[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6160-H6172]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1999

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

                              {time}  2104


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4193) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1999, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
request for a recorded vote on the amendment by the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott) had been postponed, and title III was open 
to amendment at any point.

[[Page H6161]]

               Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Gilchrest

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, Amendment No. 21.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Gilchrest:
       Page 122, beginning on line 24, strike section 337.

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss 
this amendment.
  The Coastal Barriers Resource System was created by the Reagan 
Administration in 1982. It was recognized at the time that coastal 
barrier islands are just that: they are barriers. They protect the 
mainland from storms, tidal floods and a number of other things. Absent 
human involvement, these islands are not stable systems. Even with 
human habitation, they are very unstable systems. These islands are 
frequently subject to hurricanes, flooding, and shifting coastlines. 
They basically, Mr. Chairman, are very unstable and on a regular basis 
they are very dynamic.
  Oddly enough, however, they also represent prime oceanfront real 
estate and have been heavily developed in many areas. This development 
typically proceeds with full awareness of the risks involved, and 
worse, very often there is no thought given to the natural processes of 
these dynamic coastal barrier islands. As a result of that, we have 
seen for decades that large amounts of Federal assistance is provided 
then for disaster relief, flood insurance, beach stabilization, roads, 
et cetera, et cetera, after the inevitable storms roll through or 
nature takes its natural course.
  When the Coastal Barrier Resource System was created in 1982, 
approximately a half a million acres was included in the system. In 
1990 it was amended where it was up to about 900,000 acres, and today 
in our system we have about 1.3 million acres in 22 different States in 
the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Great Lakes coasts.
  The Coastal Barrier Resources Act was designed to limit development 
on coastal barrier islands, therefore limiting Federal aid in new 
development projects. The act does nothing to prohibit new construction 
on land within the system. That means if one wants to build a house 
within the system on a national barrier island, one can do that; we 
just with the act limit the amount of Federal responsibility to one's 
particular choice.
  The language in the Interior appropriation bill would remove 75 acres 
from the system in various areas around the State of Florida. It would 
designate 32 acres of a State park as otherwise, and it is already 
protected, but it would designate 32 acres of a State park as land 
within the system, and would add 7 acres to the Coastal Barrier System.
  By comparison, Mr. Chairman, 75 acres does not sound like a lot when 
you compare it to 1.3 million acres in the system, but that is not the 
question. The question is and the problem is that this provision in 
this bill, in effect, has a negative effect on the integrity of the 
whole system. These areas were the areas in question tonight and, in my 
judgment, were legitimately included in the Coastal Barriers Resource 
system.
  This provision in this bill sends a clear rifle shot signal to 
developers that the coastal areas are now, those coastal areas in this 
provision in the bill are now and must be the responsibility of the 
American taxpayers to be responsible for if a hurricane blows through.
  In units of the Coastal Barrier System, the act prohibits Federal 
expenditures on items such as, and right now those areas within the 
coastal barrier system, the Federal Government cannot expend money for 
bridges, sewers, roads, housing, shoreline protection, that is beach 
replenishment projects, water supply, wastewater treatment facilities, 
disaster relief, flood insurance claim payments, and so on and so 
forth. If we take an area out of the Coastal Barriers island system, 
then the Federal Government will be responsible for all of those items.
  Federal subsidies, according to the Congressional Budget Office, for 
coastal development costs the American taxpayer right now $82,000 per 
development acre per year on coastal barrier islands that are outside 
the Coastal Barrier Resource System. According to FEMA's own numbers, 
the Federal flood insurance program in 1997 had a net loss of $117 
million, a net loss. Expanding opportunities to develop in high-risk 
areas will only worsen that condition for ratepayers and taxpayers.
  The National Weather Service says that in this fiscal year, well, 
they do not go according to fiscal years I guess, but in 1998 they say 
there will be 10 storms, 6 of which will be hurricanes.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Gilchrest amendment, 
which affects property and constituents in my district. I have great 
respect for my good friend and colleague from Maryland, but I have to 
disagree with his approach to a Florida issue.
  Two years ago this Congress and President Clinton approved section 
220 of the Omnibus Parks Act of 1996 that removed a net of 36 acres 
that were mistakenly put in the Coastal Barrier Resource System.
  Now, let me say from the outset that I support the Coastal Barrier 
Resource System. My district includes more than 100 miles of beautiful 
Atlantic coastline, and its continued beauty is essential to the 
ecology and the economy of my district. Tourism is the number one 
industry in our State and it is our beautiful coastline that brings 
people there.
  Mr. Chairman, any argument that this correction was slipped through 
the legislative process, and I have heard that from some groups going 
around the Hill, is false. When originally introduced in the 104th 
Congress, this bill sought to exclude almost 200 acres from the system. 
But once it was scrubbed thoroughly by the committee process and 
Florida officials, only a net removal of 36 acres remained. Removal of 
these 36 acres was supported by the entire bipartisan Florida House 
delegation, both of our United States Senators, as well as the governor 
and the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
  Now, let me put this into perspective. We are talking about 36 acres 
spread out over 8 different coastal barrier resource units, out of 
285,000 acres that are in the system in the State of Florida, and 1.2 
million nationwide. It is important to note that the Florida Department 
of Community Affairs, which is our State land agency, originally 
opposed exclusion of these acres, but once they reviewed the evidence 
on these net 36, then they endorsed their removal.
  Any claims that these exclusions were not scrutinized, debated, or 
carefully considered are quite simply wrong. There have been 
congressional hearings on this issue and Florida environmental 
officials went over these properties with a fine tooth comb before 
lending their support.
  So why are we back here today? Well, we are here because the Coastal 
Alliance, not willing to accept the judgment of every government 
official in the State of Florida, the United States Congress, and the 
President, brought a lawsuit against these changes. Now, without 
getting into all of the legalese of the suit, in short, a Federal judge 
overturned Congress's will because the Department of Interior said they 
did not have the new maps on file on the date of enactment.
  The judge's ruling had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of 
this issue. The judge also ruled that the Department should ask 
Congress to address the problem of not being able to carry out 
Congress's intent. So all that the language that is in the bill does is 
what the judge ordered. It carries out the will of this Congress.
  Now, the Coastal Alliance and others think the judge's ruling is an 
opportunity to reopen debate on these properties. It is not. The judge 
specifically asked for a remedy to carry out the will of Congress. The 
language in the bill today is that remedy.

                              {time}  2115

  The entire Florida delegation; the governor; the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), the authorizing chairman; and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior 
Appropriations, still support removal of these properties. In fact, I 
have a letter here from Governor Chiles urging defeat of the Gilchrest

[[Page H6162]]

amendment, which I will ask to submit for inclusion as part of the 
Record.
  The judge did not ask us to review these properties one more time, as 
some would like to do. He asked us to carry out the intent of Congress. 
I would ask my colleagues to join the Florida delegation in reaffirming 
the will of Congress and voting against the Gilchrest amendment.
                                                 State of Florida,


