[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 74 (Wednesday, June 14, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4437-H4480]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 524 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4578.

                              {time}  1707


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4578) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, June 
13, 2000, all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5 minute rule. 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 request 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, providing that the time for voting on the first question 
shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to advise Members about the schedule, at least 
as we best know it for the time being. We are planning to go forward on 
the amendments and possibly have some votes prior to 6:30, if we can 
get some of these out of the way; and then it is my understanding that 
we will roll votes until about 9:30 because of the Members that are 
going to the Kennedy Center for an event.
  I would hope we can keep going and then finish tonight, because I 
know if we can get finished with this bill, we will do a great deal to 
expedite the time of getting out of here tomorrow. I know many Members 
would like to get on their way at a decent time tomorrow night. So if 
everybody will help and cooperate, I think we can get this bill 
finished tonight.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4578

       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, 2001, 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)), 
     $674,571,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $2,198,000 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 2001 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, 
     $33,366,000 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 
     $674,571,000, 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: Provided, 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.

                        wildland fire management

       For necessary expenses for fire preparedness, suppression 
     operations, emergency rehabilitation and hazardous fuels 
     reduction by the Department of the Interior, $292,197,000, 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, $5,300,000, 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), $134,385,000, 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.


                 Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Sununu

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

       Amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Sununu:
       Page 5, line 17, after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 15, line 15, after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 17, line 7, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 17, line 9, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 17, line 13, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 54, line 25, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 67, line 16, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $126,500,000)''.

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in support of this 
amendment which I have cosponsored with my colleague the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). This amendment strikes $126 million from the

[[Page H4438]]

Partnership for the Next Generation Vehicle and takes the funds and 
uses it I think in a much more fiscally responsible way.
  We put $86.5 million into debt repayment; and then we take $40 
million, $10 million to the Forest Service operation and maintenance 
accounts, $10 million to the Park Service maintenance account, $10 
million into land and water conservation, and $10 million into the 
payment in lieu of tax program. Anyone that has public lands in their 
district knows how important these programs are. They really make a 
difference to communities; they really make a difference in preserving 
public lands throughout the country.
  Why are we striking $126 million from the Partnership for the Next 
Generation Vehicle? There are a number of important reasons.
  First of all, that program provides subsidies, research and 
development subsidies to profitable firms. I think if you go to any 
community at the local level in this country and you look at the stress 
and the burden on the property tax base of that city and town that 
might be caused by public lands, they would think it is wrong to be 
subsidizing corporations that are profitable. In this case the 
automotive manufacturers, the Big Three, they are successful companies. 
They are great companies. But, let us face it, their profits last year 
were over $20 billion in the aggregate, and these are not the kinds of 
firms that need Federal subsidies from hard-working taxpayers.
  Second, a program like this tries to pick winners and losers within 
an industry. It invests in solar cells, but perhaps at the expense of 
investments in fuel cell technology, or reinvests in battery technology 
or in diesel combustion or internal combustion engine technology. But 
who is the Federal Government to say which one of these technologies 
really deserves a Federal subsidy? And even within these sub-
categories, batteries, do we invest in lithium batteries, do we invest 
in ni-cad batteries, do we invest in photovoltaics?
  It is wrong for the Federal Government to try to pick winners and 
losers in these industries. It is bad policy from a technology 
perspective, and it is fiscally irresponsible as well.
  Third, this kind of a corporate welfare subsidy picks winners and 
losers among different companies. Who qualifies? If the Federal 
Government is going to subsidize diesel combustion engine research, 
which of the dozens of companies, firms large and small that might be 
involved in this kind of technology, is going to get the Federal 
handout?

                              {time}  1715

  The Federal government actually has to choose. There are going to be 
winners and losers. Who is to say which company really has the 
technological capability to finance a breakthrough? No Federal 
bureaucrat knows. We should not be second-guessing the markets. We 
should not be manipulating and distorting markets for technology. We 
should not be playing one company off against another.
  Moreover, this program has failed to produce. I have a GAO study here 
from March of this year. It states clearly that it is unlikely that the 
technology focused upon in this program is ever likely to come to 
market.
  Supporters will say, well, this program has created some jobs. If I 
spent $1 billion over 7 years, as this program has, I would certainly 
hope we might have a few jobs to show for it. But even if this program 
created a thousand new jobs, and I doubt that, that would come at a 
public cost, a taxpayer cost, of over $1 million per job. It just is 
not worth the subsidy.
  Supporters might also argue that this has resulted in incremental 
technological improvements. Again, I might agree to that. But if we are 
spending $1 billion in our State or district back home over a 7- or 8-
year period, giving that money to the brightest minds in our districts, 
I would hope they would have some kind of incremental innovation to 
show for it. But it is not going to bring a breakthrough to the 
marketplace.
  We are distorting the marketplace of ideas. We are subsidizing one 
company at the expense of another. The taxpayers should not stand for 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is supported by a wide range of groups, 
and my cosponsor, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) will 
speak to that, such as the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth; but 
fiscally responsible groups as well: Citizens Against Government Waste, 
the National Taxpayers Union. They recognize that it is simply a poor 
use of taxpayer funds.
  Supporters of the program I recognize will say it is well-intended, 
it has fair-minded objectives. I do not deny that. There are a lot of 
well-intended programs at the Federal level, but it is just not the 
appropriate use of taxpayer money to distort markets, to subsidize 
corporate profits.
  This is a responsible amendment that sets aside $85 million for debt 
reduction, that gives back to the Park Service and the Forest Service 
that is so important in maintaining our public lands, and it sets the 
right course for our technology policy, as well.
  Fundamental research through the National Science Foundation, through 
the National Institutes of Health, are critical to the underlying 
scientific foundation of this country, but we should not be going into 
product development areas where the markets are mature and where the 
capital markets know what a good deal is and what a good deal is not. 
We are distorting those capital markets as well as the technological 
markets.
  Let us do the right thing for the taxpayers and the Partnership for 
the Next Generation Vehicle: Pay down some debt and invest in our 
public lands.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the objective of the PNGV program is to produce 
ultimately an 80-mile-per-gallon five-passenger automobile by the year 
2004. This is not something on which the Federal Government is carrying 
the burden alone. For every dollar we put in, the auto industry is 
investing, about $2 of private funding.
  Particularly at this point in time we recognize how vitally important 
it is to improve mileage on our motor vehicles. The American people 
love their cars. We are not going to get people out of their cars. In 
fact, I think there will be even more and more automobiles, and it is 
quite evident that the highway departments recognize this. In Ohio, 
many two-lane highways are being made three-lane highways. Outer belt-
ways are adding to it.
  I am just simply saying, there are going to be more automobiles. The 
only way we can address the fuel consumption issue, recognizing we are 
now dependent on importation of fuel beyond 50 percent in terms of 
petroleum, is to lower that profile and to reduce our dependency. 
Because of the foreign policy and the defense implications, I think it 
is important that we continue the research to develop these fuel 
efficient vehicles.
  Of course, the reason that we are involved with Federal money is 
because it is a national policy issue that transcends the question of 
the private owner of the automobile. It goes to our national security 
as an essential part of prospective energy policy, and recognizing the 
fact that we need to decrease the use of petroleum.
  The spike that we have experienced in prices lately illustrates how 
much our pricing is dependent on those who make these decisions, i.e., 
OPEC, that is totally beyond our control.
  We have invested quite a lot of money already, something like 600 
million Federal dollars, and probably double that amount of private 
dollars. I think to stop at this point and not finish this research 
would be a mistake in terms of the utilization of our research.
  For these reasons, I oppose the amendment that has been offered by 
the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment my friend, the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) and I have offered.
  Some of my dearest friends for whom I have the greatest respect are 
on the other side of me on this issue. I would just say that governing 
is about choosing. On this issue, I respectfully believe that we have 
made the right choice, and those who oppose this made the wrong choice.
  This is about how we should spend $126.5 million of the taxpayers' 
money.

[[Page H4439]]

 We say, those of us who support this amendment, that the right 
priority for that money is to put $86.5 of it toward reducing our 
national debt; to put $10 million of it toward property tax relief in 
communities that have federally-owned lands in the Payment in Lieu of 
Taxes program; to put $10 million into the State Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, to help States in their effort to preserve green 
space and promote clean water; to put $10 million into forest 
maintenance programs that help us protect the integrity of our Federal 
forest lands; and finally, $10 million into the maintenance of our 
national parks, the disrepair of which, despite the very excellent 
efforts of the chairman of this committee and the ranking member, has 
become a major problem, despite their very diligent and excellent 
efforts.
  The opposition would tell us that this money would be better invested 
in a partnership with corporate America to develop cars that would get 
80 miles to a gallon. I fervently hope and believe that we will one day 
have cars that can get 80 miles to a gallon. We could use them right 
now, given the spiralling price of gasoline.
  But I would argue that the spiralling price of gasoline is precisely 
the reason why we do not need 126.5 million taxpayer dollars to do 
this. Someone is going to make an awful lot of money developing and 
selling automobiles to the American public that can get 80 miles to a 
gallon. God bless them. I have great faith that they will. But I think 
the $1.25 billion that we have already invested between fiscal 1995 and 
1999 in this project is really quite enough.
  We hear that we would not get these cars without this public 
investment. My research shows that in fiscal 1999, the industry spent 
$21.5 billion of its own money on research and development. I commend 
the industry for that, but I do not think they need our help to do 
that.
  Then we hear that the money does not really go to the big auto 
makers, it goes to those who are subcontractors in universities and 
pass-throughs. With all due respect, that is pass-through money and 
services that are being performed for the auto makers. That is like 
saying, if you paid someone to mow my lawn, that I did not benefit from 
that. I did not pay them to mow my lawn, but I am the one who got my 
grass cut. It is the auto makers who are benefiting from that.
  That is why our amendment is supported by the Sierra Club, because we 
should not be subsidizing vehicles that would add to our pollution 
problem. It is supported by U.S. PIRG; by Friends of the Earth. It is 
supported by the National Association of Counties because of the 
property tax relief that it provides, and it is supported strongly by 
the Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste.
  Governing is about choosing. The right choice for this $125.5 million 
is debt reduction, property tax relief, environmental protection, and 
not subsidies of the mightiest and most profitable, powerful 
corporations in this country.
  I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, there are few people in this House that I have as much 
respect for as I do for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), one of 
the truly great Americans here. But I have to support the amendment of 
the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) on this amendment.
  If I may say so, Mr. Chairman, when I look at my friends from New 
York, they are .04 owned by the Federal government. We almost have to 
get to the West to see those that are really owned by the Feds. In my 
State, it is 73 percent. Nevada is about 90 percent. We have authorized 
$250 million to be called Payment in Lieu of Taxes.
  Let me just mention a little county called Garfield. Garfield County 
is owned 93 percent by the Federal government. Folks in the East love 
to come out to Garfield County because it has all kinds of monuments 
and beautiful things in it. They come out there and play on that area, 
and sometimes start fires and sometimes put debris and trash all over 
the place, and sometimes break a leg.
  Every time those things happen, Garfield County, that is 7 percent 
owned by private, is asked to take care of them. They pick them up, 
haul them in, take care of that kind of thing. Where do these poor 
little county commissioners get their money? They put every dime in 
Payment in Lieu of Taxes, but they do not get it all. They get a very 
small percent, so they are actually losing money.
  What the gentleman's amendment does is it tries to bring this up to 
what was authorized. It will not even come close, but it helps a little 
bit.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, I 
would like to have some of the Members look at the backlog we have in 
infrastructure of our parks. We are talking about restrooms, these 
basic things; we are talking roads, parking places.
  Talk to the American public and ask, what do you like in America? 
What is the best thing the American government does? They will come 
right back and say, the national parks. Ask them what is the worst 
thing, and they will say the IRS. But anyway, they love the national 
parks. This is putting a few more dollars in national parks.
  How about our forests? People come from all over to go into the 
national forests. That is one of the great vacations in America. This 
will help a little bit toward that.
  I agree with the gentleman, talking about better mileage on 
automobiles. Of course that is important. But I think it is very, very 
important that we help out these three entities. I would urge support 
of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I rise today in opposition to 
the Sununu-Andrews amendment to eliminate funding for Partnership for a 
New Generation of Vehicles, PNGV. While I understand that some of the 
money would go to the States' Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well 
as funding for PILT, this plan simply does rob Peter to pay Paul, 
taking money from one important environmental program to give to 
another.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it appears that the real intention of the 
amendment is the elimination of funding for basic research for vastly 
improved fuel efficiency. We should find other ways to fund these other 
programs.
  PNGV is a public-private partnership to develop a family sedan that 
is affordable and can achieve 80 miles per gallon. This 10-year program 
recently reached its 6-year goal to release a concept vehicle that can 
achieve utility and fuel efficiency as desired. The next phase of the 
program is an effort to make these cars affordable.
  To suggest that new progress has not been made is not accurate. We 
are simply in the middle phase of the partnership. I strongly support 
this program because it works to achieve an important goal: fuel 
efficiency and environmental protection without losing utility, safety, 
or affordability. In other words, we can achieve the results we want 
and give consumers the vehicles they want.
  Some will say this is corporate welfare. However, there is a broad 
consensus that the Federal government should encourage basic research. 
PNGV was not created as a new program, it was actually created by 
channelling existing funding. The result is more focused research and 
significant advances in vehicle technology. We cannot complain about 
fuel economy and then offer no resources to develop new science.
  This option works toward our goal without artificially manipulating 
the supply of vehicles on the road. With gas prices of $2 per gallon 
and higher in the Midwest and other parts of the country, it seems 
unwise to eliminate a program designed to reduce our need for fuel.
  I support immediate responses to our current fuel crisis, such as 
releasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But I also support a long-
term strategy for our energy program, to decrease our dependence on 
foreign oil. This program achieves those results. I strongly urge a no 
vote.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Sununu-Andrews 
amendment to eliminate the Partnership for

