[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 13, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H5396-H5433]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 243 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2466.

                              {time}  1517


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2466) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior 
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, for those who might not have noticed, this is Ohio day, 
both from the standpoint of the chairman of the two Appropriations 
bills being considered today and of the gentleman from Ohio presiding 
this afternoon.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to pay a compliment to my ranking 
member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). This is his first 
year of being the Ranking Member on the subcommittee, and he has been a 
partner. We have worked together on the things in this bill in a 
nonpartisan way. I think it is fair, and I think a lot of this is 
thanks to the contributions that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks) made and also the staff, both his staff and the staff of the 
subcommittee. It has been a real pleasure to work with the gentleman 
from Washington on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, today I would ask Members in their mind's eye to fast 
forward to the year 2049, 50 years from now, because their actions and 
votes on this bill will be the America we leave to our children and 
grandchildren.
  We have to ask ourselves some questions: Will it be an America free 
from the scars of resource exploitation? We have put an extra $11 
million for the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to avoid that problem.
  Will it be an Everglades fully watered and with its unique ecology 
preserved and enhanced? Again, when it is all said and done, we will 
have spent about $10 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars to take care of 
the Everglades. If Members read the language in the bill, they will see 
we are making a point that we want to ensure that there is an adequate 
water supply, not just now but 50 years from now.
  Will it be a Nation with clean air, clean water, with rivers that we 
point to with pride? Will there be 629 million acres of forests, parks, 
fish and wildlife facilities and grazing lands, with beautiful vistas, 
with unique ecological wonders?
  Will there be an Smithsonian that continues to tell the unique story 
of our Nation's heritage? Will there be a Kennedy Center that continues 
to excite millions of visitors with a wide range of artistic 
opportunities? Will there be a Holocaust Museum that continues to 
remind Americans and people from many nations that this tragedy shall 
never happen again? Will there be a National Gallery Of Art and 
Sculpture Garden that shares the treasures of many nations in addition 
to our own?
  Will there be new sources of energy that foster a livable society 
with a prosperous economy? Will we be a Nation that respects its arts 
and its humanities?
  Members get to answer those questions today by giving a resounding 
vote of yes to this bill. We will soon be voting on a $265 billion 
defense bill to defend many of the values that this bill represents. 
Fourteen billion dollars, the amount of this bill, is a small price to 
invest in preserving these values.
  We have made a number of important policy changes. The Inspector 
General at the Department of the Interior told us that the National 
Park Service was unable to balance its books. We have instituted 
reforms and turned that situation around in 18 months. This bill 
continues those reforms. We have made changes in many programs as a 
result of 18 oversight hearings over the past 4 years.
  We have heard about the $1 million comfort stations built by the U.S. 
Park Service. We have streamlined and reformed the way in which the 
Park Service manages its construction program, and we are not going to 
have those kinds of activities in the future.
  According to testimony of the leaders of the National Park Service, 
the Forest Service, the Smithsonian, all of these agencies, that we 
have a $15 billion backlog maintenance. We have to take care of what we 
have, and we are doing that in this bill. We continue to work at it, 
and I think it makes a difference.
  Our subcommittee recently visited some facilities in the State of 
Washington. In Olympic National Park we saw a building that was being 
fixed as a result of fees and as a result of the understanding that we 
need to take care of maintenance.
  We are looking into problems of financial and contract management in 
the Department of Energy, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs.
  We have provided for the Everglades restoration effort in this bill. 
A unique feature, and I think it is one of management, that is that we 
require the States to provide a 25 percent match on weatherization. 
Forty-eight of the States have current balances, some of them over $1 
billion. I think the States have a responsibility of participating, and 
frankly, if they do, they are going to be a little more careful how 
they manage the funds. Now they manage the funds and we provide all the 
money. Under this proposal, we have not reduced weatherization 
significantly; we are saying, States, you put up 25 percent and we will 
be able to do more. We will also get better management of the dollars 
involved. I think

[[Page H5397]]

this is a very positive approach to this program. I hope Members will 
all support it by their votes on the bill.
  We have added $99 million to the Operation of the National Parks. We 
hear this mantra, ``they are going to shut down the parks.'' Do not 
believe it. We have added $99 million to support our national parks 
over what we provided last year, even though the bill in its present 
form is $1 million less than the 1999 bill, excluding the supplemental 
appropriations. It is $200 million less if we include the enacted bill, 
which would include the supplemental appropriations.
  So we have been very careful in managing it, but we have tried to 
emphasize the things that are important to people: their parks, $99 
million; $200 million for Indian education and health programs. I think 
we need to do more, but that is the best we could under the 
circumstances.
  But when the American Dental Association testifies that only one 
Indian has dental care out of four, we need to remedy that. We need to 
ensure that every Native American has the health care he or she needs, 
and we likewise need to ensure that they have educational 
opportunities.

  We saw the President visiting a reservation last week talking about 
the poverty there. The way to get out of poverty is to improve 
education. We have tried to address that as much as we could in this 
bill.
  We have provided $205 million for high priority land acquisition. I 
know people would like to buy a lot more land, but that is the best we 
can do under the circumstances.
  What we have tried is where we have inholdings, we have tried to 
focus on the importance of pulling together the lands that we have, so 
our priority has been to pick up wherever possible with a willing 
seller, a willing buyer, inholdings.
  We have included $33 million additional for national wildlife 
refuges. I mentioned the Everglades. We have included land acquisition 
funds, but we have said that we want to guarantee that the water will 
be there not just tomorrow but 50 years from now, and to that end we 
have put in restrictive language to ensure that we have that guarantee 
before we commit vast sums of money from the taxpayers of this Nation. 
Their focus is on the Everglades. The taxpayers are not putting up $10 
billion to $11 billion to provide more development money or more 
agriculture, they are putting up the money to take care of the 
Everglades, which belongs to all the people of this Nation. We have 
tried to recognize that.
  I mentioned earlier that the AML fund is $11 million more than last 
year. We want to repair some of the scars we have inflicted on the 
landscape of America from coal mining. We have level funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the 
Humanities. I think that is consistent with the fact that the bill is 
level funded in terms of the 1999 appropriations.
  I think all of these programs taken together represent a good 
management of our Nation's resources, and most importantly, I think 
they represent policies and programs that every one of us who support 
this bill will be able to point to our actions with pride 50 years from 
now, and on into the future as far as the eye can see.
  I hope that the Members will support the bill, that we will continue 
this effort that we are making in managing our resources and the 
dollars to give the public the best possible value received for the 
money they provide in the form of taxes.


                            overview of bill

  Mr. Chairman, today I am pleased to bring to the House for its 
consideration the fiscal year 2000 Interior Appropriations bill. While 
the pressures of the 1997 budget agreement between the Congress and the 
White House have required us to make some difficult choices in this 
year's bill, I believe we are presenting you a good bill. The bill 
provides for $14.057 billion in budget authority and $14.556 billion in 
outlays. Funding is $200 million below the FY99 enacted bill and $1.1 
billion below the Administration's FY 2000 request. Within these limits 
we are continuing to focus our priorities on operational shortfalls and 
backlog maintenance in the national parks, wildlife refuges and 
national forests by providing modest increases for these priorities.
  Despite our severe funding limitations, we continue the federal 
commitment for the restoration of the Everglades with $114 million. 
This funding includes the federal commitment necessary for the purchase 
of critical lands within Everglades National Park, as well as the other 
national parks and wildlife refuges, critical to the restoration 
effort. In providing this funding, we have included specific language 
to ensure a true environmental restoration of the Everglades by 
requiring specific water flow amounts and timing for these critical 
natural areas.
  Throughout my tenure as Chairman of this Subcommittee, I have focused 
on bringing improved management and accountability to the taxpayer. You 
may remember that in last year's bill we made changes to the Park 
Service's Denver Services Center and the way the Park Service manages 
and funds construction projects, so that the taxpayer will never again 
be asked to fund a $784,000 outhouse in a national park. This year we 
have focused on the various trust funds of the U.S. Forest Service. 
These funds are off budget funds which have not been transparent to the 
taxpayer. We have included a number of changes to address this 
situation, and I will enumerate them more specifically when I address 
the Forest Service portion of the bill.
  As federal spending for these programs continues to be squeezed by 
our obligations to the American people to maintain balanced budgets and 
protect Social Security and Medicare, we must increasingly focus 
exclusively on our federal responsibility. States must share in these 
programs as our partners. For this reason, we have not provided funding 
for the states to purchase lands under the Administration's Lands 
Legacy program. State continue to do extremely well financially under 
the excellent economic conditions we enjoy. We call on these same 
states to make the financial commitment to protect lands of priority to 
them.

  In the area of energy programs funded within the bill, we continue 
this philosophy by asking the states to participate in funding the 
Weatherization program. Throughout the many years of this program, only 
the federal government has provided the funding for this program, and 
in our FY00 bill we ask the states to share in the program with a 25 
percent cost share.
  Like last year, we have funded the bill without the selling oil from 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to finance its operations. 
Congress created the SPR IN 1975 to provide a national defense against 
future oil shocks. This year, we are pleased to report that the SPR is 
being filled with oil from royalties owed the federal government by 
entities producing oil from federal lands. This creative relationship 
between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy is 
working well, while at the same time adding to our nation's strategic 
oil defense.


                           The Nation's Lands

  The Interior Appropriations bill provides funding for the vast 
majority of our nation's federal lands. I would like to highlight the 
vast treasures we hold as a nation in the resources of our lands. 
Together as a nation we hold ownership of nearly one third of the land 
across this great country, and we cherish the open space and 
tranquility these vast holdings provide. They include 192 million acres 
in Forest Service land, 77 million acres within the National Park 
System, 94 million acres in Wildlife Refuges administered by the Fish 
and Wildlife Service and 264 million acres in Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) holdings.
  Although we often refer to our national parks as the ``crown jewels'' 
of our public lands which include the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and 
Yosemite, many spectacular gems are also found on these other public 
lands. Both the Forest Service and the BLM administer their lands under 
a multiple use mandate, and therefore, these lands are used not only 
for recreation as our national parks, but also for hunting and fishing, 
as well as for generating revenues from minerals and oil and gas 
development.
  While many people associate the Forest Service as a source for 
American's lumber needs, it is a little known fact that the Forest 
Service actually receives three times the number of visitors to its 
lands for recreational purposes than the national parks. Forest Service 
lands received more than 650 million visits last year.
  The American public does not distinguish between federal lands 
administered by different agencies, and as such, I encourage these 
agencies to work together on behalf of the public. I would like to 
compliment the BLM and the Forest Service on their work to consolidate 
their activities at the field level to achieve savings and provide 
improved services to the public. The Department of Agriculture and 
Interior have also achieved success in coordinating their efforts on 
the development of the Joint Fire Science Plan which provides the 
scientific aspect of the fuels management programs of the Departments. 
I encourage all of the agencies to follow these excellent examples and 
coordinate their services effectively.

[[Page H5398]]

     Revenues from the Federal Lands/Rec Fee Demonstration Program

  In addition to the growing role as respite to millions of Americans 
from the everyday stresses of an increasingly urbanized society, these 
lands also provide a major source of revenues. Revenues from mining, 
oil and gas leasing and grazing are expected to generate more than $6 
billion in fiscal year 2000. These resources belong to the American 
people, and they are benefitting from the revenues they generate.
  During my first year as Chairman of this Subcommittee, I initiated 
the recreation fee program demonstration on our federal lands. This is 
a concept I have supported for many years; it allows the parks, 
wildlife refuges, national forests and public lands to collect a modest 
fee from visitors. This fee stays in the park where it is collected and 
allows the land manager to use the funds to conduct backlog maintenance 
or improve services for the visitor on that particular site. We are 
receiving tremendous support of these fees from the American people, 
the land managers and from national organizations involved with our 
federal lands. The fees are expected to generate over $400 million over 
a five year period and will greatly enhance our ability to reduce the 
maintenance backlog on the public lands. Other unexpected benefits of 
the program include a reduction in vandalism which the superintendent 
at Muir Woods in California called to my attention recently. With 
Americans making a contribution to the land, they feel they have a 
stake in its beauty and preservation.


                          Forest Service Lands

  The National Forest System lands represent about one third of the 
nation's forest land and historically have produced approximately 20 
percent of the total softwood harvested in the United States each year. 
Much more timber is grown on these lands each year than is harvested. 
The timber sale program generates revenues for the Treasury and for 
local timber-based economies, as well as providing the raw material for 
lumber, paper and other forest products that are critical to our 
economy. The timber program on public lands, however, has declined from 
a high of 11.1 billion board feet in FY90 to the 3.6 billion 
recommended in this bill and the same level as in fiscal year 1999. 
This number is a dramatic reduction over the decade, and further cuts 
to it would be an irresponsible act of the Congress and dramatically 
impact timber-dependent communities.
  Earlier I mentioned increased accountability of various Forest 
Service trust funds. Despite continuing concerns expressed by this 
Committee, the House Agriculture Committee and the GAO about the 
accountability of these funds, we remain deeply troubled about the way 
these trust funds are being administered. To address these concerns, 
this year we are requiring the Forest Service to submit a detailed plan 
of operations to the Congress for the Knutson-Vandenberg (KV) fund, the 
salvage sale fund and the brush disposal fund. The plan should include 
an explanation and justification for the program of work and expected 
accomplishments at each national forest unit using KV funds. To address 
ongoing concerns that these funds have been used for purposes other 
than those for which they are intended, we have limited their use at 
both the regional and Washington levels to only those activities 
strictly related to the program. We have specifically prohibited their 
use for general assessments within either the Forest Service or the 
Department of Agriculture. The American people deserve to know that 
these funds are being used for their intended purposes of reforestation 
together with restoration of watersheds and habitats, and therefore we 
have also required that these funds be displayed in future budget 
justifications for the Forest Service. I am pleased with the new 
requirements we are placing on the management of these funds.

  We are making a significant commitment to fire-fighting in this bill, 
with $561 million for wildland fire management. The fund supports 
preparation for wildfires, wildfire operations and reduction of 
hazardous fuels.
  Last year we included the transfer of the Volunteer Fire Assistance 
program from the Department of Agriculture Appropriations bill to this 
one. This small grant program, through the State and Private Forestry 
account, is a tremendous partnership between local volunteer fire 
departments and the federal government. It allows for enhanced training 
and equipment to these local fire-fighting agencies and provides for 
highly trained volunteers should their assistance be requested at 
federal fire sites. The bill includes $4 million for this grant 
program, with a total of $29 million in total for the Cooperative Fire 
Assistance program. Clearly, the bill makes a strong commitment to the 
fire-fighting needs on the local, state and federal levels.


                         indian health service

  Health Care for our native Americans is the responsibility of the 
federal government and remains a challenge for this subcommittee. We 
continue our commitment to Indian Health Services with total funding of 
$2.4 billion, a $155 million increase over fiscal year 1999. Within 
this increase is additional funding of $35 million to meet contract 
support costs, a growing obligation. Within this increase we have also 
included an additional $20 million to construct the highest priority 
hospitals and clinics, thus providing needed access to health care.


                                science

  The bill includes $820 million for the U.S. Geological Survey. This 
Department of the Interior agency performs first-class scientific 
research and analysis in areas including water resources, geology and 
biological resources. I am pleased to report that our transfer of the 
Biological Resources Division to the U.S. Geological Survey continues 
to work very well, and the other bureaus rely on the expertise of the 
outstanding agency to meet their scientific needs.
  We have provided $188 million for ecological services for the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, including $105 million for endangered species 
work. As we all know, the Endangered Species Act needs to be 
reauthorized. I urge the Administration to present legislation to the 
Congress so that together we may address vitally needed reforms for the 
program.


                          department of energy

  The Interior Appropriations Bill funds programs at the Department of 
Energy for research to develop technologies to more efficiently use 
fossil fuels. Low energy prices and energy efficient technologies are a 
major reason for our strong economy, so we must continue to support 
federal energy research programs for fossil energy, coal, oil and 
natural gas, as well as other sources of energy.
  Funding for the Department of Energy's programs are cut $209 million 
below last year's level. With many fewer dollars, we continue to 
emphasize partnerships between the federal government and the private 
sector to ensure that there is a commitment to the technologies in the 
marketplace. Our goals continue to be to develop technologies that meet 
the highest energy efficiency and environmental standards possible. 
Fossil energy will remain the cornerstone of our nation's energy supply 
well into the next millennium and will also be the source of energy for 
the world's developing countries. Our continued leadership in this 
research is vital as we become an increasingly global economy.
  DOE's Energy Efficiency account includes a number of programs, 
including the Industries of the Future program which is an outstanding 
public-private partnership as the nation's most energy intensive and 
highest polluting industries work with government in setting joint 
goals to increase efficiency and reduce waste as we look to these 
industries' futures. We have provided $193 million for this program, 
the success of which will continue to ensure world class economic 
strength in our leading industry sectors which employ so many 
Americans.
  Funding for the state energy programs remains at the 1999 level of 
$33 million, and we have funded the Weatherization Assistance Program 
at $120 million, and we are now requiring a 25 percent cost share which 
I noted earlier. This requirement will allow us to leverage the program 
dollars and in turn expand the funding and the number of people who may 
benefit from the program.
  Finally, we continue to support the Federal Energy Management Program 
(FEMP) and have provided $24 million for it. This program is an 
excellent industry/government partnership in which the private sector 
works with federal agencies to reduce energy usage by incurring the 
costs of installing high efficiency equipment in exchange for a share 
of the resulting energy savings. The program has great potential for 
energy savings, as the federal government is the largest energy user in 
the world.


          national endowments for the arts and the humanities

  Over the past few years, funding for the National Endowment for the 
Arts (NEA) has been a challenge in this appropriations bill. During 
last year's floor debate on this bill, the House of Representatives 
voted to continue to provide federal funding for the NEA. This year we 
have included funding for the NEA and the NEH at the fiscal year 1999 
levels of $98 million and $110 million, respectively. I believe the 
reforms we have put in place at the NEA are working, and the current 
directors of these agencies are doing a fine job on behalf of the 
American people.


                           cultural agencies

  One of the most enjoyable tasks I have serving as Chairman of the 
Subcommittee, is overseeing the budget for our nation's cultural 
agencies. These fine agencies, including the Smithsonian Institution, 
the Kennedy Center, the National Gallery of Art and the U.S. Holocaust 
Museum all provide wonderful services to the American public not only 
when they come to visit our nation's capital, but also through numerous 
outreach programs throughout the states and local communities, as well 
as on the Internet.

[[Page H5399]]

  For fiscal year 2000 we are providing $438 million for the 
Smithsonian Institution. This funding includes $48 million for repair 
and restoration of Smithsonian facilities. ``Taking care of what we 
have'' is a high priority for me, and I am pleased that the Smithsonian 
agrees with this priority in maintaining their world class facilities 
for all Americans to enjoy.
  Within the constraints of the tight budget, we have provided modest 
increases for the various cultural agencies within the bill.


                               conclusion

  Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to reiterate that the bill I 
present before the House today is a good bill. It reflects the 
priorities of taking care of the lands and resources of all the 
American people. It is a responsible bill which keeps our obligation to 
balance the budget, while meeting the many responsibilities under our 
jurisdiction.
  At this point Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert into the Record a 
table detailing the various accounts in the bill.
  The table referred to is as follows: 

[[Page H5400]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY99.002

 

[[Page H5401]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY99.003

 

[[Page H5402]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY99.004

 

[[Page H5403]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY99.005



[[Page H5404]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the ranking minority member of the 
subcommittee in support of H.R. 2466, the FY 2000 appropriations bill 
for the Department of the Interior and related agencies.
  I, too, want to compliment the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) and the staff of the committee, both the majority and minority 
staff members. Debbie Weatherly and Del Davis have done a very fine job 
on this bill, and all the other staff members, including Leslie Turner 
on my staff.

                              {time}  1530

  I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), who has skillfully crafted this bill. This bill 
is fair and balanced and I believe adequately addresses the needs of 
the programs within its jurisdiction.
  Our allocation was not high, nearly $1 billion below the President's 
budget request, which required many difficult decisions. Under those 
difficult circumstances, I believe the bill is justly prioritized. I 
also add that I am extremely pleased that the bill is free of many 
legislative riders objectionable to the Congress.
  It is my firm hope that we can continue to work with the 
administration on a few key items which the subcommittee was unable to 
fund in this tight budget year. The Lands Legacy Initiative proposed by 
the administration was not fully funded in this bill. I am hopeful that 
we can continue a dialogue as the bill moves through the legislative 
process and perhaps make more money available for some of the key land 
acquisitions put forward by the President.
  This bill supports our national wildlife refuge system and continues 
critical efforts to address the needs of threatened and endangered 
species. These vital programs enable our agencies to achieve better 
ecosystem management and more comprehensive protection of our public 
lands.
  Just last week I had the pleasure of hosting several Members, 
including the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), our chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, in my home State of 
Washington. We toured several area parks including the Olympic National 
Park in my congressional district and were able to view firsthand some 
of the work being done on the ground both through annual appropriations 
as well as through the fee demonstration project.
  Once again, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for 
his attention and elevation of the backlog needs in our parks. We need 
to do something about that. This bill provides significant increases in 
operations money to protect the treasures of the park system throughout 
the United States.
  The bill continues support for our Native American citizens and is 
instrumental in upholding their treaty rights. Through the Interior 
Appropriations bill, we support economic and educational assistance to 
the tribes, aid natural resource management and support tribal health 
programs through the Indian Health Service.
  Lastly, the bill provides funding to support both the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. 
Although we were not able to provide the requested increases called for 
in the President's budget, it is my firm hope that the House will 
approve funding for the endowments and we can continue to seek some 
increase as the bill moves through the process.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2466 and the important program 
it sustains.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), a valued member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2466, 
the fiscal year 2000 funding bill for the Department of the Interior 
and Related Agencies.
  This bill provides $14.1 billion for the National Park Service, the 
United States Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Smithsonian, 
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. And I am happy to say that based on 
the hard work of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and my 
colleagues, both the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and other 
valued members on the subcommittee, we have an opportunity to support a 
bill that will manage and protect our environment; it will maintain our 
obligations to our sovereign Indian nations; it will protect our 
Nation's cultural resources and maintain fiscal responsibility.
  It was not an easy task for the chairman of our subcommittee to come 
up with all of the pressures of this bill in the form that this bill 
takes. But it is a good package. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) for inserting language that I authored in the report that will 
force the Pacific Northwest region, which covers my State of 
Washington, to look at all impacts to the endangered salmon problem in 
the Pacific Northwest and not just focus on dam removal as the solution 
to restoration of our salmon populations. It is not the solution. It is 
a multifaceted problem that requires a great deal of analysis and 
careful consideration.
  Right now our region faces an immediate challenge with almost 8,000 
pairs of Caspian terns which nest on a man-made island called Rice 
Island, which is located 20 miles upriver from the mouth of the 
Columbia River.
  The National Marine Fisheries Service estimates that over the past 2 
years these little birds have feasted on between 10 and 23 million 
juvenile salmon that are migrating out to the ocean. These birds are 
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service is responsible for carrying out.
  I appreciate the committee working with me on report language that 
requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to come up with a 
mitigation plan that will include, but not be limited to, transporting 
these birds to areas that are more in line with their natural habitat.
  If we come up with a responsible plan for managing the Caspian terns, 
we will see a positive impact on the number of salmon returning to the 
Columbia and Snake Rivers to spawn. This is an important piece of the 
salmon restoration puzzle that we cannot ignore.
  I am also pleased that within our budget limitations we were able to 
increase funding for health care provided the Native Americans through 
the Indian Health Service. The health disparities among Native 
Americans are profound. One area in particular is diabetes that 
seriously affects Native American populations and other minority 
populations in our country. The prevalence of diabetes among Native 
Americans is higher than it is for the rest of the Nation's population, 
and the rate is rapidly increasing to epidemic proportions in some 
tribes across this Nation.
  For the second year in a row, we have provided funds in this bill for 
diabetes screening through the Joslin Diabetes Center, a great center 
dedicated to curing and doing more research and understanding the 
complications of diabetes.
  We have also included language in the report to increase the number 
of podiatrists within the Indian Health Service to attempt to avoid one 
of the major complications of diabetes through preventive care and 
early treatment of diabetic foot ulcers for Native American 
populations.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill contains a delicate balance for Forest 
Service funding and programs. As Members may remember, we reached a 
hard-fought agreement on this issue last year when supporters of active 
forest management agreed to eliminate the purchaser road credit 
program. That was a difficult problem to overcome, to eliminate that 
program. This program primarily affected small timber purchasers, many 
of which were in my district on the east side of the State of 
Washington.
  While the agreement held throughout the process last year, attempts 
may be made today to unravel that agreement. So I urge all Members, all 
of my colleagues who may consider supporting a Forest Service 
amendment, to think hard about the agreement that was reached in good 
faith last year. We should not destroy the accord that was achieved.