                                            Washington Office,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 1998.
     Hon. Ralph Regula,
     Chairman, Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee, House 
         Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in opposition to the 
     Gilchrest amendment to the FY99 Interior and Related Agencies 
     appropriations bill, dealing with Florida-specific provisions 
     of the Coastal Barriers Resources Act (CBRA).
       As I have previously stated, the State of Florida is very 
     supportive of the purposes of the CBRA to protect and 
     preserve Florida's many pristine barrier lands from 
     development. However, the parcels that are referenced in the 
     Interior appropriations bill are not pristine, undeveloped 
     properties in need of protection, but instead are parcels 
     which were mistakenly included in the original CBRA due to 
     mapping errors. These errors were corrected in P.L. 104-33, 
     which was later overturned in federal court on a 
     technicality.
       The State reviewed the provisions of P.L. 104-33 and 
     believes that these properties should be excluded from the 
     CBRA system. I would urge Members to oppose the Gilchrest 
     amendment.
       With kind regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                    Lawton Chiles.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very hard for me to disagree with the gentlewoman 
from Jacksonville, Florida (Mrs. Fowler), my good friend. I had the 
opportunity to work with her constituents for years and admire their 
concern and their interest. But with all due respect, I have a little 
difficulty with some of the characterization.
  I think it was clear when President Clinton signed the legislation in 
effect in the last session that he was not agreeing to it. In fact, my 
reading of that indicated that there were grave reservations on the 
part of the administration.
  I am here, I guess, because of my grave concerns about the process 
that have been raised by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). 
The way that we handle water resources and development in disaster-
prone areas in this country is itself a disaster.
  Despite spending over $40 billion, for instance, to prevent flooding 
since 1960, flood-related costs adjusted for inflation are about triple 
what they were in the early 1950s, before we started the program. Total 
Federal disaster payments between 1977 and 1993 topped $100 billion. 
Disaster costs have increased 550 percent in the last 10 years.
  Recently, this last week, we were here debating remedy to the Salton 
Sea, which was itself part of an engineering failure on the part of 
efforts to try and impact the environment. I appreciate that disasters 
are not always predictable, but too much development occurs directly in 
harm's way with the taxpayer footing the bill.
  In 1982, as the gentleman from Maryland outlined, the Reagan 
administration and a Democratic Congress passed the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act. I am not going to go through the details that the 
gentleman from Maryland pointed out, but it has saved the taxpayers an 
estimated $11 billion, keeping Federal investment out of millions of 
acres of barrier islands and coastline.
  Mr. Chairman, if people want to build where God does not want them, 
then they ought to step up and pay the price, not the American 
taxpayer. The bill before us invites Federal investments back into the 
path of disaster.
  I personally have reservations in terms of dealing with this as a 
technical amendment in terms of a rider. There is substantive 
legislation that has been considered in the past in the Committee on 
Resources. I would like that dealt with in that fashion. I too have 
reviewed the various parcels. It seems to me that there was, in fact, 
an argument made that they were in fact properly categorized.
  But it seems to me that what we need to do on this floor is to be 
more aggressive in the protection of these issues that protect the 
taxpayer. And, in fact, we should be pushing back, whether it is water 
reclamation projects in the West, mining costs, beach nourishment, 
disaster relief, flooding, levees. Time and time again the taxpayer has 
been stuck with the bill. We have been very, very slow to adjust our 
policies over time. And I am reluctant to see us this evening, through 
the process of the rider process, expand that. I would rather this go 
back to substantive committees.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer) for yielding. I would just like to conclude that I 
compliment the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) for her 
cooperation in her disagreement tonight. I still have strong 
disagreements with the gentlewoman from Florida. I have strong 
agreements with the gentleman from Oregon, and I also want to 
compliment him on his efforts in bringing this issue to light before 
the Members.
  This is not an issue of 32 acres being taken out of the system. It is 
not an issue of 75 acres being taken out of the system. It is an issue 
of creating an environment where we begin to lose a few acres every 
year. I do not want the system to leak.
  Now, I have had discussions with the delegation from Florida, and Mr. 
Chairman, we have a strong commitment by the Florida delegation to work 
to ensure that we lose no more acres to the coastal barrier resource 
system in this country, that the 1.3 million acres that we have now in 
this system will stay intact.
  Because of that commitment, and the dialogue that we have had before 
we reached the floor, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       Page 106, beginning at line 16, strike section 327 (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly).

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply strike the 
provision of the bill that would grant an easement through the Chugach 
National Forest to the Chugach Alaska Corporation. Under a 1982 
settlement, the corporation has a right to access its lands which are 
surrounded by the Chugach National Forest. However, under the 
agreement, access is to be granted through a negotiation with the 
Forest Service and any easement providing access is to be conditioned 
on environmental review and on public comment.
  The rider, which is the subject of this amendment, would effectively 
override all of that process. Instead it would give the corporation the 
right to choose the easement and would exempt its decision from 
environmental review or public comment. Moreover, the grant itself 
would be unusual. The easement would be 250 feet wide, 10 times the 
width of a usual access road, and the easement would be permanent and 
irrevocable.
  This easement would be granted over public lands; in other words, our 
lands, the lands of the public, all the people of the country. No 
private landowner would agree to such an arrangement, and we who are 
the custodians of this land for the public should not agree to it 
either.
  We do not want to deny the corporation legitimate access to its 
lands. It is entitled to that. But the corporation has been negotiating 
with the Forest Service. Its president, in fact, testified before our 
committee earlier this year that the negotiations were proceeding 
amicably. The corporation and the Forest Service signed a memorandum of 
understanding in March that is supposed to produce an agreement later 
this year. The date is in fact December 11.
  The corporation did not say that the Forest Service had been 
difficult or uncooperative in negotiations. But the corporation 
apparently wants to circumvent environmental laws and reviews that 
could just delay the process for a few months.
  It apparently wants a better deal than the Forest Service is likely 
to

[[Page H6163]]

propose. Who would not leap at a chance for such a special deal? But 
that does not mean that this Congress ought to approve it.
  Some people may think we have no interest in the land up there, or 
that our constituents have no interest in it. Why not just give it 
away? However, this section of the Chugach is an unusual section. The 
law requires the Forest Service to manage this area for conservation of 
fish and wildlife and their habitat, the only such place in the Forest 
Service where this language pertains.
  The proposed easement would lie in or near the Copper River Delta, 
said to be the richest habitat for waterfowl and shore birds in the 
Western Hemisphere and the site of the most prolific sporting ground 
for salmon that we have. That is why so many organizations oppose this 
rider. Like myself, they are not saying that we should cut off access. 
They are saying that we should take time, be careful, and follow the 
usual process and the reviews the corporation has agreed to. That is 
all I am asking.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that we are in no way 
suggesting that this road providing access into this land should not be 
built. It is quite clear the corporation has the right to that access. 
That access should be granted. But it should be granted just as any 
other access would be granted. It should be granted in accordance with 
the law.
  We should not, as this present bill provides, override NEPA, override 
the Clean Water Act, override all existing Federal legislation in order 
to give a special grant under these special extraordinary 
circumstances.
  Let us build this road. Let us provide this access under the 
provisions that are going forward. Negotiations are proceeding just as 
they ought to, just as they would proceed in any other case, and they 
will lead to a fruitful conclusion. In other words, an agreement will 
be made and a road will be constructed. But it ought not to be 
constructed by fiat from the Congress. It ought not to be done in any 
way that is extraordinary or special, and that is what is called for 
under the present language.
  Let us build this road, but let us honor the process as we are doing 
so, and once it is done let us make sure that we have done it right.
  With this rider in this appropriations bill, this inappropriate 
rider, this bill is certain to be vetoed. If we approach this in the 
right and proper and just way, then we can get both the bill and the 
road built.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey) for yielding, and I rise in support of his 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Miller of California, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Hinchey was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the 
remarks of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). I think he makes 
an important point about this amendment. That is that due much to the 
activity of our committee chairman, who has the knack of getting 
people's attention in the bureaucracy, I think we are all very 
confident that this agreement is going to be reached by the end of this 
year.
  But it is a question of how we do this and whether we do it, as the 
gentleman said, by fiat, and whether we do it notwithstanding any other 
provision of law. That is a recipe for disaster. It is a recipe for a 
veto. It is a recipe for delay, because people now will drag their feet 
in these negotiations waiting to see whether or not this provision does 
or does not become law.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it will become law. We have had 
conversations with the administration, and yet we also want these 
negotiations to finish by the end of the year. As was pointed out, we 
all acknowledge, as the chairman of our committee has told us numerous 
times at various octave levels, this runs with this land. They are 
entitled to this right-of-way.
  But as was also pointed out, this is an area that was early 
recognized by the House and the Alaskan Native Lands Conservation when 
they sought to make the area adjacent to this a national wildlife 
refuge. That was not achieved. But the special management for fish and 
wildlife was achieved in this forest; I believe the only forest like it 
with that mandate in the country.
  This process has been stop again, start again, stop again, start 
again, by both parties. All the blame is not just with the Forest 
Service. The other parties have been hot and cold on this relating to 
whether or not there is a market for coal, whether or not there is a 
market for timber, and that has influenced this to some extent.
  Mr. Chairman, the time has come to bring this issue to a closure, but 
the time to bring it to closure within the regular order and within the 
laws governing these kinds of activities. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman from New York for his amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not sure the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
was talking about the same language we have in the bill. I would point 
out some things.
  The statement was made that they need time. Well, they have had since 
1971. That is when the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was given 
and that is when this right-of-way was given--1971.
  The Secretary of Agriculture agrees that they are entitled to this 
easement, and both gentlemen likewise agreed. And in 1982, there was an 
agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture. So here we are, 16 years 
later. I think that is enough time.
  The Chugach Alaska Native Corporation has been complying with the 
appropriate environmental requirements and will complete those on 
schedule by the end of December, 1998.
  Now, in the full committee, the language was further amended by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) to include the following: The 
easement was reduced from 500 feet to 250 feet. Secondly, access was 
changed from private to public. And, thirdly, the easement must be 
consistent with all environmental laws.
  I believe the gentlemen over there expressed a concern that this 
easement comply with environmental laws, and that is incorporated into 
the language.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Is it not true, though, that the easement was not 
granted in 1971? In fact, the land area was set up for the tribe in 
1971.
  Mr. REGULA. That is correct.
  Mr. HINCHEY. It was for the corporation. For the corporation in 1971.
  Mr. REGULA. Right.
  Mr. HINCHEY. The easement process was begun in 1982.
  Mr. REGULA. That is correct.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Since then, the corporation has broken off negotiations 
on the easement on a number of occasions. And since then they have sold 
the coal rights on their property to a South Korean corporation. So it 
is only now, or only recently that they have addressed the Forest 
Service, once again, only in the last year, to acquire access into this 
particular piece of property.
  So I just want to make that clear; that several administrations have 
gone by during this process, but that there has not been a consistent 
attempt to establish this right-of-way either since 1971 or since 1982. 
That process has only been very recent.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, would the gentleman agree, though, 
that they are entitled to the easement? Negotiations are underway. They 
are going to comply with the environmental requirements by the end of 
this year. Do we agree on that?
  Mr. HINCHEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, we do agree 
they are entitled to the easement, and they are entitled to 
negotiations to proceed expeditiously. And those negotiations are 
proceeding expeditiously.
  And, in fact, the Memorandum of Understanding, upon which both the 
corporation and the Forest Service have entered into, requires that the 
negotiations be completed by December 11th. But they do not stipulate 
that the right-of-way should be 250 feet wide, which is 10 times as 
wide as the normal right-of-way.