[[Page H4440]]

 a New Generation Vehicle, or PNGV program. This is a shortsighted cut 
when residents in my State of Illinois are paying the highest gas 
prices in the continental U.S.

                              {time}  1730

  The PNGV program is one of the true success stories of the Department 
of Energy. It has been reviewed annually by the independent National 
Research Council and each year it has received high marks for 
addressing the important national goals of improving vehicle efficiency 
and reducing emissions. Without this program, how do we achieve these 
goals? Do we abandon the successful public/private partnership and 
return to a costly regulatory regime? I do not think so.
  I believe Congress should send the right message to agencies that 
have performed as intended. At the same time, we should signal to 
industry that the government is a reliable partner in research that has 
national benefits.
  Cleaner, more efficient transportation, is the goal of the PNGV 
program. It is not a subsidy for the Big Three auto makers. It is an 
investment in American jobs, our transportation system, our environment 
and our national security. Let us not jeopardize our program by 
eliminating the PNGV program. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Sununu-Andrews amendment.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman raises a couple of 
important points, and I just want to respond briefly. First, the 
concern of the gentlewoman about gas prices. I think everyone shares 
that concern. We have had a debate here on the floor about gas prices 
and what might be done about the situation, but I want to reaffirm that 
nothing in this program will directly affect the price of gasoline.
  The second point the gentlewoman makes is one about fuel efficiency, 
and there to be sure that was the stated objective of the program, but 
the GAO, in its March report, has said that at this point it does not 
appear likely that such a car will be manufactured and sold to 
consumers.
  Even if we can agree that this is a lofty and well-founded goal, it 
simply looks at this point that the $1.25 billion that is put into the 
program has missed the mark.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, 
the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) wants to aid some 
valuable programs, programs I hope will indeed gain additional funding 
as the appropriations process moves forward, but he wants to fund them 
by totally eliminating another valuable program, the Partnership for a 
New Generation of Vehicles, and therefore I must oppose the amendment.
  Opponents of the partnership attack the program as corporate welfare, 
but that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Federal Research 
Enterprise and its history. The Federal Government funds a wide variety 
of research at universities, at Federal labs, and sometimes even in 
corporate labs, that will help American industry over the long term but 
that market forces would prevent the private sector from investing 
adequately in the short term.
  To take one prominent example, the Federal Government spends billions 
of dollars on research through the National Institutes of Health, 
research that helps hugely wealthy, multinational pharmaceutical 
companies develop new methods and products, but few attack this as 
corporate welfare. Indeed during yesterday's appropriation debate, 
Members were tripping over each other trying to claim to be the most 
ardent supporter of NIH funding and with good reason.
  Well, the research being funded through PNGV on cleaner more 
efficient yet affordable transportation will also have a major impact 
on our Nation's health, and on our national security and is even less 
likely to be fully funded by the private sector than drug research is, 
and yet this program is under attack.
  Maybe that is because this is technology and engineering research 
rather than something that seems more like pure science, but funding 
such research is nothing new. Back in the 19th century, the Federal 
Government offered money to promote the development of the railroads 
and at the beginning of the 20th century the Federal Government set up 
programs to help develop civilian aviation. The government continues to 
pump money into aviation research and into space technology, which can 
be used by the private sector.
  In short, the kind of government involvement in technology 
represented by the PNGV is nothing new and it has always been a good 
idea. Given the impact of the transportation sector on our economy, on 
our energy use and on our environment, PNGV is a particularly wise 
investment.
  I hope my colleagues will look past the simplistic slogan of 
corporate welfare and will instead consider the government's historic 
and necessary role in filling the gaps in R&D left by market failure. 
PNGV is a well-run program that deserves continued support. I urge 
opposition to the Sununu amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by expressing great 
affection and respect to the authors of this amendment. They are fine 
Members of this body. They are good friends of mine. They deserve 
respect. But in this instance, my two good friends who offer this 
amendment are entirely in error. First of all, this is not a program 
that was sought by the auto industry. Second of all, it is not a 
program which benefits the auto industry directly. This benefits all 
Americans.
  Now, I applaud the fact that somebody should want to put more money 
into programs which would pay the kind of benefits that this amendment 
would pay in rural areas, but this is not a place where that money 
should be sought. Let me point out some facts that are important.
  First of all, this proposal was not sought by the auto industry. This 
is a proposal which was put together by this administration. It was 
supported, believe it or not, in this Congress enthusiastically. It was 
also supported by the organizations outside that were just cited as now 
being opposed to the expenditure of this money, because they recognized 
that this program, which has been in place now for about 10 years, was 
going to make a Federal contribution to more fuel-efficient, safer, 
better and more desirable automobiles for the American public, which 
would clean the environment, which would reduce the wastage of fuel and 
gasoline, and which would produce safer and better vehicles for the 
American people.
  Now, the comment has been made how this is benefiting the auto 
industry. The auto industry does its own research on automobiles and 
products that are going to be sold to the American people in the 
immediate future. That is not done under this legislation. In point of 
fact, let me read some facts that I think need to be known about what 
this legislation is doing. First of all, over 99 percent, in fact 99.8 
percent, of Federal PNGV funds went to the national labs and to the 
universities; over 1,200 projects at over 600 sites, including 21 
Federal labs.
  So everyone has a Federal lab or university in their district. This 
is a piece of legislation which probably benefits my colleagues, their 
people, their universities and their Federal labs in their districts. 
Some 51 universities in 47 States have participated in this program and 
are deriving significant benefits to themselves and contributing 
significant benefits in terms of the research which they are doing.
  It should be noted in 1999, the most recent year, less than .2 
percent, that is .002, of Federal funds actually went to the 
manufacturers. Does that say who is getting the benefits out of this 
program? The answer is, the colleges, universities, the Federal 
research institutions are getting the money, but the ultimate benefit 
is derived by the American public, which is going to drive safer, 
better, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and vehicles that produce less 
pollution.
  This is a program that works. It was sought by this administration. 
It has been supported by this Congress time after time as conferring a 
significant

[[Page H4441]]