[[Page H5405]]

  All in all, this bill is well balanced. It considers carefully the 
delicate nature of the programs that are contained within the Interior 
appropriations measure. It is one that I hope will see great approval 
in this body. The chairman and the ranking member and all of us on the 
subcommittee worked very hard to make that balance occur. We still have 
to deal with the Senate. We have to get a bill that goes through the 
process to the President.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  On July 20, 1969, the lunar landing module of Apollo touched down in 
the Sea of Tranquility on the surface of the Moon. Neil Armstrong and 
Buzz Aldrin descended from the landing module and became the first 
humans to walk on any heavenly body. This feat established American 
supremacy in space even to the present day.
  The Apollo 11 mission represents the success and preeminence of the 
American Space Program; we must preserve the monuments of this era. Of 
all the artifacts representing the glory and triumph of the Apollo 
Program, one in particular stands out--the Saturn V Rocket. The Saturn 
V is the largest, most powerful rocket ever produced in history. The 
Soviet Union was never able to even attempt to undertake such an 
ambitious project.
  Only three Saturn V Rockets remain in the world today. The U.S. Space 
& Rocket Center is home to one of these historic vehicles which has the 
distinction of being designated a National Historic Landmark. The 
Saturn V at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center has been on display for 
thirty years, and the elements have caused significant deterioration of 
the vehicle. Although there is no question that it should be preserved 
for future generations as a monument of the American Space Program, 
once again we face budget constraints that make this task a difficult 
one.
  Restoration of the Saturn V at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center should 
be a priority of the Smithsonian. I am hopeful that we will be able to 
allocate the resources necessary for the restoration and preservation 
efforts being made by the U.S. Space & Rocket Center before it is too 
late.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and I want 
to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), our chairman, and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), our ranking member, for the 
excellent job they have done putting this bill together under very 
difficult circumstances. I also want to thank the subcommittee staff 
for their hard work on the bill and thoughtful consideration of the 
many difficult issues that we faced.
  What we have before us is a fair and balanced bill that genuinely 
takes into consideration the many different concerns and interests of 
Members of the House, and of the people that we represent.
  None of us support every item in the bill, but I think all of us can 
agree that it is fair, reasonable, and representative. The difficult 
circumstances I allude to are obvious. Our subcommittee's allocation is 
far below the real needs of the agencies funded through this bill. 
Although we have heard widely varying figures on the National Park 
Service's maintenance backlog, it certainly amounts to several billion 
dollars at least. The same is true of the Forest Service.
  As our population grows and our open space shrinks, we have an ever-
increasing need to protect open space and wildlife to protect 
recreational opportunities for our people, to conserve the watersheds 
we all depend on, and to save our historic and cultural sites.
  Our subcommittee received hundreds of requests from Members for 
projects that are sensible and worthy, but we could not fund them even 
though we would have liked to and should have. There simply was not 
enough money.
  But our chairman, I think, in the final analysis has used his 
discretion very, very wisely. The bill and the bill report include 
language regarding the management of the Everglades restoration project 
that we hope and believe will guarantee that the project serves the 
national interest. And the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) should take 
full deserved credit for this.
  We are putting Federal money into the reengineering of the Everglades 
because we want to see its unique ecosystem restored and conserved for 
the future because we want to reverse past mistakes that led to 
overdevelopment and overuse of fragile resources. This bill aims to 
ensure that that is what will happen and that the Federal funds will 
not ultimately be turned against the Everglades and be used to promote 
unwise development.
  I am delighted to say that despite the constraints on this bill, it 
includes increased funds for the Park Service, which are badly needed 
to meet the demands both of conservation and increased visitorship. I 
am similarly very happy that the bill also includes a small increase in 
the Forest Service's recreation budget above the administration's 
request.
  The national forests are more widely used for recreation even than 
the national parks; and recreation has become an increasingly important 
part of the Forest Service's mission, but its budget has not kept up. 
The increase is a much-needed step in the right direction.
  The bill also provides for a small increase in the Forest Services 
State and private forestry budget. Again, this is very welcomed. These 
programs are not as well known as they should be, but they are 
immensely valuable to those States where most forests are in non-
Federal ownership.
  In my own State, they are particularly important for the role they 
play in protecting our urban watersheds, but they also provide critical 
assistance to people who never see a forest through their support for 
such beneficial and popular projects as urban tree planting and disease 
prevention.
  The Interior bill's public lands titles almost always attract more 
attention than its energy research and conservation provisions, but I 
am also pleased in what we could accomplish in those areas as well. Our 
subcommittee heard a great deal about the progress that can be made if 
we keep supporting these programs in achieving energy independence and 
providing our citizens with a cleaner environment. I am particularly 
pleased that the bill increases funding for Energy Department 
conservation programs that can help our constituents reduce their 
household energy costs.
  There were some disappointments. I am sorry that the bill provides no 
increase for the Arts and Humanities Endowments, despite the 
administration's excellent plan for new outreach and education programs 
at both those agencies. I am hoping we can correct that in an 
amendment.
  I am sorry too the bill provides only a small fraction of the 
administration's request for its Lands Legacy programs. But these are 
good programs, and I hope that they could be improved upon in the final 
analysis.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent bill and our chairman and our 
ranking member deserve great credit for the way they have put it 
together.
  I strongly believe we should acquire and protect critical lands for 
open space, recreation, and wildlife habitat while we can: I have seen 
to many lost opportunities in my own state. But I realize the funding 
constraints made full funding of Lands Legacy impossible. Finally, I 
regret that the bill does not include requested funding for the 
addition to the Roosevelt Memorial here in Washington that the last 
Congress authorized, but I hope that can be resolved soon.
  I will be supporting several amendments that I believe would improve 
our bill, but again, I urge support for the bill itself.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, a good friend.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) for yielding me this time. I know how precious it is during 
general debate; and I greatly appreciate it because there is a very 
important message that I want to share with my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the subcommittee, as well 
as the gentleman from Washington.
  While the rest of America was heeding John Adams's appeal to 
celebrate the birth of our Nation with fireworks, Mother Nature went on 
a rampage of her own with fireworks of a different kind in the Boundary 
Waters Canoe area of Minnesota in my district.
  Over the 4th of July with a storm packing 100-mile-an-hour winds that 
leveled 340,000 acres of the Boundary

[[Page H5406]]

Waters Canoe area, the Nation's largest water-based wilderness, 250,000 
acres of lands, 21 million trees estimated down, 6 million cords, which 
is equal to the total wood supply, the total cut, for 2 years for the 
whole State of Minnesota.

                              {time}  1545

  We have an enormous fuel supply on the ground. Trees that began 
growing years before the Civil War were ripped out, flattened. Chain 
saws, 24-inch bar chain saws on either side of the tree cannot cut 
through them.
  But the Forest Service did absolutely heroic service. I want to pay 
tribute to the Forest Service personnel who worked 18-hour days over 
several days to inspect 1,300 camp sites and rescue some 20 injured 
campers and free hundreds of others. There were 3,000 in the wilderness 
at the time.
  I flew over the area on Sunday and observed a scene that perhaps the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) only can fully appreciate. It is 
like the aftermath of the Mount St. Helens' disaster where trees were 
just flattened, blasted. They are piled, in many cases, one on top of 
each other, 20 feet high. The line supervisor for the electric co-op 
said he walked a half mile in from the roadway to one of the sites to 
begin work on power restoration and never stepped on land the entire 
way, just walked on downed trees.
  The Forest Service had been absolutely superb. The three rural 
electric co-ops have been magnificent. They have had their teams out 
there working 15- and 18-hour days, 35 hours the first few days.
  There will be benefits for those areas outside the Boundary Waters. 
But inside the Boundary Waters, there are a number of Forest Service 
supply facilities. There is one that I have known about in the 
Kekekabic Trail. It has always been hidden from view. It now looks like 
the Little House on the Prairie. One cannot imagine the destruction 
until one sees it oneself.
  The reason I raise this issue here is that there is no FEMA support 
for the Forest Service, no Federal agency benefits when a disaster 
declaration is made, which it will be made, I am confident, by the 
President. There is a disaster fund for the Department of Agriculture 
that may be available to bail out the Forest Service.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am advised that they are using some of 
the rec. fee money for immediate solutions or assistance. The gentleman 
makes the point that we otherwise would be waiting, and this is a peak 
visitation time of year. So I am pleased that they are moving ahead and 
again serving the public, which was the objective of this program to 
begin with.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, but, ultimately, there is going to be a 
huge cost. We do not know what the extent of it is.
  I raise the issue now to appeal to the leadership of the subcommittee 
that, by the time we get to conference, I am hoping my colleagues in 
the Senate will have the assessment, perhaps offer supplemental 
appropriations there to cover the cost for the Forest Service who are 
hiring people with money they do not have to serve time that is 
available now.
  The resort community has lost a quarter of a million dollars business 
in the first 5 days. They do not have 100 feet of hiking trails opened 
for their visitors. The winter season is coming. We will not have cross 
country trails. We will not have snowmobile trails in the area outside 
the Boundary Waters unless the salvage work can begin promptly.
  So, at the appropriate time, I appeal to the mercy and understanding 
of our colleagues to provide the additional funding. It will be in the 
few millions. It will not be in the billions or so that we have for 
Mount St. Helens, but it will be in the several millions.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) for his leadership, but I know of his great concern 
about the Boundary Waters in his area in Minnesota.
  We also had another storm besides the incredible events at Mount St. 
Helens, the Columbus Day storm of 1962 when 8 billion board feet went 
down in both Washington and Oregon from an incredible storm. We have 
been there and seen that. In fact, that is how log exporting started in 
our country, because we had all this excess logs. We started exporting 
them to Japan and other countries. But we will be glad to work with the 
gentleman as we go through the process.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for their 
understanding.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such additional time as I 
may consume.
  I want to talk about some positive things we observed during our 
visit to parks and forests in the Northwest. We saw a lot of volunteers 
there. I think one of the great stories of this bill and of our public 
lands is how many people, particularly senior citizens, volunteer their 
time.
  One gentleman at Mount St. Helens who was telling the people all 
about what had happened there said he drove 60 miles each way every day 
to come up there and lecture, and he did a great job. He is doing this 
as a volunteer.
  We are advised there are almost 300,000 people who volunteer their 
time, their energy and their knowledge serving in our public lands. I 
think that is a great story about the American people.
  Secondly, in the number of visitors, we had over 1 billion 225 
million visitor days in our public lands. I think this, too, 
illustrates how much the American people care about these lands.
  Lastly, a little vignette that I observed at one of the places where 
they have the recreation fee demo program. They also had a place one 
could deposit some extra money if one chose to do so, and the jar was 
getting pretty well filled up, which said people are not only willing 
to pay a pretty modest fee, which they knew would stay in the parks or 
the forests or the wildlife refuges or BLM, as the case might be, but 
they also want to contribute some extra money.
  So I think there are some really positive dimensions to this whole 
program in terms of how the American people feel about their public 
lands.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who has been a leader in this 
Congress on livability and particularly in the Columbia River Gorge 
where I had a chance to visit with him this last week.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the 
ranking member, because I think they started the debate with the proper 
tone. It is a 50-year vision, and it is just a starting point, I hope, 
for this Congress.
  What the bill talks about today is fundamental infrastructure for 
livable communities. As we try and deal with the consequences of 
unplanned growth around the country, the stewardship of our public 
lands both in wilderness areas and what happens in our developed 
communities are more and more important.
  I wanted to thank the committee for their hard work to diffuse some 
of the volatile legislative hot buttons, being able to provide at least 
a stable funding for the arts and minimize the toxic riders that have 
obscured the important debate that has attended this bill in the past.
  Last week, it was my pleasure to watch the hard-working members of 
this subcommittee and their staff in our region of the Pacific 
Northwest. I am pleased that they had a chance to look firsthand at the 
Columbia River Gorge where I am convinced that each dollar that is 
invested will go further than any place else in America in protecting a 
critical legacy. We saw firsthand the impact of the subcommittee's 
efforts to try and make sure that we are maximizing resources and 
working creatively.
  I think it is important that we allow the fee demo program to be able 
to work its way out and to look at the impacts. I hope that, in the 
words of the

[[Page H5407]]

Chair and the ranking member, that what we are seeing here, although we 
will not be perhaps debating in heated form some amendments that may 
come forward, I hope that we will keep in mind what we are trying to do 
in terms of this being a starting point.
  I am hopeful that this Congress will give the subcommittee the 
resources they need for today and tomorrow to be able to make the 
investment in protecting this legacy, not just for today but for the 
next half century.
  I appreciate the hard work the committee has done and look forward to 
building upon it in the course of this Congress to be able to realize 
that vision.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy), who I know has been a leader 
on historic preservation issues.
  (Ms. McCarthy of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
concerns about the funding levels in this bill for the National 
Endowment for the Arts. I am disappointed that this bill is 
substantially less than the President's budget request.
  While I am pleased that the bill requires the NEA to give priority in 
granting funds for educational projects, I am particularly disappointed 
that the bill does not include funds for a new program, Challenge 
America, which includes arts education, youth-at-risk programs, 
cultural heritage preservation, and community arts partnerships.
  As a former schoolteacher, I believe that a key solution to youth 
violence and a key component to youth development is access to the arts 
in schools. If we are serious about curtailing youth violence, it is 
imperative that adequate funding be provided to bring music and art to 
our children.
  If the Challenge America program is funded, state arts agencies would 
receive 40 percent of these funds, and at least 1,000 communities 
nationwide will benefit.
  Research has shown that arts programs can have a very positive effect 
on our youth, helping to increase academic achievement and decrease 
delinquent behavior.
  Children who are exposed to arts perform 30 percent better 
academically. High-risk elementary students who participated in an arts 
program for 1 year gained 8 percentile points on standardized language 
arts tests.
  The Smart Symphonies program initiated by the National Academy of 
Recording Arts and Sciences provides free CDs of classical music for 
infants in response to findings that show, among other things, that 
early exposure to classical music increases a child's ability to learn 
math and science.
  In Missouri's fifth district, the Young Audiences Arts Partners 
Program integrates community arts resources into the curriculum of 
participating school districts, with a focus on not only teaching 
students to appreciate the arts, but also on talking about issues that 
the arts raise in healthy, nonjudgmental ways.
  Let us make a commitment to our children to provide them with the 
tools they need to be responsible citizens in a democracy, to make 
good, informed choices, to live in peace with their neighbors and 
coworkers, and to enjoy life to its fullest. Let us begin to show our 
commitment to our children by prioritizing funding for the arts and 
encouraging arts programs in our schools and communities.
  Later in the debate, Mr. Chairman, an amendment will be offered to 
increase funding for the NEA, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks) for yielding me this time, and I congratulate the chairman and 
the ranking member for their work on this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to call attention to an amendment that I 
will be offering along with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis) and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) later on in this bill.
  That amendment deals with the issue of payment in lieu of taxes. As 
my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, there are some 1,800 counties 
throughout the United States that have land in them that is owned by 
the Federal Government. Over the years, the Federal Government has not 
kept faith with these communities and has not paid a fair payment in 
lieu of taxes.
  In the Congress, especially in recent years, we have been hearing a 
lot of discussion about what is called devolution, more respect, more 
authority for local counties and local towns. It seems to me that if we 
are sincere about respecting our States and our towns that we should be 
fair with them in terms of providing them the payment in lieu of taxes 
that they need.
  So I would hope that, when this amendment comes up, which affects 
some 1,800 communities in America, it affects some 49 States, and it is 
an amendment similar to one that won here on the floor of the House 
last year, that we will once again support it.
  It is unfair, it seems to me, to take advantage of communities all 
over this country, force them to inadequately fund their 
infrastructure, education, the services they provide their people 
because the Federal Government is not properly paying the in lieu of 
tax payments that it should.
  I urge support of this amendment when it appears later.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the provision within H.R. 2466 
which provides Guam with an increase of $5 million for Compact Impact 
aid for next year. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their support on 
this issue.
  This $5 million is very much needed for Guam, and it should be 
understood that it is really a kind of reimbursement for the cost of 
unrestricted migration to Guam as a result of U.S. Compact agreements 
with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
Marshall Islands.

                              {time}  1600

  For nearly 10 years, financial costs have totaled well over $70 
million, and this year we have $4.5 million and we want to increase it 
by $5 million to $10 million. This helps defray the costs because the 
actual cost per year to Guam is around $15 to $20 million.
  We take the responsibility of helping out our island neighbors 
seriously, and it is not a wrong thing to do, because it is a Federal 
responsibility. I know that in the upcoming debate there will be a 
point of order raised against this issue, and I very much ask all of my 
colleagues to consider the importance of this issue for a very small 
jurisdiction and the ultimate fairness of getting the Federal 
Government to be responsible, even though it only compensates for about 
half of the costs associated with this issue.
  There was no effort on my part to attempt to divert funding from 
other territories for this issue; but in the final analysis, when we 
suggested other alternatives, this was the only one that seemed 
appropriate at the time. I am hoping that in conference all the issues 
related to territorial issues will be resolved, because there are a 
number of unmet funding needs that all of the small insular areas have 
to deal with, and I urge every consideration that the voting Members of 
this House can give to those who represent districts who cannot vote in 
this body.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank our distinguished 
Chairman for his commitment to the natural resources and national 
treasures of America. Chairman Regula, his committee and staff have all 
worked tirelessly to present the legislation before us and they deserve 
our gratitude for their fine efforts.
  In particular, I want to thank the Chairman for his personal 
attention to the maintenance needs of the Uwharrie National Forest. My 
constituents in the eighth district, as well as the thousands of 
frequent users from all over North Carolina, can look forward to safer, 
cleaner and better recreational experiences at the Uwharrie.
  Again, I appreciate the time and thought put into this bill and to 
the Chairman's commitment to preserving the beauty of our nation.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for all his efforts on this measure. I request unanimous 
consent to revise and extend my remarks.

