 
We do not know how well it is working or where the money is going. This 
is just like the previous debate, the debate on the K-V funds, where 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) was successful. We are 
creating an unaccountable slush fund.
  And if I am not successful with this amendment, in 2 or 3 or 4 years 
we will be back with an amendment because of all the money that cannot 
be accounted for and all of the moving around within accounts and all 
of the administrative overhead being paid for by this program. We will 
be back here.
  But, no, let us act rationally now. Do not extend it for 2 years. Do 
not buy a pig in a poke. Let it go on for the next year, get the report 
in March, and then, even if the authorizing committee is not capable of 
acting, the Committee on Appropriations could extend the program for 
another year at that point. If it is so knockdown, drag-out popular, 
and the money is being spent so well, and it is reflected in a report 
that we actually receive on this program as opposed to hearsay, then I 
do not think that will be a problem.
  But if, indeed, the problems are as bad as a number of us have heard, 
I think there will be a need for very significant adjustments in this 
program before we extend it into the next millennium.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I will be very brief. It is time to vote. I just want to say that 
nothing that has happened here today in this appropriation bill stops 
or thwarts the gentleman from doing his job on the authorization 
committee. He does not have to come here and cry to the appropriators 
and cry to the Congress. He should just do his job; okay? That is all I 
am saying. The gentleman has a committee and they have said they will 
work with him. Go do the job.
  The problem we have got is, if we do not extend this thing at this 
juncture, then next year the thing will expire at the end of the fiscal 
year. What if we do not get the bill passed by the start of the fiscal 
year? We are going to have to stop doing these demonstrations all

[[Page H6151]]

over the country? That would be utterly ridiculous.
  I think we should go forward and keep this program going. It is 
working. And let the gentleman and the authorizers do their job.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  2000


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Buyer

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

  Amendment offered by Mr. Buyer:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.  . None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to establish a national wildlife refuge in the Kankakee 
     River watershed in the northwestern Indian and northeastern 
     Illinois.

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend special compliments 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Yates) not only for this bill, but I appreciate their willingness 
to work this out.
  Right now in northwest Indiana and northeast Illinois, there are two 
existing projects with regard to the Kankakee River Basin. One is a 
Corps of Engineers study, and the second is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
project referred to as the Grand Kankakee Marsh National Wildlife 
Refuge.
  The location and size with regard to this, the Kankakee Watershed 
drains a total of 5,167 square miles. That is 2,990 square miles in 
Indiana, 2,177 square miles in Illinois, and 7 square miles in 
Michigan. The watershed extends to the high waters of the Kankakee 
River near the City of Southbend, Indiana, to its confluence with the 
Des Plaines River near Kankakee and the Des Plaines River southwest of 
Joliet, Illinois.
  The Kankakee River Basin area of northwest Indiana and northeast 
Illinois has been suffering from extreme flooding and siltation for 
many years. The river back at the turn of the century would meander and 
then there would be low-level lakes and then it would meander again.
  Indiana dredged and straightened the river in Indiana, which has 
caused the siltation to build up in Illinois, and the river to flood. 
This brought on years of lawsuits between Illinois and Indiana.
  I was pleased to work with Senator Lugar and Senator Simon, Tom Ewing 
of Illinois, and others, to help put an end to the court cases, and 
instead look for a long-term solution.
  We were able to secure authorization and funding for an Army Corps of 
Engineers study to address the flooding and environmental concerns.
  The Corps is currently in the feasibility study stage. Through the 
bipartisan cooperation of Congressmen Conyers, Visclosky, Roemer, Tom 
Ewing, Jerry Weller, and myself, the House this year appropriated 
$940,000 for the second phase of the feasibility study.


                            wildlife refuge

  In 1996 the Fish and Wildlife Service contacted my office to inform 
us of their plans to look into designating a wildlife refuge in the 
Kankakee river basin area.
  Since then, I, along with Congressmen Weller, Ewing, Visclosky, and 
Roemer, have been active in (1) ensuring that the local residents are 
well informed of the Service's plans and intentions, and (2) that the 
Service address their concerns.
  We asked the Service to hold two hearings, one in each State, to 
listen to the locals' concerns and to take them into consideration as 
they examine whether to establish a wildlife refuge in the area. In 
Indiana alone, over 600 people showed up to learn more about the 
project and to express their views.
  The local residents are rightly concerned about the impacts upon 
their properties and lives, and have not received answers to their 
questions and concerns.
  It is not appropriate for the Service to push for the establishment 
of the refuge and for federal funding before the outstanding issues 
have been resolved.


                                solution

  I believe that a solution can be found which will integrate the Corps 
findings and construction with the Service's refuge. By meshing them 
together, solutions can be found to address the (1) flooding, (2) 
siltation, and (3) environmental restoration problems.
  I have been working with the Corps and the Service to get these two 
agencies to work together in a compatible manner.
  In response to my efforts, Director Clark sent a letter to me, 
stating that the Service, ``will not finalize the draft Environmental 
Assessment for the refuge proposal until we have ensured, in a mutually 
satisfactory manner, that effective coordination has occurred between 
the Service and the Corps on these two projects.''
  Until that occurs, it would be irresponsible and premature to 
designate federal funds for land acquisition for the proposed refuge.
  Therefore, I am offering this amendment which will limit funds under 
this bill to be used for the designation or land acquisition of 
proposed refuge in the Kankakee River Basin. I have no intention by 
this amendment to prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife from expending 
funds in the planning function of its proposal to protect biodiversity 
in the Kankakee River Basin.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment which will help ensure a 
common-sense solution.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman. Is this a proposal 
by the Fish and Wildlife Service? Is that what I understand?
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is an existing 
proposal by Fish and Wildlife. I have two projects at once. I have a 
Corps of Engineers study, and then the U.S. Fish and Wildlife has a 
study.
  Let me do say this, though, that would be important for me to say. I 
have no intention by this amendment to prevent the Fish and Wildlife 
from extending funds in the planning function of its proposed project 
to protect the biodiversity.
  Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman would yield further, so they can go ahead 
and do the planning?
  Mr. BUYER. They can go ahead and do the planning. They cannot go in 
and designate and purchase lands.
  Mr. DICKS. At this juncture. Because this would be one of the rare 
times when somebody does not want to have a wildlife refuge in their 
district.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I understand 
that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) supports the amendment 
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) accepted the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. We will agree to it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Mc Dermott

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. McDermott:
       Page 118, beginning at line 8, strike section 333 (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly).