benefit on the country, upon the environment, and upon the American 
people. I see no reason why this should change at this particular time 
or any information that would indicate that this program is less in the 
national interest. PNGV has helped to align the research direction of 
the national labs and has contributed to keeping them open, and as the 
industry moves towards high opportunities to stretch research goals for 
the benefit of everybody, including people not in the areas where 
automobiles are produced. The $980 million which has been spent by the 
industry is indicative to its commitment towards the goals that are set 
out in this program, and that money is spent in addition to and to 
match Federal industry cooperative research programs to better this 
country, to better the environment, and to save fuel and energy for 
this.
  It is indeed something which moves towards long-range research which 
goes far beyond that which would normally be committed by American 
industry in this ordinary course of events. This is research which 
moves far into the future and which significantly benefits everyone and 
does not confer a significant benefit on the auto industry.
  I would remind my colleagues, the industry did not seek this. It was 
sought by the administration. It is money which benefits the private 
research sector, the universities and the research institutions, but it 
also benefits the Federal lab. I urge my colleagues to reject the 
amendment. It is well intentioned, but it is mischievous and poorly 
thought out.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for clearing up some of the myths about this 
program. This is one of the better programs, I believe, the Department 
of Energy has. It is a program where we are working on these advanced 
technologies and anyone can participate. So I think it is a tremendous 
effort.
  Just this year, the year 2000, marks a major milestone in the PNGV 
program, the unveiling of the proof of concept vehicles that 
demonstrate up to 80 miles per gallon fuel economy. Earlier this year, 
the three auto makers presented their PNGV vehicles at several events, 
including the Northern American International Auto Show in Detroit and 
the PNGV 2000 Concept Roll-Out on March 30 in Washington, D.C. All 
three vehicles, the Ford Prodigy, the General Motors Precept, the 
DaimlerChrysler ESX-3, feature advanced hybrid propulsion systems, high 
efficiency diesel engines, and extensive use of lightweight materials. 
Each vehicle is a significant technological achievement and the auto 
makers each credited the government contribution to that achievement. 
It is estimated that industry has spent, on its own, a billion dollars 
of its own money on these concepts which would not have been invested 
in the absence of the PNGV program.
  So I think this program is working. And at a time when energy prices 
are on the minds of the American people, where in the midwest gas 
prices are at $2.50, finally doing something with innovative technology 
to bring on these more efficient cars seems exactly the right thing for 
the Federal Government to be doing in a partnership with the private 
sector.
  I commend this administration for what it has done. And I also want 
to reiterate, of the $128 million appropriated by the Department's PNGV 
efforts in fiscal year 1999, less than 3 percent, $3 million was sent 
to General Motors, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler. Most of the funds were 
passed through to subcontractors. The majority of the appropriation, as 
mentioned by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), approximately 
63 percent was distributed to the Department of Energy national labs 
and only a small portion passed through the laboratories to other 
businesses. About 30 percent of the appropriations supported large 
automotive suppliers and approximately 7 percent supported small 
businesses and universities.
  By technologies, fuel cells rank first with $33 million, or 26 
percent of the total. Lightweight materials accounted for $19 million. 
In comparison, the research efforts aimed solely at compression 
ignition diesel cycle totalled $6 million. In fiscal year 2004, General 
Motors and DaimlerChrysler receive less than 1 percent of the 
appropriation.
  So this is hardly corporate welfare. What this is is a very smart 
program between the Department of Energy and the auto makers of this 
country to try and come forward with advanced technologies with these 
advanced engines, with the hybrid vehicles, with lighter materials 
which are crucial to this effort. So I think we should keep this 
program. I think we should reject the amendment and move on.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I have a 
high regard for the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) and the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and the others that I have 
seen or heard that mentioned something about this issue.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because, frankly, as much as it 
is, it is very difficult to take away from one area and give to 
another, and that is what they are doing here; but they are actually 
striking a program that does work, as has been pointed out by a number 
of people.
  This amendment would eliminate the funding to continue the 
partnership, a public-private sector program or plan that has worked. 
This is a program that has delivered proven technological results. It 
engages both the auto industry and the Government to develop the 
vehicles for the future, vehicles which are less polluting. I would 
remind everyone that, in the last 25 years, the emissions have been 
reduced substantially and the economy has more than increased by 100 
percent. That is on automobiles. On trucks, it is over 60 percent.
  So I think what we should look at is what is happening within the 
industry and why it is so important right now that we look at 
delivering that performance and the comfort that the American consumer 
desires but in a vehicle that is more economical.
  Via the PNGV program, there have been great strides that have been 
reached on the development of these hybrid vehicles, vehicles by the 
way that combine so-called hybrid vehicles, the internal combustion 
with the battery concept. That is new stuff. It is beginning to work 
well. So I would just say the timing, I think, is out of touch with the 
current events.
  We have heard from individuals who talked about the price of 
gasoline. I do not have to point this out again. It has already been 
mentioned about the costs have skyrocketed in the Midwest, in 
particular, well above $2 a gallon.
  We as a country, as has been pointed out, are overly reliant on 
foreign petroleum supplies. So it is imperative that Congress do 
something to help the persons most affected by these price increases, 
and that is the American worker. The PNGV program is exactly one such 
program that will develop the technology that will stop our reliance on 
foreign oil and will improve the environment in the process.
  So with the funds appropriated in this bill, we can continue the 
vitally important research and development associated with this 
program.
  I reiterate my strong opposition for the amendment but support for 
retaining that funding in the bill. I ask my colleagues to defeat this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  (Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to underscore what the gentleman 
indicated that is in my district now in the last 2 weeks, we have seen 
gasoline go over $2 a gallon. I would think that now, more than ever 
before, that we need the research that this provision provides which 
would allow the PNGV, in essence, to support the technology that will, 
indeed, improve fuel efficiency.
  I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on the Interior, for recognizing this important benefit 
for PNGV.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Sununu amendment which would

[[Page H4442]]

strike the important funding for it in the bill. If not now, when? This 
is the time that we ought to do it. Our constituents are screaming 
about the high cost of gasoline.
  We need to help the universities and other researchers provide the 
adequate funding so we have more fuel efficient automobiles. That is 
what this provision does. Obviously, an amendment to strike it would 
take away that ability for all consumers across the country. I urge 
defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Sununu amendment.
  Unfortunately, this amendment shortsightedly overlooks the enormous 
benefits our wise investment in the Partnership for a New Generation of 
Vehicles--PNGV--makes to improve technologies to increase fuel economy 
and improve emissions without sacrificing affordability, utility, 
safety and comfort in today's family cars.
  Investment in PNGV for agency programs most directly relevant to its 
technical objectives amount to about $130 million annually--99% of 
which goes directly to supplier companies, national labs, and 
universities who engage in research and development in areas including: 
advanced batteries for electric vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, 
lightweight materials, vehicle recycling, fuel economy and further 
reductions of emissions. Federal partners involved in this research 
include the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Transportation and 
Defense, along with the EPA, the National Science Foundation, NASA, and 
21 federal labs.
  Make no mistake, the benefits which our wise investment in PNGV are 
enormous. This effort is advancing America's technology base, improving 
national competitiveness and the productivity of America's factories, 
preserving U.S. jobs, keeping the U.S. economy growing, minimizing 
transportation's impact on the global environment and achieving 
sustainable development by fostering environmentally friendly 
transportation solutions, and reducing reliance on foreign oil.
  Speaking of foreign oil, many of our congressional districts around 
the nation are experiencing drastic increases in gas prices at the 
pump. In my district alone, prices are near the $2 per gallon mark for 
regular unleaded at the self-service pump, and my constituents are 
demanding relief. So now, more than ever, we need the research which 
PNGV supports for technologies which can improve fuel efficiency.
  I applaud my colleagues on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee 
for recognizing the important benefits of PNGV, and I urge my 
colleagues to defeat the Sununu amendment, which would strike the 
important funding for it in the bill.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sununu-Andrews 
amendment and compliment those gentlemen for offering it. Mr. Chairman, 
this really is nothing but an unnecessary subsidy of three large and 
successful auto companies.
  I am glad these companies are successful. They are doing well in our 
free market economy creating a lot of jobs, doing a lot of good things. 
The numbers certainly show that: the profits of Ford in 1999, over $7 
billion; General Motors, $6 billion; Chrysler, almost $6 billion. They 
put almost that much money back into research, and I am delighted that 
the marketplace allows them to do that. Their success in the 
marketplace allows them to do that.
  The amount of money that this program, the Partnership for a New 
Generation of Vehicles, is providing is a small fraction of what the 
private sector in these auto companies is already devoting to research 
for these kinds of vehicles.
  The fact of the matter is this is a classic example of corporate 
welfare. We are subsidizing something that the private sector is 
already doing. We are subsidizing something with taxpayers' dollars 
that the private sector wants to do, is doing, has the resources to do, 
and has the incentive to do. There is no reason in the world for us to 
be putting $126 million into a program that is getting billions of 
dollars of private sector investment directed to it.
  Several people have referred to the GAO report that says it is 
unlikely that such a car will be manufactured and sold to consumers. I 
do not know whether that is really all that important here today. I 
hope that this kind of a car is developed. But it is going to be 
developed whether the Federal Government puts tax dollars into it or 
not. That is why this is corporate welfare. We are supporting something 
that the private marketplace is doing on its own. We should let the 
market decide.
  These three big companies are trying to develop hybrid engines that 
combine gasoline or diesel motors with electric parts. Honda and Toyota 
are doing the same. We should let the market decide.
  The Congressional Budget Office has said, if Honda and Toyota do 
succeed in the U.S. market, our auto makers will have every incentive 
in the world to try to meet that competition and continue this research 
and development. If these Japanese hybrid cars do not succeed in our 
marketplace, our additional dollars are unlikely to change or revoke 
that judgment of the market.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very prescient point, 
because we can look back in time from three particular areas where we 
either as a Nation did try to second guess the markets or we nearly 
tried to second guess the markets and look at what the historical 
results were.
  First case in point, synthetic fuels. We put billions of dollars into 
trying to develop oil from coal in the synthetic fuels program, trying 
to second guess the technology that is out there in the energy 
marketplace; and that money was essentially wasted because the 
technological feasibility of success in that area was so limited.
  A second example, back in the 1980s, the silicon industry, the chip 
industry was crying for subsidies for static memory. We need Federal 
subsidies to maintain our static memory markets. It was a question of 
competitiveness. We heard it from all corners of the country. Today, 
the static memory business is a terrible business to be in. The margins 
are razor thin. We put about $400 million into subsidy for that 
industry. But in retrospect, it would have been a terrible industry to 
subsidize.
  A third example, high definition television. Thank goodness we did 
not put tens of billions of dollars into subsidizing that technology as 
some of our European and Asian counterparts did, because, by allowing 
markets to determine where the technology went, the American companies 
have the winning standard. So we have to be careful about distorting 
these technical markets.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from New Hampshire for offering this amendment. We do not need to 
subsidize something that the marketplace is already doing. I urge 
strong support for the Sununu-Andrews amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Sununu) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 37 Offered By Mr. Hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of offering my amendment 
No. 37, I ask unanimous consent to return to page 2, line 13. I was in 
the Chamber at the time we were on that item. I was on my feet, but I 
was not recognized. The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) was 
recognized.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 37 offered by Mr. Hefley:
       Page 2, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 54, line 4, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us moves $4 million 
from the wild horse and burro management line item of the Bureau of 
Land Management budget to the wildland

[[Page H4443]]

fire management line item of the U.S. Forest Service.
  In recent weeks, we have seen just how serious a problem fire is in 
the Rocky Mountain West. The recent fires in New Mexico resulted in the 
destruction of 400 residences, damaged two Indian pueblos and the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, and loss is estimated in the hundreds of 
millions of dollars.
  The problem is not confined in New Mexico. This week, two wildfires 
are burning houses and forced hundreds from their homes southwest of 
Denver and west of Loveland.
  I have headlines here from the papers just this week out there: ``Two 
fires destroy homes, force residents to flee. Hundreds flee Larimer 
County fire. Front Range fires rage,'' the headlines read.
  Three years ago, Dr. Thomas Veblen, a forest historian at the 
University of Colorado, stated that Rocky Mountain forests were due for 
a catastrophic fire event 3 years after the onset of a wet season. He 
was not talking about the kind of fires we see every year. He was 
talking about wildfires stretching the length of the Rockies from 
Wyoming to Colorado to New Mexico.
  At that time, some of us estimated that these catastrophic fires 
could occur within 3 to 5 years, and we would have what they call a 
``millennial fire.'' Now we may be 1 or 2 years away. As we have seen 
in this week's newspapers, we might be seeing the start of it.
  At risk this time are the towns like Evergreen, Manitou Springs, 
Woodland Park, Estes Park, and Boulder. These are not isolated hamlets 
but thriving communities, some located inside of cities like Denver and 
Colorado Springs.
  The Buffalo Creek fire, which struck the Pike-San Isabel National 
Forest 4 years ago, was one ridge and one rainstorm from hitting the 
Denver suburbs. The forest fire service map of the Front Range shows a 
solid block of red from Boulder to Pueblo.
  So as we have seen, this is not just a Colorado problem. The New 
Mexico fire speaks for itself.
  Three years ago, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) introduced 
legislation to treat the northern forest of that State. At that time, 
the Forest Service stated that forest treatment and prescribed burns 
would be needed in the foreseeable future to clear up the build-up on 
the forest floor.
  For the past 2 years, the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-
Hage) has held hearings on the forest health problem. Frankly, until 
the New Mexico fires, the response from the Forest Service headquarters 
has been silence.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can wait any longer. According to its 
own report, the appropriation bill is approximately $5 million under 
what is needed for a Forest Service to run an optimum wildland fire 
management program.
  I do not think we can stint on this. I would add, I think, the report 
of March 2001 deadline for a Forest Service plan to deal with this is 
too far out. We should direct them to implement the plans they have now 
according to their internal priority lists.
  The amendment before us offers a choice of priorities. We could argue 
about the merits or demerits of the wild horse program, but this does 
not do away with that program at all. There is still half of that money 
for that program there, $4 million, that can continue that program. But 
even with a budget increase, the burro and horse program is going to be 
a problem with us for a long time to come. The fire situation is 
something we can and must start dealing with right now.
  With that, I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word 
and rise in support of the Hefley-Udall amendment.
  (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Hefley), the dean of our delegation, has explained, the amendment 
would shift $4 million into the Forest Service's wildland fire 
management account.
  The purpose of the amendment is to increase the funding for the 
preparedness and fire operations line items. Those line items pay for a 
number of important activities aimed at the protection of life, 
property, and natural resources. The preparedness account is used to 
enable the Forest Service and cooperating agencies to prevent, defect, 
and respond to fires on National Forest lands.
  The fire operations account pays for actually fighting forest fires; 
but even more importantly, it pays for work to prevent them in the 
first place by controlled burning and other steps to reduce the amount 
of hazardous fuels.