[[Page H5408]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns about the funding 
levels in the bill for the National Endowment for the Arts. I'm 
disappointed that this bill is substantially less than the President's 
budget request.
  While I am pleased that the bill requires the NEA to give priority in 
granting funds for educational projects, I'm particularly disappointed 
that the bill does not include funds for a new program, Challenge 
America, which includes arts education, youth-at-risk programs, 
cultural heritage preservation, and community arts partnerships.
  As a former school teacher, I believe that a key solution to youth 
violence and key component to youth development is access to the arts 
in schools. If we're serious about curtailing youth violence, it is 
imperative that adequate funding be provided to bring music and art to 
our children. If the Challenge America program is funded, state arts 
agencies would receive 40 percent of these funds, and at least 1,000 
communities nationwide will benefit.
  Research has shown that arts programs can have a very positive impact 
on our youth, helping to increase academic achievement and decreasing 
delinquent behavior. The YouthARTS Development Project is the result of 
a three-year collaborative effort of the Regional Arts and Culture 
Council of Portland, Oregon; the San Antonio Department of Arts and 
Cultural Affairs of San Antonio, Texas; and the Fulton County Arts 
Council of Atlanta, Georgia; and Americans for the Arts of Washington, 
DC. YouthARTS is funded in part by the NEA, and the program is 
implemented through local partners across the country.
  The goals of YouthARTS include defining the critical elements and 
``best practices of arts programs designed for at-risk youth 
populations, strengthening collaborative relationships among local and 
federal partners, and leveraging increased funding for at-risk youth 
programs. YouthARTS has already conducted extensive research, which has 
shown that arts programs really can have an impact on youth, including 
increasing academic achievement and decreasing delinquent behavior. 
Perhaps the most amazing change occurred in Portland, where, at the 
beginning of the program, less than half of the youth were able to 
cooperate with their peers, but after participating in the arts 
program, 100% of these same youth were able to cooperate, and 
approximately one third of the participants reported a more favorable 
attitude toward school after participating. In Atlanta, 25% of youth 
who participated in the arts program reported a more favorable attitude 
toward school than they did before they began the program, and 50% 
reported a decrease in their delinquent behaviors. In San Antonio, more 
than 16% of the youth participating reported a decrease in delinquent 
behaviors.
  Additional studies show that children who are exposed to the arts 
perform 30% better academically. High risk elementary students who 
participated in an arts program for one year gained 8 percentile points 
on standardized language arts tests. The Smart Symphonies program 
initiated by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences 
(NARAS) provides free CD's of classical music for infants in response 
to findings that show, among other things that early exposure to 
classical music increases a child's ability to learn math and science.
  In Missouri's fifth district, the Young Audiences Arts Partners 
Program integrates community arts resources into the curriculum of 
participating school districts, with a focus on not only teaching 
students to appreciate the arts, but also on talking about issues that 
the arts raise in healthy, nonjudgmental ways. Let us make a commitment 
to our children to provide them with the tools they need to be 
responsible citizens in a democracy--to make good, informed choices; to 
live in peace with their neighbors and coworkers; and to enjoy life to 
the fullest extent possible. Let us begin to show our commitment to our 
children by prioritizing funding for the Arts and encouraging Arts 
programs in our school and communities.
  Later in the debate, an amendment will be offered to increase funding 
for the NEA and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment offered 
by the Gentlewoman from New York.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2466, the 
Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations for fiscal 
year 2000.
  My support of this legislation is somewhat of a precedent. Too often 
in recent years in this House, I have been forced not only to speak out 
in opposition to this important appropriation bill but to actively work 
to defeat the legislation. Whether it be the riders, non-authorized 
funding for pet projects, or major policy debates over logging roads 
and the future of the Northwest temperate rain forests, the Interior 
Appropriations have annually been a magnet to controversy and the 
inclusion of extraneous provisions. Fortunately, this legislation has 
avoided most of those fatal flaws. It isn't always money. But this 
Interior Appropriations Bill has culminated in a super-imposed 
untouchable and unacceptable bad policy in recent years. This year's 
bill is a much better result to this hour.
  Such success is due to the bipartisan leadership of Chairman Regula 
and Ranking Member Dicks. Under their leadership, the Committee has 
been able to forestall such controversial riders and policy provisions. 
Hopefully, that success will continue through today's floor action. A 
strong vote of support by this House will only strengthen the hands of 
the conferees in dealing with the inevitable add-ons of the Senate.
  While I do support H.R. 2466, the bill does have several 
deficiencies. The principal shortfall is the anemic funding level 
provided in this legislation for many important programs. I recognize 
that this flaw is the result of the spending caps in law that afflict 
all domestic discretionary programs. The decision by the majority party 
to bleed dry these programs is a shortsighted decision that will 
undermine our national conservation efforts in the long run. While some 
seek to score political points in this legislation, the price of any 
rhetorical victories will be continued degradation of our national 
parks, forests and rangelands. Such continued degradation is a tragic 
political decision that will be exacerbated by the Chairman's amendment 
to cut an additional $138 million, 50% aimed at vital components of 
land management program and BLM land acquisition funding.
  Today, this Body will have the opportunity to improve the legislation 
through the adoption of significant amendments. Such amendments include 
Mr. Miller's of California, that will provide $4 million for the Urban 
Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) and Mr. McGovern's 
amendment that will fund the state component of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. These programs, UPARR, LWCF, Emergency Energy 
Assistance Authorization, the Sanders Amendment, which tries to improve 
the Energy Assistance Program, are proven initiatives that provide 
crucial matching funds for local communities to improve and expand 
public recreational programs and facilities. With tight budgetary 
restraints, recreational program funding at all levels of government 
has suffered year after year. As a result, local parks and playgrounds 
are falling into disrepair and recreational programs are being closed. 
Those decisions are unfortunate. While our National Park System is our 
nation's crown jewels, our local park systems are our local family 
heirlooms. Our national parks are the place where traditions and 
memories are made and treasured. Local/State open spaces are the home 
to family picnics, youth soccer and baseball games, family nature hikes 
and the local concerts. They are the glue that bind our communities and 
families together. For this reason, President Clinton sought full 
funding of the LWCF/HPF within the context of the Lands Legacy 
Initiative 2000. To date, this initiative has unfortunately been 
sidetracked today's appropriation measure underlines the absolute need 
to set aside these funds in a trust fund provisions in this measure 
that are less than one-third the commitment and promise existing in 
law.
  Today, our local parks and recreation programs are more important 
than ever. Just last month, the House debated the juvenile justice 
measure seeking punitive actions increasing penalties for juveniles who 
break the law. Today some amendments give us an opportunity to vote for 
youth crime prevention. At a time when Congress is acting on policy to 
put more kids in jail, it's high time we provide recreational 
opportunities and put more kids in youth sports, arts and other after-
school programs and crime prevention activities that positively address 
the delinquency issue.
  Unfortunately, the Committee chose to so inadequately fund the 
President's Lands Legacy Initiative. This new proposal would be a solid 
down payment on protecting and preserving our nation's critical lands. 
It is an initiative which should enjoy bipartisan support and provides 
a transition basis to rectify the current deficiencies in existing 
appropriation acts, that continue in this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege of serving in this Body with Mo 
Udall. As Chair of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Mo would 
speak eloquently of our stewardship responsibility to pass on America's 
natural lands and resources to future generations in as good a 
condition as we inherited it. This bill takes modest steps to achieve 
that goal but we can and should do better.
  Hopefully by the end of the cycle this year we will be doing be.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his 
great appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula), chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the Ranking Member 
on the Subcommittee, and to all members of the Subcommittee for the 
inclusion of a $10 million appropriation for the first phase of 
construction for a replacement Indian Health Service (IHS) hospital 
located in

[[Page H5409]]

Winnebago, Nebraska, to serve the Winnebago and Omaha tribes. Of 
course, the Subcommittee is already well-aware of the ongoing situation 
with this hospital. Indeed, last year the Subcommittee kept the process 
going by including funds to complete the design phase of the project 
for which this Member and Native Americans in the three state region 
are very grateful. Now, construction dollars are needed.
  Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget overruled Indian 
Health Service's FY2000 budget request for the first phase of 
construction, so there was no request by the Administration. Once the 
design is completed, it is important to begin funding for the first 
phase of construction without a delay. If there is a time lapse between 
completion of design and construction, it is very possible that costs 
will increase, making this project more expensive. That is why this 
appropriation action at this time is so critical.
  In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes to acknowledge and 
express his most sincere appreciation for the extraordinary assistance 
that Chairman Regula, the Subcommittee, and the Subcommittee staff have 
provided thus far on this important project.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Regula, 
the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for his fine 
work on this legislation. However, I would also like to pay tribute to 
a provision within this legislation on the Pacific Crest Trial.
  The Pacific Crest Trail is a marvelous stretch of land that runs from 
California, through Oregon, and into Washington state. Established in 
1968, this trail operates over 2,650 miles with a large portion of that 
land owned by the Federal government through the Park Service, Forest 
Service, or BLM. However, nearly 300 miles of this trail are located on 
simple right-of-passage easements across public land or along public 
highways. The land along the highways, it should be noted, were never 
intended as permanent routes and today have become extremely hazardous 
for users of the trail.
  It should also be noted that during the last 20 years, Congress has 
appropriated more than $200 million to the Park Service to acquire 
private land for the Appalachian Trail, an effort that is now complete. 
During this same time period, the Pacific Crest Trail, managed by the 
Forest Service, has received a fraction of that amount for land 
acquisition. As I stated earlier, the 300 miles of trail that run along 
dangerous throughways are the result of this failure.
  I am pleased to announce that Chairman Regula has agreed with many of 
my California Colleagues that this trail needs to become a priority. I 
am pleased that he saw fit to include a line-item of $1.5 million for 
this project in the Interior Appropriations Act. I am more pleased that 
the report language included will leave no doubt in anyone's mind of 
the importance that this project now holds.
  I would like to thank Chairman Regula on behalf of myself, my 
constituents, the many users of the Pacific Crest Trail for his 
leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendment printed in House Report 106-228 may be offered only by 
a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall not 
be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a demand for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, namely:

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       Bureau of Land Management


                   management of lands and resources

       For expenses necessary for protection, use, improvement, 
     development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification, 
     acquisition of easements and other interests in lands, and 
     performance of other functions, including maintenance of 
     facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of lands 
     and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, including the general administration of the 
     Bureau, and assessment of mineral potential of public lands 
     pursuant to Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150(a)), 
     $632,068,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $2,147,000 shall be available for assessment of the mineral 
     potential of public lands in Alaska pursuant to section 1010 
     of Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150); and of which not to 
     exceed $1,000,000 shall be derived from the special receipt 
     account established by the Land and Water Conservation Act of 
     1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)); and of which 
     $2,500,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2000 subject to 
     a match by at least an equal amount by the National Fish and 
     Wildlife Foundation, to such Foundation for cost-shared 
     projects supporting conservation of Bureau lands and such 
     funds shall be advanced to the Foundation as a lump sum grant 
     without regard to when expenses are incurred; in addition, 
     $33,529,000 for Mining Law Administration program operations, 
     including the cost of administering the mining claim fee 
     program; to remain available until expended, to be reduced by 
     amounts collected by the Bureau and credited to this 
     appropriation from annual mining claim fees so as to result 
     in a final appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $632,068,000, and $2,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, from communication site rental fees established by 
     the Bureau for the cost of administering communication site 
     activities, and of which $2,500,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for coalbed methane Applications for Permits 
     to Drill in the Powder River Basin: Provided, That unless 
     there is a written agreement in place between the coal mining 
     operator and a gas producer, the funds available herein shall 
     not be used to process or approve coalbed methane 
     Applications for Permits to Drill for well sites that are 
     located within an area, which as of the date of the coalbed 
     methane Application for Permit to Drill, are covered by: (1) 
     a coal lease, (2) a coal mining permit, or (3) an application 
     for a coal mining lease: Provided further, That 
     appropriations herein made shall not be available for the 
     destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in 
     the care of the Bureau or its contractors.

                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McGovern

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. McGovern:
       Page 2, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 3, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 19, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 69, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $29,000,000)''.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
restore $30 million in funding to the State-side program of the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund.
  I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I disagree on 
this issue, but I want to thank him for his continuing graciousness as 
we take up debate on this important issue, and I want to thank the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt) for cosponsoring this amendment and for their commitment to 
preserving open space.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has a proven track record and 
strong bipartisan support. It is based on a simple idea, that the 
receipts from nonrenewal public resources, like offshore oil and gas, 
should be reinvested into a renewable resource: public open space.
  Now a trust fund was established over 30 years ago to meet the need 
for more open space. In that time, tens of thousands of park and 
recreation projects across the country have been funded. Ball fields, 
scenic trails, nature preserves, and historical sites all have been 
saved for future generations.
  Unfortunately, in recent years, Congress has chosen to walk away from 
its commitment to States and local communities. While the Federal 
funding of the LWCF, which protects Federal lands, has been funded, the 
State-side program has been zeroed out. By failing to fund the State-
side program, we are walking away from an important promise. This 
amendment proposes to help rectify that mistake by redirecting $30 
million in the bill to the National Park Service for the purpose of 
funding the State-side program.

[[Page H5410]]

  This amendment offsets this modest step by reducing funding for the 
Energy Department's fossil energy research and development by $29 
million and for the Bureau of Land Management's transportation 
facilities and maintenance by $1 million. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we 
should be arguing for much more than $30 million. It would take 
literally hundreds of millions of dollars to restore the trust in the 
trust fund and gives States what they are owed. All we are asking today 
is a modest step in the right direction.
  Critics will argue that the States should take up the slack, that 
they should fund these projects by themselves. After all, many States 
have large surpluses, so why should they not foot the entire bill? I 
would point out the States have been and will be part of the State-side 
program. The program is a partnership, as States and towns match every 
Federal dollar.
  By passing this amendment, we will urge States to use more of their 
own money to fund these vitals projects; we will help those States 
leverage money; we can help get open space preservation off the drawing 
boards.
  That is why State and local officials across the country support the 
State-side program. Those opposed to this amendment should ask their 
governor, their mayor, their city counselor, their town manager if they 
support the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Ask them if they could 
use a little Federal help in preserving parks and open space.
  Last year 10 States, 22 counties, and 93 towns voted on open-space 
initiatives. Almost 90 percent of these initiatives passed, triggering 
over $5 billion in preservation spending. Clearly, America is saying 
something. It is time that Congress listens.
  We have all talked about issues of sprawl and livable communities. We 
have all seen, often in our own congressional districts, space that was 
once open and green converted into a strip mall or a housing 
development.
  Now is the time to do something about it. Kids in cities need safe 
green places to play in. Without safe, healthy parks they go home to 
school and back without ever interacting with a natural area, a few 
trees, some grass, and a place to explore.
  Unused open space in a rural area is nature. Unused open space in a 
city is a vacant lot with garbage, glass, dirty needles, and crime. In 
the suburbs, family farms and woodland are being paved over, succumbing 
to the ravenous appetite of sprawl and development.
  Time is running out. For every year we walk away from funding the 
State-side program, another park disappears, another open field 
vanishes, another healthy green space is lost forever.
  This amendment, as I said, is supported by every major environmental 
organization in the country. It is supported by our Nation's governors, 
it is supported by our Nation's mayors, it is supported by the National 
Association of Realtors. That speaks clearly to the broad support 
enjoyed by the State-side program.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort to reinstate 
the State-side program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to 
support a healthier environment for us all.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to rise and object to this amendment. We are 
faced with $15 billion in backlog maintenance in our parks, in our 
forests, and our other Federal agencies. In 1999 every State had a 
surplus. All States have a surplus. Forty-nine States had a surplus in 
1998. It seems to me it is time for them to measure up in meeting their 
own needs.
  The fact of the matter is they probably ought to send us some money 
to support our parks, because every national park, every national 
forest, every fish and wildlife facility, every BLM is in a State, and 
it is providing recreation. It is providing all kinds of benefits for 
the people of these States, and I think these facilities need 
additional support. The States should accept responsibility.
  I can remember when there was a State-side program. A lot of the 
money went into golf courses, marinas, swimming pools, tennis courts, 
and other facilities of that type. I do not think it is the Federal 
responsibility to fund these programs for the States. They should meet 
their own needs. They have the money to do it with.
  Thirteen States had a surplus in excess of $1 billion in 1998. 
Twenty-one States had a surplus in excess of 10 percent over their 
annual funding. One State has three times what it needs to manage its 
annual budget. Yet here we are talking about sending out some of the 
desperately needed money that we should use for additional land 
acquisition, where we have inholdings in our parks; to meet the 
maintenance needs of our parks; to do a responsible job of managing 
these parks.
  For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think that the States should take 
their own responsibility and use their surplus funds to meet their 
needs, because many of these programs are coordinated with the Federal 
facilities, and certainly it is something that they have the resources 
to do that with. The responsible position on this amendment is to vote 
``no,'' to retain these funds for the Federal challenges that we have.
  And, of course, the offset is fossil energy. This is an important 
program. The fossil energy program guarantees our future in terms of 
energy. Just this week it was announced that the price of gasoline was 
going up. How do we know there will not be another OPEC crisis? In this 
bill we are trying to provide the resources to DOE to ensure that that 
does not happen. If the States are to continue that kind of prosperity 
that is giving them these huge balances, they need to have a strong 
economy. A strong economy is built on energy all across the board. And 
to take a bite out of fossil energy research is certainly shortsighted 
in this day and age, because we have no idea what the needs will be.
  Our energy programs are not only useful in terms of developing new 
techniques to use the resources we have, coal, natural gas, and the 
other types of energy that is part of the ownership of the United 
States, but these programs also generate jobs in the United States 
because we sell this technology to other countries. China, with 1.2 
billion people is very energetically trying to get into the 21st 
century, and they need power. They need to use their coal resources. 
They will buy the technology that we develop in our fossil programs. 
That is good for America and good for jobs.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned we take a bite 
out of the fossil fuel research and development account. My bill takes 
$29 million from an account that is in excess of $360 million. That is 
8 percent, $30 million to go to help preserve parks, to help preserve 
ball fields and recreational areas for our kids in cities and suburban 
areas.
  We all talk about livable communities, and $30 million is not that 
much. Quite frankly, as I said, we should be asking for much more than 
that, given the promise this Congress made to the American people.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is right, 
it is not that much. Spread over 50 States, it would barely make a 
dent. About all we would get done is hire the people to administer the 
funds. I think it is unrealistic to think about $30 million, and yet it 
would cripple some of these important fossil programs.
  Furthermore, we have to take care of the maintenance of what we have. 
We have a Federal responsibility. These funds are generated from 
Federal lands.
  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, these are funds are generated beyond the 3 
mile limit offshore. The States get the revenues from their own State 
lands, and they get the revenues from the first 3 miles from offshore.
  We asked the National Governors Association to tell us how much the 
States collect in revenues from their own lands, and they would not 
tell us. They did not want us to know because that would be something 
that would not be terribly attractive when they are trying to get their 
hand in the Federal till.

[[Page H5411]]

  But I also might point out that the States now get over $600 million 
that they share with the Federal Government on royalties and payments 
to counties and so on. So keep in mind we are already doing a lot, and 
that coupled with their own State funds from their lands is more than 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund in total.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
$30 million may not sound like a lot of money to some people in this 
chamber here, but it means a lot to some of the communities.
  We are talking about towns trying to acquire land that may be only a 
couple hundred thousand dollars. And every State under this bill would 
get some money. The State of Ohio would get close to $1 million. That 
money would mean a lot to a lot of communities trying to protect open 
space and park land.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in 
support of the interior appropriations bill and in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of 
the committee; the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking 
member; and the members of the subcommittee have done an excellent job 
on the bill, and I applaud them for their efforts.
  I am also pleased to join my colleagues, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), in 
support of our amendment to offer additional funding for the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund.
  We in New Jersey see firsthand the benefits of natural resource 
protection. The citizens of my State have used our collective wisdom, I 
hope, to voluntarily preserve 40 percent, let me repeat, 40 percent of 
our land by the year 2010. The Garden State has a national reputation 
for making consistent efforts to preserve and protect our natural 
resources.
  Between 1961 and 1995, New Jersey voters approved bond issues 
totaling more than $1.4 billion to acquire 390,000 acres of open space 
to preserve historic sites and to develop parks. Last November, there 
was overwhelming voter approval of a $1 billion open-space initiative.

                              {time}  1615

  Local citizens not only in New Jersey but on a national level keep 
making the argument that we are losing open lands to housing complexes, 
to shopping centers and that we need to do something to save our open 
spaces.
  Today, we continue the fight to revitalize the Federal portion of the 
open space partnership. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, or what 
has been called the ``cornerstone of American conservation and 
recreation,'' should be strengthened.
  Our Nation is enjoying tremendous benefits from the LWCF. Since 1965, 
the LWCF programs have provided New Jersey with over $145 million in 
matching funds to acquire open space and develop recreational 
facilities.
  America's favorite park is not one of those big parks somewhere else. 
America's favorite park is the neighborhood park that America can get 
to.
  For example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund supported the first 
county park to open in Hudson County, New Jersey, in nearly 80 years. 
It also helped us add nearly 650 acres to Jenny Jump State Forest and 
to develop Liberty State Park, one of our Nation's most historic 
attractions.
  These tremendous benefits do not stop in New Jersey. LWCF is doing 
wonderful things across the country. We can make preserving our open 
spaces a priority, but we need to preserve land. And the need to 
preserve land exceeds the supply of State and local funds. That is why 
we must restore the Stateside funding for LWCF. It would help us to 
acquire lands across the United States that are truly of national 
significance, from our precious coastal areas in California to the New 
Jersey highlands region.
  It would help our Nation continue to develop urban waterfront parks, 
a vital part of restoring cities. And each State's growing partnership 
in preservation with local governments and nonprofit agencies would 
benefit from a restored Stateside allocation.
  Across the United States, local governments are leading the way in 
the preservation of lands and natural resources, but they need Federal 
help to build on and complement what the States are already doing. This 
money could be used to protect our Nation's shorelines, to reduce 
pollution, to preserve open land, to increase recreational 
opportunities, and to maintain wildlife.
  We are doing our part in New Jersey. Now we are asking that the 
Federal Government join us in our partnership by restoring Stateside 
funding for LWCF.
  New Jersey's commitment to open space protection has helped increase 
awareness for environmental concerns throughout the country. We must 
take action today to protect open space and to provide outdoor 
recreation facilities across the Nation.
  I ask my colleagues to support the McGovern-Campbell-Hoeffel-Holt 
amendment for Stateside funding of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, here is the story: The money comes from a fund. The 
fund was created out of the leases on offshore oil. And a compromise 
was worked out. The compromise was in 1965. The compromise said, since 
there is serious environmental questions about offshore oil leases, 
nevertheless, there is a serious energy need. We are going to allow 
those offshore leases outside the State boundaries, but the money is 
going to go to create, maintain, preserve environmentally sensitive 
areas both on the coast and elsewhere.
  That was the compromise. That was the quid pro quo which led to the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  The problem was that the exact expression of the compromise was not 
written into law and, as so often happens in the Congress of the United 
States, understandings that were reached at one time that were not 
reduced to the precise words of the statute were forgotten. As happened 
ever since we began the process of using trust funds to fund our 
deficit, the Land and Water Conservation Fund built up; and year after 
year, we used it just like we did the Social Security trust fund, to 
make the deficit seem smaller.
  That is the story. That is what has been happening.
  Now, we are all very proud of the fact that we might be coming to a 
point where we need not actually any longer borrow from the Social 
Security trust fund. In fact, we still do borrow from it. I think all 
of us remember last year we dealt with the borrowings from the Highway 
Construction trust fund and we said that was wrong, we should not 
continue to borrow from that trust fund for general revenue purposes to 
make the deficit seem smaller.
  And any colleagues will remember that this year we finally got around 
to deal with the Airport trust fund, the fund that was created out of 
the fees charged to airline passengers that that money would not simply 
be used as a general slush fund to make the deficit seem smaller but 
that, in each case, we would use the money that we raised from the 
American people for the purpose that we said we were intending it when 
we imposed the tax or the charge or the fee in the first place.
  So if that is the Social Security, we will put it away in a lock box 
for social security purposes only. If that is the Airport trust fund, 
it would only be used for improvements in safety in airports. If it is 
the gas tax, it would only be used for improvements of our interstate 
highway system and those systems that connect to it. In other words, 
keep the promise.
  In the Land and Water Conservation Fund, we have not kept the 
promise. This fund generates over $900 million each year, this year in 
particular, and yet we are allocating just over $200 million for its 
intended purpose, the acquisition and the preservation of Federal 
lands.
  At this point, I should say, and I should have said at the very 
start, I have nothing but the highest regard for the chairman of the 
subcommittee. He has always been very honest and forthright in his 
dealings with me. And I know that he personally would like to see more 
money available for the Federal component of preservation, acquisition, 
enhancement of our natural treasures.