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike an unwise 
legislative rider intended to halt the National Environmental 
Protection Act's planning process by terminating the Interior Columbia 
Basin Ecosystem Management Plan.
  In 1993, the then Speaker of the House Tom Foley, reacting to a 
legislative gridlock that had been developed in this whole process, and 
the Clinton administration together sought to develop a 
``scientifically sound and ecosystem-based strategy for east side 
forests.'' Those are forests in the eastern two-thirds of the State of 
Washington, and Oregon and Idaho and Montana.
  The Forest Service and the BLM jointly established the Interior 
Columbia Basin project, which includes 72 million acres of public lands 
in eastern Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and parts of 4 other States.
  The intent of the project is to provide long-term management 
direction for 35 national forests, 17 Bureau of Land Management 
districts, ultimately amending 74 land management plans in a 
coordinated plan.
  The Interior Columbia project builds upon the science of the 
Northwest Forest Plan, the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem

[[Page H6152]]

in California and other regionwide efforts. What we have learned from 
those experiences is that individualized land management plans have 
failed to address systemwide problems like the protection of endangered 
salmon and other species.
  Currently, the Federal agencies in the Interior Columbia Basin are 
operating under short-term directives to address anadromous fisheries 
and other issues. The risk of terminating the overall plan as proposed 
by this rider is that resource activities on these lands will shut down 
under a cloud of litigation as was the case of the west side forests in 
Washington and Oregon.
  In May 1997, the BLM and the Forest Service released two draft EISs 
for public comment. One EIS applied to eastern Washington and Oregon, 
the other to the Upper Columbia Basin for Idaho and other States. 
Public comment on these drafts have been extensive.
  Frankly, I do not think that the draft-preferred alternative in these 
plans goes far enough in protecting old growth, roadless and riparian 
areas. The science, for example, clearly supports concentrating active 
management in the more degraded road areas rather than the roadless 
regions.
  The science, moreover, shows that many areas and many resources in 
the project area are in serious trouble and will get worse under 
current management plans.
  So while I do not endorse the preferred alternative in the draft 
plans, I strongly endorse the process. It will be a serious mistake to 
terminate this project now as the sponsors of this rider propose.
  Let me conclude by quoting from an analysis of the rider prepared by 
the Department of Interior--quote:

       The effect of the House rider would be to terminate the 
     project, wasting 5 years' worth of scientific inquiry, 
     taxpayers' resources and project staff time. Limitations on 
     the use of funds as called for in the action would, by 
     implication, make it illegal to publish the decision 
     documents in which 5 years' worth of planning and community 
     involvement were intended to culminate. Enactment into law of 
     this provision would guarantee a continuing legal stalemate 
     in the project area, with the outcome being the substitution 
     of endless court battles for the sound management of natural 
     resources.

  Both the Departments of Agriculture and Interior strongly oppose this 
rider and OMB has issued a veto threat if this rider is included in the 
bill. I urge Members to support sound management of natural resources 
by voting against this amendment. I urge Members to support this 
amendment which strikes section 333.
         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, June 24, 1998.
     Hon. Bob Livingston,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The purpose of this letter is to provide 
     the Administration's views on the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1999, as 
     approved by the House Subcommittee. As the Committee develops 
     its version of the bill, your consideration of the 
     Administration's views would be appreciated.
       The Administration appreciates efforts by the Subcommittee 
     to accommodate certain of the President's priorities within 
     the 302(b) allocation such as funding for national park 
     operations. However, the allocation is simply insufficient to 
     make the necessary investments in programs funded by this 
     bill. As a result, a variety of critical programs are 
     underfunded, as discussed below, and the National Endowment 
     for the Arts (NEA) is terminated.
       The only way to achieve the appropriate investment level is 
     to offset discretionary spending by using savings in other 
     areas. The President's FY 1999 Budget proposes levels of 
     discretionary spending for FY 1999 that conform to the 
     Bipartisan Budget Agreement by making savings in mandatory 
     and other programs available to help finance this spending. 
     In the recently enacted Transportation Equity Act, Congress--
     on a broad, bipartisan basis--took similar action in 
     approving funding for surface transportation programs 
     together with mandatory offsets. The Administration urges the 
     Congress to consider such mandatory proposals for other 
     priority discretionary programs.
       In addition, the Administration urges the Committee to pass 
     a clean bill that does not attempt to roll back environmental 
     protections and circumvent the proper process by attaching 
     riders to appropriation bills. The Subcommittee failure to 
     fund the NEA, its underfunding of other priority programs, 
     and its inclusion of damaging riders, such as the provisions 
     concerning the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management 
     Project and the road easement in Alaska's Chugach National 
     Forest, would lead the President's senior advisers to 
     recommend a veto if the bill were presented to the President 
     in its current form.
       Below is a discussion of our specific concerns with the 
     Subcommittee. We look forward to working with you to resolve 
     these concerns as the bill moves forward.


             National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities

       The Administration strongly objects to the Subcommittee's 
     elimination of funding for the National Endowment for the 
     Arts (NEA) as well as to the Subcommittee's reduction in 
     funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities ($26 
     million below the President's request) and the Institute for 
     Museum and Library Service ($3 million below the President's 
     request). The elimination of the NEA would result in the loss 
     of important cultural, educational, and artistic programs for 
     communities across America.


              Departments of the Interior and Agriculture

       Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 
     (ICBEMP). The Subcommittee has included a rider that would 
     terminate this high priority interagency effort ICBEMP is an 
     ecosystem planning project that will cover 72 million acres 
     of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands in the 
     states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, 
     and Montana. The environmental impact statement and the 
     record of decision are scheduled to be finalized by mid-1999. 
     The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service are now 
     working under short-term directives to address anadromous 
     fisheries (PACFISH), native fisheries (INFISH), and mature 
     forests in Oregon and Washington (Eastside Screens). The 
     Project will replace these interim directions with a 
     coordinated, long-term management strategy that will foster 
     both conservation and resource use and development. Replacing 
     current interim measures with a long-term plan will provide 
     necessary long-term protections for aquatic species. The 
     shared environmental planning goals of the region can be 
     effectively translated into individual forest and land 
     management plans only through a coordinated process such as 
     the ICBEMP, and this process provides more certainty to those 
     who make their livelihoods from the Federal lands and live in 
     the region.
       Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Administration 
     strongly objects to the Subcommittee's deep cuts in land 
     acquisition funding to protect our national parks, forests, 
     refuges, and public lands. The Subcommittee has reduced by 
     almost half the $270 million requested, with Everglades land 
     acquisition funds cut by 75 percent. This drastic reduction 
     in funding, in combination with the Subcommittee's silence on 
     the promised congressional release of the $362 million 
     appropriated in FY 1998 for Federal priority land 
     acquisitions, would prevent the Administration from making 
     significant land acquisitions such as Cumberland Island 
     National Seashore in Georgia, West Eugene Wetland in Oregon, 
     Channel Islands National Park in California, the Appalachian 
     Trail, and the Valles Caldera in New Mexico.
       Clean Water Initiative. The Subcommittee has failed to 
     provide the majority of the requested $128 million increase 
     for Interior and the Forest Service to implement the Clean 
     Water Action Plan. These reductions would prevent the 
     initiation of watershed improvement and planning projects on 
     public lands, including the remediation of abandoned hardrock 
     mines, a serious source of water pollution in the West. The 
     reductions would also curtail plans to increase research, 
     assessment, and monitoring activities designed to help us 
     understand the sources, transport and fates of non-point 
     contaminants.
                                  ____


   FY 1999 Interior Appropriations Bill: Effects of House and Senate 
   Action on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project


                               Background

       At the direction of President Clinton in July 1993, the 
     Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 
     (Project) was initiated by the Forest Service and the BLM to 
     respond to landscape-scale issues, including forest and 
     rangeland health, the listing of Snake River salmon, bull 
     trout protection, economies of local communities, species 
     associated with old forest structure, and treaty and trust 
     responsibilities to American Indian tribes.
       While the project area includes over 144 million acres in 
     the interior Columbia River Basin, the Upper Klamath, and 
     parts of the Great Basin, the project would apply only to the 
     approximately 72 million acres of public land administered by 
     the Forest Service and BLM in the geographic area.
       Two draft environmental impact statements were released for 
     public comment in May 1997: the Eastside EIS for eastern 
     Oregon and Washington, and the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS 
     for Idaho and portions of Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. 
     These EISs outline seven ecosystem management alternatives 
     that replace, where applicable, interim conservation 
     strategies in up to 74 land and resource management plans. 
     The preferred option of the DEIS-Alternative Four, announced 
     on April 23, 1997--aims to ``aggressively restore ecosystem 
     health through active management using an integrated 
     ecosystem management approach.''
       Public involvement has been a cornerstone of the project, 
     with over 200 public meetings to date, a newsletter, an 
     Internet home page,

[[Page H6153]]

     and a mailing list of over 8,000 people. The public comment 
     period on the EISs was extended three times, and closed on 
     May 6, 1998.
       A Steering Committee of regional executive from land 
     management, science, and regulatory agencies guide the 
     project. An interagency team is located in Walla Walla, 
     Washington, and Boise, Idaho. The team and Steering Committee 
     have met periodically with various tribal governments. County 
     governments have been active participants throughout the 
     process.
       After the final envionrmental impact statement is 
     completed, the Record of Decision will have the effect of 
     amending or completing conformance determinations on 
     individual land use plans for each of the 48 administrative 
     units of the BLM and the Forest Service.