                              {time}  1800

  Quite rightly, the Forest Service gives top priority to so-called 
``urban interface'' areas where forest lands adjoin developed areas. As 
my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), has explained, 
in Colorado that means particularly the front range area, where the 
Great Plains meet the Rocky Mountains.
  The Front Range is the edge of our State's most populated areas. And 
the danger of fire is real. In fact, in the last couple of days, fires 
in Jefferson, Park, and Larimer Counties have burned more than 40 
houses and caused hundreds of Coloradans to be evacuated from their 
homes.
  As we know, this year's fire season has just begun. This morning's 
Colorado newspapers are reporting that yesterday the ``Hi Meadow'' fire 
near the town of Bailey has gotten much worse and forced people to 
evacuate from Buffalo Creek. As all Coloradans know, Buffalo Creek was 
the scene of another devastating fire just a few years ago.
  Our governor has declared a state of emergency in affected areas, and 
this morning FEMA told me they are responding to our State's request 
for aid. It is too late to prevent these fires. Now they must be 
fought. But it is still true the best time to fight a fire is before it 
starts, and that is the purpose of the Hefley-Udall amendment.
  This is important for all Coloradans. It is especially important for 
Boulder, which I represent, and the other communities along the Front 
Range that are at risk for wildland fires. The additional funding 
provided by the amendment will help make sure the Forest Service will 
continue to cooperate with its Colorado partners to reduce the risk.
  Already those partners are hard at work in places like Winiger Ridge 
near Boulder, the Upper South Platte watershed, and the Seven-Mile area 
near Red Feather Lakes. Our amendment would help make sure those 
efforts can continue.
  Mr. Chairman, as a new member of the Committee on Resources, I 
followed with great interest some of the debates about the health of 
our forests. I suspect some may want to link this amendment to those 
debates. But I want to make clear this is not a forest health 
amendment, it is not an amendment about timber sales. This amendment is 
about fighting fires and fire prevention. And while prevention often 
requires reduction of the volume of hazardous fuels, it does not 
require removal of old growth timber or clearing of large areas.
  This is also not a big-spending amendment. All it would do is bring 
the wildland fire management account back near the level of the current 
fiscal year. The desirability of this amendment was actually spelled 
out in the report of the Committee on Appropriations. Speaking of the 
very fire prevention measures affected by this amendment, the committee 
report says, ``Additional funding in this activity, were it available, 
would provide much more than a dollar-for-dollar savings in subsequent 
wildlife and wildfire suppression operations and loss of valuable 
resources.''
  I agree with my colleague that this is a high priority matter, and I 
urge the adoption of our amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Though I am sympathetic to this amendment, I rise in opposition. I 
believe that we have tried to address the overall problem of fire by 
adding $350 million in emergency wildland fire funds. That was a last-
minute addition to the bill. And we also have $907 million in 
nonemergency wildland fire funds for these agencies.
  I would say to both the gentlemen from Colorado that if the 
circumstances are exacerbated between

[[Page H4444]]

now and conference, we would make every effort to provide some 
additional funding there, because I know that this is a serious problem 
both in Colorado and in New Mexico.
  By the same token, I am reluctant to see $4 million taken out of the 
Wild Horse and Burro program, because we are on the threshold of 
implementing the research program that has been developed by the 
University of Arizona for reducing herd size on the public lands and 
this would go a long way, if the research that has been developed is 
implemented, in reducing the impact on the health of the land in 
Colorado and all these western States that have a problem with the wild 
horses and burros.
  So I would like to keep that $4 million in there because this money 
basically will implement what we now know by way of science as a way to 
address this, but I will give the gentlemen from Colorado the assurance 
that if the situation becomes more critical as we get to conference, 
that we will look with favor on adding some additional money.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to all of our 
colleagues, and the chairman worked with us on doing this, that we were 
very concerned that because we have not passed the supplemental 
appropriations bill through both bodies down to the President that 
there was not enough money in these accounts for wildland fire 
management. So we put in for the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 
Management, $200 million to remain available until expended for 
emergency rehabilitation and wildfire suppression activities.
  The other amendment we had in our bill, and this is on page 109, is 
$150 million for wildland fire management for the Forest Service. So 
there is a total in this bill of $350 million for what I think the 
gentlemen from Colorado rightfully want.
  I will say here today that if there is additional money needed, as 
the chairman has just said, in the conference we will put additional 
money in. I am sure the administration will request it.
  There is also $907 million in the regular bill, in the 01 bill, for 
this account, and then this $350 million is for emergency money. So if 
we add it all up there is $1.2 billion in total.
  So I want to help, but I do not think we should beat up on the other 
program. And just to give a little information, BLM is required by 
statute to manage the wild horse and burro populations in a manner that 
protects herds at appropriate levels. Cumulative appropriate management 
levels total about 27,000 animals in the entire western United States. 
Today, the number of wild horses and burros stands at more than 50,000 
animals or roughly double the carrying capacity of our rangelands.
  What I worry about is if we take money away from this program, that 
they are going to do terrible damage to the watersheds all over the 
West. And it is estimated that at current funding levels and adoption 
demand, populations will increase to 126,000 animals by 2010, or more 
than four times the land's carrying capacity. And according to the BLM, 
a reduction of $4 million here will do serious damage to their program.
  So I stand committed to helping the Colorado Members and the New 
Mexico Members, and whoever else is affected, and I am out from the 
West myself and realize the terrible conditions that are out there, but 
I would like to see us, if we could do it, without taking it out of the 
money for the wild burro program.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the 
gentleman has said.
  But I want to give assurance again to the Colorado Members that we 
are very sensitive to the problem. As has been pointed out, the wild 
burro program is on the threshold of a breakthrough that we desperately 
need.
  I commend the gentlemen from Colorado for bringing this to our 
attention. As the ranking member indicated, and as I have, we will be 
committed to addressing the problem in conference if the conditions 
continue to warrant that.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. TANCREDO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan 
amendment, and I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado 
Springs, Colorado (Mr. Hefley), for his work on the amendment, as his 
district is presently experiencing the most serious forest fire in the 
country.
  I understand that the Hi Meadow fire is now less than two miles south 
of my congressional district. It has destroyed over 6,640 acres, and 
our thoughts and prayers go to the families of Pine, Colorado and the 
surrounding area, as well as the families displaced by the fire to the 
north of my district in the Roosevelt National Forest.
  This year is already one of the worst fire years on record and we are 
not even halfway through the summer. I saw a statistic the other day 
saying that there have already been in the United States over 44,000 
fires, burning well over 1.5 million acres of land so far this year.
  Now, why are we facing a growing problem like this with these forest 
fires, that are sure to incinerate some of the most beautiful land in 
the United States? I have heard a few explanations in the media over 
the past few weeks, but I believe that the forest fires are caused for 
a simple reason. Wood is flammable, and in Colorado we have more wood 
in our mountains than ever before in history. These forests are not 
healthy. They are overgrown, after years of fire suppression. They are 
not safe at this of year. Our forests are tinderboxes. They are no 
longer in their natural state.
  I urge my colleagues to acknowledge this fact because it is an 
extremely important one to remember as we consider the appropriations 
we provide to the forest managers. Fire prevention efforts, which this 
amendment would help fund, are a cost-saving strategy. I am told that 
if it were not for a prescribed burn that occurred last summer along 
the Buffalo Creek watershed by Jefferson County Open Space, the fire in 
Hi Meadow would have moved quickly south. If not for that prescribed 
burn, the fire may have jeopardized the supply of water that is used by 
thousands of Denver residents.
  However, the biggest complaint I have heard this week was from the 
BLM and Forest Service that they do not have enough resources to combat 
the fire. Yesterday, the firefighters temporarily ran out of fire-
retardant. They need equipment and they need funding for preventive 
measures. Fire prevention programs can save millions in damages to 
homes and buildings and water treatment.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank my colleagues, especially my 
colleague from Colorado Springs, for bringing this amendment to our 
attention.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TANCREDO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I just want to say that we do recognize that both the chairman, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks), are not unsympathetic about this. They 
have worked in their bill to try to provide a great deal of assistance 
in this area, and we appreciate that and understand that. And we 
understand if the problem intensifies that they will be there to be 
helpful to us.
  The Forest Service tells us that they are $5 million short of being 
able to do the kind of program that is needed to meet the need. This 
would put $4 million of that $5 million in it. At the same time, it 
would not in any way destroy the horse and burro program because that 
is something too that we need to solve. We have too many horses and 
burros on the range.
  I would advise the gentleman from Ohio that I raise horses. I am 
sympathetic with the horse problem. I live in the West. I saw My Friend 
Flicka and Thunderhead. I understand about wild horses and the 
affection we have in America for wild horses. But we have too many on 
the range, and we do need to solve it. I would not in any way want to 
take away all the money from that. That is why half the money is still 
there.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H4445]]

  Mr. TANCREDO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Once again, Mr. Chairman, the ranking member and I have 
discussed this issue. We are going to take care of whatever has to be 
done out there, but we are reluctant to see the money come out of the 
Wild Horse and Burro Program because they are ready to move on that. We 
have been told by BLM that they need this money. To implement the 
recommendations of the University of Arizona study, that needs to stay 
there.
  So, again, I can only reiterate the fact that we are going to be very 
sympathetic in conference as the needs emerge.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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, $19,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Regula

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Regula:
       On page 6, line 1, after ``$19,000,000'' insert 
     ``(decreased by $3,000,000 and increased by $3,000,000)''.