[[Page H6164]]

  Mr. REGULA. Well, reclaiming my time, I think the width of the right-
of-way would be determined by topography, by the soil conditions, and a 
whole lot of variables in Alaska. And I think that that is a decision 
that should be made. The original we had in the bill was 500 feet. We 
agreed, by amendment from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) in 
the full committee to reduce it to 250 feet.
  Mr. HINCHEY. If the gentleman will yield on that point, it is clear 
that what is attempting to be done in the legislation is to establish 
that this right-of-way would be extra negotiated, outside of the 
negotiations, and be established by fiat. And that the right-of-way 
would be a very extraordinary one, indeed, in that rather than the 
customary 25 feet wide, the right-of-way that would be established by 
fiat would be 250 feet wide.
  Mr. REGULA. Staff advises me that the gentleman from Virginia got the 
information to establish the 250 foot right-of-way from the Forest 
Service, and that this was not an uncommon width in Alaska because of 
the unique topographical conditions as well as soil conditions that 
they need to address in establishing the access road.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, but it is true that the Forest Service has not 
agreed to that. This was simply some negotiations that went back and 
forth in the Committee on Appropriations, and that is very proper, I 
understand that, but the conclusion that was arrived at is a very 
inappropriate one indeed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from 
Virginia established the 250 feet from information he received from the 
Forest Service. But, in any event, the Native Americans were promised 
this easement, and I think it is an obligation of this body to keep our 
word.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise reluctantly, trying to be calm.
  This is an outrage. The gentleman from New York has never been to 
Alaska, never been to Chugach, and now he is telling the American 
native people of Alaska that they are wrong; they have no rights. The 
Forest Service is correct and the Wilderness Society is correct.
  Mr. HINCHEY: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am not yielding to the gentleman at all, 
period. I will tell him that right now. Just sit down.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I am sorry to hear that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am not yielding.
  I am telling the gentleman now that this is a deal this Congress made 
in 1971 to the Chugach native people. They had to go to court. In 1982, 
they had a decision from the court that said, yes, they had a right to 
78,000 acres of land and a right of easement and it should be granted 
to them by, and shall be granted by the Forest Service.
  And not through the delta, by the way. South of the delta to the 
Martin River. Nowhere near it. And that is what the court said should 
be done. The Forest Service, because they did not like that decision, 
as an agency have drug their feet again and again.
  And why did the corporation back away from the Memorandum of 
Understanding? Because the Forest Service said we do not have the money 
to do the studies for the right-of-way. So they did the studies. They 
paid for it. Forest Service did it, but the native corporation paid for 
it.
  Now they say they have got a Memorandum of Understanding and we are 
going to bring this to a conclusion by December 1. Let me read the 
gentleman the last page. It says nonenforceable. Nothing herein shall 
be construed as committing and obligating the United States Forest 
Service or the United States.
  So what this tells me, after we go through this whole thing, this 
whole understanding, that the Forest Service, because they have not 
done it since 1982, they are going to say, forget it, American natives. 
We do not care what Congress has said. We are going to do what we want 
to do. That is how we are going to conduct our business. Congress does 
not count.
  I had a 500 foot right-of-way, yes, because in Alaska it takes a 
little more room to build a highway, in that terrain and with the 
climatic challenges, than it does in the State of New York. But the 
corporation said they will never have a road wider than a standard 
road. It will be a two-lane road. It will have public access. And, in 
fact, the property will revert back to the Forest Service when they are 
done using it.
  Now, the mention of coal being sold to Korea, as if it is an evil 
thing to sell their own property. For the gentleman's information, they 
are not going to mine that coal. What they want to do is develop some 
timber. Yes, they want to do that as their right.
  So I am going to suggest that the gentleman's amendment is 
mischievous. It, in fact, is evil, because he is going against the 
intent of this Congress and the American native people that owned this 
land long before he was born. In fact, the gentleman ought to be 
ashamed of himself. What he is trying to do to these people is really 
wrong. * * * He is going back on the word of this Congress against the 
first citizens of this great Nation. It was their land, and the 
gentleman wants to take away their right that this Congress gave them 
under an act.
  That just blows my mind, that someone from New York State, that has 
never been there, has never seen this area, never talked to the people 
can, in fact, promote something that has been given to him by one of 
the wilderness associations that promotes its ill will in this capital 
every day. No honesty, no direct influence at all, other than the fact 
that they think this is wrong.
  I am ashamed, in fact, to see an amendment like this against the 
people of the great State of Alaska.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the words be taken down. I ask 
the gentleman's words be taken down.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the words. Which words would the 
gentleman like?
  Mr. HINCHEY. Immoral and corrupt.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the words.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alaska will state his inquiry.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I inquire, what words are being struck? What 
words? Just to say he wants to strike the words, what words?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry. 
The Clerk is presently transcribing the words and when they are 
reported the House will determine that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Can the gentleman answer me that?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alaska will suspend.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Will the gentleman repeat the question?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. What words is the gentleman asking be struck?
  Mr. HINCHEY. While I was asking the gentleman to yield, I believe 
that he used the words immoral and corrupt, and I am concerned about 
what context he used those words in and to whom they were referring.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Alaska may 
explain.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I think the amendment was; I was not referring 
to the gentleman.
  Mr. HINCHEY. To whom was the gentleman referring, then?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I was referring to the amendment itself as it is 
written. It strikes me it was really due to these American natives. If 
I am referring to the gentleman, I apologize for that. I will apologize 
for that.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Is the gentleman suggesting that an amendment that I 
wrote is immoral and corrupt?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I think, in fact, it is immoral, yes. I do not 
think it is corrupt.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I think the gentleman used the word corrupt.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I did, and I apologize for that.
  I will withdraw the words if they are that offensive.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the words are withdrawn.
  There was no objection.