             Compliance with Recent Congressional Direction

       Sec. 323 of the FY 1998 Interior appropriations bill 
     modified a provision included by the House which required the 
     Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to analyze the 
     economic and social conditions of communities within the 
     Project area. This analysis was to be published for pubic 
     comment and later incorporated into the final EISs. The two 
     departments published and circulated this ``socioeconomic 
     analysis'' in March, 1998.
       The 1998 appropriation also provided that the two 
     Secretaries submit a report--prior to the release of the 
     FEISs--that provides a description of all planned ``project 
     decisions,'' the costs and time required to make those 
     decisions, and an estimate of goods and services to be 
     produced from Federal lands in the Project area over a 5-year 
     period. The two departments fully intend to comply with this 
     provision, though it should be noted that satisfying this 
     requirement will significantly extend the Project planning 
     timeline.
                                  ____


                   STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

       (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the 
     concerned agencies.)


      H.R. 4193--Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
                      Appropriations bill, FY 1999

       (Sponsors: Livingston (R), Louisiana; Regula (R), Ohio.)
       This Statement of Administration Policy provides the 
     Administration's views on H.R. 4193, the Department of 
     Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1999. 
     Your consideration of the Administration's views would be 
     appreciated.
       The Administration urges the House to pass a clean bill 
     that does not attempt to roll back environmental protections 
     and circumvent the proper public process by attaching riders 
     to appropriation bills. Regrettably, the Committee bill 
     under-funds priority programs and includes damaging riders, 
     such as the provision concerning the Interior Columbia Basin 
     Ecosystem Management Project. In addition, it is our 
     understanding that, if adopted, the rule for consideration of 
     the bill will permit a single Member to strike all funding 
     for the National Endowment for the Arts. Based on these 
     concerns, if the Committee bill, as modified by the rule and 
     associated motion, were presented to the President, the 
     President's senior adviser would recommend that he veto the 
     bill.
       The Administration appreciates efforts by the Committee to 
     accommodate certain of the President's priorities within the 
     302(b) allocation such as funding for national park 
     operations. However, the allocation is simply insufficient to 
     make the necessary investments in programs funded by this 
     bill. As a result, a variety of critical programs are under-
     funded. The only way to achieve the appropriate investment 
     levels is to offset discretionary spending by using savings 
     in other areas. The President's FY 1999 Budget proposes 
     levels of discretionary spending for FY 1999 that conform to 
     the Bipartisan Budget Agreement by making savings in 
     mandatory and other programs available to help finance this 
     spending. In the Transportation Equity Act, Congress--on a 
     broad, bipartisan basis--took similar action in approving 
     funding for surface transportation programs together with 
     mandatory offset. The Administration urges the Congress to 
     consider such mandatory proposals for the other priority 
     discretionary programs.
       Below is a discussion of our specific concerns with the 
     Committee bill. We look forward to working with the House to 
     resolve these concerns as the bill moves forward.


              Departments of the Interior and agriculture

       The Administration appreciates the Committee's funding of 
     maintenance programs, particularly those for health and 
     safety, in Interior's land management agencies. However, the 
     Administration strongly objects to inadequate funding 
     provided by the Committee for high priority programs within 
     the Department of the Interior and the Department of 
     Agriculture, including Committee actions that would: reduce 
     by more than half the $270 million requested from the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund to protect our national parks, 
     forests, refuges, and public lands, with Everglades land 
     acquisition funds cut by 75 percent. This drastic reduction 
     in funding would prevent the Administration from making 
     significant land acquisitions such as Cumberland Island 
     National Seashore in Georgia and West Eugene Wetland in 
     Oregon; provide no funding for the Millennium program 
     protecting artifacts of our National heritage (see discussion 
     below); deny most of the requested $128 million increase for 
     Interior and the Forest Service to implement the Clean Water 
     Action Plan; fail to provide the requested $15 million for 
     the Disaster Information Network providing enhanced data to 
     protect Americans; deny $29 million of the $36 million 
     increase requested for the Endangered Species funding, 
     including landowner incentive grants; fail to provide 
     requested increases for the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     education operations and construction, the Indian Country law 
     enforcement initiative, and the land consolidation pilot 
     project and other trust system reforms; provide little or no 
     funding for hazardous fuels reduction in most of California 
     by allocating a disproportionate amount of available funds to 
     the ``Quincy Library Group'' project in California; make 
     significant reductions to the Forest Service's Wildlife and 
     Fisheries Management, Rangeland Management, and Watershed 
     Improvement programs, which would limit rangeland vegetative 
     restoration and limit watershed improvements with 
     approximately 12,250 fewer watershed acres protected or 
     restored; and, eliminate the Forest Service's Stewardship 
     Incentive Program and significantly reduce its Forest Legacy 
     Program. Both of these programs support local communities and 
     private landowners and effectively leverage Federal funds.
       Forest Service General Administration. The rule would shift 
     $67 million from General Administration to wildland fire 
     suppression. This is unnecessary since the Committee mark is 
     at the request level and a $250 million contingency is 
     available for use if necessary. Such a transfer would deprive 
     individual national forests of important on-the-ground 
     natural resource management capability, delay needed Forest 
     Service computer system and financial accountability 
     improvements, and unwisely eliminate key agency leadership 
     positions.
       Priority Land Acquisition Funding. The Administration 
     objects to the Committee's continued inaction on the promised 
     congressional release of the $362 million appropriated from 
     the Land and Water Conservation Fund in FY 1998. As requested 
     by Congress, the Administration has submitted a list of 
     proposed land acquisitions. In response, the Committee has 
     not only held back the FY 1998 Title V funding but also has 
     funded some items on the Administration's FY 1998 list with 
     FY 1999 funding, resulting in critical acquisitions planned 
     for both years being delayed and unfunded.
       Millennium Program. The Administration strongly urges the 
     House to provide funding in FY 1999 for the ``Millennium 
     Program to Save America's Treasures.'' The Committee has 
     failed to provide any funding for this important effort. The 
     President's budget requests $50 million to increase the 
     Historic Preservation Fund to make a special effort to 
     preserve our history and culture as we enter the new 
     millennium. This program is designed to leverage Federal, 
     State, and private funding to have the greatest collective 
     impact on our rapidly deteriorating national treasures.
       Purchaser Road Credit Program. The Administration fully 
     supports the Committee's decision to eliminate the Purchaser 
     Road credit program. The Committee bill includes a provision 
     that would ensure that the value of road construction by 
     purchasers continues to be included in calculations for the 
     Payments to States. To permit increased certainty and better 
     local planning more directly, we urge the House to adopt the 
     Administration's proposal to provide a high, fixed level of 
     payments to States.
       Timber Sales. The Administration objects to the increase of 
     $12 million over the request for timber sales in order to 
     produce 3.6 billion board feet, 200 million board feet over 
     the budget estimate.