  Mr. REGULA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. My colleagues, this amendment eliminates $3 million in 
land acquisition funds in BLM for the Upper Missouri National Wild and 
Scenic River in Montana. I offer the amendment because there is local 
opposition.
  We try to be very sensitive on these acquisition proposals to what 
the local people want, so we are proposing to take the $3 million, and 
put $2 million for the Lower Snake/South Fork Snake River, in Idaho, 
which they would like to have, and $1 million for the West Eugene 
Wetlands Project in Oregon.
  Both projects are high priority acquisitions, and both projects that 
we propose to fund involve willing sellers. They are also included in 
the President's budget. We were not able to do them before tonight 
because of fiscal limitations, but in view of the fact that we would 
prefer not to spend the $3 million in the Upper Missouri, we propose to 
make that move. I would urge the Members to support this.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the chairman that we concur 
with his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, further proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 30 by the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), and amendment No. 37 by the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first in this series.


                 Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Sununu

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Sununu) 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.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, was there enough people standing for a 
recorded vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair counted for a recorded vote; and, a 
sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote was ordered.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, did the Chair count?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair's count is not subject to question.


                             recorded vote

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, 
noes 211, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 274]

                               AYES--214

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Woolsey

                               NOES--211

     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Buyer
     Camp
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt

[[Page H4446]]


     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Ackerman
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Cook
     Danner
     Greenwood
     Lofgren
     Shuster
     Vento

                              {time}  1842

  Messrs. PACKARD, McDERMOTT, BERRY, DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. BROWN of 
Florida, Messrs. NADLER, KENNEDY of Rhode Island, WAXMAN, Ms. CARSON, 
Messrs. BERMAN, WEYGAND, GUTIERREZ, SHERMAN, JEFFERSON, DeFAZIO, 
COOKSEY, MANZULLO, EWING, and Mrs. TAUSCHER changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SERRANO, Mr. DICKEY, Mrs. CUBIN, Messrs. MOAKLEY, NEAL of 
Massachusetts, FARR of California, STUMP, HILLIARD, CLYBURN, HORN, 
CALVERT, STRICKLAND, DOGGETT, MOORE, ABERCROMBIE, and GARY MILLER of 
California changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1845


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the additional 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


           Amendment No. 37 Offered By Mr. Hefley of Colorado

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on Amendment No. 37 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
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 364, 
noes 55, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 275]

                               AYES--364

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                                NOES--55

     Armey
     Barrett (NE)
     Bateman
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Clement
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Davis (VA)
     Dicks
     Everett
     Farr
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hutchinson
     Kelly
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Meek (FL)
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Nussle
     Ose
     Packard
     Pastor
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Sabo
     Simpson
     Taylor (NC)
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Ackerman
     Boyd
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Cook
     Danner
     Greenwood
     Hilliard
     Hoyer
     Lofgren
     Rangel
     Ryan (WI)
     Schakowsky
     Shuster
     Vento

                              {time}  1852

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 275 I was 
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   oregon and california grant lands

       For expenses necessary for management, protection, and 
     development of resources and

[[Page H4447]]

     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; $100,467,000, 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. 1181-1 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.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I assure Members that I will return that. I just wanted 
to make a statement. We have another appropriations bill on the floor, 
and I want to compliment the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks). There are no games played in this bill. The American public is 
going to be able to see exactly what is in there.
  There is no sneaking in of advanced funding. There is no sneaking of 
emergency funding that comes right out of Medicare. This committee 
should be recognized for setting the example of what the agreement was 
when we finished the budget in this year. And I wanted to tell Members 
how much I appreciated it, and I know that there are several other 
Members in the House that appreciate it. And we would like to see more 
of it.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the committee for 
its attention to Florida in this bill, and, more particularly, the 
Florida manatee. There are many here who probably have never seen a 
Florida manatee. Come to Florida and see one. It is an extraordinary 
thing, and there are not many left. Despite being listed as endangered 
for almost 3 decades, the protection and recovery of the manatee 
population continues to be a matter of some concern.
  I was pleased to see that the Interior bill contains an earmark of a 
million dollars for manatee protection, doubling the amendment provided 
last year. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula), 
and Members of the Interior subcommittee have always been attentive to 
the needs and concerns of Florida, which is a vast and wonderful place.
  This is always a tough bill, given the many worthy programs competing 
for a small amount of money. However, I do want to take this 
opportunity to discuss issues related to manatee protection.
  In January of this year, 18 environmental organizations filed suit 
against the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, as well 
as the Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Florida alleging they 
were not enforcing their own rules designed to help save the manatee. 
Specifically, the groups asked for a moratorium on permitting until a 
plan is in place to prevent increased boat traffic and development from 
harming manatees.
  Although the Federal agencies involved deny it, since the lawsuit was 
filed, all permitting has ground to a halt. As a result, many 
landowners are caught in limbo, unable to complete construction 
projects and facing significant financial losses as a result.
  Of serious concern is that these landowners find themselves being 
referred from one government agency to another, the quintessential 
government shuffle, catch-22.
  These folks deserve an answer; the Government cannot continue to 
shuffle them back and forth. I have heard some express the concern that 
the Clinton administration is dragging its feet intentionally on this 
issue because it does not want to upset a particular constituency in an 
election year.
  I surely hope that is not the case. The Florida manatee deserves 
better and so do the American people and so do the boat owners and 
users in Florida.
  In the end, the question is how do we protect the manatee? A fair 
question. Some seem to see boats as the enemy. By banning boats or 
limiting boat traffic, the thinking goes, we can save the manatee. This 
is not a practical solution. About one-third of manatee deaths are 
attributable to boats. Clearly, there is more at play than just that.
  On the boating question, it seems to me the solution is very simple, 
responsible use. I know that is a heretical thought for some, but 
responsible use should go with boat use. This will likely require more 
money for enforcement and a crackdown on those who behave 
irresponsibly, as it should.
  I believe we must ask quickly to devise a protection policy for the 
manatee. It is incumbent on the Fish and Wildlife Service to work with 
other agencies in the State of Florida to fashion a science-based 
consensus policy that protects the manatee in a reasonable manner. We 
are all for that.
  The urgency of this situation became clear a few weeks ago with a 
report from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 
indicating that 100 manatees died in the first 3 months of this year, 
up substantially from the 80 deaths in the first 3 months of 1999. Too 
many manatees dying for an endangered species.
  Clearly, the approach of the Fish and Wildlife Service has 
shortchanged all parties to this debate. There have been no additional 
steps taken to protect the manatee, and landowners have been lost in 
this moratorium.
  Solving this problem requires real leadership on the part of Fish and 
Wildlife Service. I hope they will begin to see the urgency of this 
situation and move quickly, and that is the reason I have made this 
statement.
  Once again, I want to commend the committee for its attention to the 
manatee issue, and I want to express my thanks and gratitude for the 
committee's efforts for the State of Florida.

                              {time}  1900

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                           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.

[[Page H4448]]

                       miscellaneous trust funds

       In addition to amounts authorized to be expended under 
     existing laws, there is hereby 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, $731,400,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2002, except as 
     otherwise provided herein, 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 
     $2,000,000 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 $6,395,000 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 subsection 
     (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.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy 
with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on 
Appropriations on the Wu amendment that will be offered during the 
consideration of this bill.
  The purpose of the Wu amendment, according to its supporters, would 
be to provide more funding for important wildlife programs by cutting 
funding for the Federal timber sale program.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) will recall that last year 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) offered a similar, if not identical 
amendment, to the one he will offer this year. The gentleman will 
recall that at that time we extended our hands to those who were 
inclined to support the Wu amendment, offering to work together as an 
alternative to the political and counterproductive approach of offering 
a controversial floor amendment. At that time our offer was taken in 
good faith and with good results.
  Last year, at the end of the day, wildlife programs received 
increased funding and the Federal timber sale program maintained 
adequate funding. That was a win-win result. This year, I proposed that 
we offer the same hand as an alternative to this controversial 
amendment. I am confident that, working together, we can achieve the 
same kind of balance this year that we achieved last year.
  We do not need to reduce funding for the timber sale program and 
thereby reduce our fire risk prevention capabilities in order to fund 
wildlife programs. As we proceed through the appropriations process, we 
can, if we work cooperatively together, find a way to adequately fund 
both.
  I ask the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula), would he be willing 
to work this year with me as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture with jurisdiction over forestry and the supporters of the 
Wu amendment to adequately fund important wildlife programs, just as we 
did last year?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, last year I made 
the commitment to work with Members to adequately fund wildlife 
programs. I am certainly willing to make that same commitment today.
  I agree that working together to meet common objectives is a much 
better approach than having counterproductive floor fights over 
controversial amendments.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
thank the chairman. I would say to my colleagues, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I are extending our hands again, just like we did 
last year. We do not need the Wu amendment to help provide more funding 
for important wildlife programs. I urge Members to put the politics of 
this debate aside and choose instead to work together to meet our 
common objectives. That is a far better approach.
  I urge Members to accept this offer in good faith. Vote no on the Wu 
amendment, and work with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and 
me to meet our common objectives to deal with wildlife programs, like 
we did last year, in a collegial and reasonable way.


                Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

       Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 11, line 21, after the period add the following: ``Of 
     the amounts made available under this heading, $500,000 shall 
     be for preparing a report to the Congress on the scientific 
     impacts of genetically engineered fish, including their 
     impact on wild fish populations. In preparing the report the 
     Secretary shall review all available data regarding such 
     impacts and shall conduct additional research to collect any 
     information that is not available and is necessary to assess 
     the potential impacts. The Secretary shall include in the 
     report a review of regulatory and other mechanisms that the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service might use to prevent 
     any problems caused by transgenic fish.''.