[[Page H6165]]

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am rising in opposition to the gentleman from New 
York's amendment that affects this easement language that is contained 
in our subcommittee report and the bill.
  I have lived in Alaska, spent a year continuously there, and spent 
4\1/2\ years traveling literally throughout the entire State of Alaska 
and, in fact, worked on the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in the 
U.S. Senate as a staff person. So I have some sense of the agreement 
that was reached then and the respect under which it was given.
  In fact, I agree, in many, many respects, with the gentleman from 
Alaska relative to the commitment that was made to the Native American 
peoples under the Native Claims Settlement Act.
  I believe that the amendment of the gentleman from New York strikes a 
blow against the Native American private property owners. The amendment 
strikes a provision that is necessary for the Federal Government to 
keep a promise it made in 1982. I suggest that any of us in Washington 
State or New York or any other State of the Union would be offended if 
we had to wait from 1982 to 1998 to have the Federal Government fulfill 
a commitment that was made to our people.
  I have great respect for the gentleman from Alaska for standing up 
for his State; he should and he is. All too common, Mr. Chairman, in 
this country, in this body, people from outside the area of concern are 
trying to influence what happens in the States, whether it is my 
western State, people from the East Coast trying to influence what 
happens in my State and tell our residents what is good for us. The 
same is true especially of Alaska.
  I think this Congress many times has taken great liberty with the 
State of Alaska. I have lived there. I have seen what impact it has on 
the people who are there and this is another example of that.
  In our bill, in the chairman's bill, the Subcommittee on Interior of 
the Committee on Appropriations, on which I serve, made clear that this 
250 foot easement was just that, it is an easement for purposes of 
constructing a roadway into the land of the people who own it. It has 
been a 16-year saga of trying to get that decided.
  This is not some superhighway or freeway that the native people there 
are trying to build. It is just not the case. It is a roadway to get 
from point A to point B into their own lands and use it for their own 
purposes, which are legitimate.
  In our bill, we say nothing in this section waives any legal 
environmental requirement with respect to the actual road construction. 
It does not waive environmental laws. It is not trying to put up a 
high-rise on this 250 easement. But 250 feet in Alaska is different 
than 250 feet in the lower 48 in terms of the needs of the area there 
to do the construction that is necessary, to just build a two-lane 
road. And that is the commitment they have made.
  So I really think it is offensive that the Native American people, 
the Chugachs, have to fight this battle for 16 years to try to get some 
relief. That is all this is, is trying to get some relief so they can 
get what is rightfully theirs.

                              {time}  2145

  It is clear that without this road, that the natives cannot get 
access to lands that Congress gave them. There was extensive debate in 
this body and in the other body settling the claims of the Alaskan 
natives. It is a breach of that commitment and that agreement and that 
settlement for now us having to be here fighting off this finality 
which I think is very important to the State of Alaska and the people 
of Alaska. In 16 years, the Federal Government has not given the 
natives the easement necessary for access to their lands, not somebody 
else's lands, their own lands. This bill grants that easement. The 
chairman is right. We sat in the full committee and acceded to the 
amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) on the 
representation that this was what was necessary by the Forest Service 
and acceptable to the Forest Service for this construction and this 
easement to occur. This will go on and on and on in grand unfairness to 
the people of Alaska and the natives of Alaska if we do not resolve 
this today. The gentleman's amendment will enable the Federal 
Government to continue to breach its promise. I urge that it be 
rejected.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been suggested that without this rider, there 
will be no access to the Chugach. I want to make it perfectly 
understandable and plain that that is not true. There is a negotiation 
going on now between the Chugach Corporation and the Forest Service. 
The memorandum of understanding upon which they have entered into 
requires an agreement by the 11th of December. What this rider would do 
is override that process and it would establish this access by fiat, 
disregarding the laws established by this Congress on numerous 
occasions. That is precisely what this would do.
  It has been suggested that this has been an interminable process, 
beginning back in 1982, and it has been obstructed, it has been 
suggested, by the Forest Service on more than one occasion. Again let 
me say that is not so. What has happened in the process of these 
negotiations is simply this. The leadership of the corporation has 
changed hands on several occasions. The direction of the corporation 
has changed on several occasions. It is only recently that they have 
come back to the table, wanting to conclude the negotiations, and those 
negotiations are going forward and they will conclude in an orderly, 
respectful fashion by the end of this year, given their own head. What 
this rider does is interrupt that. And it does something else, 
unfortunately. It is so wrong and so contrary to normal process that it 
is strongly objected to by the Forest Service and the Department, and 
it has been recommended to the President that on this basis alone if 
this bill passes with this rider that the bill be vetoed. That is how 
objectionable this rider is. The sad part about it is it is so totally 
unnecessary. This is an exercise of imprudence at best. If it were not 
to happen, the access would be granted, the road could be built, and 
everything that the Chugach Corporation wants in this regard would be 
acceded to. But since it is being done in this particular way, in the 
context of this rider, it places the whole process in jeopardy. I hope 
that that is clearly understood. The likelihood that this process will 
conclude amicably and favorably is jeopardized by the presence of this 
rider. If the rider is removed, the likelihood that the process will 
conclude amicably and in due course and expeditiously is guaranteed.
  I hope that all those who respect the law, respect this Congress and 
what it has done over the years, respect lawful process, and also wish 
the best end of this process for the Chugach Corporation will join me 
in opposition to this rider.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. I want to make it clear that we are not disregarding the 
law. This is simply to expedite this action and this provision in the 
bill is for that purpose. I think we agree that it ought to be done. 
They are entitled to it. What we are trying to do is to get for these 
natives something that they were given by an original agreement, that 
has been delayed through various bureaucratic problems. Let us get on 
with it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. The gentleman must know that the rider says, ``Without 
regard to any provision of law,'' and so it overrides the entire 
process. This document represents the agreement that is about to be 
signed within the next couple of months by everyone involved. This is 
the process that has been engaged in. What happens is that this rider 
overrides this whole process and throws out the law.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I just quote 
from the bill: ``Nothing in this section waives any legal environmental 
requirement with respect to the actual road construction.''

[[Page H6166]]

  Mr. HINCHEY. If you read the first phrase, though, it says, 
``Notwithstanding any provision of law.'' Do not forget the read the 
first phrase. The introductory clause in this case is critically 
important.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Miller of California

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

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Miller of California:
       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 construct any road in the Tongass National Forest.

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think we are toward the end 
of the amendments in this legislation and fortunately this is a very 
straightforward amendment.
  It is intended to prohibit the Forest Service from using appropriated 
funds to construct new timber roads in the Tongass National Forest in 
Alaska. It saves money and it protects old-growth forest at the same 
time.
  The Tongass already has over 4,600 miles of permanent roads which 
have been built with the help of taxpayer subsidies for the timber 
industry. In fiscal year 1997, the Tongass timber program lost over $33 
million, by far the biggest money loser in the Nation, in part because 
of 79 miles of new roads that were constructed. Because of the 
difficulty in construction and the terrain, these are some of the most 
expensive roads within the Forest Service.
  The recently revised Tongass Land Management Plan would allow 
construction for up to an additional 110 miles of new roads annually. 
While this is less than the last decade's average of 168 miles 
constructed annually, it represents a major impact on the environment 
and would require significant outlays of taxpayer dollars. Because this 
plan is being reviewed on appeal by the Secretary, the Forest Service 
has not included the Tongass in the draft proposed roads moratorium.
  It especially does not make sense to use appropriated funds to build 
new timber roads in the Tongass when the Forest Service has already 
been waiving local processing laws in order to allow the logs to be 
exported to Japan and to other countries. During 1997, the Forest 
Service permitted the export of over 100 million board feet of timber 
cut from the Tongass.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee's bill proposes to eliminate purchaser 
road credits and to reduce to $1 million direct spending to build new 
roads. This amendment would seek to assure that no such funds would be 
used to build roads in the Tongass. It is pro-taxpayer, I believe it is 
pro-environment, and I urge the Members to support this amendment.
  I would also say that this amendment is necessary because we see a 
sort of Soviet style economic decision in the Senate which demands that 
the Tongass engage in over 240 million board feet annually, an amount 
more than double the current demand-driven cut of 100 million. So I 
think that this amendment is also important for that reason because of 
actions being taken in the Senate. I would urge passage of this 
amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, some things never change. This 
Tongass fight has been going on for a long time. In all regards to my 
good friend, the ex-chairman of the committee, I can remember in 1989 
that the gentleman from California worked very hard to solve the 
Tongass problem. We very frankly thought we had solved it. In 1990, 400 
million board feet were being cut. I was told by the gentleman from 
California that the mills would still run, there would be plenty of 
timber. In fact he quoted, if I may quote,

       Wilderness designation for the 23 areas would reduce the 
     scheduled Tongass timber harvest of 450 million board feet 
     annually by 49 million board feet. The impact of new 
     wilderness on the scheduled timber base of 1.75 million acres 
     is a loss of 238,000 acres. The remaining 1.5 million acres 
     of land scheduled for harvest is capable of producing over 
     400 million board feet of timber per year.