[[Page H5412]]

  I agree with the chairman that we are underfunding our parks and 
maintenance thereof. I totally agree with him. I just wish we could 
find more money for that purpose. But what I do not think is right is 
to continue a process of using money raised for one purpose for another 
in order to make the deficit seem smaller. We should not be borrowing, 
essentially, $700 million out of the $900 million that are raised from 
these offshore oil lifting fees for purposes that were never intended. 
They are going into the general revenue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend, the chairman of the 
subcommittee to engage him in a colloquy if he would like.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague, he understands 
that we have a moratorium on drilling in the Federal waters offshore 
California that would normally be generating these revenues?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Mr. REGULA. So I think it is a little bit out of place in a sense for 
California to want this money.
  But, aside from that, am I correct, this is not limited to the 
purchase of land by the States? They could build marinas. They could 
build swimming pools. They could build tennis courts.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time just to respond, if my 
colleague believes in federalism, the States should control the 
priorities set for the resources devoted to the States.
  I quite agree with the point of the gentleman that there ought to 
have been dedication of some of this money, if not all of it, to the 
Federal side. But I did not control the amendment this year. This year 
the amendment is a very small one.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Campbell was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the point the gentleman made, it is 
the ``Land and Water Conservation Fund.'' Conservation includes taking 
care of maintenance. It means conserving the resources. We are using 
the money in this way. We did not use all of it to buy land, but we use 
it for conservation of our national resources.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, if I may put a question to the gentleman 
in return. If I have this wrong, I stand ready to be corrected.
  Is it not true that the fund raises $900 million?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, and yet we are only devoting in the bill 
of the gentleman $205 million to this intended purpose?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. But we are also spending a 
lot of money on maintenance and conservation, which was part of the 
intent.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman has very good 
purposes for the money. I just do not think it is the purpose intended 
in setting up this system.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund was to preserve, to acquire, to 
maintain special land as a quid pro quo for allowing the lifting fee. 
And when we use it for other intended purposes, it is no different than 
using the Social Security trust fund or the Airport trust fund or the 
Highway trust fund.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think it depends on the definition of the 
gentleman of ``conservation.''
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of 
words and speak in opposition to the amendment.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, we are not against livable space; and we 
are not against parks. We wish that the authors of this amendment would 
have sat down and talked to some us who come from areas where fossil 
fuel is important, and we could have had a discussion with the authors 
to try to determine how we might have accommodated what they want to 
accomplish without hurting something that is incredibly important not 
only to our States and to our region but to this country and, in fact, 
to the world.
  In December of 1997, I was in Kyoto when we passed the Kyoto 
agreement. I was not in favor of that agreement. I thought that we had 
made some errors. But I talked to some people from around the world 
that said, we need cleaner technology; we like what you are doing with 
cleaner coal technology; we like some of the things are you doing; 
there is a marketplace out there.
  This committee has had to cut fossil energy research by over 20 
percent in the past 4 years. To make further cuts at a time when the 
world is looking to us for new technologies so we can have cleaner air 
and more fuel efficiency is an irresponsible act.
  The United States has large quantities of crude oil within our 
borders. I can remember the gas lines back in 1973, and I can remember 
the gas lines in 1979 during those Arab oil embargoes. For every barrel 
of oil that we produce in this country, we leave two barrels behind in 
the ground. We need to develop the technology.
  I heard somebody mention earlier that we are only talking about 9 or 
10 percent of the budget. I have not been in Washington, D.C., long 
enough to put the word ``only'' in front of $30 million. This $30 
million would be crippling to what we are trying to do.
  We just had the EPA saying that we are going to go to a particulate 
matter standard of 2.5 microns. That is going to require an even 
greater reduction in sulfur and nitrogen emissions. It is just a matter 
of fact. We have entire regions of our Nation, entire communities, 
where the workers who developed that coal, who mine that coal, who 
brought that oil out of the ground have given us cheap energy to build 
the economy that we have today. And now the authors of this amendment 
are causing us to say, because we do not want the States to be 
partially responsible for more livable space and for more park space 
and for reclamation of land, that we are going to tell those areas, the 
heck with you. You have already given us that cheap technology. We are 
walking away from you, we are turning our back, and we are going to 
take 10 percent of your money, and we are going to move it over here 
without having that discussion.
  The electric utilities have already made dramatic reductions in their 
emissions. Sulfur pollutants have been cut in half from the 1990 
levels. Our coal reserves in this country are equal to one trillion 
barrels of oil. At current consumption rates, we can fuel our economy 
for the next 250 years. Coal is the Nation's most affordable fuel for 
power generation. It is why the U.S. has the least expensive 
electricity of any free-market country. We do not want to have to 
balance livable space and park space and who is responsible for it 
against a significant portion of that research dollars. And, again, 
that is what the authors of this amendment are asking us to do.
  DOE's research and partnership with industry has focused on 
technologies that permit us to use the full potential of fossil fuels 
without damaging the environment.
  Some of us who come from, and I hate sometimes to use the word 
``rustbelt,'' but for those of us who come from the Northeast and the 
Midwest where we lost tremendous numbers of jobs, areas where coal was 
mined, where oil was discovered, where the coal industry and the steel 
industry have gone down and people have been laid off by the tens of 
thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, we are trying to balance 
reclamation of those brownfield sites, reclamation of those inner city 
areas that could be used as parks, with the creation of jobs, with the 
keeping of jobs.
  They are causing us now to make Sophie's choice, to decide whether or 
not we want to be able to reclaim those sites, whether we want to be 
able to promote livable space, and whether we want to kill what is left 
of those blue-collar industries that are still in our area.
  We still, fortunately, mine some coal in Pennsylvania. We would like 
to be able to have more fossil fuel R&D so that we can continue to 
produce more coal and we can find a market for it.

                              {time}  1630

  As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) said, and I associate myself 
with his remarks, we want to create future jobs of showing the world 
how they can better use those carbon-based fuels, whether it is oil, 
whether it is natural gas, whether it is coal, we can

[[Page H5413]]

take that technology and again creating a lot more jobs and new 
technologies here based on these old technologies.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLINK. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It just struck me 
that we visited Mount St. Helens last week and they said that some of 
the ash from that disaster went all the way around the world and came 
back to Mount St. Helens. That illustrates how pollution travels 
worldwide. The point the gentleman makes is absolutely correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Regula, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Klink was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it is not just the United States that needs 
clean energy technology but that the rest of the world have it because 
otherwise we pay the price along with their own people.
  Mr. KLINK. I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, I just want to 
make a few points.
  The kind of research that is taking place with these dollars that 
they want to shift over, it is not that their program is not important 
but we are talking about research that would reduce pollutants to 10 
times below current Federal requirements, that would boost power plant 
efficiency to almost double what today's capabilities are, from 33 to 
60 percent, so that one power plant of the future can do the work of 
two of the world's power plants today.
  If Members want to burn less coal, if they do not want to have to 
look at building more nuclear power plants and doing other things that 
may be distasteful, let us continue that kind of research. I just think 
that we could find a better way to do this. I think it is unfortunate 
the offset, again that you are making us take Sophie's choice. I would 
request and ask all of the Members that are listening to this, Mr. 
Chairman, to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has a very simple purpose, 
to revive the State portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 
Under State law, law that has been in effect for 35 years, States are 
supposed to get a portion of revenues from offshore oil drilling to use 
for recreation and conservation projects. This amendment is a first 
step toward fulfilling that commitment which has been ignored over the 
past several years.
  But this is not just a matter of fulfilling a commitment made to the 
States and the public when we allowed offshore oil drilling. This 
amendment would revive a program that had a proven track record of 
providing recreational facilities for millions of American families. 
This is a program that truly improved the quality of life.
  There is no shortage of appropriate opportunities for using this 
money. Every State has a backlog of projects that has been piling up in 
anticipation of this money being restored. These projects will provide 
parks and playgrounds and preserve sensitive lands that otherwise would 
be subject to development.
  The momentum for reviving the State portion of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund has been growing this year as more Members have 
learned about the good that has come from this program. My own 
Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, Bernadette Castro, of New York, 
has been a real leader in the effort. The various bills to take the 
program off-budget and guarantee it a stream of funding are evidence of 
that newfound support. But those bills will not come up for some time 
and will probably not provide any money next year. We need to act now.
  I do not envy the plight of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) who 
is dealing with a difficult hand because there are so many restrictions 
on what he can do. I would like to, if I could wave a magic wand, give 
him and the subcommittee more money to deal with, because I think they 
deal with it in a very responsible way. But this is a long-standing 
commitment. This is just an entry to restore a program that has served 
a very useful purpose.
  We talk a lot about family values. What is more important to the 
family than having these magnificent parks and recreational areas so 
that they together can enjoy a good life.
  I urge support of the amendment. I want to thank the chairman and the 
subcommittee for being very thoughtful and deliberative in the process. 
I would point out to the distinguished gentleman that there are some 
who want to do away entirely with the clean coal technology program 
under the theory that if we do away with it, that is environmentally 
responsible because we are dealing with fossil fuels and we all know 
that they pollute a lot. I am not one who subscribes to that. I have 
worked with the gentleman as he well knows to protect the clean coal 
technology program and constantly improve it under the theory that if 
we have cleaner burning coal in the future, we are going to have a 
cleaner, healthier, safer environment for all of us.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Does the gentleman have any evidence that any of these 50 
States that have surplus balances have given some money to the local 
communities to build their tennis courts and swimming pools and 
marinas?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I only can say, reclaiming my time, what the Governor 
of the great State of New York, George Pataki, has done. He went to the 
people of the State of New York and asked them, he put his name and 
credibility on the line and he got passed, the voters passed, a $1.75 
billion environmental bond issue. That bond issue is used for a whole 
host of very worthy projects within the State of New York that helps 
improve the quality of life.
  I just want to have this money which is earmarked for a specific 
purpose, a portion of it used for that specific purpose, because I 
think the families of America deserve improved parks, I know that is 
one of the gentleman's primary objectives, and recreational areas. I 
think we can make a dent in it by what we do here by voting for this 
very important amendment.
  Once again, let me thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  This amendment has a very simple purpose--to revive the state portion 
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Under federal law--law that 
has been in effect for 35 years--states are supposed to get a portion 
of revenues from off-shore oil drilling to use for recreation and 
conservation projects. This amendment is a first step toward fulfilling 
that commitment, which has been ignored over the past several years.
  But this is not just a matter of fulfilling a commitment made to the 
states and the public when we allowed off-shore oil drilling. This 
amendment would revive a program that had a proven track record of 
providing recreational facilities for millions of American families. 
This is a program that truly improved the quality of life.
  And there is no shortage of appropriate opportunities for using this 
money. Every state has a backlog of projects that has been piling up in 
anticipation of this money being restored. These projects will provide 
parks and playgrounds and preserve sensitive lands that otherwise would 
be subject to development.
  The momentum for reviving the state portion of LWCF has been growing 
this year as more Members have learned about the good that has come 
from this program. The various bills to take the program off-budget and 
guarantee it a stream of funding are evidence of that new-found 
support. But those bills will not come up for some time and will 
probably not provide money next year. We need to act now. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern-Campbell-Hoeffel-Holt 
amendment and urge its adoption. I listened very carefully to the 
comments of my friend from Pennsylvania and

[[Page H5414]]

understand very well his concern about the fossil fuel research and 
development program that is being used as an offset for the proposed 
$30 million to be directed to the state-side program of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. I know that a number of my friends and my 
mentors from Pennsylvania have a concern about this amendment because 
of the offset.
  It is only a partial answer to say to them that the offset represents 
8 percent, certainly not a majority, 8 percent of the fossil fuel 
funding. A better answer, I believe, is that this amendment is not 
about fossil fuel research and development. As everyone knows, 
budgetary rules require us to have an offset. This is about restarting 
the state-side part of the land and water conservation program. If the 
fossil fuel program is as good as they say, and I have the belief that 
if it is as good as they say, then funding will be restored, funding 
will be provided. They currently receive $360 million for the fossil 
fuel program, and the state-side part of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund gets zero.
  If Members believe in the development of parks at the State and local 
level, if they believe in the development of recreational opportunities 
at the State and local level, we must pass this amendment to get this 
program back into business, and the fossil fuel programs supported by 
my very good friends will certainly attract their own level of support.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been the most successful of 
all Federal programs to direct Federal funding toward the acquisition 
of open space and parkland and to develop recreational opportunities. 
It is premised on very sound notion that when the nonrenewable 
resources on the Continental Shelf are developed for profit, that some 
share of that generated wealth should be given back to the Federal 
Government and the State governments to enhance recreational 
opportunities. It is the State part of that equation for 5 years that 
has not been funded at all. That is what we are trying to generate 
funding for through this amendment. These recreational opportunities 
are really the workhorse of our recreational opportunities in this 
country.
  The programs to be funded by this State and Federal share would not 
be the parks with the grandeur of the Tetons or the vastness of 
Yellowstone but they would be the parks and recreational opportunities 
that people would use every day, the ballfields, the local parks, the 
swimming pools that all Americans need access to and that all Americans 
use. Even if they cannot afford a vacation out West, even if it is not 
accessible for them to go to Yosemite or Grand Teton, they can use 
these local recreational opportunities. That is what we are trying to 
restore. This State aspect of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
worked well for a number of years although the entire fund has not been 
allocated the funding that it deserves, but for the last 5 or 6 years 
the program has not received funding at all.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his statement and 
rise in support of this amendment. This is a good amendment. This is a 
good bill. It does not have all the baggage on it that some of the 
bills have had in past years with regards to taking one step forward 
and two back. I commend the subcommittee chairman and the ranking 
member for their work.
  On this particular topic, I think that this is an improvement, a 
modest improvement in this bill. This bill does not have enough money 
to go around, that is a problem we have to deal with through the 302(b) 
allocations and the budget caps that we have in place. The quicker we 
start facing up to that, the better off we are going to be.
  But these dollars come, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 
stated, from the Outer Continental Shelf and the fact is that we are 
pledged to take $900 million from that, available until appropriated, 
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and a goodly portion of that 
should be going to the States. The fact is this bill has nothing in for 
that. It has less than a third of the money being appropriated from the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund and a small portion of the Historic 
Preservation Fund. It is almost over a billion dollars that were 
pledged using up one resource and investing in another. While this 
research on fossil fuel is good in itself, the fact is that we have to 
have a balanced bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Hoeffel) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hoeffel was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his work on this and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I 
am pleased to rise in support.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  I would simply conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying it is critically 
important that we get this State aspect of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund back into business so we can provide the matching 
funds to State governments to provide those local recreational 
opportunities that are so important to all Americans.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, not because of 
the cause that the authors of the amendment have championed but because 
where they intend to take their offsets from.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not be disinvesting in fossil fuel research 
in this country. We should be reinvesting. Here in the United States we 
have between 250 and 300 years of a coal supply. That is more 
recoverable oil than the entire world has. That is correct. That is 
more than the entire world has in recoverable oil. We should not be 
disinvesting. We should be reinvesting.
  I have the honor and privilege of representing the anthracite coal 
fields of Pennsylvania along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Kanjorski) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), a clean 
burning coal that meets all EPA requirements, low in sulfur and high in 
Btu. We should be investing in alternative uses of coal.
  I currently have a bill pending before the Committee on Ways and 
Means to supply incentives, tax incentives so that we can take 
advantage of technology that already exists, where we can turn waste 
coal and raw coal into gasoline and into diesel fuel. These are the 
types of things we should be doing with fossil fuel research.
  There is research being done at Penn State and Wilkes and many 
universities all over Pennsylvania and West Virginia. We should not be 
cutting research in these funds. We are too dependent in this country 
on foreign oil already.
  I say to my colleagues in the Congress, we go through this fight 
every year. Every year this program is attacked. It has been cut 
significantly over the years. I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for the number that they have arrived at this year, protecting 
the research that is in this bill. I encourage all my colleagues to 
vote against this amendment. It is bad for Pennsylvania, it is bad for 
West Virginia, it is bad for Kentucky, it is bad for southern Illinois. 
We should defeat this amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the 
McGovern-Campbell-Hoeffel-Holt amendment and add $30 million to the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund state-side program, a program that 
funds local community needs, such as purchasing land for parks within a 
city itself. These funds come from Outer Continental Shelf oil drilling 
revenues. They are intended to be funded by $450 million annually for 
Federal land purchases and $450 million annually for state-side 
purchases. However, we only see a small fraction of that money for 
those intended purposes.
  Since its inception in 1995, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has 
been invaluable in protecting wetlands, wildlife refuges, endangered 
species habitat and creating parks and open spaces as well as providing 
land for recreation.

[[Page H5415]]

                              {time}  1645

  Stateside has protected more than 2 million acres of recreational 
land and helped develop more than 27,000 basic recreation facilities 
nationwide.
  This year the President asked for $200 million for Stateside, but for 
the fifth consecutive year Stateside was zeroed out by the committee. 
It is time we invest in the Stateside part of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. This could mean more than $2.5 million for my State, 
California, and this amendment would mean a lot to most of the States 
in this Nation.
  As our Nation grows, we must fund preservation because funding 
preservation is smart growth. If someone has land in one of my 
colleagues' areas, in their community, that could be purchased in their 
district for everyone in the district to enjoy, because I know I do, 
and I bet all of my colleagues do, actually, they should support this 
amendment. Open space preservation is smart growth, and it is a 
bipartisan idea that has generated great support across the Nation.
  In the last election, there were 148 ballot measures from coast to 
coast regarding open space. Amazingly, 84 percent of these measures 
passed, showing the strong support that American people have for open 
space and for Stateside programs; and hopefully my colleagues will also 
support the Resources 2000 bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller), H.R. 798, which would fully fund the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund permanently.
  Please support the McGovern amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong 
support of the McGovern-Campbell-Holt and Hoeffel amendment, and I rise 
also to commend the chairman of this committee, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for the job 
that they have done with this legislation under very, very difficult 
circumstances; and those difficult circumstances are one of the reasons 
that this amendment is here.
  I believe that this amendment is an improvement to this legislation. 
I think it is an important amendment, it is an important amendment 
about the future of our local communities, about the quality of life, 
about the recreational opportunities of our families and about the 
preservation of important lands and important assets that provide the 
quality of life that most of us want for ourselves and for our 
constituents.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a fund that was developed out 
of a bargain between the development of the offshore oil and the 
preservation of nonreoccurring assets in our communities and throughout 
our Nation; and in the past, since 1965, we have appropriated some $3 
billion to local governments, States and local governments, to help 
them protect and provide and conserve these assets. They have matched 
that with an additional $3 billion. That tells us the kind of priority 
that our local communities place upon this program.
  But in 1995 it all stopped, it all stopped. One of the most 
successful programs that we have at the Federal level stopped. Since 
that time, if we were to put the money that this program was truly 
entitled to, there would have been an additional $2.5 billion that 
would have then been matched by another $2.5 billion, $5 billion going 
into improve the quality of life and to protect and conserve natural 
resources and assets and local communities based upon the priorities of 
those local communities.
  Many speakers have gotten up here and told about how their States 
have passed bond issues to help to do this. Local jurisdictions have 
added to their tax revenues, they have added on to their sales tax, 
they have added on to their gas tax to try and protect these resources, 
and this money flows into that in a partnership with not only those 
local governments but with foundations and private individuals and 
corporations and others that contributed. This money becomes a catalyst 
for billions of dollars that benefit our local constituents and our 
local communities; and it is a very, very important amount of money. It 
is very important in the sense that the opportunities are being lost in 
so many of our communities through rapid growth to kind of provide the 
kind of protection that is necessary so we can have open spaces.
  Yes, it might include a swimming pool or two; and, yes, it might 
include a swimming lagoon on important rivers and important reservoirs 
in areas that are regional facilities. And it might include trails, and 
it might include a lot of assets that local communities believe are 
important if they are going to provide the kind of quality of life that 
attracts families, that attracts businesses and that allows communities 
to thrive and to have a thriving economy.
  That is what this legislation was set up to do, but the oxygen has 
been cut off, the money has been cut off for no good reason. Because it 
was not about this being a bad program or an unsuccessful program or a 
wasteful program. It was just a decision that was made. And yet the law 
remains on the books. It says we are supposed to dedicate this money.
  This is very similar to the debates that we are having with respect 
to Social Security and we had with the Highway trust fund. We told the 
people of America that this money in this fund would be used for this 
purpose. There is a lot of concerns now that the offset is SPRO, or the 
offset is one of the energy funds.
  Well, let me tell my colleagues the Stateside Land and Water 
Conservation Fund has been an offset for everything else this 
government has wanted to do because the money has been pirated out of 
this fund and used for whatever purposes to make the deficit look 
smaller or for whatever programs the Congress of the United States 
wanted to do. We owe this fund billions of dollars, and here we have an 
effort by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) to 
restore $30 billion for the next fiscal year so our communities can get 
on with improving the quality of life and protecting these assets. And 
as flush as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) will tell us the 
States are, I do not see people saying we are not going to send them 
PILT or we are not going send them money, so this is about priorities.
  But as flush as those States are, the list of projects that are 
essential and necessary to continue the growth; otherwise, do my 
colleagues know what they get? They get what we have in so many 
communities now, no growth, no improvements, no transportation 
improvements, because people see with congestion, the lack of quality 
of life, that they are not going to engage in that kind of economic 
growth.
  This is one of the buffers that allows our communities to continue to 
be a decent place to live, a decent place to raise our children and to 
enjoy and to do business.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Regula and by unanimous consent, Mr. George Miller 
of California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the Land and Water Conservation Fund was 
reduced from 300 million to 25 in a Democrat Congress under the 
leadership of Mr. Yates, and I believe the gentleman in the well was a 
Member of the House at that time. I wonder how he felt about it at the 
time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I disagreed with it then, and I 
disagreed before that was done. I mean, I think that this fund, and, as 
my colleagues know, I have introduced legislation to provide for the 
full funding, the full funding on water conservation, half to the 
Federal side and half to the State side, and an overwhelming number of 
Members of this House of Representatives supported either my bill or 
Mr. Young's bill to do that because they are hearing from their 
communities and also hearing what my colleagues have been telling us 
about the backlog in national parks and national lands of this country 
that needs to be done there.