  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment to ensure 
that the Fish and Wildlife Service pays close attention to the 
ecological impacts from genetically engineered fish. This amendment 
asks the Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct a study that would 
examine the ecological effects of genetically engineered fish and 
anticipate regulatory actions. Although such fish are not on the market 
yet, the Food and Drug Administration is currently evaluating a 
genetically engineered salmon.
  There is a scientific explanation that I would like to go over here, 
starting with chart 1. Genetically engineered fish are engineered to 
grow faster and bigger. Scientists from the University of Minnesota and 
Purdue University foresee harmful ecological impacts.
  On chart 2, scientists have determined that a larger fish has an 
advantage in mating. This handsomely big GE fish is more successful 
than the lonely natural fish, and scientists have also determined that 
these GE fish may survive for only a limited number of generations in 
the wild.
  Now, in chart 3, mutant fish are created as GE fish escape into the 
wild and mate with natural fish. The mutant fish's larger size gives an 
advantage in mating, forcing new genetic traits to be spread into the 
wild. But

[[Page H4449]]

these mutant fish may survive only for a limited number of generations 
in the wild, because when genetic engineering is performed, the 
opportunity to disturb or disrupt other genetic traits is possible, 
including disturbing the trait of longevity. The implications are 
serious.
  Chart 4 speaks of the Trojan Gene Effect. These are serious 
implications, because many fish populations are under consideration for 
genetic engineering. After several generations, natural fish may go 
extinct because larger genetically engineered fish are much more 
successful than natural fish in mating. Such mutant fish may also go 
extinct because their mutant genes can decrease the survivability of 
the species. This is what is called the Trojan Gene Effect.
  The end result is the loss of genetic diversity, disruption of 
ecological systems, possible extinction of important commercial fish 
species, and, of course, effect on the food supply.
  I am certainly expecting to withdraw this amendment, hoping that the 
chairman and the ranking member will work with me by advocating report 
language for a study to examine the ecological impacts of genetically 
engineered fish and anticipate regulatory actions that might be 
necessary.
  I would let the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) know that I would 
appreciate any consideration in conference for any report language.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we share the gentleman's concern. I think 
what I would like to do is discuss this with the Biological Research 
Division of the USGS, and perhaps they could do a study or take a look 
at it to see how this impacts on the fish population and work with Fish 
and Wildlife to address these concerns.
  If the gentleman would withdraw the amendment, certainly we will work 
with the gentleman in trying to get Fish and Wildlife and the USGS that 
has the science responsibility, perhaps we can meet with them and 
discuss ways in which they can address your concerns.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his 
obvious work here and this presentation that he has made. I want to 
tell the gentleman that we have the same problem out in the Pacific 
Northwest with a variety of salmon species, not that we have 
genetically engineered, but we have hatchery fish that compete with our 
wild salmon that reproduce naturally in the wild, and these crowding-
out effects, a lot of the same issues that the gentleman is raising 
here.
  The importance of preserving the gene pool of these species is 
critical. There is a lot of good work that is being done by the Fish 
and Wildlife Service across the country under the Endangered Species 
Act, but I think this is very important. I look forward to working with 
the gentleman on this issue and with the Fish and Wildlife Service to 
see if we cannot collaborate on this.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I include the following articles for the 
Record.

   Biosafety Assessment of Aquatic GMOs: The Case of Transgenic Fish

                        (By Anne R. Kapuscinski)

       A growing number of groups around the world are pursuing 
     research and development of transgenic fish, shellfish, and 
     algae. Transgenic Atlantic salmon are poised to be one of the 
     first transgenic animals farmed for human consumption. 
     Ecological risk assessments of transgenic aquatic organisms 
     have been comparatively underfunded and understudied. 
     Comparisons of the few risk assessment studies on transgenic 
     fish confirm the need to conduct case-by-case risk assessment 
     of each line of transgenic organism. Risk assessment should 
     focus on tests for intended and unintended changes in six 
     components of fitness. These include viability, fecundity, 
     fertility, longevity, mating success, and developmental time. 
     Muir and Howard have shown the critical importance of testing 
     for the joint effects of changes in these fitness components 
     because disadvantages in one fitness trait can be offset by 
     advantages in another fitness trait. For instance, the 
     reduced viability of growth-enhanced transgenic fish could be 
     offset by increased mating advantage of larger transgenic 
     adults, possibly driving a wild population towards extinction 
     (the Trojan gene effect). Risk assessments need to actively 
     search for this and other biologically feasible off-setting 
     mechanisms. The state-of-the-art way to do this, called the 
     Net Fitness Approach, is to: (1) Test GMOs for altered 
     fitness components in confined experiment; (2) quantify the 
     net fitness of the GMOs and mathematically predict effects of 
     escapees on wild fish; and, wherever feasible, (3) test 
     mathematical predictions on multiple generations of GMOs and 
     non-GMOs interacting in simplified, confines ecosystems.
       Muir's lab recently produced two lines of transgenic medaka 
     bearing a sockeye salmon growth hormone construct (sGH) that 
     promotes dramatically faster growth rates and earlier sexual 
     maturity, as previously shown in coho salmon and tilapia. 
     Both this construct and another salmon GH construct that is 
     in the transgenic Atlantic salmon being reviewed by the FDA 
     yield dramatic increases in growth rates, earlier 
     smoltification (ability to survive in seawater), and growth 
     promotion that overrides the natural environmental cue to 
     slow growth in colder (winter) water temperatures. In one sGH 
     medaka line, the transgenic fish are larger at sexual 
     maturity and have a viability disadvantage (Muir et al., 
     unpublished data). This is precisely the combination of 
     traits predicted to trigger the Trojan gene effect! Empirical 
     experiments are underway to test for this.
       In summary, the publicly available data on transgenic fish 
     confirm the need to test for ecological risks of each line of 
     GMOs on a case-by-case basis and in a manner that integrates 
     data on all modified traits, not just the target trait. These 
     same scientific principles were used by the interdisciplinary 
     Scientists' Working Group on Biosafety (1998) in designing 
     the Manual for Assessing Ecological and Human Health Effects 
     of Genetically Engineered Organisms (available at 
     www.edmonds-institute.org). The Manual applies to small- and 
     large-scale uses of any genetically engineered organism, 
     including fish and other aquatic organisms. Users generate a 
     specific trail of questions and responses that makes the 
     scientific claim of risk or safety. The Manual follows the 
     precautionary approach and encourages users to avoid type II 
     statistical errors (i.e., concluding no adverse effect when 
     the effect indeed occurs). Under the current state of 
     inadequate information on fitness components of transgenic 
     fish, application of the Manual leads the user to the 
     conclusion that there is insufficient information to answer a 
     key question and to the recommendation to apply several 
     confinement measures (sterilization, mechanical barriers, 
     physical barriers) to prevent ecological harm.
       The take home messages for existing and future proposals to 
     commercialize transgenic fish are: (1) The scientific data 
     indicate that some lines of transgenic fish will pose a real 
     ecological risk; (2) application of the Net Fitness Approach 
     should be a minimum requirement for testing the ecological 
     risk of all transgenic fish intended for aquaculture (or 
     other uses that could affect the environment); (3) any 
     transgenic fish approved for aquaculture (or other uses that 
     could affect the environment) should be made sterile and 
     individually screened to confirm sterility; (4) DNA markers 
     distinguishing each line of transgenic fish should be 
     registered in a publicly accessible central clearinghouse to 
     allow tracing of escapees; and (5) regulatory agencies need 
     to establish the information base and institutional 
     mechanisms required to monitor for and quickly respond to 
     surprising outcomes of transgenic fish escaping into the 
     wild.
                                  ____


     Possible Ecological Risks of Transgenic Organism Release When 
Transgenes Affect Mating Success: Sexual Selection and the Trojan Gene 
                               Hypothesis

               (By William M. Muir and Richard D. Howard)

       Widespread interests in producing transgenic organisms is 
     balanced by concern over ecological hazards, such as species 
     extinction if such organisms were to be released into nature. 
     An ecological risk associated with the introduction of a 
     transgenic organism is that the transgene, though rare, can 
     spread in a natural population. An increase in transgene 
     frequency is often assumed to be unlikely because transgenic 
     organisms typically have some viability disadvantage. Reduced 
     viability is assumed to be common because transgenic 
     individuals are best viewed as macromutants that lack any 
     history of selection that could reduce negative fitness 
     effects. However, these arguments ignore the potential 
     advantageous effects of transgenes on some aspect of fitness 
     such as mating success. Here, we examine the risk to a 
     natural population after release of a few transgenic 
     individuals when the transgene trait simultaneously increases 
     transgenic male mating success and lowers the viability of 
     transgenic offspring. We obtained relevant life history data 
     by using the small cyprinodont fish, Japanese medaka (Oryzias 
     latipes) as a model. Our deterministic equations predict that 
     a transgene introduced into a natural population by a small 
     number of transgenic fish will spread as a result of enhanced 
     mating advantage, but the reduced viability of offspring will 
     cause eventual local extinction of both populations. Such 
     risks should be evaluated with each new transgenic animal 
     before release.
       Although production of transgenic organisms offers great 
     agricultural potential, introduction of genetically modified 
     organisms

[[Page H4450]]

     into natural populations could result in ecological hazards, 
     such as species extinction (1-3). Such risk has been 
     suggested to pose little environmental threat because 
     transgenic organisms are evolutionary novelties that would 
     have reduced viability (4, 5). However, transgenic organisms 
     may also possess an advantage in some aspect of reproduction 
     that may increase their success in nature. Although a variety 
     of transgene traits have been incorporated into various 
     species (6, 7), a commonly desired characteristic in 
     transgenic fish species (important in aquaculture and sport 
     fishing) is accelerated growth rate and larger adult body 
     size (8). DNA sequences for growth hormone (GH) genes and 
     cDNAs have been well characterized in fish, and transgenic 
     fish of several species have now been produced (9, 10). 
     Growth enhancements of up to several times that of wild type 
     have been obtained, with growth advantages persisting 
     throughout adulthood in some fish species (8, 11). In many 
     animal species, including fish, body size is an important 
     determinant of differential mating success (sexual selection) 
     through advantages in competing for mates against members of 
     the same sex (mate competition) and/or being preferred as a 
     mate by the opposite sex (mate choice) (12). A recent review 
     found that large body size conferred mating advantages in 40% 
     of the 186 animal taxa surveyed (12). The potential for 
     sexual selection to produce a rapid evolution of sexual 
     traits has long been appreciated (12); here we consider its 
     potential to increase transgene frequency and to eliminate 
     populations, specifically when a sexual trait is affected by 
     transgenes.


                         materials and methods

       Study Organism. As a model organism, we studied Japanese 
     medaka (Oryzias latipes) (13) to explore the ecological 
     consequences of transgene release into natural populations. 
     Medaka were convenient study organisms for obtaining data on 
     fitness components. Individuals were readily bred in the lab, 
     were easily cultured, and attained sexual maturity in about 
     two months. We produced a stock of transgenic medaka by 
     inserting the human growth hormone gene (hGH), with a salmon 
     promoter, sGH (14). We then conducted several experiments to 
     document survival and reproductive differences between 
     transgenic and wild-type medaka (15). We categorized these 
     differences into four fitness components; (i) viability 
     (offspring survival to sexual maturity), (ii) developmental 
     (age at sexual maturation), (iii) fecundity (clutch size), 
     and (iv) sexual selection (mating advantages). We modeled the 
     introduction of a small number of transgenic individuals into 
     a large wild-type population using recurrence equations 
     (described below) to predict the consequences of the model, 
     i.e., of increased male mating success but reduced offspring 
     viability. Elsewhere, we examined the results of model 
     predictions in which GH transgenes influenced developmental 
     and fecundity fitness components as well as offspring 
     viability (unpublished data). Different transgene lines are 
     likely to vary in fitness even when the same transgene 
     construct is used, because of differences in copy number and 
     sites of transgene insertion. To take such variation into 
     account as well as to make our model generally applicable to 
     other organisms and transgene constructs, we used a range of 
     parameter values for male mating success and offspring 
     viability in our models. The range of values also encompassed 
     the particular fitness component estimates that we obtained.
       We conducted a 2 2 factorial experiment to assess the early 
     viability of offspring produced from crosses involving 
     transgenic and wild-type medaka parents (15). Each pairing 
     combination consisted of 10 males and 10 females; eggs were 
     obtained from each pair for a period of 10 days, producing a 
     total of 1,910 fertile eggs. Viability was estimated as the 
     percentage of 3-day-old fry that emerged. Results shows that 
     early survival of transgenic young was 70% of that of the 
     wild type (15).
       Mating experiments using wild-type medaka were performed to 
     measure the mating advantage that large males obtained over 
     small males (16). We found that, regardless of protocol, 
     large males obtained a 4-fold mating advantage (16). Such 
     size-related mating advantages have been demonstrated in a 
     variety of fish species; they can result from mate 
     competition or mate choice or both (12). We do not expect 
     transgenic male medaka to have a mating advantage over wild-
     type males, because the hGH transgene we inserted increased 
     only juvenile growth rate, not final adult body size (14); 
     that is, the size difference between transgenic and wild-
     type males disappeared by sexual maturity. Nonetheless, we 
     modeled the possible effect of transgene release into 
     wild-type populations when transgenes accelerate growth 
     throughout adulthood, thus increasing transgenic male 
     mating success, because these effects could occur with 
     other transgene constructs in other fish species. For 
     example, continued growth enhancements from GH genes 
     occurs in adult salmonids (8), and the mating advantages 
     of large males has been reported in several salmonid 
     species (17-19).
       We used a range of mating and viability fitness parameters, 
     including the values we obtained in experiments with a 
     recurrence model that predicts changes in gene frequencies 
     and population sizes when transgenic individuals invade a 
     wild-type population (15).