  Because of the Forest Service and this administration, a lot of 
inactivities and the continued taking away of lands, we are now down to 
very frankly 267 million board feet maybe if the Forest Service sells 
any. And, by the way, the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller) after 1990, we have no more saw mills, pulp mills left in the 
State. That is why there is no demand.
  We are trying to develop three or four small mills. Very frankly that 
is what we are trying to do. We need roads in the area if we are to 
have any timber. You cannot get timber unless you have roads. Even the 
President agreed with this. Even the Forest Service agreed with this, 
that there has to be roads to get the timber out. What the Miller 
amendment does very frankly is to make sure there is no new timber cut 
in the Tongass. Otherwise there will be no more timber industry. I will 
be very frank with the gentleman from California that if he would say 
that is what he wanted to do in 1980 or 1990, I might have said, 
``Okay, that is the way the game is played,'' but not to tell me we are 
going to have plenty of timber.
  The other thing I might remind people that he killed 4,600 jobs in my 
southeast area. There is no forestry. There are a lot of forest rangers 
but no forestry being done. Actually I believe a zero cut in the 
Tongass is the goal.
  It was mentioned about roads in the Tongass. To just give my 
colleagues an idea, Mr. Chairman, we do not know how many roads will be 
built in the new areas to get timber out. We have no idea. But I will 
tell my colleagues that in West Virginia, the Tongass is the same size, 
17 million acres. West Virginia has 35,110 miles of road, and it is 
still called a rural State. Thank God for Senator Byrd. They have 
35,110 miles of road and in the Tongass we have 2,000 miles of road. If 
you want to drive to Juneau, you cannot, the capital. If you want to 
drive to Petersburg, you cannot. If you want to drive to Sitka, you 
cannot. If you want to drive to Wrangell or any other place, you 
cannot, because we have no roads. There are 35,110 miles of road in 
West Virginia, the same size as the Tongass, and we have 2,000 miles of 
road. But what we are trying to do here is preserve what little 
remaining timber industry we have.
  If we were to adopt the Miller amendment, if we were to adopt it, we 
would say no more timber shall be harvested in Tongass. If that is the 
intent of Mr. Miller, I would suggest he offer that amendment, that he 
says there will be no more timber period ever harvested out of that 
area. Then we go back to 1990 where he said there would be 
approximately 400 million board feet still available after we set this 
aside for a wilderness area in the Tongass.
  I am going to ask my colleagues just to consider this for a moment. 
In all due respect to my good friend, my ranking member, he does not 
want any timber harvesting left in the Tongass forest. I argue that we 
reached this agreement in 1990, we signed off on it with the 
environmental community. CEAC said in fact there will be peace in the 
valley. No longer any need to debate, this is behind us, let us go 
forth and do what is correct. Let us progress in more positive things. 
Yet here tonight at this late hour, we have a gentleman who it was 
involved in 1986, in 1989, in 1990, in three different Tongass bills. 
And we have it before us tonight.
  I urge the defeat of this amendment. It is not only mischievous, I am 
going to suggest respectfully, it is an attempt to kill the forest 
industry.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As he 
knows, I did not force the pulp mill to act in violation of criminal 
law and to

[[Page H6167]]

be successfully prosecuted under criminal law so that they ended up 
losing their rights in the forest.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, that was not both mills and 
the gentleman from California knows that. Do not say that.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman knows why the pulp mills are 
not there, too.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Because there is no more timber.
  Mr. MILLER of California. There is no market.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. There is no market because you have no timber.
  Mr. MILLER of California. No, there is no market for the pulp.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thought we had settled the Tongass matter in 1997 
with the law of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and 
apparently not, because we are getting another bite of the apple 
proposed tonight.
  At the time the 1997 Miller Tongass law passed, 3,000 people were put 
out of work; 1,600 were left. If this amendment is agreed to, 600 more 
workers will be out of work almost immediately.
  I am somewhat surprised, and I have not been to the Tongass, but 
there must be some concern about 600 families that are suddenly going 
to be out of jobs, because from what little bit I know of Alaska, I do 
not think they are making any steel or bearings or tires or 
refrigerators in Alaska. If these people do not work in the timber 
industry, where will they work?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California. Maybe he can 
answer that.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would answer that by asking 
the gentleman a question. Are there appropriated funds in this bill for 
roads in the Tongass?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the Forest 
Service would make that decision. There is money for road building.
  Mr. MILLER of California. So out of the $1 million, that money can be 
appropriated to the Tongass?
  Mr. REGULA. That is going to be their decision.
  Mr. MILLER of California. But that is $1 million nationwide.
  Mr. REGULA. It is for new roads.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Right.
  Mr. REGULA. That is correct. But does this amendment only apply to 
the $1 million?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it says no appropriated 
funds, whatever we end up determining is appropriated for new roads, 
that none of those appropriated funds would be used for new road 
construction.
  Mr. REGULA. Is this applicable only to the $1 million?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, if that is the only appropriated 
monies for new roads.
  Mr. REGULA. So what is the gentleman suggesting?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Apparently my amendment is going to lay off 
600 people. The gentleman's bill does not have any money in it for new 
roads to begin with. We are down to $1 million nationwide. So let us 
not pretend like somebody cares about people, and other people do not 
at this point.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, let us clarify it. Does the gentleman's 
amendment apply to reconstructed roads?
  Mr. MILLER of California. No.
  Mr. REGULA. So if they could reconstruct roads to keep these jobs, 
that would be permissible.
  Mr. MILLER of California. That is a very important point. This has 
been one of the most aggressive road building programs per board feet. 
I mean, let us not pretend like there is not timber to cut off existing 
roads.
  With all due respect to the Alaska delegation, and admiration, they 
have done very well in pushing roads that far exceed the purpose of the 
road for the timber that was taken off of previous sales. So it is not 
like they cannot meet 100 million board feet off of existing roads.
  Let us not pretend the road is only good for that one sale and we 
never go back. That is not the history of forest roads anywhere, and it 
is certainly not the history here when you look to the extent to which 
roads have been pushed into the Tongass already in the name of previous 
sales.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if these are 
reconstructed roads, then the gentleman does not have a problem with 
that?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Exactly.
  Mr. REGULA. The gentleman wants to help to keep the jobs.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. REGULA. So the gentleman is not interested in stopping logging in 
the Tongass; is that correct?
  Mr. MILLER of California. No, I never have been. Ten years ago we 
made a deal, Senator Stevens and I, and we said for 10 years, that that 
would be it on the Tongass. It was not a matter of months before riders 
started appearing on Senate appropriations bills directing cuts in the 
Tongass.
  We all have great admiration for Senator Stevens, but he is the one 
that continued, continued to alter that original agreement that we had. 
I do not like the results but I have got to admire the talent. He has 
never stopped, as those Members on the Committee on Appropriations, I 
see them all smiling here, they know exactly what I am talking about. 
They have never had an appropriations bill move where there is not 
something tricking up.
  He tried to change the forest plans. He tried to go back to the old 
plans. He tried to increase the cuts. He tried to increase the roads. 
He tried to bail the industries out of problems. Bang-di-di-bang-di-di-
bang. This guy has never slept. I guess I misunderstood. I thought we 
shook hands, and he said we were going to go away for 10 years. I think 
he said he was never going to sleep for 10 years. That is what 
happened.
  So this is not some unilateral course. As the Chairman knows, this is 
a very, very active subject matter in these appropriations bills, and 
it usually runs afoul of forest policy and the administration and all 
of the rest of it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, our bill presently does 
not mention the Tongass, as the gentleman knows.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Right.
  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, one other question: Does the gentleman 
think his amendment will in any way affect the contractual obligations 
of the Federal Government?
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I do not know why it would. It would not 
affect the previous purchaser credits, no.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think if there is some just possibility 
that it would, it could create a great liability. I would also point 
out that the Society of American Foresters and many labor unions oppose 
the Miller amendment, because they must have some concern that it will 
substantially reduce the employment base in Alaska.
  Mr. MILLER of California. That has been a historical proposition.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, in answering the question of the 
contractual agreement of the forest, it will affect the ability to take 
trees off that forest. There is no doubt about that. With all due 
respect to the gentleman from California, I do believe his legal staff 
will tell him that.
  I am going to suggest this issue is not in this bill. This is the 
first time I believe on this House floor that we have not had a Tongass 
provision in the committee bill that came to the floor. I never tried 
to put one in.
  Mr. MILLER of California. He is quite correct. He is quite correct. 
Very rarely do they initiate over here.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen will suspend. The gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula) is not a mere spectator. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) controls the time.
  The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)