[[Page H5416]]

  We have starved these funds. It has been a bipartisan effort to 
starve these funds. I am not blaming the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula). He has come in almost at the end of the show where it is even 
more difficult to try to get his bill out of committee and meet the 
demands of this country. But that has been a bipartisan effort, but the 
time has come to reverse it. The time has come to reverse it, and this 
amendment is a modest step in the efforts to do that.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman would yield further, would the gentleman 
agree to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling in California so we 
could beef up the fund?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Why would I do that when the 
gentleman is stealing all the money?
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. This well-intentioned 
amendment would increase funding for the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, a goal I share. However, the programs proposed to be cut to 
offset this amendment are equally important and deserve another look.
  By this amendment we propose to cut an additional $29 million from 
the fossil energy budget, and my friend tells me that is only an 8 
percent cut. Well, let me tell my friend this program has seen steady 
decreases over the past 10 years, deceases of 7 percent, 10 percent, 13 
percent depending on the year. Eighty-five percent of our U.S. energy 
supply currently comes from fossil fuels. This figure is going to go 
up, not down in the coming years. By the year 2015, 88 percent of the 
energy we consume will come from fossil fuels. The important research 
the Department of Energy performs on oil, gas, coal and other fuels is 
entirely directed at making these fuels burn more efficiently and with 
fewer emissions. I think these are goals we all support.
  The emerging renewables, solar, wind and geothermal, currently supply 
less than 1 percent of the energy needs in the United States. Research 
on this small share of our energy supply has increased greatly during 
the last 10 years, despite its relative unimportance to our energy 
supply. I am all too aware that the Green Scissors Report, among 
others, has severely criticized the U.S. fossil energy research 
program. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, every July the fossil fuel 
research program becomes a convenient whipping boy for legislators 
looking for budget offsets. Well, I am sorry to see that these 
criticisms take no consideration of the fact that renewable energy 
still supplies a very small percentage of our energy needs.
  As we work together towards a future energy-use environment of 
cleaner, more efficient fuels, we need to recognize that our energy 
supply, this country's energy habits, will not and cannot change 
overnight. Cleaner and more efficient means of accessing oil, gas and 
coal are sorely needed.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my friends that the 
fossil energy program has been revamped and retooled in response to 
input from Congress over the past few years. The fossil energy program 
has shifted to focus on such exciting new technologies such as fuel 
cells which are clean burning, relocatable energy sources that fit 
perfectly into a deregulated power environment; the ``Vision-21'' clean 
power plant, which will combine existing technologies to greatly reduce 
emissions from our utilities; and gas hydrates, an exciting, hidden 
source of natural gas on the ocean floor that is estimated to offer 
hundreds or even thousands of times more reserves than all the existing 
fossil energy supplies combined.
  Mr. Chairman, as our energy researchers have pursued this fundamental 
shift in response to congressional criticism are we governing 
responsibly and effectively if we continue to take ill-considered cuts 
out of this program? Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment offered by my colleague from Massachusetts.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment, and I want 
to salute my colleagues that have written it and brought it forward to 
us. I think that they have done a very, very important task for us and 
this is a very important debate.
  Before I talk about the amendment and why I think it is a prudent 
one, I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), who 
has been faced with enormous challenges, a budget that does not match 
it, but I think a heart and a mind that has stretched to do magnificent 
things in our country. He is absolutely right that we are not 
committing the kind of resources that we should to the conservation and 
the protection of the lands that we are already responsible for. So in 
no way do my comments or should my comments be thought of as being 
critical of what he has done, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate his leadership 
and what has come from it.
  When the Congress created the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 
1964 to purchase land and water resources for the creation of open 
spaces and local and national parks and recreational areas, the 
Congress then took an enormous important step. One of my distinguished 
colleagues came to the floor earlier and said, this is Sophie's Choice. 
It is not. Sophie's Choice is a movie with a marvelous actress in it. 
This is not Sophie's Choice. This is about the Congress stepping up and 
really keeping at least part of her word from 1964.

                              {time}  1700

  Thanks to that congressional act, nearly 7 million acres of parkland 
are now protected, and over 37,000 State and local park and recreation 
projects have been created.
  I cannot think of an action that the Congress has taken that meets 
with the success of this. This is one of the most meritorious cases in 
our Nation. In my district alone, with one of its great values being 
the environment and the protection of parklands and open space, nearly 
8,000 acres have been preserved since 1964. In fact, it is an area that 
is one of the envies of our Nation because so much has been protected.
  When we enacted the Land and Water Conservation Fund to an authorized 
level of $900 million, we continued to fund the program, but not at the 
levels that we had originally promised. In fact, they have gone lower 
and lower, and we have continued to divert funds away from land and 
water and conservation, and that is what this amendment tries to repair 
in a very small way today.
  I think we should take the next step by fully and permanently funding 
the Act. My good and great friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller), along with many others, seeks to do that. I am proud to 
cosponsor the Resources 2000 Act.
  Today we are looking for just a small step. The Miller bill is the 
final big step. Of course, we know he wears a very large shoe, and that 
shoe would accomplish a lot if that step were taken. So I support this 
because I think it is important.
  It is not only important because we see what it has done, but we 
know, as Auntie Mame said, that we have miles to go and places to see 
in our country. This is an act that gives our local governments and our 
State governments the right kind of leverage. It attracts, it becomes a 
magnet for private funds, and it is one of the ingredients for one of 
the greatest recipes of success in our country.
  Going to our parks, I have been very fond of saying, is one of the 
cheapest vacations for the American people. We want them at all levels. 
Everyone cannot get to Yosemite. Everyone cannot get to a national 
park. So let us move on and take a small step of Congress 
reestablishing her word, the word that was established in 1964, and 
take this important step today by embracing this amendment. It is a 
great one, it is a good one. It will do good things for our country.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern-
Campbell-Hoeffel-Holt amendment which would provide the funding for the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund stateside matching grants program.

[[Page H5417]]

  If I may begin first by thanking the chairman and the ranking member 
for the attention they have given to a number of Members who have 
concerns for some of the projects that are State and local in 
orientation, I know it has been a difficult task, and everyone has 
pointed that out, that the money is just not there to certainly fund 
all these programs. So I want to thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for the effort they have made.
  By the way, I want to thank the staff, as well. For the most part, in 
every discussion we have had, the staff has been very willing to 
discuss options and try to help those of us who are interested in 
trying to provide some of those projects which are park-related to our 
constituents back home.
  For someone like me who has nothing but an urban setting in his 
district, I am completely urban, I have nothing but L.A. city 
territory, I have a concrete forest that I represent, it is difficult 
sometimes to accommodate the needs, especially the green needs, of my 
constituents.
  Let me give a quick example. While we are spending in this 
appropriations bill for the Department of Interior approximately $1.7 
billion for the National Park Service, $1.2 billion for the Bureau of 
Land Management, and $840 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service, no 
money is being allocated at this stage for stateside matching grant 
programs under the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  For someone like me, that means the following. About 3 years ago I 
attended a middle school in my district. I asked what I thought was a 
pretty natural question. We were talking about the environment. I asked 
some of the kids in this class of about 30 kids, when was the last time 
they were at the beach. Los Angeles is right next to the beach. I was 
surprised when no one raised their hand.
  I asked, well, how many have been to the beach? And we are talking 
about kids who are in their teens. About three of the 30 kids raised 
their hand. I am talking about kids who live no more than 20 miles from 
the beach. Most of these kids had never been to the beach in Los 
Angeles.
  The closest State park to me is about 45 miles away. The closest 
national park is more than 60 miles away. Most of these kids have never 
been to either one of those, and they have not even been to something 
as close to them as the beach in Los Angeles.
  It is difficult for some of our communities sometimes, especially in 
our very urban settings, the inner cities, to have opportunities to let 
kids understand what it is to see wildlife, to see nature in progress. 
For many of us, it is important to be able to help.
  There is a project in Los Angeles right now which could use funding 
from the Stateside matching grant program under the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. In fact, it is a program, a project that right now 
has a public and private partnership underway where right now the city 
of Los Angeles, the State of California, and the business community, 
along with community groups, have come in and provided 85 percent of 
the money they need to get a local park going so people can use it.
  There is a park in a hilly area of Los Angeles which few people know 
about and use. If we can get this funding at the Federal level to help 
just a little bit more, we will be able to help thousands of inner city 
children who do not have access right now.
  I know it is tough and I know the chairman and the ranking member 
have tried, but this is an amendment that will provide a meager amount, 
$30 million of the billions that we will be spending, on something that 
is so valuable, especially for kids who sometimes do not have access to 
any of this.
  It is a worthy amendment. It came close to passing last year. I hope 
we have success this time around, because ultimately what we are 
talking about here is not some big national park or some big local 
park, we are talking about the smaller projects that reach really close 
to home where kids could ultimately use these facilities.
  If we do not do it, again, we are going to deny these children not 
just the opportunity to play and recreate, but the chance to get a 
better sense of what it means to know the greater part of the country 
and nature as well, because too often, in the inner cities especially, 
many of these kids grow up not knowing anything but concrete buildings.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I see this conversation this afternoon as an effort to 
restart an important discussion. It is about keeping faith with our 
commitments with the States, keeping faith with the needs and the 
programs that they have.
  As the gentleman from California mentioned a few moments ago, we 
rightly owe billions of dollars to the very States under the terms of 
the 1964 act. There are, indeed, other reasons. Not every State with a 
surplus, for instance, is responding in a way that deals with the park 
and recreation and open space needs.
  In my own State, I am ashamed to admit, despite the strongest economy 
in anybody's memory, despite having perhaps the strongest one, in fact, 
for 2 years running we had the strongest economy in the country, and 
despite having a large ballot measure majority in support of parks and 
open space, I am finding our State legislature backing money out that 
has been approved by the voters, in efforts to shift it elsewhere.
  So there are lots of reasons, lots of variations around the country 
that I have seen as I have worked with communities across the country 
dealing on livability issues.
  But there is something else going on here. There is a massive grass 
roots effort where citizens at the State and local level are seizing 
control. In 1998 there were 184 initiatives on the State and local 
level. Eighty-seven percent passed, usually with overwhelming 
majorities. Citizens understand, in the words of our chairman and the 
ranking member, that it is important to invest in this timeless legacy. 
The time is now.
  There are very complex and intricate funding packages that we are 
seeing developed across the country that have State funds, that have 
local funds, that have Federal funds under enhancements and 
transportation. We have land trusts. We have individuals coming 
forward, foundations. It is exciting to see people step forward to try 
and fill if the gap at this critical time and meet this critical need, 
sometimes moving past the politicians.
  This $30 million is critical, not just because it will leverage 
literally hundreds of millions of dollars across the country. It is 
important because it restarts the discussion here about keeping our 
commitment with the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I think it is 
going to be the start of something that is very big.
  As we discussed at the initiation of the debate on this bill, we want 
to start the discussion of the budget with a 50-year vision for this 
country. Everybody in this Chamber knows that we are going to add money 
to the budget process before we get out of town at the end of the fall, 
or the summer, or whenever we are finally set free. We are going to add 
more money. Everybody knows it.
  Voting today to keep our commitment to the States, to the localities, 
to this massive national grass roots movement to try and restore our 
legacy, is going to give leverage to our subcommittee to be able to 
fight the good fight, and it is going to give heart to people across 
the country who are working to try and make their communities more 
livable.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share my biases.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman be more comfortable if 
the State of Oregon, which had a surplus balance in 1998 of $15 
million, had spent some of that on local projects? And secondly, would 
he be more comfortable if this amendment were limited to land purchases 
and not marinas and tennis courts and swimming pools and any of the 
other things that they might find desirable?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. As I attempted to make clear, I am embarrassed that 
my State legislature has broken faith with the voters of Oregon by 
taking away money that they just approved at the ballot box and using 
it for other purposes.
  So I feel that there is a very mixed record on the part of States. 
That is

[[Page H5418]]

why I support efforts of the Committee on Appropriations to have 
appropriate guidelines for the disbursement of Federal funds.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Regula, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Blumenauer 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy under the leadership 
of this subcommittee to look for ways to provide more explicit 
guidelines to help make sure that we get the most bang for the buck.
  I would be loathe, however, to tell some States and localities that 
have very particular needs for park and recreation that they could not 
have the restoration of a marina or for some type of open space.
  I think we have seen dramatically different projects emerge as a 
result of this grass roots effort. I think it looks different than some 
of the things that frankly would raise my eyebrows from a few years 
ago.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman was critical of the 
legislature for taking the money back, but I would have to point out 
that if this were to be done on a substantial scale, we ought to take 
it out of the 378 national parks. It has to come from somewhere. I know 
initially it is possible, but in setting up priorities, it could very 
well come out of parks.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Blumenauer was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I just wanted to say that I think it is an 
inappropriate choice to cannibalize our national parks to keep a 
commitment that we have to State and local governments for their half 
of this fund.
  I will work with the chairman, with the ranking member, as hard as I 
can to make sure that the gentleman has adequate resources to invest 
for the future without making a foolish decision to shortcircuit the 
next half century of preserving these great national treasures.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the McGovern-Campbell-
Hoeffel-Holt amendment, but first to commend the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for bringing 
to this floor a very good bill, and given the constraints they were 
under, bringing to the floor an excellent bill.
  Focusing on the amendment, Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of today's 
session I had a chance to watch the floor. There, Member after Member 
rose to praise the women's soccer team that won the World Cup, to 
praise our heroes more eloquently than I can here, Michelle Akers, Mia 
Hamm, Brandi and Briana, so many who filled us with pride.
  But will that praise merely be empty symbolism, or are we actually 
willing to do something? Are we just going to talk about what sports 
mean to our kids, about teamwork and confidence-building, or are we 
going to do something?

                              {time}  1715

  We who praise what this woman's soccer team has done, to make sure 
that girls as well as boys fill the clubs, fill the teams and are out 
there playing sports rather than being distracted by the latest 
splatter video game or experimenting with sex and drugs and violence, 
we who are so good at rhetoric need to put this Nation's money where 
our mouth is.
  Likewise, we have to keep faith with the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. We promised the people of this country over 20 years ago that the 
funds obtained from offshore oil drilling would go to preserve open 
space in our Nation, across the country, for our national parks and 
also in the State-side program for recreation.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that this amendment has been criticized because 
it means an 8 percent cut to coal research. But, Mr. Chairman, we have 
had not an 8 percent, not an 18 percent, but a 100 percent cut in the 
State-side program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. If this 
budget has got to be this tight, certainly the damage or the tightness 
or the inability to spend should be spread more equitably and $30 
million should be found for recreation.
  Mr. Chairman, most juvenile crime takes place between 2 p.m. and 8 
p.m. What we need are supervised afterschool activities, especially 
sports which build teamwork and which build confidence.
  Mr. Chairman, in Montgomery County, for example, there are 1,000 
soccer teams trying to play on a hundred fields. In Ft. Lauderdale 
there is a waiting list of a thousand kids waiting to play soccer. I 
had the chance to visit the grand opening of the new AYSO headquarters 
in the Los Angeles area, and everyone there involved in youth soccer 
said and asked just one question: Mr. Chairman, where will the children 
play?
  The answer is to be found in this bill. It is time for us to expand 
the recreation facilities available to our youth and to have a vision 
of tomorrow's kids that involves teamwork outside and not splatter 
video games inside.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise today in support of the amendment of my 
colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt) to add $30 million to the State-side funding of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. This is a critical program to communities such 
as mine where our natural and human resources, in this case our youth, 
are both in jeopardy.
  The funding provided by this amendment will give a tremendous boost 
to the efforts of our local communities to provide recreational outlets 
to our young people. Sadly, for the fifth year in a row the Interior 
Appropriations bill has not provided funds for this program.
  Mr. Chairman, the development of new recreational outlets is 
overwhelmingly supported and needed by our constituents. In my 
district, the commissioner of parks and public lands has repeatedly 
called upon me to seek such funding as is found in the increase in the 
State-side funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  While some do, as we have heard not every community has a large 
surplus to spend. But even for the communities that do, it is time for 
the Federal Government to step up to the plate and do something 
positive for our young people and our communities, and it can do this 
through providing this funding.
  I also want to take this opportunity to join my colleague, the 
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Faleomavaega) in urging that all due 
consideration be given to the needs of all of the U.S. insular areas. 
While many of the districts of my colleagues are experiencing good 
fiscal fortunes, the non-State areas of Guam, American Samoa, and my 
district, the U.S. Virgin Islands, are experiencing very tough 
financial times.
  While our local governments are working to do all that they can to 
reduce spending and get our budgets balanced, we still need the 
assistance of the Federal Government if we are to be successful.
  It is unfortunate and the cause of great concern when the needs of 
one insular area is pitted against the other, forcing us to choose 
between accepting financial help at the expense of another sister 
insular area. I urge the members of the subcommittee to be mindful of 
this fact as we go forward in crafting the final version of the 
Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, and urge my colleagues to 
support this modest $30 million allocation for state-side Land and 
Water Conservation funding.
  Since its inception in 1964, the LWCF has been an American success 
story, enjoying support from both Republican and Democratic 
administrations.

[[Page H5419]]

  For the past five years, however, this House has ignored the needs of 
states and communities that want to preserve open space. Cutting out 
State-side LWCF funding has handcuffed communities that want to 
purchase athletic fields, preserve historic sites, and ensure public 
access to pristine wilderness.
  In Maine $32 million of state side funding has supported more than 
700 projects--from the Allagash Wilderness Waterway, to Wolf's Neck 
Park, to the Deering Oaks Playground.
  Today, the need for state-side funding is greater than ever. In just 
the past year, more than four million acres of Maine's ten million acre 
north woods has changed hands. Much of this land, which has 
traditionally been held by Maine-based companies, is now in the hands 
of out of state and multi-national corporations. A lack of funding has 
prevented the state from taking full advantage of the once-in-a-
lifetime opportunity to protect more of Maine's most valuable natural 
resources.
  The Maine state legislature, with strong bipartisan support, recently 
approved a fifty million dollar bond package for land acquisition. But 
to have a significant impact, these funds will have to be matched with 
private and federal dollars.
  State-side funding is absolutely critical for Maine, and communities 
throughout this country, to achieve their land preservation goals.
  It's time for Congress to right the wrong of the past five years and 
fulfill its promise of funds for states and communities to preserve 
open space.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and empower local 
communities to preserve their natural resources for generations to 
come.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, as co-chair of the House Livability 
Communities Task Force I strongly support the amendment offered by my 
colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern.
  Over the past several months I have been receiving letters from city 
and town planners, mayors, and town council members across Rhode Island 
expressing the importance of the Land Water Conservation fund to their 
communities.
  Since 1966 the LWCF has provided more than $33 million, in grants, to 
the State of Rhode Island to preserve and protect open space and parks.
  These funds have been used to make improvements to state beaches, in 
particular Misquamicut, Roger Wheeler, and East Matunuck all of which 
attract tourists from across New England.
  The LWCF has also played a key role in the development of the State's 
park system. It is likely that without the LWCF Colt State Park, 
Lincoln Woods State Park, Fort Adams State Park and Goddard State Park 
would not exist as we know them today.
  This amendment would provide the State of Rhode Island with 
approximately $308,000 for projects this may seem like a small amount 
of money but I can tell you from experience that money would go a long 
way to making improvements in Rhode Island's communities.
  As a landscape architect, in both my professional and public careers 
I have seen first hand how these funds improve our communities.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the McGovern amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        wildland fire management

       For necessary expenses for fire preparedness, suppression 
     operations, emergency rehabilitation and hazardous fuels 
     reduction by the Department of the Interior, $292,399,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 
     $9,300,000 shall be for the renovation or construction of 
     fire facilities: Provided, That such funds are also available 
     for repayment of advances to other appropriation accounts 
     from which funds were previously transferred for such 
     purposes: Provided further, That unobligated balances of 
     amounts previously appropriated to the ``Fire Protection'' 
     and ``Emergency Department of the Interior Firefighting 
     Fund'' may be transferred and merged with this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That persons hired pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 
     1469 may be furnished subsistence and lodging without cost 
     from funds available from this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 1856d, sums received 
     by a bureau or office of the Department of the Interior for 
     fire protection rendered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1856 et seq., 
     Protection of United States Property, may be credited to the 
     appropriation from which funds were expended to provide that 
     protection, and are available without fiscal year limitation.


                    central hazardous materials fund

       For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior 
     and any of its component offices and bureaus for the remedial 
     action, including associated activities, of hazardous waste 
     substances, pollutants, or contaminants pursuant to the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), 
     $10,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, sums recovered from or 
     paid by a party in advance of or as reimbursement for 
     remedial action or response activities conducted by the 
     Department pursuant to section 107 or 113(f) of such Act, 
     shall be credited to this account to be available until 
     expended without further appropriation: Provided further, 
     That such sums recovered from or paid by any party are not 
     limited to monetary payments and may include stocks, bonds or 
     other personal or real property, which may be retained, 
     liquidated, or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary and 
     which shall be credited to this account.


                              construction

       For construction of buildings, recreation facilities, 
     roads, trails, and appurtenant facilities, $11,100,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                       payments in lieu of taxes

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20, 
     1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), $125,000,000, of 
     which not to exceed $400,000 shall be available for 
     administrative expenses: Provided, That no payment shall be 
     made to otherwise eligible units of local government if the 
     computed amount of the payment is less than $100.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to tell the Members that the plan is to roll any 
votes on amendments to about roughly 6:30 to 7 o'clock. Then the votes 
will occur on whatever amendments are pending. And we may continue some 
further action tonight, but there will be no more votes after that 
block that we do at that time.
  So for purposes of planning, Members can count on that as being the 
format for the rest of the day.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 6, line 4, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 69, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is supported by 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). I should 
mention that last year a similar amendment passed this House by a vote 
of 241 to 185.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the very serious problem of 
underfunded mandates. It is an issue that we have heard a whole lot 
about in this body, of forcing citizens in close to 1,800 counties and 
49 States to pay more in local property taxes than they should be 
paying because the Federal Government has fallen very far behind in its 
payment in lieu of taxes on federally owned land. In other words, the 
Federal Government is not paying its fair share and is doing a 
disservice to local communities all over this country.
  Just as an example, in my own small State of Vermont, over 50 towns 
in our southern counties are affected: Bennington, Rutland, Addison, 
Windham, and Windsor Counties. This amendment addresses the overall 
problem of underfunded payment in lieu of taxes by increasing funding 
for this program by $20 million from $125 million to $145 million.
  Although this same amendment passed last year with broad bipartisan 
support, the conference committee only increased payment in lieu of 
taxes by $5 million instead of the $20 million increase that my 
amendment would have provided, which is why we are back this year.
  Mr. Chairman, in real dollars, inflation-accounted-for dollars, PILT 
payments to counties and towns all across this Nation have been 
decreasing for a very long time. In real dollars since 1980, 
appropriations for payments in lieu of taxes have decreased by nearly 
$60 million, a 37-percent decline in value.