                          language provisions

       The Administration strongly objects to certain language in 
     the Committee bill, including provisions that would: unwisely 
     terminate the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management 
     Project in six Northwest States, forcing individual 
     amendments to 74 land management plans; remove 75 acres in 
     Florida from the coastal barrier protection system, 
     providing taxpayer subsidies for private development of 
     environmentally fragile barrier islands; prevent the BIA 
     and the Indian Health Service from entering into any new 
     or expanded self-determination ``Section 638'' contracts 
     or self-governance compacts with tribes, contrary to our 
     government-to-government policy; prohibit improvements--
     even planning or design of improvements--to Pennsylvania 
     Avenue in front of the White House; transfer the 
     jurisdiction over the valued Land Between The Lakes 
     National Recreation Area from the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority, where it has been successfully managed for over 
     sixty years, to the U.S. Forest Service, a disruptive 
     change that would involve additional transition costs 
     without improving service; and, impose a road easement 
     across the Chugach National Forest in Alaska, thereby 
     preventing the Government from making modifications to 
     protect the environment while authorizing environmentally 
     damaging management practices and undermining an ongoing 
     discussion to determine the most appropriate road corridor 
     based on a 1982 agreement.

[[Page H6154]]

    indian health service (department of health and human services)

       The Administration is concerned that the Committee has not 
     included a $10 million increase requested for prevention and 
     treatment of alcohol/substance abuse and breast/cervical 
     cancer, which is part of an HHS-wide effort to reduce health 
     disparities in minority populations. The Administration 
     intends to work with the Congress to fund these important 
     initiatives within funds available for the Indian Health 
     Service. The Administration is also concerned that the 
     Committee has included authorizing language, without hearings 
     or tribal consultation, that would require contract support 
     costs to be distributed to tribes and tribal organizations on 
     a pro-rata (proportional) basis.


                          department of energy

       The Administration strongly objects to the House's severe 
     reduction to the Department of Energy's Energy Conservation 
     program. While the Committee mark appears to be $18 million 
     higher than the FY 1998 enacted level ($630 million vs. $612 
     million), it includes $43 million for a program that 
     previously has been funded in the Fossil Energy R&D account. 
     The House's funding for the programs traditionally included 
     in the Energy Conservation Account is $587 million, a cut of 
     $25 million from the FY 1998 level and a reduction of $222 
     million from the President's request of $809 million. Within 
     this reduction, particularly severe damage is done to the 
     Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), for 
     which the Committee mark is $14 million (roughly 10 percent) 
     less than the current appropriation and $45 million below the 
     request.
       These cuts would eliminate all of the Administration's 
     requested increase in Energy Conservation for development of 
     technologies to improve industrial, transportation, and 
     building efficiencies and to reduce carbon emissions. The 
     inclusion of several special-interest earmarks in the 
     Committee Report also would reduce the President's ability to 
     gain maximum benefit from the available funds. The inclusion 
     of the $43 million in the Energy Conservation account to fund 
     a utility-scale turbine program that would continue to be 
     managed by the Fossil Energy program is an inefficient 
     management practice that would dilute accountability and 
     should be avoided.
       The Committee mark eliminates all of the funding requested 
     for the Energy Information Administration to work on carbon 
     emissions accounting and analysis ($2.5 million), and 
     eliminates all of the requested increase in Fossil Energy R&D 
     for high-priority carbon sequestration research ($10 
     million). The President's budget also requested $36 million 
     for payment to the State of California for the Retired 
     Teachers System, which is not included in the Committee mark. 
     The Administration prefers that this payment be appropriated 
     consistent with P.L. 104-106.
       The Administration would like to work with the Congress to 
     restore fundings to these important Department of Energy 
     programs as the bill moves through the process.


             National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities

       The Administration appreciates the Full Committee's 
     restoration of funding for the National Endowment for the 
     Arts (NEA). The Administration strongly objects to striking 
     NEA funding and strongly supports the amendment to restore 
     such funding. We urge the House to provide funding for NEA 
     and NEH at the President's requested level of $136 million 
     each and for the Institute for Museum and Library Services at 
     the requested level of $26 million.


                     Year 2000 Computer Conversion

       In the FY 1999 Budget, the President has requested more 
     than $1 billion for Y2K computer conversion. In addition, the 
     budget anticipated that additional requirements would emerge 
     over the course of the year and included an allowance for 
     emergencies and other unanticipated needs. It is essential to 
     make Y2K funding available quickly and flexibly. The House 
     action striking the emergency fund in the Treasury and 
     General Government Appropriations bill is very troubling, 
     particularly in light of several Subcommittees, including the 
     Interior Subcommittee, deciding to not fund the base Y2K 
     request for several agencies.


                        Smithsonian Institution

       The Committee's $397 million overall funding level for the 
     Smithsonian, which is $22 million less than the 
     Administration's request, would prevent the Institution from 
     addressing current pressing needs. The Administration is 
     concerned with the lack of support for the Smithsonian's 
     National Museum of the American Indian. The Administration 
     encourages the Committee to provide the $16 million request 
     for the construction of the Museum on the Mall, as well as 
     the full $11 million requested for the programs and 
     operations of the Cultural Resources Center. In addition, the 
     Administration urges that the $3 million request for 
     digitization of Smithsonian exhibits be restored.


             John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

       The Administration urges the House to provide the full $33 
     million requested for the Kennedy Center. In particular, we 
     ask that the Committee provide the full construction request 
     of $20 million, which is also included in the 
     Administration's pending authorization bill.


                            Holocaust Museum

       The Administration urges the House to provide the full 
     $32.6 million requested for the Holocaust Museum.


                  Infringement on Executive Authority

       There are several provisions in the Committee bill that 
     purport to require congressional approval before Executive 
     Branch execution of aspects of the bill. The Administration 
     will interpret such provisions to require notification only, 
     since any other interpretation would contradict the Supreme 
     Court ruling in INS vs. Chadha.