[[Page H6168]]

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to stress that again. This 
issue I thought had been put to bed. The good Senator, bless his heart, 
never does sleep. But to be frank, I would suggest to the gentleman 
from California, if he wants to open up the Tongass, and he has his 
amendment adopted, he will really have an opportunity. And I will tell 
him, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula) will tell him, he does not want to go through this.
  So I was trying to do something correct for many times, dead serious, 
not to have the Tongass mentioned in the bill at all, so there would 
not be a door open for my good senior Senator who is very persevering.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, let me just say if this was 
the World Wrestling Federation, this tag team from Alaska would be the 
world's champions.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate there is nothing 
in this bill, but we already know that the Senate is mandating more 
than doubling the cut of 240 million board feet. This is the Soviet 
Union saying we are going to cut this. There is no market. The price is 
falling. But what they need to make it all work is tax subsidized 
roads.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield again?
  Mr. REGULA. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, as I have said, I have left the 
Tongass, as the gentleman from Washington will say, out of this bill. 
We have reached an agreement on our side with those people that do not 
like road purchases of credit, et cetera, et cetera. We reached that 
agreement, so that is not in the bill. That has been agreed to.
  Now the gentleman from California's amendment comes along and very 
frankly breaches that agreement. So I want to say, in all respects, if 
you open this box the agreement is off as far as the future in the 
conference.
  Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman 
does know that the Tongass is not part of the moratorium which is the 
basis for the agreement.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That was done by the administration. That was 
done by the Forest Service rightfully due. I am saying that was 
rightfully done. We had a TLUMP process. We were told it followed the 
TLUMP. That is the planning program. We were told that. We have 
followed that. We are going to follow it if everything goes forth.
  Mr. MILLER of California. We have this wonderful agreement over here 
on the other side. I can hear the heart beating over there and it is 
240 million board feet.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman's amendment is 
adopted, I can guarantee him with my two Senators on the other side 
this is going to become one of the major issues. I tried very 
systematically to leave the Tongass out, on behalf of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), on behalf of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks), and leave the Tongass out of it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, in fact, I encourage the gentleman 
to withdraw the amendment and let this thing go over to the Senate side 
without the mention of Tongass and see what happens. But if the 
gentleman leaves it in there, I want to tell him, Katie bar the door, 
if he thinks El Nino is bad, try this one.
  Mr. MILLER of California. That river boat is coming right to the 
forefront here.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, based on that persuasive testimony, will 
the gentleman withdraw the amendment?
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will not 
because he has such great admiration for this team over there. We know 
what is coming from the other side. It is clearly a decision to try and 
to drive additional roads and additional cuts far beyond the market-
driven cut here. I think this is an important amendment. It is two old 
war horses up here.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, let me just close by saying I urge all 
Members to reject this amendment. We closed the Tongass issue in the 
past, and let us move on.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will admonish all Members that referring to 
Senators by name, even in the context of being wrestlers, or referring 
to Senate action or inaction, is not appropriate.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is pretty hard for me to tell whether we are at the 
sublime or the ridiculous end of the evening given where we are at this 
point. My mind is certainly reeling from the discussion about the 
millions of board feet in different ways that that would happen.
  But the one thing that I think I pick up out of this is that we have 
built roads, and we have harvested timber. The Forest Service says 
that, in 1997, the timber program in the Tongass cost $33 million to 
the U.S. taxpayers. So the combination of road building and timber 
harvest costs us $33 million.
  Going back some years before that, from 1992 to 1994, the GAO says 
that the costs over that 3-year period was $100 million. The cost to 
the taxpayers, which again means the roads that were built, whatever 
were built, and whatever access that provided, and whatever was cut on 
that basis has cost the taxpayers $100 million. In the more recent time 
that is at least a third, at least a third, more than a third of the 
total timber program losses that the U.S. Forest Service has sustained.
  It would appear that each sale in the Tongass is yielding a loss in 
substantial part because of the costs to the taxpayers of building the 
roads. We are now being told, well, yes, but we are not talking about 
building new roads but only of reconstructing the old ones which 
certainly are expensive in their own right.
  In order to get to more timber where the major part of the problem or 
a major part of the problem is that the markets and the weather 
extremes in the circumstances mean that logging is going to be 
basically not profitable without the substantial subsidy of the 
building of the access to it.
  I suspect that the vast majority of Americans would recognize this 
combination as a bad deal for the taxpayers and prefer to stop digging 
the hole deeper as we go.
  Earlier this year, and I recognize that the Tongass is not part of 
the agreement, that is part of the issue, that the agreement was 
reached by Congress and the Forest Service to end the subsidized road 
building in roadless areas in the national forests. Why? Because 
generally it is environmentally destructive. It produces erosion and 
siltation of the waterways and that that has an adverse effect upon 
habitat, particularly because of silt and waterways for fishing stocks.
  So the program of building new roads into national forests has been 
ended essentially except for that in Alaska. So the bill creates a 
special case in Alaska to allow this road building to continue, whether 
new or I am not sure after the discussion, although I listened very 
carefully to it, whether it is new or just reconstruction of the roads 
that are already there to do this in Alaska in the Tongass, which is 
our only remaining temperate rain forest.

                              {time}  2215

  So the road building program there is really a jobs program. For 
those who want less government or smaller government, then I would 
suggest that we ought to be voting against it in order to cut out 
wasteful corporate welfare.
  From my point of view, coming from the Northeast, it is sort of an 
add-insult-to-injury, in a sense, because the

[[Page H6169]]

subsidy that would be required here to do this timber cut, which by all 
the figures in the past has been continually done at a loss to the U.S. 
taxpayers, that subsidy comes out of the hides of other parts of the 
country.
  In my area and congressional district, the largest manufacturing in 
my district is paper manufacturing, and there is a good deal of 
timbering that goes on in some of the States in the Northeast. But we 
have need for programs and use programs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Olver was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, in my part of the country we depend upon 
things like the Economic Action Plan, the Forest Stewardship, the 
Forest Legacy Program, and yet each year, especially this year, the 
chairman and the ranking member have to struggle very hard to find ways 
to fund those programs and to keep them running, based upon sound 
industry practices to promote economic development and natural 
resources protection. But each of them is being squeezed down over time 
and, instead, we are doing something which is a major subsidy to the 
industry by all indications from how it has operated and what the GAO 
says and what the Forest Service says about the net cost of the program 
in this instance there.
  There are other costs involved in such a program. We would expect it 
to cost both in tourism and fishing, as I have already mentioned. And 
here we are, while we are trying to get other countries to protect 
their rain forests and actually paying, in some cases putting money 
into that, here we are with our taxpayers being sent a bill to cut down 
our own last remaining or major remaining temperate rain forest.
  So with all of those thoughts under consideration, I would urge that 
Members of this body support the Miller amendment when it comes up for 
a vote tomorrow.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Young of Alaska, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Olver was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Does the gentleman have any idea what size the 
Tongass Forest is?
  Mr. OLVER. I think the gentleman told us what size it is earlier. It 
was the size of the State of West Virginia.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the reason I asked that question, 
the gentleman said we are cutting the last rain forest down. Does the 
gentleman know how many acres are left, of 17 million acres that are 
available to even think about harvesting?
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes. But this is what 
the debate is over. In essence, it really does not matter. If every 
time we build another road into that area it costs more to build the 
road than the value of the timber cut that we get, we are costing the 
taxpayers every time more than we are getting back from that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I am not debating that. I am debating the comment that we are 
cutting the last rain forest. We have about now left in that forest, 
about, get this, 11 million acres of rain forest that will not be 
touched. Nobody takes that into credit.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Olver was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am surely not meaning to infer that we are 
cutting the last piece of rain forest that is the size of this Chamber 
or any such thing. Rain forests and the continuous convergence of 
cutting all around rain forests, whether they be in Costa Rica or in 
Sumatra or Borneo or the Amazon or in the Tongass, which is our largest 
and one that does contain substantial old growth forests which have 
never been cut, it is the major remaining temperate rain forest that we 
have. We are cutting into it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, 93 percent of the forest is left. Ninety-three percent is 
left, and now, get this, of the 93, that is all 500-year-old trees. But 
do forests grow back?
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, surely, over a very long 
period of time. We plant at best not for our own generation, but for 
our grandchildren's generation. So it takes a very long time to grow 
back.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. So if a dead tree is dead, a dead tree is dead, 
and there is no harvesting of trees. Of the 93 percent, that means 
there will be no new trees. So, for future generations, that is nothing 
but dead trees.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the very points that the 
gentleman is making, the gentleman is saying 500-year-old trees that 
are there, that have taken a good portion of that time, certainly they 
were probably merchantable, timberable a good number of years ago, but 
not by any means 200 or 300 years ago.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, when we had a lot of these 
Alaska issues on a debate, Chairman Udall led a trip, and we had all of 
the scientists on board one of the tour ships, one of your ferry 
systems going down to Sitka.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Miller of California, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Olver was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of California. They were talking about reforestation and 
how soon these trees would grow back. So we were looking, as the 
gentleman said, at 500-year-old trees and 400-year-old trees, and there 
were people from the forestry industry that said, ``See all this? It 
will be back in 30 years.''
  How the hell will it be back in 30 years, when it took 500 years to 
grow the first time? Plus you know what happens to the soil on these 
slopes. A lot of these will not be back. That is why it took 500 years 
for that tree to get there.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, not in Alaska. They are not talking about the same forest 
condition the gentleman has in California. I can say the same areas 
that have been growing timber since we harvested in 1900, they are now 
considered old growth trees. They are only 100 years old.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver) has again expired.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for two 
additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object. We have to get to a vote on this. 
We have gone on and on and on. Can we not vote on this amendment, 
please?
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Pappas