                         results and discussion

       In the model, the initial population was structured with a 
     stable age distribution giving a constant size (60,000), 
     composed of wild-type fish with an equal sex ratio in each 
     class. Based on experimental data (15), and adjusted by trial 
     and error to achieve a stable age distribution, juvenile and 
     adult mortality rates were set to 9.8% and 0.765% per day, 
     respectively, for both genotypes, which resulted in an 
     expected maximum life span of 150 days. Sixty homozygous 
     transgenic fish of equal sex ratio were then introduced at 
     sexual maturity. We assumed that transgenic and wild-type 
     individuals were similar in age (at sexual maturity), 
     fecundity, fertility, susceptibility to predation, and 
     longevity; the only differential effects caused by the GH 
     transgene were male mating success and offspring viability. 
     We also assumed that the probability of mating was not 
     frequency-dependent. For this model, population size was 
     always assumed to be less than the carrying capacity; i.e., 
     no density-dependent effects occurred. This assumption is 
     known to be incorrect for some species. But for species that 
     are declining in number because of heavy fishing pressure or 
     other sources of mortality, the assumption is likely to be 
     true. The above parameters were specified in the model, and 
     genotype frequency, gene frequency, and population size were 
     assessed each day. We expressed time to extinction in terms 
     of the generation interval, the average age when all 
     offspring were produced, which, in our laboratory experiments 
     on medaka, equaled 96.9 days.
       Predictions of the model were straightforward when 
     transgenes affected only one fitness component. If transgenes 
     reduced only juvenile survival, transgenic individuals would 
     be quickly eliminated from any wild-type population. Our 
     model predicted that if transgenic medaka suffered a 30% 
     reduction in viability relative to the wild type, the 
     transgene would be eliminated after about 10 generations 
     (15). In contrast, if the GH transgene increased only the 
     mating success of transgenic males relative to wild-type 
     males, the gene would spread quickly. If adult transgenic 
     males were 24% larger than adult wild-type males and thereby 
     achieved the 4-fold mating advantage that we had observed in 
     our mating experiments (16), the frequency of the 
     transgene would exceed 50% in about five generations, and 
     become fixed in the population in about 20 generations. In 
     both of these situations, population size would remain 
     essentially unchanged across generations, and the 
     transgene would either be eliminated or go to fixation.
       In contrast, combining the effects of the transgene on 
     mating success and offspring viability is predicted to result 
     in the local extinction of any wild-type population invaded 
     by transgenic organisms. The male mating advantage would act 
     to increase the frequency of the transgene in the population; 
     however, the viability disadvantage suffered by all offspring 
     carrying the transgene would reduce the population size by 
     50% in less than six generations and completely eliminate the 
     population in about 40 generations. These population 
     projections result because the males that produce the least 
     fit offspring obtain a disproportionate share of the matings. 
     We refer to this type of extinction as the ``Trojan gene 
     effect,'' because the mating advantage provides a mechanism 
     for the transgene to enter and spread in a population, and 
     the viability reduction eventually results in population 
     extinction. Such a conflict between offspring viability and 
     male mating advantage based on large body size has been 
     theorized to be one of the processes that can cause species 
     extinction (20, 21).
       Both the advantageous and disadvantageous effects of such 
     sexual traits are usually considered to be sex-limited; 
     however, the transgene we considered has a sex-limited 
     advantage (male mating success), but no sex limitation on 
     viability reduction. As a result, population extinction 
     should occur even more rapidly. In theory, counterselection 
     against the transgene and thereby rescuing a population from 
     extinction is possible. Such counterselection could take two 
     forms. Modifying genes might be selected that mitigate the 
     degree of viability reduction of the transgene. 
     Alternatively, if the transgenic male mating advantage 
     results mostly from female preference for large males, 
     females with alternative mating preferences could be favored 
     by selection, halting or reversing the spread of the 
     transgene. If the mating advantage of transgenic males 
     resulted mostly from success in mate competition, we would 
     expect no such selection against the transgene. Our 
     prediction of population extinction must, however, be 
     interpreted cautiously. A critical assumption of our 
     deterministic model is that the viability reduction of 
     transgenic organisms remains constant, even with a lowering 
     of population density.
       The predicted time course for extinction of a wild-type 
     population after the release of transgenic individuals varies 
     as a function of the rate of transgene spread, which is 
     influenced by the relative mating advantage of transgenic 
     males and by the severity of viability reduction in 
     transgenic young (Fig. 1). For example, our model predicted 
     that if the viability of transgenic young were 70% of that of 
     wild-type young, as was the case with the hGH-sGH transgenic 
     medaka we produced, population extinction would result only 
     when transgenic males obtained a 2-fold or greater mating 
     advantage over wild-type males.
       Increasing the viability of transgenic offspring in the 
     simulations produced a

[[Page H4451]]

     counter-intuitive results, however. If the viability of 
     transgenic young was increased to 85% of that of wild-type 
     offspring, population extinction was predicted to occur over 
     a wider range of male mating advantages, even though the time 
     to extinction was greater. Thus, as the viability of 
     transgenic offspring approaches that of wild type, risk of 
     extinction may actually increase. Two situations resulted in 
     the highest risk; a huge mating advantage and a moderate 
     viability reduction (Fig. 1). A mating advantage of at least 
     4-fold produced a risk over a range of viabilities from 
     about 0.45 to 0.9; a viability reduction in the range of 
     0.7 to 0.9 resulted in the risk of extinction over the 
     widest range of mating advantages. These trends were 
     predicted because, at one extreme, a transgene that 
     greatly reduced offspring viability would be quickly 
     eliminated unless it were counterbalanced by a very high 
     male mating advantage. At the other extreme, in the case 
     of a transgene that produced high viability of transgenic 
     young, a lower male mating advantage could drive the gene 
     to high frequency in the population, resulting in a lower 
     genetic load and requiring more generations for population 
     extinction.
       Local extinction of a wild-type population from a release 
     of transgenic individuals could also have cascading negative 
     effects on the community. In contrast, if transgenic males 
     were created intentionally to drive to extinction a wild-type 
     population of, for example, a species of pests, it could 
     serve as a mechanism for biological control.
       We thank J. Lucas, P. Waser, Anne Kapuscinski, and an 
     anonymous reviewer for helpful comments. This research was 
     supported by U.S. Department of Agriculture National 
     Biological Impact Assessment Program grants (93-33120-9468 
     and 97-39210-4997).


                               references

       1. Tiedje, J. M., Colwell, R. K., Grossman, Y. L., Hodson, 
     R. E., Lenski, R. E., Mack, R. N. & Regal, P.J. (1989) 
     Ecology 70, 298-315.
       2. Kapuscinski, A.R. & Hallerman, E. M. (1991) (Can. J. 
     Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48, 99-107.
       3. Devlin, R. H. & Donaldson, E. M. (1992) in Transgenic 
     Fish, eds. Hew, C. L., & Fletcher, G. L. (World Scientific, 
     Singapore), pp. 229-265.
       4. Knibb, W. (1997) Transgenic Res. 6, 59-67.
       5. Regal, P. J. (1987) Recomb. DNA Tech. Bull. 10, 67-85.
       6. Levin, M. A. & Israeli, E. (1996) Engineered Organisms 
     in Environmental Settings: Biotechnological and Agricultural 
     Applications (CRC, Boca Raton, FL), pp. 13-17.
       7. Houdebine, L. M., ed. (1996) Transgenic Animals: 
     Generation and Use (Harwood Academic, Amsterdam).
       8. Devlin, R. H. (1996) in Transgenic Animals: Generation 
     and Use, ed. Houdebine, L. M. (Harwood Academic, Amsterdam), 
     pp. 105-117.
       9. Devlin, R. H., Yesaki. T. Y., Blagl, C. A. & Donaldson, 
     E. M. (1994) Nature (London) 371, 209-210.
       10. Du, S., Gong, Z., Fletcher, G., Shears, M., King, M., 
     Idler, D. & Hew, C. L. (1992) Bio-Technology 10, 176-181.
       11. Devlin, R. H., Yesaki, T. Y., Donaldson, E. M., Du, S. 
     J. & Hew, Cl. L. (1995) Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52, 1376-
     1384.
       12. Andersson, M. (1994) Sexual Selection (Princeton Univ. 
     Press, Princeton, NJ).
       13. Muir, W. M., Howard, R. D. & Bidwell, C. A. (1994) in 
     Proceedings of the Biotechnology Risk Assessment Symposium, 
     eds. Levin, M., Grim, C. & Angle, J. S. (Univ. Maryland 
     Biotechnology Institute, College Park, MD), pp. 170-197.
       14. Muir, W. M., Martens, R. S., Howard, R. D. & Bidwell, 
     C. A. (1995) in Proceedings of the Biotechnology Risk 
     Assessment Symposium, eds. Levin, M., Grim, C. & Angle, J. S. 
     (Univ. Maryland Biotechnology Institute, College Park, MD), 
     pp. 140-149.
       15. Muir, W. M., Howard, R. D., Martens, R. S., Schulte, S. 
     & Bidwell, C. A. (1996) in Proceedings of the Biotechnology 
     Risk Assessment Symposium, eds. Levin, M., Grim, C. & Angle, 
     J. S. (Univ. Maryland Biotechnology Institute, College Park, 
     MD), pp. 354-356.
       16. Howard, R. D., Martens, R. S., Innes, S. A., Drnevich, 
     J. M. & Hale, J. (1998) Anim. Behav. 55, 1151-1163.
       17. Quinn, T. P. & Foote, C. J. (1988) Anim. Behav. 48, 
     751-761.
       18. Fleming, I. A. (1996) Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 6, 379-416.
       19. Mjolnerod, I. B., Fleming, I. A., Refseth, U. H. & 
     Hindar, K. (1998) Can. J. Zool. 76, 70-76.
       20. Lande, R. (1980) Evolution 34, 292-305.
       21. Maynard Smith, J. & Brown, R. L. W. (1986) Theor. 
     Popul. Biol. 30, 166-179.