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the McDermott 
amendment, for a number of reasons. I have been listening to my 
colleague from Washington State make mention of the reasons why he 
supports his own amendment. Obviously, he does, and I respect that.
  However, let me put a clear perspective on this study, and that is 
exactly what it is, Mr. Chairman, it is a study.
  In 1993, without authorization, and I say that again, without any 
authorization, without one single hearing, without any consideration by 
the authorizing committee of this Congress, some money was stuck into 
an appropriations bill to do a study of Washington and Oregon to look 
at the so-called ecosystem of these two regions relative to endangered 
species.
  What developed from that ministerial duty, I will say, of putting 
some money in and saying let us do a study, has developed into a 7-
State, 144 million acre monstrosity. Volumes of documents and 
scientific analyses have apparently been done, and so now this so-
called initial study on the short-term has taken on a life of its own 
that has become a nightmare in the Pacific Northwest and in the 7-State 
region that this study encompasses, all in the name of so-called 
ecosystem management.
  Let me tell my friends why this is so serious to the Pacific 
Northwest and all the Western States. It is a study that is never 
ending. It is a study that will cost the taxpayers an estimated $1.25 
billion over the next 10 years.
  The country has already spent $40 million on a study, a study, that 
has now created volumes of documents, staff galore, a lot of 
bureaucracy frankly, in the name of ecosystem management.
  What this amendment does is essentially continue this bureaucracy 
that has existed since 1993, at a cost of $40 million unauthorized.
  Let me tell my colleagues who is against this amendment by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott): The National Labor 
Management Committee, the Pulp and Paperworkers, which consists of the 
pulp and paperworkers and the carpenters and the machinists. It is 
opposed by 65 percent of all of the county governments of the 7-State, 
144 million acre region.
  I have that documentation right here, the Western Legislative 
Forestry Task Force, have all of the counties that oppose this study 
and oppose the continuation of the expense of this study. Here is 
volumes of material, letters and messages saying this study has gone 
beyond its original expectations; it is going to ruin the Pacific 
Northwest and the 7-State region, not only from a resource management 
standpoint but from a private property rights standpoint.
  What we need to do in this case is reject the McDermott amendment and 
allow the amendment that we put into the subcommittee that passed 
without any objection, went to the full appropriations subcommittee 
without any objection and now is here on the floor, again without one 
hearing by the authorizing committee, a $40 million cost to the 
taxpayers already.
  What we do is we say, let us terminate this project. Let us use the 
science. I object to my colleague asserting that the science is wasted. 
It is not. Particularly in our amendment, it says, let us use the 
science that has been accumulated. Let us also use the social and 
economic information that has been accumulated to make sure we do not 
ruin the small communities of the Pacific Northwest, the timber 
communities and the resource areas of our great part of the world.
  What this amendment will do will be to perpetuate the bureaucracy, 
and I must say the environmental community is not pushing this. They do 
not

[[Page H6155]]

like the study, the east side ecosystem study, the Interior Columbia 
Basin study for different reasons that I do not like it, but they still 
do not like it. They are not here on board supporting the McDermott 
amendment, to my knowledge. It is the White House, and it is Mr. Gore's 
office who really is pushing for this concept nationwide, worldwide, of 
ecosystem management, and the test case, the test place for it, is the 
Pacific Northwest.
  So I would say to my friends, to my colleagues, we must reject this 
amendment. It is a destructive amendment to the way of life of people 
in the Pacific Northwest. It is a waste of taxpayers' money to continue 
this massive study that has gone beyond its original purpose. It is 
opposed by labor. It is opposed for other reasons, I am informed, by 
the environmental community, and what we need to do here is oppose this 
amendment so that we can be sure that there is a way of life in the 
Pacific Northwest relative to resource management.
  There is nothing in the ecosystem study that prevents lawsuits, but 
it does allow the scientific information to be used in the forests that 
are affected by this scientific information. I think it is significant 
that 65 percent of the county governments, which were supposed to be an 
integral part of this study and its findings, have rejected the 
findings and the study and the continuation of the study by the 
Department of Interior and its land agencies.
  So I know there are other Members here who want to speak out on this 
today because it is a very serious breach, in my judgment, of the 
initial expectation of this study and it is a breach of the property 
rights of those of us in the Northwest who want to preserve the 
environment but also not shut down the entire forest system and public 
land system in the Pacific Northwest in the 7-State region containing 
144 million acres that are covered by this study.
  So I implore my colleagues, reject this amendment. Make sure that we 
preserve the resources of the Pacific Northwest.

                              {time}  2015

  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I join in the comments of the gentleman from 
Washington. This study that was undertaken several years ago has ended 
up moving from a study that was supposed to last for 9 months and cost 
only $5 million, has now moved into a study of 4 years in duration and 
has cost $40 million.
  Mr. Chairman, that is a 700 percent increase, 700 percent over 
budget. The McDermott amendment continues to fund this project, a 
project that environmentalists hate, that industry loathes, that 
private property owners fear, and that very frankly local Forest 
Service and BLM employees say cannot be implemented. When I go home, 
and even in work back here, I have had so many Forest Service people 
say, ``Please don't run this over the top of us. Please don't implement 
this ICBEMP,'' as they call it. Why do we want to continue to fund a 
project that is unacceptably overdue, over budget and cannot be 
implemented? The land managers themselves tell us, ``Please don't 
implement this. It won't work.''
  The problem with this program is that what started out to be a study 
now will end up to be a superagency, imposing itself over a number of 
States and imposing restrictions on State water rights and private 
property rights. It also will lead to a paralysis of analysis in terms 
of getting our forest plans out.
  What we can do in this case is to oppose the McDermott amendment. By 
opposing the McDermott amendment, we empower the local Forest Service 
and the BLM managers to again use the science and information gathered 
during this very intensive and extensive multistate project and 
multiyear project to create custom-fit solutions instead of forcing 
them to accept a one-size-fits-all Federal fiat that cannot be 
implemented at all.
  Do we really want to support an amendment that will lead to more 
litigation and more gridlock and no improvement in land management? I 
do not think so. Or do we want results and better managed lands and 
local solutions? I think we do. It is better for our land and our 
communities. The McDermott amendment is bad policy and it is bad for 
the health of our land. I urge the opposition of the McDermott 
amendment. Please vote ``no.''
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Washington. It is a sound amendment, it is an 
important amendment and it is one that as he has pointed out is in 
opposition to the rider in this legislation that would throw overboard 
essentially this plan, it would terminate this plan, it would require 
the closing of the office and would not let us get to the final status 
of the EIS report. To do so is to stick our heads in the sand and to 
pretend that we have learned nothing in the last 25 years.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) comes from the region. 
He was here at the center of much of the controversy around the spotted 
owl where we started to learn a lesson because of piecemeal management, 
of uncoordinated management, of one agency not talking to the other 
agency, of the various departments and agencies that are responsible 
for land management doing their own thing, if you will, while not 
taking into account the impacts upstream, downstream or on other 
resources in the area. This effort is to remedy that situation.
  Why do we do that? We do that because we have learned that if we do 
not do this, the region will be thrown into turmoil. It will be thrown 
into turmoil because once again we will be warned as we were with the 
spotted owl of the decline of the resource base in the area. What will 
that do? That will then force us back into court. That will force us 
back into litigation. This is an effort based upon a region-wide basis, 
on an ecosystem-wide basis to come to grips with all of the problems 
that are causing the decline in the various resources in the area and 
their impacts on fish and wildlife, their impacts on the total 
environment in that area. The same effort is being made in the 
Everglades of California; the same effort is being made in the Central 
Valley, in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta in California, because we 
know that what happens 100 miles upstream dramatically impacts 
downstream. We know now that commercial fishermen on the coast of 
California are impacted by the cut in the forest that is 150 miles 
away. We know if we cut on the steep slopes as we have been doing for 
many, many years, we will experience landslides, we will experience the 
filling in of the streams and we will experience the diminishing of the 
fish population. We know that now. We have learned that.
  Many people have said that this is over the top of the Forest 
Service. If you look on the front of the report, if you look on the 
status of the Interior Columbia Basin, on the cover is the Forest 
Service, is the Bureau of Land Management, is the Department of 
Agriculture. Why? Because all of those local land managers were brought 
in just as we did in the gymnasium in the Pacific Northwest where we 
brought together these people and we started to make them talk to one 
another, talk about what they needed in terms of resource management in 
their area, what they expected in cuts, what they could sustain, what 
they thought the productivity would be of the lands and make that fit 
and coincide with what was happening elsewhere in the region. The 
result of that is a greater recognition of how badly devastated this 
region in fact is. Because there are not many people arguing with the 
science of this report. Even the authors of this rider suggest that the 
science is valid, that it should be distributed to the local agencies 
on a site-specific basis and they can do what they want.
  What does the science tell us? It tells us that they have a road 
system that is in absolute disarray, that is in decline, that is not 
able to maintain the maintenance because of declining budgets, and 
there is progressive degradation of the road and the drainage 
structures and increases in erosion.
  What does it tell us about the integrity of the aquatic systems? It 
says if this is an important goal of this region, and there is nobody 
from this region that believes that the integrity of the aquatic 
systems is not an important goal in the Pacific Northwest, then 
dramatic and decisive action is required to stop further alterations 
and