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

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Pappas:
       Insert after the final section the following:
       Sec.  . The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount for ``land acquisition and 
     state assistance'' under the heading ``National Park 
     Service'' (to provide funds for the State assistance program) 
     and reducing the amount for ``grants and administration'' 
     under the heading ``National Endowment for the Arts'', by 
     $50,000,000.

  Mr. PAPPAS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.

[[Page H6170]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will reorder priorities in 
this Congress and this Interior appropriations bill. I know time is 
short and the chairman and ranking member have been here for quite some 
time, so I will be brief to explain what I am trying to do here.
  This amendment would move $50 million into the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund Stateside Grant Program and reduce funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts by $50 million.
  The Stateside Grant Program, which is a matching grant program, helps 
States in recreational and open space efforts. This is a very good bill 
and it is a lean year.
  I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for their efforts. 
Finding offsets is hard to do in this tightly constructed bill. For 
example, yesterday the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and 
I offered an amendment to move $30 million into the Stateside Grant 
Program under the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Yesterday, 203 
Members of this House supported this effort. However, many were 
troubled at the offset chosen.
  This amendment is another attempt to find more acceptable offsets to 
fund an important function in the Land and Water Conservation Fund. To 
me, funding open space and recreational efforts is a more important 
priority to central New Jersey and the people of this country. I am a 
great supporter of the arts. However, I believe putting money into the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund is a more important priority because 
so much of our open space is disappearing.
  Yesterday we had a full and fair debate on the propriety of the 
government support for the arts. I do not intend to replay yesterday's 
debate. However, the vote on the amendment of the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) was a vote to support funding arts. The 
level of funding is a different matter, especially when there is an 
opportunity to help the quality of life of all Americans helped by the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  This amendment would reduce NEA funding to $48 million, which would 
be roughly $1 million for each state. New Jersey presently does well 
under the NEA compared to other States. However, we need to do much 
better in the Land and Water Conservation Fund funding and having the 
Federal Government more active in helping States do more to match 
recreation and open space efforts of the States.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge this Congress to vote for this amendment as a 
statement of our commitment of proper priorities and our dedication to 
protecting open space and our communities.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to disagree with my colleague from New 
Jersey. I think we have here obviously a conflict of major things 
within one appropriations bill. The fact is that we won that battle for 
the arts by 253 to 173. I would hope we do not have to fight that every 
day the bill remains before us.
  But it seems to me the answer to the gentleman's question on the how 
to acquire land and open space and all the rest means that the Forest 
Service ought to start prioritizing its various forests, portions of 
various forests, and we ought to be talking about land exchanges, not 
moving money from the arts, which means a lot to thousands of 
schoolchildren in America and millions of other people.
  I am sure the chairman has explored that, but I would think we need 
to be more vigorous in the Forest Service in classifying the weaker 
part of a forest with the richer part of the forest and making the 
availability of millions of acres, which perhaps would gain the type of 
space the gentleman needs closer to the urban populations that would 
profit from it.
  I would hope the gentleman might go that route, rather than create a 
friction within the House of Representatives of the arts versus trees, 
because a lot of us are for both of them.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. As the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) just pointed out, the House 
exercised its will yesterday on the matter of the National Endowment 
for the Arts.
  The gentleman offering this amendment does quite well, as he pointed 
out, New Jersey does, but let me speak of his own district. In his 
district, he has four NEA grants alone that total over $210,000, almost 
a quarter of a million dollars. When you consider there are 435 
Congressional districts competing for $98 million, you have to say that 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas) does extraordinarily well.
  Let me mention a few of those grants in the gentleman's district. The 
National Poetry Series, to support the work of five upcoming winners of 
the 1999 National poetry, an open competition. The McCarter Theater 
Company, it supports the production of a new musical.

                              {time}  2230

  The Princeton Art Museum tour, touring an exhibit entitled The Art 
and Culture of Chinese calligraphy. The American Boys Choir School, 
which gets by itself $120,000 to support their efforts to plan and to 
stabilize their endowment.
  While I am sure that land and water certainly does add to the quality 
of life and to the joy of living, without any question I think that 
these programs that the NEA helps to leverage also do a great deal for 
the quality of life in the district of the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pappas). It is very shortsighted for him to attempt to take half 
the money in what is already I think agreed by many of us to be an 
extremely underfunded program.
  The NEA's direction from this Congress is to try to reach into every 
nook and cranny in the United States, and it is doing a very good job 
of doing that. The things that we know now about the importance of the 
arts and the effect that it has on the developing child, making a child 
a better student, giving them self-respect, teaching them discipline, 
all the things that we want for America's children, the ability to 
really develop one's mind and one's ability in science and math 
directed to the attention given and being exposed to music, 
particularly piano and dance, is certainly undisputed in this country 
today, and again is something that we very badly need and we very badly 
want.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much my cochair of the Congressional 
Members Arts Organization, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), 
and he and I have worked very diligently in trying to keep this program 
alive. Thanks again to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the 
chairman of the subcommittee, for his good work on NEA. I would urge 
that the House not pass this amendment and recommend very strongly a 
``no'' vote, should it come to a vote tomorrow.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's sentiments, 
but I also need to refer to the document that I have before me, which 
is the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, which I will 
include for the record. From that, there is a reference to ``not less 
than $300 million for fiscal year 1977 and $900 million for fiscal year 
1978, and for each fiscal year thereafter through September 30, 2015.''
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:

  20. LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965 (AND RELATED LAWS)

            A. Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

 An Act to establish a land and water conservation fund to assist the 
   States and Federal agencies in meeting present and future outdoor 
  recreation demands and needs of the American people, and for other 
                               purposes.