[[Page H5420]]

  And while this amendment will not rectify by any means the entire 
problem, it will at least allow communities around this country to know 
that we understand their problems and that we are making some real 
attempts to address those problems by appropriating this $20 million. 
In fact, even if this increase is approved, it would still represent a 
26.3-percent decline in value since 1980.
  Mr. Chairman, I should add, and this is an important point, that the 
authorization for PILT today is approximately $260 million, over twice 
the appropriation level. In other words, the authorizers understand the 
problems facing the communities all over this country; but 
unfortunately in recent years for a variety of reasons, the 
appropriation process has not followed suit.
  Mr. Chairman, the PILT program was established to address the fact 
that the Federal Government does not pay taxes on the land that it 
owns. These Federal lands can include national forests, national parks, 
Fish and Wildlife refuges, and land owned by the Bureau of Land 
Management. Like local property taxes, PILT payments are used to pay 
for school budgets, law enforcement, search and rescue, firefighting, 
parks and recreation, and other municipal expenses.
  Mr. Chairman, the important point has to be made. In recent years in 
this body, there has been a lot of talk about devolution, a lot of talk 
about fiscal responsibility, a lot of talk about respect for counties, 
towns and cities. And yet what we are saying after all of that talk is, 
gee, we do not have to pay our bills. We talk about respecting local 
governments, but yet we do not have to own up to the fact that we owe 
them substantial sums of money.
  I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is operating under 
real budget restrictions, and I happen to believe that we should do 
away with those budget caps and address many of the issues that we 
face. But I think when we deal with basic priorities, how do we talk 
about devolution and then turn our back and then say oh, yes, we will 
continue to owe counties, cities, and towns substantial sums of money?
  Mr. Chairman, the $50 million that we are using for these purposes 
include $20 million in payment in lieu of taxes and $30 million for 
deficit reduction. Our national debt is still over $5 trillion. This 
amendment begins to address that issue. The funds would be transferred 
and offset from the Fossil Energy Research and Development Program, a 
program we have heard a whole lot about in the last few minutes. But 
let me say this in regard to that program. Let me quote from the report 
of the fiscal year 1997 Republican, underlined Republican, budget 
resolution. And I quote: ``The Department of Energy has spent billions 
of dollars----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this is the Republican budget. ``The 
Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars on research and 
development since the oil crisis in 1973 triggered this activity. 
Returns on this investment have not been cost effective, particularly 
for applied research and development which industry has ample incentive 
to undertake. Some of this activity is simply corporate welfare * * *''
  This is not the gentleman from Vermont; this is the Republican budget 
resolution. ``* * * corporate welfare for the oil, gas and utility 
industries. Much of it duplicates what industry is already doing. Some 
has gone to fund technology for which the market has no interest.''
  Mr. Chairman, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the 
beneficiaries of the fossil fuel program are some of the largest 
multinational corporations in the world including Exxon, Chevron, 
Conoco, Texaco, Amoco, Phillips Petroleum, ARCO, and Shell. These 
companies in fact are making large profits. They do not have to come to 
the taxpayer for all of this support.
  So I think the time is now to be fair to communities all over this 
country, and I would urge support for this important amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I know it is a temptation to dip into the fossil 
program. It is a little bit ambiguous. If this were the late 1970s, we 
would not have any such amendments. We would have amendments increasing 
the fossil research, because when people were sitting in gas lines in 
the 1970s, when schools were closed down, hospitals were suffering for 
lack of fuel, we could not give enough money for fossil energy 
research. Now at this moment we have an adequate supply, so some say 
let us not worry about next week or next year, just cut the programs. 
And then if we have another crisis, we will dump a lot of money in.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) one of the reforms we instituted is that on any of these 
programs, there has to be a match. We are not saying give them the 
money. That is what happened in the 1970s, when we shoveled money out 
with no requirement for matching funds. Now companies that want to do 
research on new fuels, California of course has reformulated gasoline 
which came out of the fossil program, they have to put up their own 
money to show that they believe in the program and that it is 
effective.
  So I think to just take a cut at fossil is not the right policy for 
the future of this Nation. And I think some of the arguments that were 
made earlier are clearly along those lines.
  We have reduced fossil by 20 percent over the 4 years of our watch in 
this committee. At the same time, we have increased PILT funding by 23 
percent. And I would point out that this bill is flat funded.

                              {time}  1730

  So if we go to PILT for more money, we have to do less for something 
else.
  I understand that communities would like to have this money. But one 
of the things they do not take into consideration is that when we 
develop Federal facilities it energizes the visitor base, it energizes 
a lot of activity that does bring money into the communities other than 
just from PILT, because they have a lot of tourism, they have those 
kind of activities that are important to the communities that have 
Federal facilities.
  It would be nice to put more money in PILT if we had more money. But 
given the fact that we have a very tight budget, given the fact that we 
had 2,000 requests for projects from the Members of this House, we have 
done the best we could.
  We recognize that fossil research is important for the future of this 
Nation and to maintain energy independence.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding to me.
  Once again, let me point out, I know the gentleman's job is a 
difficult job, and he has to balance a whole lot of needs.
  I guess what I am arguing, and I am glad to hear that companies like 
Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, Texaco, Amoco, Phillips Petroleum, some of the 
largest conglomerates in the world, are contributing something into the 
program. I am glad to hear that.
  But the bottom line is, do my colleagues not think these companies, 
many of them, are enjoying record-breaking profits? Do my colleagues 
not think they can pay for their own research and developments rather 
than stick it to local communities, many of whom have got to raise 
their regressive property tax to fund their basic needs? That is the 
only point that I would make.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is easy to pick out 
the big ones and point to them, but a lot of this money goes to very 
small companies that have innovative ideas. Every company started with 
an idea that one person had, whether it is Bell Telephone, Graham Bell 
or whomever. We find that most of this research is being done by small 
companies. They come up with their 50 percent. It is not easy for them 
to do it, but they believe in their ideas.
  A very small amount, relatively, is going to the large companies. 
They are doing a lot of research on their own.
  But my concern is that we as a Nation do not want to become dependent 
for energy on other outside sources. We are going to spend $265 billion 
on defense. One of the most important elements of the defense of this 
Nation is

[[Page H5421]]

 to be energy independent. We found out in the late 1970s what it means 
to be dependent, in that case on OPEC. They called the tune, and we had 
lines for over a mile at our gasoline stations. We are trying to avoid 
that by looking to the future.
  We have cut it 20 percent over the last 4 years. At the same time, we 
increased PILT 23 percent. I have to say to the gentleman, I think that 
is responsible management, given the amount of resources we have.
  I know it is easy to take a whack on the fossil program. We have a 
prior amendment that has taken a whack on fossil. It is becoming the 
bank for every amendment that comes down the pike because it is sort of 
easy to attack because it is hard to visualize the benefits of a 
program like fossil energy research.
  But the State of the gentleman from Vermont, I am quite sure, is very 
dependent on outside sources for energy. He would want his State to be 
energy independent for his industry and his other base to have the 
energy it needs. So I hope that the Members will reject this amendment.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis) for their hard 
work and diligence on this issue.
  I would like to note that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the 
chairman of Subcommittee on Interior who is running this bill here 
today, has been a friend of the PILT program.
  While it is true this appropriations bill is flat funded, it requires 
difficult choices between many worthwhile projects and many worthwhile 
programs. But our amendment here, this amendment I am pleased to 
cosponsor with my friends, is really an amendment to help one of our 
local units of government, the local folks all across this Nation. The 
gentleman is right, we have to make priorities. Today I am going to 
stand with local units of government and ask for an increase in the 
PILT spending.
  Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor and strong supporter of this amendment, 
it would only restore desperately needed funding to the PILT program. 
Each year, thousands of counties across this Nation lose out on 
millions of dollars of property tax revenue simply because the Federal 
Government owns the land.
  In my district, the Federal Government owns large portions of land. 
For example, approximately 70 percent of the land in Gogebic County is 
in the Ottawa National Forest and owned by the Federal government. 
Since the Federal government does not pay property taxes on its own 
land, the PILT program was established to compensate counties for land 
the Federal government owns.
  Since its adoption in 1976, however, the PILT program has neither 
kept pace with its authorized funding levels nor with the true costs of 
providing services in support of Federal lands. In fact, the PILT 
program is currently funded at less than half its authorized level.
  Rural counties rely on PILT payments to provide essential services 
such as education, law enforcement, emergency fire and medical, search 
and rescue, solid waste management, road maintenance, and other health 
and human services. Without adequate funding for this program, rural 
counties struggle to provide these vital services.
  Mr. Chairman, if the Federal government was required to pay taxes on 
the property it owned like any other individual or corporation, it 
would have been delinquent a long time ago for failure to pay taxes. 
The Federal government owned so much land in some of these counties, 
some school districts in my congressional district cannot even bond for 
school improvements, for school repairs or to build new schools because 
there is not a large enough tax base in the county for the bond 
marketers to loan them the money.
  So this decision and the decision we will make here tonight goes a 
long way in not only trying to bring some equity into the PILT program 
but the effects are much greater than just simply government paying its 
share of taxes. It is allowing communities to exist, to make 
improvements, and to have an equitable economic base to exist.
  The Federal government has decided that it is in the best interest of 
the Nation to own and protect certain lands. I do not think anyone 
would argue with that. What we are arguing here tonight, what our 
amendment says, is that we must not penalize our local communities 
because they have the good fortune to have the Federal government have 
jurisdiction over land within their counties. It is irresponsible for 
the Federal government to take these lands off the tax roll and then 
not provide just compensation.
  Again, since 1976, the value of that program has shrunk by more than 
50 percent. Mr. Chairman, this request is only for a small increase in 
the PILT program, but its impact and importance on the rural counties 
is large.
  I urge my colleagues to cast a vote in favor of equity by voting in 
favor of this amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues who have previously spoken about 
the amendment in offering our praise to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula), chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior, for the 
consideration that he has given in providing the funding for payment in 
lieu of taxes. It is reassuring and comforting to know that the 
committee has time and again kept faith with county governments across 
this country in recognizing the obligation of the Federal government to 
those areas of this Nation from whom land has been taken and put in 
public trust.
  I understand the very difficult balancing act that the chairman has 
had to engage in. I was an original author with our former colleague, 
the gentleman from Colorado, Frank Evans, 25 years ago of this 
language. We started out with a provision that would have provided full 
tax equivalency, a great idea, great goal. I see the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula) smiling about that, and I think he was, in principle, 
agreeing with us.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I can remember when Frank Evans offered the 
amendment in the Subcommittee on Interior that created PILT and was 
legislating on the appropriation. But I gather the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) did not object.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. No, we did not object then.
  A lot of things we do not object to legislating on appropriations 
bills, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio.
  But we realized that that was not going to work when it turned out 
that one county with 1,500 people was going to get $4.5 million under 
this bill. So we agreed to limitations. But we also thought that 
successive governments, successive administrations would agree to 
increase the funding to keep pace with inflation. That has not happened 
in 20 years.
  What we are doing here is helping the committee with a reallocation 
of priorities within its jurisdiction. We are in no way criticizing or 
increasing the total dollar amount but saying this should represent an 
adjustment of priorities within the committee's jurisdiction.
  One simple down-home example, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak) has already cited, Cook County, Minnesota, 900,000 acres, 9 
percent is in private ownership. Nine percent of the land has to 
support 100 percent of the demands and 91 percent of the rest of the 
property. Three thousand six hundred people have to support all of that 
territory.
  In the summer, there are 15,000 tourists that come into that area. 
Those tourism dollars do not pay for the cost of ambulances. They do 
not pay for the cost of emergency helicopters to go into the remote 
areas to rescue people who have been injured in canoe trips. They are 
not paying right now for the disaster that has swept through this area 
that I described earlier this afternoon with the July 4th storm that 
blew down 250,000 acres of trees, 6 million cords of wood on the ground 
now. This is going to be devastating for Cook County.
  But they need this little bit of increase in funding to be able to 
meet the requirements of serving the public. They do not do it just in 
the summer

[[Page H5422]]

months. They do not do it just now and then. Every day of the year that 
county government has to, with only 9 percent of the land, provide 100 
percent of the cost, and we have not given them the resources. They 
cannot develop those public lands. So this little bit of payment helps 
make the adjustment.
  The investment that the county has made, I have looked at these funds 
over the years, Mr. Chairman, they invested in capital equipment. They 
invested in capital improvements, in facilities that served the public. 
They are not using this money to cover the operating costs of the 
county, in the case of Cook County, nor in the case of Lake County or 
Saint Louis County. They are making permanent capital improvements to 
better serve the public. That is where these dollars go.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the gentleman's remarks. I 
just mention to the Members that this amendment was endorsed by the 
National Association of Counties, by the Taxpayers for Common Sense, by 
Friends of the Earth, by the Rural Public Lands Council, by the Sierra 
Club, by U.S. PIRG, and by Public Citizen.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, just in conclusion, for all those who, 
and most of us do, support holding land in public trust for the use of 
all of our citizens, the common heritage of all Americans, these forest 
lands and park lands and wilderness lands, think of those who live on 
the perimeter whose lifestyles and livelihoods depend on that land held 
in public trust for all Americans and realize that, were they given the 
opportunity, they could have made some investments.
  The payment in lieu of taxes helps replace the lost dollars. Support 
this amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, last year two hundred forty-one 
of us voted for an amendment to increase Payments in Lieu of Taxes by 
$20 million. Unfortunately, this addition for PILT was left out of the 
conference report.
  This year we are again asking Congress to address the Federal 
Government's responsibility to help support local governments in areas 
where the Federal Government owns the land, removing it from the local 
tax base.
  Federal landownership may not be as large an issue in my State of 
Kentucky as it is in others; however, for fiscal year 1998, local 
governments in Kentucky experienced nearly a $70,000 PILT loss from the 
previous year.
  I support fossil fuel research and development projects, as these 
investments help make our energy more efficient, affordable and clean. 
However, the standard rate of PILT payments is authorized to increase 
from $1.47 per acre to $1.65 for this fiscal year. Full appropriation 
to meet this amount would have to more than $200 million at minimum.
  This amendment to provide a 16 percent PILT increase helps us to 
begin to reduce the continued shortfall between PILT authorization and 
appropriations.
  Kentucky county governments that receive PILT payments depend on 
these funds to help provide basic services, from education to waste 
removal.
  Edmonson County in my district is home to Mammoth Cave National Park. 
With a population of just 11,000 and a per capita personal income of 
$12,000, the importance of PILT payments to the continuation of county 
services at a bearable cost to the taxpayers can not be understated.
  PILT funds help pay salaries and administrative expenses of the 
county. They help support a 24-hour ambulance service for the National 
Park, as well as county residents. Federal land control has contributed 
to the isolation of many areas in Edmonson County. When major 
transportation routes expanded, the county was bypassed, in favor of 
areas with a larger tax base to support the projects. Equitable PILT 
payments are needed to make up for the tax base Edmonson County has 
given up for the National Park.
  The concerns of Edmonson County are not unique. As the Federal 
Government continues to place responsibilities on local governments, 
PILT increases are necessary to relieve taxpayers nationwide.
  The Bureau of Land Management reports property taxes would provide 
local governments with $1.48 per acre on average. PILT payments amount 
to just more than 17 cents an acre.
  Last year's PILT payments were 54 percent less than authorized by the 
Payment In Lieu of Taxes Act. This law requires the Federal Government 
to compensate local governments as an offset in lost property taxes due 
to Federal ownership.
  A majority of us voted to increase PILT payments last year. Please 
join me again in a vote to add $20 million to PILT to help often-
struggling rural areas provide vital services to their residents.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out sections 205, 206, and 
     318(d) of Public Law 94-579, including administrative 
     expenses and acquisition of lands or waters, or interests 
     therein, $20,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended.


                   oregon and california grant lands

       For expenses necessary for management, protection, and 
     development of resources and for construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other 
     improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad 
     grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and 
     California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent 
     rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein 
     including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such 
     grant lands; $99,225,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That 25 percent of the aggregate of all receipts 
     during the current fiscal year from the revested Oregon and 
     California Railroad grant lands is hereby made a charge 
     against the Oregon and California land-grant fund and shall 
     be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury in 
     accordance with the second paragraph of subsection (b) of 
     title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 876).

               forest ecosystems health and recovery fund

                   (revolving fund, special account)

       In addition to the purposes authorized in Public Law 102-
     381, funds made available in the Forest Ecosystem Health and 
     Recovery Fund can be used for the purpose of planning, 
     preparing, and monitoring salvage timber sales and forest 
     ecosystem health and recovery activities such as release from 
     competing vegetation and density control treatments. The 
     Federal share of receipts (defined as the portion of salvage 
     timber receipts not paid to the counties under 43 U.S.C. 
     1181f and 43 U.S.C. 1181f-1 et seq., and Public Law 103-66) 
     derived from treatments funded by this account shall be 
     deposited into the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund.


                           range improvements

       For rehabilitation, protection, and acquisition of lands 
     and interests therein, and improvement of Federal rangelands 
     pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), notwithstanding any 
     other Act, sums equal to 50 percent of all moneys received 
     during the prior fiscal year under sections 3 and 15 of the 
     Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.) and the amount 
     designated for range improvements from grazing fees and 
     mineral leasing receipts from Bankhead-Jones lands 
     transferred to the Department of the Interior pursuant to 
     law, but not less than $10,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $600,000 shall be 
     available for administrative expenses.


               service charges, deposits, and forfeitures

       For administrative expenses and other costs related to 
     processing application documents and other authorizations for 
     use and disposal of public lands and resources, for costs of 
     providing copies of official public land documents, for 
     monitoring construction, operation, and termination of 
     facilities in conjunction with use authorizations, and for 
     rehabilitation of damaged property, such amounts as may be 
     collected under Public Law 94-579, as amended, and Public Law 
     93-153, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any provision to the contrary of section 
     305(a) of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1735(a)), any moneys 
     that have been or will be received pursuant to that section, 
     whether as a result of forfeiture, compromise, or settlement, 
     if not appropriate for refund pursuant to section 305(c) of 
     that Act (43 U.S.C. 1735(c)), shall be available and may be 
     expended under the authority of this Act by the Secretary to 
     improve, protect, or rehabilitate any public lands 
     administered through the Bureau of Land Management which have 
     been damaged by the action of a resource developer, 
     purchaser, permittee, or any unauthorized person, without 
     regard to whether all moneys collected from each such action 
     are used on the exact lands damaged which led to the action: 
     Provided further, That any such moneys that are in excess of 
     amounts needed to repair damage to the exact land for which 
     funds were collected may be used to repair other damaged 
     public lands.


                       miscellaneous trust funds

       In addition to amounts authorized to be expended under 
     existing laws, there is hereby

[[Page H5423]]

     appropriated such amounts as may be contributed under section 
     307 of the Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), and such 
     amounts as may be advanced for administrative costs, surveys, 
     appraisals, and costs of making conveyances of omitted lands 
     under section 211(b) of that Act, to remain available until 
     expended.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management shall be 
     available for purchase, erection, and dismantlement of 
     temporary structures, and alteration and maintenance of 
     necessary buildings and appurtenant facilities to which the 
     United States has title; up to $100,000 for payments, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, for information or evidence 
     concerning violations of laws administered by the Bureau; 
     miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement 
     activities authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be 
     accounted for solely on his certificate, not to exceed 
     $10,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the 
     Bureau may, under cooperative cost-sharing and partnership 
     arrangements authorized by law, procure printing services 
     from cooperators in connection with jointly produced 
     publications for which the cooperators share the cost of 
     printing either in cash or in services, and the Bureau 
     determines the cooperator is capable of meeting accepted 
     quality standards.

                United States Fish and Wildlife Service


                          resource management

       For necessary expenses of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, for scientific and economic studies, 
     conservation, management, investigations, protection, and 
     utilization of fishery and wildlife resources, except whales, 
     seals, and sea lions, maintenance of the herd of long-horned 
     cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, general 
     administration, and for the performance of other authorized 
     functions related to such resources by direct expenditure, 
     contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable 
     agreements with public and private entities, $710,700,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2001, except as 
     otherwise provided herein, of which $11,701,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for operation and maintenance of 
     fishery mitigation facilities constructed by the Corps of 
     Engineers under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, 
     authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1976, to 
     compensate for loss of fishery resources from water 
     development projects on the Lower Snake River, and of which 
     not less than $2,000,000 shall be provided to local 
     governments in southern California for planning associated 
     with the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) 
     program and shall remain available until expended:  Provided, 
     That not less than $1,000,000 for high priority projects 
     which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as 
     authorized by the Act of August 13, 1970, as amended: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $6,532,000 shall be used 
     for implementing subsections (a), (b), (c), and (e) of 
     section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, for 
     species that are indigenous to the United States (except for 
     processing petitions, developing and issuing proposed and 
     final regulations, and taking any other steps to implement 
     actions described in subsections (c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B)(i), or 
     (c)(2)(B)(ii): Provided further, That of the amount available 
     for law enforcement, up to $400,000 to remain available until 
     expended, may at the discretion of the Secretary, be used for 
     payment for information, rewards, or evidence concerning 
     violations of laws administered by the Service, and 
     miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement activity, 
     authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be accounted 
     for solely on his certificate: Provided further, That of the 
     amount provided for environmental contaminants, up to 
     $1,000,000 may remain available until expended for 
     contaminant sample analyses: Provided further, That 
     hereafter, all fines collected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
     Service for violations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1362-1407) and implementing regulations shall be 
     available to the Secretary, without further appropriation, to 
     be used for the expenses of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
     Service in administering activities for the protection and 
     recovery of manatees, polar bears, sea otters, and walruses, 
     and shall remain available until expended: Provided further, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, in fiscal 
     year 1999 and thereafter, sums provided by private entities 
     for activities pursuant to reimbursable agreements shall be 
     credited to the ``Resource Management'' account and shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That, 
     heretofore and hereafter, in carrying out work under 
     reimbursable agreements with any State, local, or tribal 
     government, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may, without 
     regard to 31 U.S.C. 1341 and notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law or regulation, record obligations against 
     accounts receivable from such entities, and shall credit 
     amounts received from such entities to this appropriation, 
     such credit to occur within 90 days of the date of the 
     original request by the Service for payment.


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Coburn

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
       Page 11, line 2, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,130,000)''.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a copy of the amendment of 
the gentleman from Oklahoma, and I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington reserves a point of 
order.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, we have just heard a debate over why we 
should transfer money out of clean coal technology to a fund that was 
designed for conservation and protection of land and environment.