[[Page H6156]]

restore the areas that are already degraded.
  What does it say about the ecosystem integrity of this vast region of 
the Pacific northwest? Sixty percent of these lands are of low 
ecological integrity value. That is why we did the science. Because we 
have learned from the train wrecks and the disasters of litigation, of 
shutting down industries, of invoking the Endangered Species Act time 
and time again until a region is so bound up in controversy that you 
start to lose your economy, you start to lose your tourism, you start 
to lose the uses of these lands.
  This is an effort to do it right the first time, to recognize the 
mistakes that were made in the past. That is why this administration 
feels so strongly about this rider.
  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, we have an opportunity to do 
it right. One of the reasons this has been so extensive is because my 
colleagues on the other side, rightfully so, we were doing this in the 
Sacramento San Joaquin Delta in the Central Valley of California, the 
agencies were directed to go out and to meet and to confer and to deal 
with local governments, with the site managers on the public lands, on 
the forests and the resource agencies and to take this into account and 
to work with these people. That is very extensive. It is also a very 
expensive proposition. If we had not done that, we would have obviously 
been criticized, the report would have been criticized for not 
consulting with these individuals. Now, it would have been less 
expensive but we would have found another basis on which to criticize 
the report. But the point is that people understand that the science 
here is valid.
  I appreciate just as we did not like to hear in our region of 
California that we would now have to spend $1 billion correcting the 
past mistakes if we are in fact going to protect the San Francisco Bay 
and the San Francisco Delta and be able to provide for agriculture in 
the Central Valley. We got bad news, too. So did the people in the 
Everglades because of the history of terrible actions. They now have to 
go back and repair that. This is an opportunity to go back and to 
restore the environmental integrity of this region and forgo the 
litigation. This rider is simply Christmas in July for the attorneys.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I would make a point to the gentleman. 
The estimate is that it will cost $125 million a year to implement any 
scientific findings and there is, in this study, no prevention from 
there being any litigation. Does the gentleman realize that?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I understand that. And that is the whole 
budget. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has been besieged by 
people all day who said the real cost of this is $350 million. He only 
had $26 million. We are going to do the best we can. This delegation 
will have to make a decision. We have a big bill and the Everglades has 
a big bill and other places have a big bill that are going through 
this. Every year we are asking for money and we are making it and we 
are trying to make the decisions and work in the worst areas first and 
we are setting those priorities. It is all a big bill. Why? Because we 
have made some horrible mistakes. Many of those mistakes were made out 
of ignorance. We did not know the science. We did not know the 
ramifications of those actions. Today we cannot plead ignorance. That 
is why this study, the EIS is so terribly important to making the kind 
of progress necessary in the Pacific Northwest.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. If the gentleman will yield further, I do not know if 
the gentleman knows that there was a hearing between the Senate and the 
House of these land agencies.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Nethercutt, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Miller 
of California was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. The testimony was that if they could not get the 
money, and this budget is strapped, they would do nothing. So, 
therefore, the forests deteriorate more and they are stuck sitting 
there without any kind of a management plan as long as this study 
continues.
  My argument is, let us use the science that is there and let the 
managers on the ground implement these plans and take the findings and 
get something done rather than wait.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I would just say to the gentleman that that 
is not free and the science dictates that same. This study is very 
involved in a very, very active management program. Your solution is 
not necessarily any cheaper. We just happen to think that the provision 
of the study and the follow-on EIS is simply much better coordinated 
and may in fact be somewhat less expensive in the long run if these 
people are in fact working together as opposed to just rolling back the 
clock to how we used to do business, where all of these 75 different 
land management agencies just go back to sort of what they were doing 
before.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I really do not quite know how to start after hearing 
the gentleman from California, the debate on this and hearing the 
gentleman from western Washington with his remarks, but let me put it 
in perspective from my point of view. What we have heard so far on 
those that are proponents of this amendment are ironically people that 
do not live in the area that is affected. I suppose that is not unusual 
when we talk about resource issues. But I think in this particular case 
it would be worthwhile to find out from those of us that represent the 
people that live in this area and the potential impact that it has on 
them.
  Let me back up to when I got involved in this issue. This came about 
in 1993 or 1994. Obviously when I was elected to this body in 1994, it 
was brought to my attention by local people, local county 
commissioners, and they were asking questions, ``What is this ecosystem 
management project and what is the end result?'' At that point I could 
not really answer them. But I did do this. I advised them very strongly 
that they should be at the table, they should be at the table no matter 
what comes out of this, because if you are not at the table, then you 
can hardly criticize what decisions may be coming down the line.

                              {time}  2030

  So those that I talked to took my advice and others' advice that that 
would be the procedure that they would follow. So they have been 
sitting at the table, starting in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 through 
this year.
  We have moved the comment period back from time to time. I think that 
was good policy. The reason why is because the feedback I got from the 
elected officials that represent those counties in my district, they 
were hearing things that they did not quite like to hear. They wanted 
more information.
  So as they got more information, they could see that this is becoming 
very, very quickly a top-down plan. Because, as was pointed out by my 
colleague, the gentleman from Washington, this was never authorized by 
this body. It was only funded in an appropriations bill, and it kind of 
grew like topsy and grew and grew. We are going to have this 
expenditure grow out for what?
  So at the end of the day, what has happened is that those county 
commissioners in my district and in the adjoining counties said, ``What 
can we do in order to change the way this thing is headed?'' We 
suggested that maybe one thing we ought to do is cut off the funding 
and use the data that has been collected and use it on a local level. 
Because, after all, if you come from the school that the government 
closest to people is best able to react to the wishes of those people, 
then that is a pretty good model with this data.
  So over 65 percent of the county commissioners in these affected 
counties have written, saying something like this: ``We would like to 
see this program terminated. We will use the data as we think best in 
our own particular areas.'' I think and I trust those county 
commissioners to use that data in a