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

            TITLE I--LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION PROVISIONS


                 short title and statement of purposes

       Section 1. [16 U.S.C. 4601-4] (a) Citation; Effective 
     Date.--This Act may be cited as the ``Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965'' and shall become effective on 
     January 1, 1965.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to assist in 
     preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to all 
     citizens of the United States of America of present and 
     future generations and visitors who are lawfully present 
     within the boundaries of the United States of America such 
     quality and quantity of outdoor recreation resources as

[[Page H6171]]

     may be available and are necessary and desirable for 
     individual active participation in such recreation and to 
     strengthen the health and vitality of the citizens of the 
     United States by (1) providing funds for and authorizing 
     Federal assistance to the States in planning, acquisition, 
     and development of needed land and water areas and facilities 
     and (2) providing funds for the Federal acquisition and 
     development of certain lands and other areas.


                certain revenues placed in separate fund

       Sec. 2. [16 U.S.C. 4601-5] Separate Fund.--During the 
     period ending September 30, 2015, there shall be covered into 
     the land and water conservation fund in the Treasury of the 
     United States, which fund is hereby established and is 
     hereinafter referred to as the ``fund'', the following 
     revenues and collections:
       (a) Surplus Property Sales.--All proceeds (except so much 
     thereof as may be otherwise obligated, credited, or paid 
     under authority of those provisions of law set forth in 
     section 485(b)(e), title 40, United States Code, or the 
     Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1963 (76 Stat. 725) or 
     in any later appropriation Act) hereafter received from any 
     disposal of surplus real property and related personal 
     property under the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949, as amended, notwithstanding any 
     provision of law that such proceeds shall be credited to 
     miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. Nothing in this Act 
     shall affect existing laws or regulations concerning disposal 
     of real or personal surplus property to schools, hospitals, 
     and States and their political subdivisions.
       (b) Motorboat Fuels Tax.--The amounts provided for in 
     section 201 of this Act.
       (c)(1) Other Revenues.--In addition to the sum of the 
     revenues and collections estimated by the Secretary of the 
     Interior to be covered into the fund pursuant to this 
     section, as amended, there are authorized to be appropriated 
     annually to the fund out of any money in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated such amounts as are necessary to make 
     the income of the fund not less than $300,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 1977, and $900,000,000 for fiscal year 1978 and for each 
     fiscal year thereafter through September 30, 2015.
       (2) To the extent that any such sums so appropriated are 
     not sufficient to make the total annual income of the fund 
     equivalent to the amounts provided in clause (1), an amount 
     sufficient to cover the remainder thereof shall be credited 
     to the fund from revenues due and payable to the United 
     States for deposit in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts 
     under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended (43 
     U.S.C. 1331, et seq.): Provided, That notwithstanding the 
     provisions of section 3 of this Act, moneys covered into the 
     fund under this paragraph shall remain in the fund until 
     appropriated by the Congress to carry out the purpose of this 
     Act.
       Sec. 3. [16 U.S.C. 4601-6] Appropriations.--Moneys covered 
     into the fund shall be available for expenditure for the 
     purposes of this Act only when appropriated therefor. Such 
     appropriations may be made without fiscal-year limitation. 
     Moneys made available for obligation or expenditure from the 
     fund or from the special account established under section 
     4(i)(1) may be obligated or expended only as provided in this 
     Act.


         admission and use fees; establishment and regulations

       Sec. 4. (a) [16 U.S.C. 4601-6a] Admission Fees.--Entrance 
     or admission fees shall be charged only at designated units 
     of the National Park System or National Conservation Areas 
     administered by the Department of the Interior and National 
     Recreation Areas, National Monuments, National Volcanic 
     Monuments, National Scenic Areas, and no more than 21 areas 
     of concentrated public use administered by the Department of 
     Agriculture. For purposes of this subsection, the term ``area 
     of concentrated public use'' means an area that is managed 
     primarily for outdoor recreation purposes, contains at least 
     one major recreation attraction, where facilities and 
     services necessary to accommodate heavy public use are 
     provided, and public access to the area is provided in such a 
     manner that admission fees can be efficiently collected at 
     one or more centralized locations. No admission fees of any 
     kind shall be charged or imposed for entrance into any other 
     federally owned areas which are operated and maintained by a 
     Federal agency and used for outdoor recreation purposes.
       (1)(A)(i) For admission into any such designated area, an 
     annual admission permit (to be known as the Golden Eagle 
     Passport) shall be available, for a fee of not more than $25. 
     The permittee and any person accompanying him in a single, 
     private noncommercial vehicle, or alternatively, the 
     permittee and his spouse, children, and parents accompanying 
     him where entry to the area is by any means other than 
     private, noncommercial vehicle, shall be entitled to general 
     admission into any area designated pursuant to this 
     subsection. The annual permit shall be value for a period of 
     12 months from the date the annual fee is paid. The annual 
     permit shall not authorize any uses for which additional fees 
     are charged pursuant to subsections (b) and (c) of this 
     section. The annual permit shall be nontransferable and the 
     unlawful use thereof shall be punishable in accordance with 
     regulations established pursuant to subsection (e). The 
     annual permit shall be available for purchase at any such 
     designated area.
       (ii) The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may authorize businesses, nonprofit entities, and 
     other organizations to sell and collect fees for the Golden 
     Eagle Passport subject to such terms and conditions as the 
     Secretaries may jointly prescribe. The Secretaries shall 
     develop detailed guidelines for promotional advertising of 
     non-Federal Golden Eagle Passport sales and shall monitor 
     compliance with such guidelines. The Secretaries may 
     authorize the sellers to withhold amounts up to, but not 
     exceeding 8 percent of the gross fees collected from the sale 
     of such passports as reimbursement for actual expenses of the 
     sales. Receipts from such non-Federal sales of the Golden 
     Eagle Passport shall be deposited into the special account 
     established in subsection (i), to be allocated between the 
     Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture in 
     the same ratio as receipts from admission into Federal fee 
     areas administered by the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of the Interior pursuant to subsection (a).

  Mr. Chairman, I think that the Congress has not done enough to fund 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As I said in my remarks to my 
friend from New York, the Congress has not, I think, followed through 
on funding a very, very important program. Open space is disappearing 
in my part of the country, and without more Federal involvement in 
State and local efforts to preserve open space, we are going to lose 
this battle.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not know how 
many forests the gentleman has in New Jersey, but let me say that when 
I first came to Congress in 1987, the National Endowment for the Arts 
budget was over $170 million. It has been cut considerably as well. I 
know of no other program, no other investment that we make in the 
United States budget of $98 million that will bring back into this 
Treasury almost $4 billion. Indeed, that money that is sent out 
enriches the lives of everyone that it touches.
  I agree that open space is terribly important, but I do not want to 
see us pit one against the other, because the importance will be very 
difficult to approve for each one. I would think that the people in the 
gentleman's district would agree that the money that they have for the 
National Endowment for the Arts has been money well spent and has had a 
positive effect on the State of New Jersey, particularly in the 
gentleman's district.
  Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pappas) that in this bill there is almost $3 million for 
the State of New Jersey, all Land and Water conservation money.
  Also, I would point out that last year we spent $15 million on the 
Sterling Forest in the State of New Jersey, again, Land and Water 
conservation money. There is only so much of it, and we have a 
responsibility to the Federal lands.
  We have $10 billion worth of backlog maintenance in our National 
Parks, 375 National Parks, 50 Forests, about 30 Fish and Wildlife, 
millions of acres of Bureau of Land Management; a total of almost 700 
million acres that we are responsible for, to say nothing of all of the 
cultural institutions in this city, to say nothing of the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs. Mr. Chairman, 75 percent of the Indians do not even 
have adequate health care or dental care. We are stretched thin.
  Yesterday this House, by an 80-vote margin, we voted to have the 
National Endowment for the Arts. We voted in another amendment not to 
bring back State Land and Water conservation money. I think in view of 
all of that, this attempt would fly in the face of the House's action, 
and more importantly, fly in the face of the House's responsibility to 
take care of those 700 million acres of Federal lands.
  The National Governors Association advises us that 47 States have 
budget surpluses, and I think the State open spaces are a 
responsibility of the States. We are a Federal legislative body, and 
our number one priority has to be Federal responsibilities. Even in the 
arts there are State arts associations; many of them take 
responsibility and are financed by the States. They get some money from 
NEA.
  This amendment to cut the NEA in half in the face of the House's 
action yesterday and to transfer money to the

[[Page H6172]]

Land and Water Fund just does not fit with the policies adopted by this 
Congress. I would strongly urge the House Members to vote against this 
amendment. I do not think it is good policy. We do not have the money, 
and our primary area of responsibility, which is the public lands, is 
faced with a $10 billion backlog of maintenance. This is roads and camp 
sites and housing and all kinds of needs. It would be irresponsible 
simply to shift money out to the States.
  We used to have revenue-sharing and we eliminated it because there 
was not any revenue to share. The same thing is true of the State Land 
and Water Conservation Fund. We cannot even use all of it for Federal 
projects in terms of land acquisition, and it simply does not make good 
policy to adopt an amendment such as this. I would strongly urge the 
Members to vote against it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be 
postponed.
  Are there further amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999''.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gilchrest) 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.

                          ____________________