[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.
____________________