[[Page H6157]]

way that is the right way to go about it.
  Again, I want to make this point, so many times when we talk about 
resource issues, these resource issues are trying to be decided by 
somebody outside of the affected area.
  The fact is that most of the discussion here, at least from my 
friend, the gentleman from California, talked about the forest areas. 
But this area is 144 million acres, and a good portion of it has no 
forest land. In fact I can tell you my district, which is all impacted, 
has very little forest land.
  What we come to and why my local elected officials are apprehensive 
about this whole process is simply this: It is the unintended 
consequences that come out of this data. In my district, and I dare say 
throughout all of the affected area, the rainfall by and large is less 
than 10 inches. So if you have an unintended consequences of 
controlling the water resources, what does that do to the agriculture 
industry? What does that do, for goodness sakes, to the fish? These are 
things that are not being addressed, in my view, by this. We are just 
studying, studying, studying.
  I think if we are going to come to grips with what has been compiled 
so far in a program that was only supposed to have been funded for 1 
year, it seems to me we ought to put that data in place. The county 
commissioners in my district are prepared to take that data and put it 
in a place where they think appropriate. But I think it is very 
important to give them the opportunity to make that decision on their 
level as they see appropriate.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote against the McDermott 
amendment. I think it is bad policy. I think we ought to terminate this 
program as the Committee on Appropriations has suggested. So I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the McDermott amendment.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, when it was first proposed, the Interior Columbia Basin 
Ecosystem Management Project actually held great promise. The goal was 
to produce a document that would provide a broad framework through 
which individual forest management plans would be updated. These 
updates would provide the framework through which local communities and 
local citizens would see an end to the management of our public lands 
and our public forests through conflict.
  The promise was that local governments and local citizens and local 
business owners and local labor unions and local conservationists would 
work together to restore predictability in the management of these 
public lands. This was very important, Mr. Chairman, because these 
local communities of the Northwest have seen their economies devastated 
and they have seen their small town culture wiped away by the breakdown 
in the process by which we made public land management decisions.
  As we have heard from others, when the project started, the promise 
was that it would be completed in 9 months. When the project started, 
local governments were promised a place at the table. When the project 
started, local forest supervisors were to be given authority to manage 
their individual forests according to their individual needs. When the 
project started, the Congress was told that the cost would be $5 
million.
  So where are we today? Well, we are faced with a host of broken 
promises. The 9 months turned into 4 years, $5 million turned into $40 
million. Local governments, who almost universally endorsed this 
project in the beginning, have almost universally now withdrawn their 
support for the process. Local citizens have been driven from the 
process and have been given no voice. In fact, what happened is the 
process that is supposed to be bottom line is replaced with a top-down 
mandate.
  I found it interesting to listen to the gentleman from California as 
he read from the cover of the document saying that this was a document 
that was to be a consultation between various agencies. Mr. Chairman, I 
did not read the cover. I read the whole document. Let me tell you what 
I found out, is a process that was supposed to be inclusive and 
participatory has turned into one that is full of mandates and 
directives from the top down.
  Is the science good? The science is good on the large footprint. But 
if you talk to any of the rangers out there that are managing these 
resources, if you talk to the forest supervisors, they will tell you 
the science for their individual forest management is useless.
  I will tell you what else we determined in the joint hearing, and 
that is that the economics is off.
  I just urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and support this 
provision in the bill.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I find this is a very interesting debate 
because it is characterized as sort of people from somewhere else 
jumping in.
  This plan was put in place by the former Speaker of the House because 
he recognized all the problems we had had on the west side. On the west 
side we had every forest shut down for long periods of time. Not a 
stick of wood was cut anywhere. So he said to himself, let us not 
repeat the mistakes of the west side. Let us develop a coordinated plan 
from the outset between all the forests and all the Bureau of Land 
Management and get this thing done in a way that will actually work.
  What I am hearing from my colleagues here in defending this rider is 
they do not want to have any of the plan. They do not want to have it 
implemented by the Bureau of Land Management. They want to turn it back 
into one fight after another in the courts.
  If you have 74 land management plans, that means you have got 
district by district inside those forests. If one ranger wants to do it 
one way in one district and another ranger wants to do it in the next 
district differently, who is going to coordinate that? Not according to 
my colleagues. They do not want it coordinated. They simply want to let 
everybody have the book and look in it and say, ``Well, that looks 
pretty good for our area. I think we will do that.'' But who 
coordinates that? My colleagues know that will not work.
  So what my colleagues are willing to do tonight is roll the dice. 
They are willing to say let us throw away 5 years of trying to 
coordinate this thing, and we will go back and take our chances and 
cross our fingers that we do not get 74 lawsuits.
  When my colleagues tell me that the environmentalists do not like 
this plan, I agree. They do not. I am not here defending the plan. I am 
defending the process. They do not like this because they do not think 
it got far enough.
  Now, if we read that and we listen to the environmentalists talk 
about it, they are saying this plan does not go far enough. What does 
that imply if it does not get put in place? They are going to go to 
court. If my colleagues do not think there is a judge someplace in the 
Northwest who is going to look at this and say, ``Well, here is what 
the National Environmental Policy Act says, and here is what you are 
doing. They do not match, so we are closing down the forest till we get 
a new plan.''
  We all know, everybody in the Northwest knows that we are right on 
the edge of having salmon as an endangered species. The salmon spawning 
in every single river in the Northwest is in danger. We are going to 
have a coordinated plan for salmon restoration. If you think it is 
going to be done by one county commissioner in one county and another 
county commissioner in another county, it simply will not work because 
the streams run through more than one county.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this 
point. No less than 4 weeks ago, in the northern part of my district, 
there was a Habitat Conservation Plan that was agreed to by all the 
parties. It includes essentially all of the Columbia River north of 
Wenatchee and including all the tributaries on up to the Canadian 
border.
  That is a locally developed plan. I am just suggesting to you that 
that ought to be a model that we ought to pursue, not only on the 
river, I hope is done

[[Page H6158]]

downstream, but also as a model that we can pursue. Because the one 
thing that we have, I think that you will agree with me, I hope you do, 
and that is this: One size does not fit all in as diverse an area as we 
have in the West. There has to be a new way to look at it.
  The HCP that was agreed to by the PUDs in the northern part of our 
district, frankly, can be a model, not only on the river, but also in 
the forested areas.
  I would hope that defeating the gentleman's amendment would lead to 
that because this is where the county commissioners are. This is 
exactly where the county commissioners are in their rejection of the 
one-size-fits-all. That is why I think that with that HCP as a guide, 
which I say was signed no more than 4 or 5 weeks ago, this could be an 
opportunity for us. So I think that it is appropriate that, in fact, we 
defeat the gentleman's amendment, and this is the reason why.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. If the gentleman from New York will yield, Mr. 
Chairman, would the gentleman from Washington just tell me which 
watershed that is? It is the mid-Columbia watershed?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. That is exactly right.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. So the gentleman thinks that it will go section by 
section through the entire Northwest and it will all be coordinated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hastings of Washington, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Hinchey was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, that is precisely the 
point. This is the first step. That is what makes HCP in north central 
Washington so significant, because all parties involved, the 
environmental community, the farming community, the tribes, because, 
after all, they are involved in this as a reservation of the north part 
of my district, they all bought off on this idea.
  The end result at the end of the day, at the end of this time period 
and, by the way, it is scheduled to last for 50 years, and at the end 
of this time period they believe that those fish runs will be enhanced. 
Everybody up there, all parties agree to that.
  I would just suggest to you, as hard as they have worked on this plan 
on that issue, we ought to move from the old model of top-down, one-
size-fits-all and look at that possibility, because it is true, it is 
real, it is right in that ecosystem that we are talking about.
  So, yes, in answer to the gentleman's question, I believe that that 
can happen. I believe that we will, in fact, I believe in the near 
future we may have another one of those HCPs involving some more dams. 
I think that we will continue down that line. Because at the end of the 
day, the beauty of this whole system is that the people that are 
affected will make the decision.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from New York will 
yield, I wish that I had the belief that my colleague does in a system, 
because I saw what happened on the west side, and it did not happen. 
The fact that one area has done it in 5 years that we have been talking 
about, we have got to ask ourselves, where is Oregon? Where is the rest 
of Washington? Where is Montana? Where are all the other affected 
areas? They have had 5 years. They could see it coming down the track 
at them, and they have not done it.
  All these county commissioners who were going to get together, we 
have got one example on 72 million acres. We say, well, if we wait long 
enough, we will have it covered. Yes, we will, in about 25 years, after 
which we have had about 25 lawsuits. The problem with it is, if we do 
not start in a coordinated way at the start, we will never get it 
coordinated.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to my friend, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. McDermott), make his points.
  With regard to the environmental community which opposes this study, 
I do not think I am overstating it. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) said, well, certainly they will sue. They are opposed to the 
study, and they are opposed to a record finding because it does not go 
far enough.