                              {time}  1745

  And we heard several people say that we ought to live up to that 
commitment, that that is the purpose for that fund. And we are going to 
vote on that in a little bit. This bill, in conjunction with the rest 
of the bills, has just as much commitment that should be attached to 
it.
  I wanted to take a minute first and say to the chairman and the 
ranking member how much I appreciate the cooperation that they have 
given us this year in working on this bill, in taking our suggestions 
towards savings and the collegial manner in which they accepted some of 
our ideas and did not accept others. I am appreciative of the hard work 
they have done and the attitude with which they have accepted some of 
our ideas.
  The purpose behind this amendment is to show the disparity when we 
look at just administrative accounts for the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
This bill, as it is presently written, has a 6.6 percent increase in 
administration of the Fish and Wildlife Service for a total of $114.7 
million. And out of this, the central administration, that here in 
Washington, is increased by 6 percent; but the regional administration, 
those areas outside of Washington, are increased by only 3.5 percent.
  So what, in effect, this bill does, besides the fact that it 
increases at three times the rate of inflation the bureaucracy 
associated with Fish and Wildlife, not touching any of the programs but 
just simply the administrative portion of this, it increases 
Washington-based bureaucracy at almost twice the rate at which we give 
increased funds for administration outside of Washington. The committee 
also increases the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation by 16.6 
percent and increases the international affairs administration by 32 
percent.
  There is no question we should adequately fund these organizations, 
but I think there is a legitimate question that should be asked, and 
there should be an explanation by the committee as to why a bureaucracy 
here in Washington needs an increase in its administrative costs of 6.6 
percent when, in fact, our seniors who are going to receive a Social 
Security increase in terms of cost of living are going to receive 
somewhere around 1.8 percent.
  So we are going to recognize that it takes 3\1/2\ to four times to do 
in Washington what we are going to recognize that is needed by the 
members of our society who are receiving Social Security, not to 
mention the fact that this money is going to come out of Social 
Security, this increase in spending.
  So the real question is, are we going to increase bureaucracy costs 
at a rate far above inflation and at the same time take the money to do 
that from the Social Security fund; or can we not pare it back to a 2 
percent increase? Can we not realistically ask the employees of the 
Federal Government to live within the constraints we are asking the 
rest of the country to live within? So the purpose of this amendment 
basically brings us back down to a legitimate cost-of-living increase 
in terms of administrative costs.
  I understand that Federal employees are going to have a pay increase 
out of that, but that is not the far and greater portion of this 
increase. And I would compare also the increases that were in the 
House-marked bill with what the Senate has marked up. And when we look 
at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, they gave them an 8.3 
percent increase. We have given them a 16.6 percent increase. In 
international affairs we gave them a 32 percent increase and the Senate 
gave a 4.7 percent increase.
  Overall, the Senate increased 4.9 percent the cost of administration 
of the National Fish and Wildlife administrative overhead budget, and 
we have done them one better: we have increased it

[[Page H5424]]

6.6 percent. So all we are asking is simply give the American people a 
justification of why we should have this kind of increase in the 
administration of this agency and at the same time not be able to fund 
adequately some of the things that those that are dependent in our 
society are so desperately in need of.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, one point I would make is that the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, as the gentleman knows, has been called upon here 
with an incredible number of habitat conservation plans all over the 
country, but particularly in the Pacific Northwest, California.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Coburn was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would just say 
that there are requirements for them to have personnel. And I am very 
sensitive to what the gentleman said about the increase in personnel in 
the regions, because it is in the regional offices where most of these 
negotiations are under way; but there is tremendous pressure on them to 
be involved, for example at Pacific Lumber company on the big 
settlement in California, where they had to have people there who could 
negotiate with the State and with the private parties in order to reach 
these agreements, which involve thousands and thousands of acres of 
incredibly important habitat.
  Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes my 
point. Why do we fund at a very small increase the district regional 
offices and we are doubling that amount for the bureaucracy here in 
Washington?
  The point is there is no question they have a workload, and there is 
no question we have good employees in this agency. The question is can 
we afford at this day and time to grow the Federal bureaucracy here in 
Washington at a rate twice at which we are growing the regional 
bureaucracy.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would support the gentleman if we were taking the money from out of 
D.C. and transferring it to the regions. That is the point I was trying 
to make. But as I understand the gentleman's amendment, we are not 
doing that. We are cutting the overall amount of money rather than 
transferring it from D.C. out to the regions.
  Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time once again, the gentleman's position 
is whether we are taking it out of there or not, he favors a 6.6 
percent increase for the bureaucracy here in Washington at the same 
time he is limiting the regional increase to 3.5 percent?
  Mr. DICKS. No, I am not saying that. I am just saying the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and also people back here, are called upon all the 
time to make judgments about what the regions are doing on these plans.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Coburn was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, one 
of the problems here is the private sector are the people who enter 
into these HCPs under the ESA, and they need to have somebody to deal 
with. Now, some of those people are in D.C. as well. These issues get 
raised up to the national level to be decided.
  So I am just trying to explain that there has been a tremendous 
increase because of all of the listings under the endangered species 
act. I could tell the gentleman about my own area, of the salmon 
listings, the Marbled Murrelets, the Spotted Owl, and the pressure not 
only on Fish and Wildlife but NMFS as well to work with the private 
sector.
  Mr. COBURN. I would be happy to support the gentleman if he would 
offer an amendment that would move the differences in the increase from 
Washington to the regional offices. I would support that.
  I plan on withdrawing this amendment because I have another amendment 
to follow it that is much less severe and brings us back in line with 
the Senate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Coburn was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. COBURN. If we are going to enhance the ability of the Fish and 
Wildlife to do their job, the best way we enhance it is at the regional 
offices and not in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I realize the gentleman has withdrawn his amendment, but I would 
point out a couple of facts, and that is that all we gave in the 
Washington office were for fixed costs, nothing more. There are no more 
people. It is a summary alignment that sort of distorted the numbers. 
So, in reality, we were just trying to get the fixed costs.
  Also, I would mention to my colleagues that they have a wide range of 
responsibilities that do not always appear to most of us. When we were 
on the committee trip, we visited the forensic lab of the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, one of the finest facilities in the world, and they 
are called upon to provide assistance in many areas other than the 
United States, and of course they are compensated.
  They deal with the problem of illegal taking of species. We have a 
treaty, the so-called Convention on International Trade and Endangered 
Species, and 150 nations are signatory to this treaty. It involves 
preventing the importation of endangered animals. They work with the 
Customs Service, a very impressive facility to say the least. And that 
of course comes under the administrative budget.
  It is something that most people are not aware of, and yet it is a 
very vital part of having responsible enforcement of the Endangered 
Species Act and to ensure that we are not getting contraband in terms 
of furs or in terms of ivory that puts a burden on species in other 
parts of the world.
  So I am pleased that the gentleman is going to withdraw this 
amendment, but I did want to mention these things because it is part of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service that does not get a lot of attention, but 
which is very important in terms of preserving species that I think are 
valuable to all of society.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman explain why our large 
increase in the international affairs is a $2 million increase in the 
budget for the administration of that one program and that is all here 
in Washington?
  Mr. REGULA. I think I would respond to the gentleman by saying this 
is the program. It is not just administration. The number we have is 
the program. We had a lot of requests from Members on both sides of the 
aisle to give some additional assistance here.
  I think, on balance, Fish and Wildlife has tried to be very 
responsible in the use of the monies we provide.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I am sort 
of sorry the gentleman withdrew his amendment because I share with him 
some concern about Fish and Wildlife, although I appreciate his doing 
that because I think that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the 
chairman of the committee, as well as the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks), has certainly worked hard to develop a bill that can be 
acceptable both to the minority and to the Senate and to the 
administration.
  My purpose in rising today is really to enter into a colloquy with 
the chairman and to remind him and to remind the minority that during 
the recent conference committee we had on the Kosovo monies there came 
an issue before the committee that we had ample votes to put forth and 
to attach to the Kosovo legislation and it had to do with an endangered 
species, the Alabaman sturgeon.
  If my two colleagues will recall that night, and Senator Byrd was 
there,

[[Page H5425]]

calling me a rock for standing by him on a steel issue and he stood by 
me too on this sturgeon issue, and I appreciate Senator Byrd's doing 
that, but I am sure that my two colleagues are going to be upset and so 
is Senator Byrd when he finds out that, contrary to what we were told 
that night, that if we would withdraw our amendment that Fish and 
Wildlife would not proceed further on the endangered species program; 
that they are on until such time as the Senate had an opportunity to 
have a hearing on this prior to October of this year.
  Well, contrary to the promise that we got that night, that was given 
to the chairman and the ranking member, and was given to me and Senator 
Shelby, Fish and Wildlife ignored what they told us and proceeded 
almost a week later with calling for a public hearing on the sturgeon 
situation in Alabama, and called it at a time when neither Senator 
Shelby nor I or any other member of the Alabama delegation could be 
there to testify.
  So contrary to the wishes of the conference committee that night, 
they just are pressing right ahead. They simply ignore what they told 
us they were going to do. And I am here to tell my colleagues that we 
are going to have to address this once again during this process.
  Not today, but sometime during this process we are going to have to 
teach Fish and Wildlife a lesson that they cannot come before a 
conference committee of the United States House and Senate and tell us 
they are going to do one thing, have us withdraw some proposal that is 
presented before us, and then turn around and do just exactly contrary 
to what they promised us they would do and what they backed up with a 
letter from the head of Fish and Wildlife.

                              {time}  1800

  So, Mr. Chairman, I know that you have already cut Fish and Wildlife 
somewhat this year. We may have to go deeper than this. But this issue 
of the sturgeon is going to come back in this process because we cannot 
tolerate a Federal agency doing this to such a prestigious committee 
chairman as my colleague and his ranking member.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have two comments.
  First of all, we as a committee have a difficult time making 
judgments on listings because of hundreds of them, as my colleague well 
knows.
  Secondly, we do have a meeting scheduled next week on the very issue 
brought up. I would like to invite the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) to come to that meeting. We will be in touch with him. I plan 
to be there. We will have people from Fish and Wildlife, and I think we 
should raise the very issues that my colleague has pointed out here 
today.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
for his comments.
  The chairman is right, too. We cannot have this committee saying 
which species are going to be listed as endangered. And we did not ask 
that.
  There is a 5-year study under way. We have found one of these 
endangered Alabama sturgeons that looks remarkably like the Mississippi 
sturgeon. And there are billions of them. But, in any event, we found 
one. We, through a grant from the U.S. Interior, have now established a 
program of breeding a sturgeon that looks like what they say is 
endangered. So we are right in the middle of a 5-year study.
  Fish and Wildlife, knowing this, just suddenly decided that they 
wanted to go ahead and list it before we were successful in our 
endeavor. So I am not recommending that we start denying the Service 
the ability. All we asked for was a delay in order that we could have a 
hearing on this in the Senate.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, the 
meeting is scheduled for next Thursday. I was there the night when the 
commitment was made. We will raise all the issues that the gentleman 
has outlined today with Fish and Wildlife.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
       Page 11, line 2, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,000,000)''.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I will not go through the details of the 
last amendment, but I would make a pleading to the chairman of this 
committee and the ranking member that the amount of increases that we 
have put in administration of the Fish and Wildlife far exceeds that 
which the Senate committee have put in and far exceeds that which is 
necessary on a routine basis for all of the bureaucracies within this 
government.
  I know that we can probably come up with a justification for why we 
need to increase this 6.6 percent. But I would ask the ranking member 
and the chairman for us to really consider where this difference 
between the 4.9 percent increase that the Senate has and the 6.6 
percent, where is the money going to come from?
  We all know where it is going to come from. The money is going to 
come out of the Social Security trust fund in the year 2000. And if in 
fact we will pare back this $2 million, this $2 million is enough for 
2,000 seniors to get Medicare for a year.
  I am not saying the Senate is better at these than we are. What I am 
saying is, if we went out and asked the American public what kind of 
increase did they get in their operating budget to administer programs, 
whether it is State, local, municipal or if it is Federal, to see a 6.6 
percent increase in a time when we are bound by the 1997 budget 
agreement, I know many of us do not feel bound by it, but I believe we 
should honor our commitments on this and live within the budget 
agreement that we voted for and passed and is a matter of law with the 
President, that increasing it 4.9 percent is a large increase in terms 
of administrative overhead and costs.
  So my plea to my colleague is to at least consider this very small 
reduction in costs from 6.6 to 4.9 percent, saying, you know what, we 
really can be more efficient in the Federal government. We really do 
not have to spend this $2 million. We really can get by.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman, we had extensive 
hearings on these issues; and in this bill he is going to see hundreds 
of puts and takes. We made cuts all over this bill, and a lot of 
programs were reduced. But in some cases we went along with what we 
considered legitimate increases. And we have got fixed costs. We have 
got pay. We have got GSA for the building space. I mean, these are all 
the costs of administration, and they do go up.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the costs for these 
services last year in 1999, according to the committee print, was 
$109,363,000. The recommendation of my colleagues is to increase that 
to $116,680,000, or an increase of $7,000,317. I do not know about 
California, but I know about Oklahoma, and that is a big increase.
  My question is, I am not saying that my colleagues could not come up 
with a justification. They could probably come up with a justification 
for raising it 10 percent or 15 percent. I will give my colleagues 
that, that they can come up with that. What I am saying is, 
realistically, they are going to go to conference with the Senate level 
that is well below them.
  So my point is, will my colleagues consider trimming this $2 million 
to put it in line with the Senate, to put it in line with the realistic 
growth in it, and also to recognize that the $2 million is going to 
come out of the Social Security surplus?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to go along with this. I 
think the recommendation of the committee is a sound recommendation.
  Certain agencies, especially the Fish and Wildlife Service, with all 
the work that they have to do under the Endangered Species Act, I 
simply disagree with the gentleman respectfully. I think this is a 
justified increase.
  I know the workload of these people because I am one of the people 
that is demanding that they increase their efforts. We need them to put 
in good people, and we want them to have good

[[Page H5426]]

people in D.C. We want them to have good people in the regions who can 
make decisions and not hold up the private sector when they come up on 
HCPs, which happens to be something I happen to be very familiar with.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments.
  So, therefore, for the record, the position of the committee is that 
we will increase the bureaucracy in Washington at twice the rate we 
increase the bureaucracy in the private sector.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the interest of the gentleman and his 
concern about this. As we all know, our bill is underneath our 
allocation. So it fits into the budgetary scheme that has been created 
by the majority, one that I have serious reservations about, but it 
does.
  So I would say to the gentleman, we do meet all the guidelines of the 
1997 budget agreement, as far as I know. And we have tried to do the 
best job we could after hearing all of these witnesses. I mean, I would 
show the gentleman all of the books of testimony that we have. We have 
listened to these people go into great detail about the workload 
increases. I am a demon on administration, too.
  Now, if this were another agency, let us say it was the National 
Endowment for the Arts or Humanities, I would insist that we hold down 
D.C. But in this case, because of the explosion of work that is being 
required of these agencies because of all of these listings, I must 
tell my colleague, I think 6 or 7 percent is very reasonable.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, he might not have 
heard the first portion of my statement. I did thank him and the 
chairman for the work they did and recognizing that this is a good 
bill. I am not saying this is not a good bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but now the gentleman 
wants to come in and try to nitpick it a little bit.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
yes, I want to save $2 million for senior citizens for the Social 
Security system. There is no question I want to do that.
  Mr. DICKS. But it is not going to do that. My colleague knows full 
well as I do that all it is going to do is get us underneath the 
allocation further and then the Senate or somebody else will say, well, 
let us increase something to get back up to the level that the majority 
has authorized under the Budget Act. We do not take the money from here 
and move it over to somewhere else.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
am just trying to get us down to the Senate. It is ironic that we are 
above the Senate, but I am trying to get us down to the Senate.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, with all due respect, I 
think the gentleman should refer to it as the ``other body'' under the 
rules. I call upon the Chair to enforce the rules.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would take that correction.
  Mr. DICKS. And in good spirit.
  But the other body, especially some of the leadership of the other 
body, may not support the Endangered Species Act and would like to see 
it undercut a little bit. So I would not be surprised if the other side 
cut back funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service because they are not 
as enthusiastic about it as maybe we are.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
would just note from the committee print that the committee cuts ESA $5 
million over last year, the Endangered Species Act in terms of the 
funding for it. So what they have done is cut the money for the 
Endangered Species Act but grow the bureaucracy. And to me I find that 
fairly contrary in terms of the idea.
  Regardless of what the other body has done, my contention is I think 
that we can lead in the House over the other body and set an example.
  I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think it should be pointed out here that 
part of this cut would come out of the money we give to the National 
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which is a very responsible organization. 
They leverage these dollars three to one. For every one we have, they 
raise three in the private sector. They have a limit of 5 percent on 
administrative costs. They are extremely helpful in developing the 
habitat conservation programs.
  I know that the HCPs would be something the gentleman, I believe, 
would strongly endorse. Because it basically takes the private sector, 
lays out an area for economic growth in an area for habitat, and I 
think it is, from what I have observed, a very positive program.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is a voluntary 
program. That is the great thing. The companies like Waterhouse, Plum 
Creek, Murray Pacific, they all come in, they negotiate with the Feds. 
But they have got to have somebody to negotiate with it.
  Again, I say this, if the amendment of the gentleman were to take it 
out of the administration nationally and give it to the regions, I 
could probably support that. But just to cut it out.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, would 
the gentleman agree with me that at the end of this bill we would have 
a conforming amendment to do that?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, well, we will consider 
that. We will think about that. I believe we have got some time between 
now and the end of this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ehlers

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers:
       Page 13, line 8, after the period add the following: ``In 
     addition to the other amounts made available by this 
     paragraph, there shall be available to the Director of the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service $422,000 to carry out 
     section 1005 of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration 
     Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 941c).''.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) reserves a point 
of order.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, the gist of this amendment is to fund an 
authorization which was adopted last year by the Congress and has been 
signed into law by the President.
  I am speaking at this point on behalf of the Great Lakes. I recognize 
the work of the chairman of this committee, who has been very 
supportive of these efforts. I also recognize the activities of the 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, who has instituted some 
legislation in this regard. And, in fact, this amendment is an attempt 
to fund some activities that were sponsored by the chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House.
  Many Americans fail to recognize the significance of the Great Lakes. 
They constitute 20 percent of the world's fresh water. They constitute 
95 percent of the United States' fresh surface water. They contain six 
quadrillion gallons of fresh water.
  I find it ironic that this country has spent hundreds upon hundreds 
of millions of dollars, in fact, billions of dollars developing dams 
and other waterways in the West to provide fresh water and yet we often 
are stingy in providing funding for the Great Lakes, which is the 
greatest freshwater system in the world.

                              {time}  1815

  Last year, Congress unanimously passed and the President signed into

[[Page H5427]]

law the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act which 
reauthorized the original 1990 act. This act provides for the 
continuation of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife coordination offices, 
which are very important to the entire Great Lakes basin but 
importantly, as it relates to this amendment, the act creates a new 
grants program for implementation of fish and wildlife restoration 
projects. This structure provides a unique opportunity for enhancing 
coordination of restoration activities in the Great Lakes region, 
leveraging funds for restoration efforts and making real progress on 
the highest priority restoration activities needed in the region.
  Enthusiasm for getting the program off to a rapid start is high in 
the region. In fact, interested parties have already drafted several 
proposals for the grant program, and the Council of Lake Committees has 
begun discussion of priorities.
  I understand that no new grant programs were funded in this bill due 
to the tight budget cap and the chairman's desire to create a fair 
Interior appropriations bill. I also understand full well the 
difficulty of the appropriations process while in particular the 
difficulty the subcommittee chairman faced in trying to deal with this 
appropriations process while remaining within the caps in the 302(b) 
allocations.
  I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the subcommittee, 
Mr. Regula. Because of that respect, I do not plan to pursue this 
amendment but plan to withdraw it. However, I did want to offer the 
amendment and debate it so that, if additional funds become available 
later in the appropriations process, the chairman and the subcommittee 
will look kindly upon funding this particular grant program. The amount 
of money is $422,000, which is relatively small compared to the total 
of the bill, and I believe it would go a great distance toward renewing 
the restoration efforts in the Great Lakes. It will provide sufficient 
funds to leverage a great deal of State money to be put into this 
effort.
  I would appreciate any comments the chairman might make upon this 
issue before I officially withdraw it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes a good point. 
We would hope that if there are additional funds available, that we 
might be able to do this. The Great Lakes are a very precious resource. 
Water, I think, generally is going to grow in its importance. 
Therefore, one of the great efforts we should make as a Nation is to 
preserve freshwater supplies. We have heard the stories that some 
States want to build pipelines up to the Great Lakes to tap into that 
water supply, and we have a responsibility to this Nation to maintain 
and improve the quality of our freshwater lakes and supply that is part 
of our Nation's resources.
  Mr. EHLERS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his 
comments and his willingness to consider this issue. Not only are other 
states hoping to tap into Great Lakes Water, but other countries are 
also seeking to tap into this supply and hope to ship water out of the 
Great Lakes to fulfill their own water needs. It is very important for 
us to maintain the purity of this water, make certain that it remains 
in this country, is used properly, and remains drinkable for our 
population. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) for his support and for his commitment to completion of the 
Parker River Wildlife Refuge headquarters complex and its visitors 
center in Newburyport, Massachusetts. I understand that we are waiting 
to reach a final agreement on the total cost of the project. My current 
understanding is that sufficient funds from previous years exist to 
move this project forward in fiscal year 2000. Is that the gentleman's 
understanding as well?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The Fish and 
Wildlife Service has told the committee that funds for planning and 
design are sufficient to continue this project through fiscal year 2000 
and that further construction funding will not be needed for obligation 
until 2001. Let me assure the gentleman that the committee is committed 
to completing this project and to providing additional funding in the 
future when it is needed.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and ask should 
new information come to light and should we reach resolution on the 
total cost of the project and additional funds are made available in 
the Interior allocation, would he consider some funding for the project 
in fiscal year 2000 as part of his conference negotiations?
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, again let me assure 
the gentleman that the committee considers this a worthy project and I 
will be happy to work with him as we move forward in conference 
negotiations with the other body.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Again I thank the gentleman very much.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                              construction

       For construction and acquisition of buildings and other 
     facilities required in the conservation, management, 
     investigation, protection, and utilization of fishery and 
     wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands and 
     interests therein; $43,933,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gutknecht

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gutknecht:
       Page 13, line 14, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $250,000)''.
       Page 71, line 22, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $250,000)''.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of order.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, recently the President announced from 
the White House that the American bald eagle, a symbol of our Nation 
and the freedom we cherish, is no longer on our country's endangered 
species list. We can be proud of this accomplishment and acknowledge 
the efforts and the vision of the individuals who have helped save this 
majestic raptor from extinction.
  Today, I come to the floor to ask this body's support for what I 
believe to be an exceptional opportunity to help one community's dream 
become a reality. But more importantly I believe this Congress can make 
a modest investment in providing an exceptional site where millions of 
Americans will be able to enjoy viewing the American bald eagle in its 
natural habitat. I am proud to report that the city of Wabasha, 
Minnesota, has made a real commitment to building a first-class 
facility where visitors can do just this.
  But first I want to say that I am fully aware of the very difficult 
task before the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), his subcommittee and 
staff in developing this bill that addresses the stewardship of our 
Nation's natural and national resources in a responsible and balanced 
way. I appreciate their hard work and many worthy funding projects they 
have been asked to consider. Despite the subcommittee's support for the 
eagle center last year, I regret that the budget constraints within the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife precluded the agency from extending financial 
support for the construction of the center.
  Rather than asking the agency to draw on its limited operations 
budget, my amendment transfers $250,000 from the Energy Information 
Administration to the construction account within the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. With the EIA receiving an increase of $2.1 million 
over last year's budget for a total of $72.644 million, I would suggest 
that my proposed reduction would have a minimal impact on its 
operations. Indeed, the CBO has scored it to have a neutral budget 
impact. Again, this amendment requests a very modest contribution from 
the Federal Government for a project that will generate benefits that 
far exceed the costs.