                              {time}  2045

  So they probably will. But what I think is so very important in this 
case is that if you have the scientific information that is being used 
to amend the 74 plans, they are all going to have to be amended anyway, 
if there is a record of decision. But the difference is there is not 
one preferred alternative that affects all seven States and all 144 
million acres. So we have got one particular record decision and 
preferred alternative for Oregon and Montana and Washington and Nevada, 
and that may not apply to eastern Washington.
  What we are trying to do by terminating the study, but using the 
scientific findings in the interests of amending the plans anyway, we 
are not trying to have the alternative that may apply to Oregon, which 
has a different climate than my east side of the State of Washington, 
have it apply there. So the method in this madness is to use the 
science, and not be stuck with a one-size-fits-all policy that assumes 
that this entire region is one region, and we all have the same issues 
and the same environmental conditions, and preserve this local autonomy 
that my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), mentioned 
so well.
  I have great respect for my predecessor. Certainly he stuck the money 
in. But he stuck the money in so the bull trout would not be listed. 
Well, guess what? The bull trout has been listed. After five years, 
roughly, of $40 million of expenditure, we are still fighting that 
issue. I do not buy the argument that if there had been some record of 
decision, it would not have been that somehow the bull trout would not 
have been listed.
  I just think this is a continuation of bureaucracy that will never 
end, and I mean that sincerely. I think now they want another $5.8 
million this year in our bill. We could not afford that. We are trying 
to save money for parks and other things, but still not waste the 
science and $40 million that has been out there. So this local 
decisionmaking and wise use of the information that meets the 
alternatives and the needs of the local communities, I think, just 
makes sense.
  I must say to my friend, you have got the labor union movement that 
is affected in my part of the country saying, ``Don't do this. We 
object to the continuation of this study. We think it ought to be 
terminated, because it means jobs for those who are in the pulp and 
paper industry.''
  Now, I want to preserve jobs too, and I just do not think there is 
any sense that this record of decision that affects all seven States 
with one preferred alternative is going to be the salvation of jobs in 
the Pacific Northwest and in the whole Western States region.
  So I just urge my colleagues, look at it again. It is 144 million 
acres, it is $125 million conservatively of implementation costs. If 
you just look at the Northwest Forest Plan, you can about quadruple 
that number, if not more than that, in terms of cost, in doing the sub-
basin studies. It is a tremendous cost.
  So my view is, let us let these local decisionmakers make judgments 
about the needs of the regions that differ from one another. Use the 
science, but do not have a one-size-fits-all policy at a cost that this 
Congress and the taxpayers cannot afford.
  I yield back to my chairman, with the understanding that there is not 
the money in this budget. We are tight as it is, trying to get this all 
done.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, having suffered through the other side of 
the State and having seen the problems associated with that, I worry a 
little bit, I must say to my friend from Spokane,

[[Page H6159]]

who I have worked with, and my friend from the Tri-Cities, who I have 
worked with, two of my colleagues, that the idea that you can just do 
this without some kind of a comprehensive strategy leaves you 
vulnerable to the lawsuit by the environmental action groups that you 
enjoin.
  They take the scientist in there and they put him under oath.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, they say is the plan that you have got 
sufficient to restore the Chinook salmon run, or is it sufficient to 
restore the steelhead run, or is it sufficient for the bull trout?
  If the scientist says no, the judge enjoins you, and then, instead of 
having the harvest rate up here at maybe 50 percent of what it was, you 
get enjoined, and then you have to come in and come up with a new plan. 
You will be back in Federal Court, they will demand you go out and have 
a plan for the entire area. Then when you have that plan developed, it 
will take you down further.
  I can remember when I stood up here and we could have gotten $2.5 
billion in Region VI on the spotted owl, but the people said no, no, 
no, that is too much, we cannot do that, and they objected to the plan. 
We wound up with $1 billion in the whole region.
  So I just say to my friend from eastern Washington, and the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and I have been very hesitant not to 
get into this tonight, I just worry that if you do not have a strategy, 
if you are just going to leave it go to the local level, and I applaud, 
by the way, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) in support of 
the Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan, and, by the way, that is 
done under the Endangered Species Act. I think it is the ultimate tool. 
This is a tool Pacific Lumber is using in northern California.
  So I just worry that if we completely blow this up, that we wind up 
having nothing, and you leave yourself completely vulnerable to lawsuit 
after lawsuit that will wind up getting your forest. Instead of being 
at 50 percent, you will be down at 10 percent, like I am at the Olympic 
National Forest, a 95 percent reduction because the plan was 
implemented on a regional basis, top down, and we got killed. My people 
up there were very upset and offended by it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just worry that if you do not work out 
something that gets everybody around that table and provides some 
leadership, you guys may have to go out there and sit down with these 
people and get this thing going in the right direction, because somehow 
you have to have a plan.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Nethercutt) to close the debate.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to my friend. There is 
nothing in the Interior Columbia Basic Ecosystem Management Project 
that prevents lawsuits. The gentleman assumes that a seven-State, 144 
million acre plan with one preferred alternative is the answer. It is 
not the answer.
  I submit respectfully to the gentleman, I am willing to work through 
all of this. I have talked to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) and said let us work through this in conference. The Senate 
has a little different feeling about this. But this is not the answer 
to not having lawsuits, and, in my sense, the courts are going to look 
and say is there a scientific study, which my predecessor was trying to 
accomplish. Have a study. There is a study. It did not say a preferred 
alternative or record of decision or a seven-State, 144 million acre 
study. It said a study.
  We have a study. We have adequate scientific information to allow any 
court, in my judgment, to resist any challenges, notwithstanding the 
fact that there is not a record of decision.
  So I understand the gentleman's concern, but I am concerned also. I 
want to have some productivity and multiple use out of our forest 
system, but I do not come to the conclusion that a Federal program, 
such as it has been identified, I think accurately, as a bureaucracy, 
that is top down, not locally decided, which is what was expected in 
the first place, is the answer. There is no assurance in this. We want 
to have some language that says ``no lawsuits.'' I will join into that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was 
allowed to proceed for an additional 30 seconds.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman, I will be 
glad to work with all three gentlemen, my colleague the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott) and my two colleagues from the eastern side 
of the State of Washington. We still need to work something out in 
conference on this issue, regardless of what happens on the McDermott 
amendment. But I want you to know I am still willing to work with you 
all to see if we cannot work out something that makes sense.
  I do not want to see our bill get vetoed over this though. I would 
say to my colleague from Spokane, we cannot risk vetoing the bill. We 
have to work something out here.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) will be postponed.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to advise Members that we are going to rise 
temporarily for a matter, and then we will renew our efforts in title 
III after that. We are going to finish the bill tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4193) 
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________