[[Page H5428]]

  For the past 9 years, 70 volunteers, people who live in Wabasha, 
Minnesota, have shared their riverfront with thousands of visitors who 
come to see a bald eagle in the wild. These visitors leave with a 
tangible connection to the eagles and a newfound interest in preserving 
our wildlife heritage and vanishing wild places.
  But, Mr. Chairman, winters in Minnesota are very cold. An average 
visitor spends only about 10 minutes on the riverfront. An indoor eagle 
viewing and education facility would enhance the visitor experience. To 
get this incredible project moving forward, the city of Wabasha and the 
Minnesota legislature have already contributed over $1.9 million, about 
half of what the cost will be to build the national eagle center in 
Wabasha, Minnesota. Now the community is looking for a little support 
from Congress. I cannot think of a better way to celebrate the recovery 
of the once threatened American eagle.
  Two years ago, CBS News reporter Harry Smith joined the ranks of 
America's wildlife watchers. He became a birdwatcher when he visited 
rural southeastern Minnesota to shoot a story about Wabasha's bald 
eagle center. He said, ``It makes the heart quicken to see the splendid 
symbol of our Nation, hundreds of them, in their natural environment 
sitting in the cottonwoods and fishing, along the banks of the upper 
Mississippi River.''
  CBS News officials said the network received more phone calls 
requesting copies of Smith's eloquent story about the bald eagle's 
success in Wabasha than any story he has ever done.
  Nowhere else in the lower 48 States can you and your family get a 
better view of our natural symbol. And there is nowhere else you can go 
to see so many bald eagles on any Sunday from November through March 
knowing that trained staff will be there to help you spot the birds and 
share information about them. And, Mr. Chairman, there is no admission 
charge.
  Recently, the Minnesota Audubon Council and the Upper Mississippi 
River Campaign agreed to team up with the city to support the 
development of the project. They, too, recognize the eagles center as a 
unique visitor and teaching facility. In fact, Audubon is planning to 
use the center to be a key stopping point for the Great Rivers Birding 
Train which will run from the headwaters of the Mississippi River to 
the city of St. Louis.
  Nationally and locally, investments in wildlife and wild places are 
an investment in this country's natural resource legacy and its 
economic future.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the chairman and my colleagues for their support 
of this very important amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws the point of order.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no question that this is a great project for 
the people that have a chance to view it, and I am pleased to note that 
the State and the local community is supporting it. But I would have to 
point out to the gentleman that this is not Federal land and we cannot 
meet all the operational and maintenance needs of the refuge system, 
the Federal refuge system.
  We have requests in our committee for $175 million worth of non-
Federal projects. We just simply had to take a position that we cannot 
do any because if we do one, then we have to perhaps try to do a lot of 
others. There is a waiting list of construction and maintenance 
projects within the Fish and Wildlife, projects that are on existing 
Federal lands.
  I would suggest to the gentleman that he might consider trying to get 
this authorized as a Federal site and then it would be easier for us to 
consider it. But under the present circumstances, we simply cannot 
start down the road of funding non-Federal projects. I would hope the 
gentleman would withdraw the amendment. We do have to oppose it on the 
basis that we have rejected $175 million worth of other projects.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman will yield, I think the difference 
here is that we are not going to be coming back every year for 
additional maintenance costs.
  Mr. REGULA. I understand.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. The point here is that we have recognized this is the 
national eagles center. The city has contributed already almost $1 
million, the State of Minnesota has contributed almost $1 million. They 
intend to raise in addition to that perhaps as much as $2 million in 
private resources. We are asking for a very modest investment, because 
it is important, it is our national symbol, it is the national eagles 
center. So we are asking for a very modest amount to be transferred out 
of a department budget that was increased by over $2.5 million.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I really do not want to have to come back for 
maintenance expenses every year. This would be just one way that the 
Federal Government could pick up a small portion of the overall cost.
  Mr. REGULA. I understand what the gentleman is saying, but I have to 
point out, it is not an authorized Federal project and once we start 
funding these, this may be not a lot but the total of all of these 
projects is $175 million. We do not have it to begin with and we do not 
feel that we should be doing non-Federal projects when we have such a 
backlog of maintenance and high priority projects that are Federal 
lands.
  I feel that the proper way would be either to get it authorized or, 
and I congratulate the communities, if they continue supporting this as 
either a State and local cooperative facility.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. With all due respect, I would hope that we can have a 
vote on this. We would like to have the gentleman's support. If in the 
end assuming that we may not prevail in this vote, it is something that 
is important, it is not just important to the people in Wabasha, 
Minnesota, it is really important to all Americans. As I say, it is one 
of the few places in the lower 48 United States where you can actually 
see eagles in the wild and I think it is going to be a tremendous 
resource not only for the upper Midwest but for all Americans.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I would ask the question of the 
gentleman, has there been any conversation with Fish and Wildlife as to 
whether or not they would like to have this in as part of their 
portfolio?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Yes, I have talked to Fish and Wildlife. They very 
much would like to be a part of this. They did not make it a priority 
item on their budget list this year, but they asked me if perhaps I 
could get it included individually in this particular manner.
  Mr. REGULA. Again reclaiming my time, I would strongly urge the 
gentleman to consider getting it authorized so it could be a Federal 
project. I realize he does not want ongoing funds, but these do have a 
way of needing some additional funding in future years.

                              {time}  1830

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  The amendment was rejected.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would note that the use of cellular 
telephones is not permitted either on the floor of the House or within 
the gallery, and the Chair would ask the visitor within the gallery to 
cease use of a cellular telephone.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with statutory authority applicable to the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, $42,000,000, to be derived 
     from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to remain 
     available until expended.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Could I ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) what his intentions 
are now about how long we are going to go here before we are going to 
have the votes?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have two additional amendments that I 
think we can dispose of very quickly, and then it would be our intent 
to go to

[[Page H5429]]

the vote on the amendments that have been rolled, and those would be 
the last votes for today. We might continue. We will discuss that 
afterwards as to whether we want to continue any further debate on some 
of the amendments and roll them until tomorrow morning.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, does that include UPARR or not? Because we 
understand that is going to take 30 or 40 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if my colleague likes, we have one, an 
amendment from the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), which I will 
offer; and we are going to accept it. And the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Mica) has an amendment he wants to offer, and we could do UPARR.
  Mr. DICKS. Then we will be all right.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


            cooperative endangered species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), as 
     amended, $15,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                     national wildlife refuge fund

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 17, 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $10,779,000.


               north american wetlands conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233, 
     as amended, $15,000,000, to remain available until expended.


              wildlife conservation and appreciation fund

       For necessary expenses of the Wildlife Conservation and 
     Appreciation Fund, $800,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                multinational species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the African Elephant 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4203, 4211-4213, 4221-4225, 
     4241-4245, and 1538), the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 
     1997 (Public Law 105-96, 16 U.S.C. 4261-4266), and the 
     Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 
     5301-5306), $2,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That funds made available under this Act, Public 
     Law 105-277, and Public Law 105-83 for rhinoceros, tiger, and 
     Asian elephant conservation programs are exempt from any 
     sanctions imposed against any country under section 102 of 
     the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. aa-1).


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations and funds available to the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for purchase of 
     not to exceed 70 passenger motor vehicles, of which 61 are 
     for replacement only (including 36 for police-type use); 
     repair of damage to public roads within and adjacent to 
     reservation areas caused by operations of the Service; 
     options for the purchase of land at not to exceed $1 for each 
     option; facilities incident to such public recreational uses 
     on conservation areas as are consistent with their primary 
     purpose; and the maintenance and improvement of aquaria, 
     buildings, and other facilities under the jurisdiction of the 
     Service and to which the United States has title, and which 
     are used pursuant to law in connection with management and 
     investigation of fish and wildlife resources: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the Service may, under 
     cooperative cost sharing and partnership arrangements 
     authorized by law, procure printing services from cooperators 
     in connection with jointly produced publications for which 
     the cooperators share at least one-half the cost of printing 
     either in cash or services and the Service determines the 
     cooperator is capable of meeting accepted quality standards: 
     Provided further, That the Service may accept donated 
     aircraft as replacements for existing aircraft: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior may not spend any of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act for the purchase of lands or 
     interests in lands to be used in the establishment of any new 
     unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System unless the 
     purchase is approved in advance by the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in Senate Report 105-56.

                         National Park Service


                 operation of the national park system

       For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and 
     maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the 
     National Park Service (including special road maintenance 
     service to trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), and 
     for the general administration of the National Park Service, 
     including not less than $1,000,000 for high priority projects 
     within the scope of the approved budget which shall be 
     carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as authorized by 
     16 U.S.C. 1706, $1,387,307,000, of which $8,800,000 is for 
     research, planning and interagency coordination in support of 
     land acquisition for Everglades restoration shall remain 
     available until expended, and of which not to exceed 
     $8,000,000, to remain available until expended, is to be 
     derived from the special fee account established pursuant to 
     title V, section 5201 of Public Law 100-203.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in a brief colloquy with 
the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks).
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the National Wildlife Refuge 
Fund, also known as the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund, and this fund 
reimburses local governments for the burdens that the presence of the 
U.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Service acquired lands place upon them. 
Since Fiscal Year 1996, Congress has appropriated only $10 million for 
this fund, while at the same time has increased funding for the Service 
to provide for increased land acquisitions. These actions have caused a 
reduction in the funding for local governments, resulting in the loss 
of much-needed and very critical services.
  Let me be very clear that I do support our Nation's refuges and the 
benefits that they provide. In fact, I have several refuges in my 
district alone. However, I do not believe that this is good policy to 
continue this trend that ultimately places an undue burden on our local 
governments across America.
  Last year I testified in front of the Subcommittee on Interior 
regarding how initial transfers within local government accounts led to 
significant erosions of services in a parish which I represent, Cameron 
Parish, which is one-third owned, it has Federal refuges on them. When 
I testified last year, I also predicted that the percentage paid to 
local governments would fall below 70 percent of what we owe, of what 
Congress owes, unless Congress steps up to the plate. If enacted today, 
counties and parishes across America will receive only 56 percent of 
what they are entitled to through the National Wildlife Refuge Fund of 
Fiscal Year 2000.
  I appreciate the subcommittee chair and ranking member and all the 
budget pressures that they are under when they are drafting and 
crafting this bill, but I respectfully request that during the 
conference committee that they be mindful of the impact that this trend 
has had on our local governments and work to seek additional funds for 
the National Wildlife Refuge Fund during the conference negotiations.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I 
am speaking only for myself. I appreciate the gentleman raising this 
issue on the floor.
  As my colleagues know, the committee expressed its concern regarding 
this trend in House Report 106-222. I assure my colleagues that we will 
continue to work with the gentleman and in conference to attempt to 
find additional resources.
  The committee report says that the committee is concerned about the 
priorities of the Service with respect to how they relate to meeting 
its obligations under the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. In particular, 
the committee questioned why this Service has continued to acquire 
appreciably more land over the past few years and yet has not requested 
additional funding for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. This issue 
should be addressed in the next year's budget request, and we will 
continue to work with the gentleman on this issue.
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate his raising it with me.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                  national recreation and preservation

       For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs, 
     natural programs, cultural programs, heritage partnership 
     programs, environmental compliance and review, international 
     park affairs, statutory or contractual aid for other 
     activities, and grant administration, not otherwise provided 
     for, $45,449,000: Provided, That no more than $100,000 may be 
     used for overhead and program administrative expenses for the 
     heritage partnership program.


       Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

  Mr. GEORGE 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. 8 offered by Mr. George Miller of California:

[[Page H5430]]

       Page 17, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 36, line 23, after each of the two dollar amounts, 
     insert the following: ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very 
simple. Currently, the CNMI territories have a built-up account of 
unspent Federal moneys in excess of $80 million that they have been 
unable or unwilling to match that we have appropriated to them. That is 
over 5 years of funding under the current regime that we have for these 
purposes. Because they have been unwilling or unable to match that 
funding, I am suggesting that we take $4 million out of that and put it 
into the very important and bipartisanly supported Urban Parks and 
Recreation amendment known as the UPARR program for recreation 
recovery. This $4 million would allow a number of States that had had 
their proposals for grants turned down because funding was not 
provided: Alabama, 200,000; California, 630,000; Florida, 288,000; 
Georgia 569,000; Maryland, 249,000; Massachusetts, 600,000; Texas, 
330,000; North Carolina, 88,000; Ohio, 500. These are States that have 
come forward and have programs to provide for the recovery of 
recreational facilities, worn-out facilities.
  We heard earlier today about the problems that soccer teams and 
Little League teams and Pop Warner teams are having to find facilities 
to offer recreational opportunities. That is why this legislation is 
supported by the National Association of Police Athletic Leagues. The 
police associations understand the importance of giving young people 
constructive activities to participate in from 3 to 6 in the afternoon, 
but if they do not have these opportunities, unfortunately some of them 
go into crime and other destructive behavior.
  We believe it is important to fund these efforts. There is so many, 
there is such a backlog of need, it will not harm the CNMI due to the 
fact that they have a tremendous backlog of appropriated moneys that 
this committee has appropriated and that they have been unable to 
spend.
  This committee has made essentially the same decision in removing $5 
million from that amount of money for the purposes of giving it to 
other territories who are in need of this, who have programs, who have 
the demand, are willing to come up, in many instances, with the money 
that is to be spent with a match by the local effort. I would not 
support this effort if this money was to come out of the other 
territories' budgets for that purposes, but because of the way the 
rules changed, I have to offer it in this fashion, but it is my intent 
to keep consistent with what the committee did with respect to other 
funds with regard to CNMI, and I would hope that the committee could 
support this amendment.
  As my colleagues know, there has been a dramatic resurgence in 
support from environmental organizations, from the Conference of 
Mayors, from the League of Cities and from the Police Athletic Leagues, 
from the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, all of which are 
prepared and are raising money to help in this effort; and this Federal 
money, again, is used on a matching basis. Local governments must make 
this a priority, they must put up their own money, and this money is 
used to help out so many of those States like Ohio and Washington.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we are going to accept this amendment, but let me have 
some qualifiers. I think that we need to explore this more clearly, but 
I believe the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands is mandatory 
payment, and I do not believe that we can take money out of that as 
proposed in the amendment. And, therefore, in the absence of having 
access to the CNMI money, the money would therefore have to come out of 
the Office of Insular Affairs. And that means American Samoa 
operations. It means from Brown Tree Snake control, from technical 
assistance to the territories and other vital programs. And these are 
poor areas, and I do not think the gentleman would want to do that, 
given his concern for people.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that 
qualifier, and I tried to say that in my rushed opening statement here. 
That would not be my intent.
  As my colleagues know, this UPARR money is part of the President's 
request that my colleagues have tried to deal with, and I guess what I 
am counting on is, just as the gentleman tried to find additional 
moneys for the territories out of this account, that his creative 
talents would also find money perhaps for UPARR, which has such 
tremendous support on both sides of the aisle. If that is not able to 
happen, then I would not expect my colleague then to go to the next 
step, which would be to take money from the territories.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's comments, and based on that we accept the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his 
amendment. We accepted it last year, we continue to work with him, and 
hopefully it will go further this year than it did last year.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for his remarks.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it is a very strong endorsement. I support 
it. I think it is a good program.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  I will not use the full time. I was very disappointed the chairman 
accepted the amendment. It is a bad amendment. See, my money is, in 
fact, guaranteed money to the CMI. I am sure he pointed it out. This is 
a mischievious amendment. It should never have been offered. I would 
suggest respectfully that the amendment should be soundly defeated. We 
will not vote on it because the gentleman has accepted it. But it 
better not be in the conference when it comes back to this House floor.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       historic preservation fund

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the Historic 
     Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), and the 
     Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public 
     Law 104-333), $46,712,000, to be derived from the Historic 
     Preservation Fund, to remain available until September 30, 
     2001, of which $11,722,000, pursuant to section 507 of Public 
     Law 104-333 shall remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective 
     October 1, 1999 and thereafter the National Park Service may 
     recover and expend all fee revenues derived from providing 
     necessary review services associated with historic 
     preservation tax certification, and such funds shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That section 
     403(a) of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 
     U.S.C. 470x-2(a)) is amended by striking the last sentence.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Regula

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on behalf of the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Regula:
       Page 18, beginning at line 5, strike ``: Provided 
     further,'' and all that follows through line 8 and insert a 
     period.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we were unaware of local opposition to this 
language when it was inserted in the bill in the other body last year, 
and we included it this year, and we accept the amendment to strike the 
provision, and this will enable the parties to negotiate on the issue 
of moving this facility.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection on this side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1845

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.

[[Page H5431]]

  The Clerk read as follows:


                              construction

       For construction, improvements, repair or replacement of 
     physical facilities, including the modifications authorized 
     by section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and 
     Expansion Act of 1989, $169,856,000 to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, hereafter all franchise fees collected from Statue of 
     Liberty National Monument concessioners shall be covered into 
     a special account established in the Treasury of the United 
     States and shall be immediately available for expenditure by 
     the Secretary for the purposes of stabilizing, rehabilitating 
     and adaptively reusing deteriorated portions of Ellis Island 
     grounds and buildings: Provided further, That, beginning in 
     fiscal year 2001, expenditure of such fees is contingent upon 
     a dollar-for-dollar, non-Federal cost share: Provided 
     further, That the National Park Service will make available 
     37 percent, not to exceed $1,850,000, of the total cost of 
     upgrading the Mariposa County, CA municipal solid waste 
     disposal system: Provided further, That Mariposa County will 
     provide assurance that future use fees paid by the National 
     Park Service will be reflective of the capital contribution 
     made by the National Park Service.


                    land and water conservation fund

                              (rescission)

       The contract authority provided for fiscal year 2000 by 16 
     U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.


                 land acquisition and state assistance

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of lands or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with statutory authority applicable to the 
     National Park Service, $102,000,000, to be derived from the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $500,000 is to administer the State 
     assistance program, and of which $42,400,000 for Federal land 
     acquisition for the Everglades National Park, Big Cypress 
     National Preserve, Biscayne National Park, and State grants 
     for land acquisition in the State of Florida are contingent 
     upon the following: (1) a signed, binding agreement between 
     all principal Federal and non-Federal partners involved in 
     the South Florida Restoration Initiative which provides 
     specific volume, timing, location and duration of flow 
     specifications and water quality measurements which will 
     guarantee adequate and appropriate guaranteed water supply to 
     the natural areas in southern Florida including all National 
     Parks, Preserves, Wildlife Refuge lands, and other natural 
     areas to ensure a restored ecosystem; (2) the submission of 
     detailed legislative language to the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations, which accomplishes this goal; 
     and (3) submission of a complete prioritized non-Federal land 
     acquisition project list: Provided, That from the funds made 
     available for land acquisition at Everglades National Park 
     and Big Cypress National Preserve, after the requirements 
     under this heading have been met, the Secretary may provide 
     Federal assistance to the State of Florida for the 
     acquisition of lands or waters, or interests therein, within 
     the Everglades watershed (consisting of lands and waters 
     within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management 
     District, Florida Bay and the Florida Keys) under terms and 
     conditions deemed necessary by the Secretary, to improve and 
     restore the hydrological function of the Everglades 
     watershed: Provided further, That funds provided under this 
     heading to the State of Florida are contingent upon new 
     matching non-Federal funds by the State and shall be subject 
     to an agreement that the lands to be acquired will be managed 
     in perpetuity for the restoration of the Everglades: Provided 
     further, That lands shall not be acquired for more than the 
     approved appraised value (as addressed in section 301(3) of 
     Public Law 91-646) except for condemnations, declarations of 
     taking, and lands with appraised value of $50,000 or less.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Mica

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Mica:
       Page 19, line 20, before the dollar amount, inert 
     ``$9,000,000 is for grants to the State of Florida for 
     acquisition of land along the St. Johns River in Central 
     Florida, and of which''.
       Page 19, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, on that I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief.
  First of all, I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the 
ranking member, and others, staff that have been so courteous to me in 
the past in trying to meet some of the concerns relating to protection 
of lands, endangered lands in Florida and other projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with this amendment not to ask for any more 
money, we have $114 million for Everglades restoration, but asking for 
consideration as we move forward in this process to take a small 
amount, approximately $9 million, about 8 percent of this total, for 
use in preservation of the land along the St. John's River.
  We cannot just put all of our dollars and all of our money into 
restoration projects in Florida. It is critical that we do not repeat 
the mistakes of the past. I was raised in south Florida, and now we are 
spending somewhere, in the Chairman's estimate, and the Corps of 
Engineers brought first on July 4 a proposal to spend somewhere between 
$7.8 and the chairman has estimated this may cost us $10 billion, 
between $8 and $10 billion to restore the Everglades.
  What I am asking for here is consideration not to make the same 
mistake in central and north Florida, that we must preserve that land 
along John's River.
  We have been successful today in acquiring 16,000 of 18,000 acres, 
which will connect the Ocala National Forest with the State Park just 
north of Orlando. That area is being inundated by growth that we saw 
years and years ago in south Florida, and we cannot make the same 
mistake now.
  My plea this evening, Mr. Chairman, is that we take a few dollars and 
wisely set them aside for preservation of that precious St. John's 
River area that needs to be preserved, so we will not be coming back in 
10 or 20 years and asking for billions and billions in restoration when 
we can spend a few million now for preservation.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment so we 
can proceed with the business. I know the chairman will acquiesce to my 
request in conference.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: Amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern); amendment No. 13 offered by the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders); and an amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McGovern

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 202, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 281]

                               AYES--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hayworth
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)

[[Page H5432]]


     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--202

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Allen
     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Chenoweth
     Combest
     Cox
     Davis (VA)
     Hastings (FL)
     Kasich
     McDermott
     Meek (FL)
     Rivers
     Scarborough
     Simpson
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman

                              {time}  1913

  Messrs. BURTON of Indiana, STRICKLAND, GRAHAM, LINDER, HILLIARD, 
LUCAS of Kentucky, BERRY, HALL of Texas and CUNNINGHAM changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SAXTON, McINNIS, COOK, EHRLICH, HULSHOF and HILLEARY changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 281, the McGovern 
amendment, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period within which a 
vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on which the 
Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 248, 
noes 169, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 282]

                               AYES--248

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--169

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cardin
     Clement
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     English
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent

[[Page H5433]]


     Larson
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     McCrery
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Allen
     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Combest
     Davis (VA)
     Hastings (FL)
     Kasich
     Kuykendall
     McDermott
     Meek (FL)
     Rivers
     Scarborough
     Simpson
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Thurman

                              {time}  1924

  Ms. SANCHEZ changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 282, the Sanders 
Amendment; I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Coburn

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the request for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 131, 
noes 287, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 283]

                               AYES--131

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Foley
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Klink
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lazio
     Linder
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Paul
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--287

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baird
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Allen
     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Combest
     Davis (VA)
     Hastings (FL)
     Kasich
     Kuykendall
     McDermott
     Meek (FL)
     Rivers
     Scarborough
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Thurman

                              {time}  1933

  Mr. LATHAM changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________