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Regula).
  Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) shares 
my interest in ensuring that the Kyoto Protocol is not implemented 
without ratification and that unauthorized activities to implement the 
protocol are not funded. Likewise, I know that the gentleman shares my 
interest in developing fuel cells for building applications and 
specifically in proton membrane exchange technology for supplying 
residential electric power and hot water.
  I am asking that the gentleman work with me to address appropriately 
the first issue in conference and to identify any additional funding 
there might be for the fuel cell program in the event that additional 
funds are made available in conference.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would commend the gentleman. I think that 
there has been a lot of progress on fuel cell development. We know it 
is something that offers a lot of promise.
  The gentleman is correct, I share his concerns on both issues, and I 
look forward to working with the gentleman as the bill moves forward in 
conference on trying to support fuel cell research.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
chairman.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Regula) to engage in a brief colloquy with me.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) knows, there is 
language in the committee's report on this bill dealing with what is 
described as BLM wilderness reinventory activities. I just have some 
questions about the meaning and effect of that part of the report.
  To begin with, the report says that BLM has completed all of its 
wilderness reinventory activities begun in prior years, but I 
understand that part of the language is inaccurate because there is an 
ongoing process in Colorado that has not yet ended.
  I would respectfully ask the chairman, am I right in understanding 
that there is no intention to interfere with the ongoing reinventory 
process in Colorado?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, yes, the gentleman is correct. We do not 
intend to interfere with that ongoing process in Colorado.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.
  Am I also right in understanding that nothing in the committee report 
is intended to interfere with BLM's normal process in revising its 
management plans or keeping its resource inventory current?
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, he is correct. 
We are not intending to interfere with or change that process of 
revising management plans or keeping the resource inventory current.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for those 
answers.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              construction

       For construction, improvement, acquisition, or removal 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; $48,395,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                            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, $30,000,000, to be derived 
     from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain 
     available until expended.

            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, $23,000,000, to be derived from the Cooperative 
     Endangered Species Conservation Fund, 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), $10,439,000.

               north american wetlands conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     North American Wetlands

[[Page H4452]]

     Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233, as amended, 
     $15,499,000, to remain available until expended.

              wildlife conservation and appreciation fund

       For necessary expenses of the Wildlife Conservation and 
     Appreciation Fund, $797,000, 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), $2,391,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That funds made available under this Act, Public 
     Law 105-277, and hereafter in annual appropriations acts 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. 
     2799aa-1).

                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations and funds available to the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for purchase of 
     not to exceed 79 passenger motor vehicles, of which 72 are 
     for replacement only (including 41 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 $2,000,000 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, $1,425,617,000, of which $8,727,000 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 
     $7,000,000, 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.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Regula

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

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Regula:
       On page 15, line 15 after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $66,500,000)''.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment adds $66.5 million to address 
critical operational backlog needs in the National Parks.
  Mr. Chairman, backlog maintenance is a critical problem in our 
National Parks, and, as we all recognize from testimony by the Director 
of the National Parks, this is something where we should, wherever 
possible, provide funding to overcome the serious deficit that exists.

                              {time}  1915

  What this amendment does is add $66,500,000 to, in a continuing way, 
address the critical problem of backlogged maintenance.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and urge 
that it be adopted.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  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, $49,956,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be available to 
     carry out the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 
     (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.).

                       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), $41,347,000, to be derived from the Historic 
     Preservation Fund, to remain available until September 30, 
     2002, of which $7,177,000 pursuant to section 507 of Public 
     Law 104-333 shall remain available until expended.

                              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, $150,004,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                    land and water conservation fund

                              (rescission)

       The contract authority provided for fiscal year 2001 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 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 the statutory authority applicable to the 
     National Park Service, $65,000,000, to be derived from the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $21,000,000 is for the State assistance 
     program including $1,000,000 to administer the program, and 
     of which $10,000,000 may be for State grants for land 
     acquisition in the State of Florida: Provided, That the 
     $20,000,000 provided for grants in the State assistance 
     program shall be used solely to acquire land for State and 
     local parks for the benefit of outdoor recreation: Provided 
     further, That 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, and excluding the Eight and One-Half Square 
     Mile Area) 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 for assistance to the State of 
     Florida to acquire lands within the Everglades watershed 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 notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, hereafter, the Secretary of the 
     Interior must concur in developing, implementing, and 
     revising regulations to allocate water made available from 
     Central and Southern Florida Project features: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary's concurrence will address the 
     temporal and spatial needs of the natural system as defined 
     in terms of quality, quantity, timing, and distribution of 
     water, and ensuring the restoration, preservation and 
     protection of the South Florida ecosystem, including, but not 
     limited to, the remaining natural system areas of the 
     Everglades, Everglades National Park, Biscayne and Florida 
     Bays, and the Florida Keys.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HANSEN. I raise a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) is recognized.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
language found on page 18, beginning on line 6 and continuing on line 
19, which begins ``Provided further, that notwithstanding any other 
law.''
  The language clearly imposes a new duty on the Secretary of the 
Interior in concurring in these actions regarding water allocations in 
Florida.
  Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers oversees water development 
projects in and near the Everglades area, and there is no requirement 
that these projects need concurrence by the Secretary of the Interior.
  In addition, the language modifies or affects the application of many 
existing laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, the National Park 
Service Organic Act, the Miccosukee Reserved Area Act, the Act of May 
30, 1934, relating to the Everglades National Park, and the National 
Marine Sanctuaries Act.
  It also appears to require the Secretary to apply Bureau of 
Reclamation statutes affecting water projects to a non-Bureau of 
Reclamation State,

[[Page H4453]]

Florida, in violation of Chapter 1093, 32 Stat. 388, section 1, Bureau 
of Reclamation Act of 1902.
  Finally, the language federalizes water allocation issues which are a 
matter now determined under Florida's State law.
  This language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriation 
bill, in violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the rules of the House 
of Representatives, and the Governor of Florida supports this.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is recognized.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we understand the problem here, and 
recognize that what the gentleman from Utah is raising as a point of 
order is correct. I would like to just discuss the implications of this 
situation, because I think it is important for our colleagues to 
understand what is happening.
  The Everglades restoration is a major project. It is probably going 
to involve an expenditure of $10 to $15 billion in the years ahead. I 
think it is vitally important that the United States government, 
through the Department of the Interior, have a voice in this project.
  I regret that our attempt to provide assurances for a vital, high-
quality water supply to the natural areas of the Everglades, including 
Everglades National Park, several national wildlife refuges, and 
Florida Bay have been dropped.
  Restoration of the Everglades began 7 years ago as a true partnership 
among various interests. These interests, Federal, State, and local 
governments, Indian tribes, agricultural, urban, and environmental 
organizations, and the public at large, came together as the South 
Florida Ecosystem Task Force.
  This entity meets to set priorities and make collaborative decisions 
on this massive restoration effort. Since the restoration effort began, 
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee has provided nearly $1 billion 
in Federal funding with the understanding that critical scientific 
research, land acquisition, and water planning funding to achieve 
environmental restoration would be one of the end results of the 
enormous sums the American taxpayers are being called upon to commit.
  The committee has provided this funding during a time of declining 
budgets and at the expense of numerous meritorious projects--projects 
that our Members here would like to have. Because we were committed to 
spending what has already been a total of over $700 million to this 
program, we were not able to do some of the others that we should have 
done.
  Mr. Chairman, the language being stripped from this bill ensured that 
the natural areas would receive equal treatment with other interests as 
important decisions about water flow and quantity are made.
  Let us be honest. Without assurances that the Secretary of the 
Interior, together with the Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers and 
the South Florida Water Management District, has a voice in water 
decisions, we can no longer call this project environmental 
restoration. The Federal part of the money in this bill is the 
environmental restoration of the Everglades. Now, with the result of 
this point of order, we will not have that voice of the Federal 
government.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear, I bear no ill will toward the other 
goals of this effort: continued sugar and agricultural production, 
adequate potable water availability for the people of Florida, and 
sustainable growth for the region.
  However, with the balanced, fair language now being stripped from 
this bill, the effort is no longer an environmental restoration 
project. It is no longer a partnership. The project is solely a water 
development project between the Army Corps of Engineers and the local 
water management district in ``Anywhere U.S.A.'', and should receive no 
further funding through the bill of the Subcommittee on the Interior of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  I want to point out something else. We will hear that this water is 
owned by the State of Florida, but in 1970, under the River Basin 
Monetary Authorization and Miscellaneous Civil Works Amendments, the 
following language was incorporated in that bill and is now the law of 
the United States:

       That as soon as practicable, and in any event upon 
     completion of the work specified in the preceding provision, 
     delivery of water from the Central and Southern Florida 
     project to the Everglades National Park shall be not less 
     than 315,000 acre feet annually.

  In other words, the water belongs to the Everglades as part of the 
1970 law. Our concern is that unless there is some way in which the 
Federal government has a voice in the distribution of the water that is 
going to be gained by all of the activities that have been funded from 
the money we have spent thus far, the possibility of the Everglades not 
receiving adequate water supply is very real.
  I hope we can work out some language, in view of the fact that this 
is being stripped by the point of order, that will continue to ensure 
the protection of the United States' investment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard briefly on the 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to 
recognize what is happening here and to gauge the implications of it, 
to understand them and all of their ramifications, because they are 
broad and deep.
  First of all, by striking this language, $9 million, which is 
appropriated in this bill to the Department of the Interior, will now 
be spent by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Department of the Interior 
will simply be a pass-through. The Department of the Interior will have 
no say whatsoever in how that money is spent. It will be spent only by 
the Army Corps of Engineers for their purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, that is contrary to everything that this Congress has 
done up to this point with regard to this project. Our chairman has 
just outlined very carefully and accurately some of the profound 
difficulties that will ensue as a result of the striking of this 
language.
  We have here a national resource. The Everglades are half owned by 
the United States government for all the people of the country. They 
are--that half of the Everglades is administered by the Department of 
the Interior. By striking this language, the Department of the Interior 
will have no say whatsoever in how this $9 million appropriated in this 
bill is to be spent.
  The foundation which has been laid very, very carefully over a long 
period of time, and which has involved the appropriation and 
expenditure of several billion dollars so far, is undermined by the 
striking of this language.
  What we have had up to now is a cooperative working relationship 
between the State of Florida, the South Florida Water Management 
District, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the United States Department 
of the Interior. The United States Department of the Interior is 
involved here because of the fact that we have a number of ecosystems 
in those Everglades which are administered by the Department of the 
Interior, and appropriately so.
  Striking this language is going to do extreme damage to the 
foundation that has been laid, the confidence that has been had by 
these relating agencies in working together. That confidence will no 
longer exist. The people around the country who have watched this 
enterprise go forward, and they, too, have watched it with confidence 
because of the cooperation that has been had between the various 
agencies, many people around the country are going to now withdraw that 
confidence. They are going to be very skeptical about what is going to 
happen with regard to the Everglades.
  All of the environmental protection that is important in the 
Everglades restoration is now placed in jeopardy. The 68 threatened and 
endangered species that are in the Everglades now will be increasingly 
endangered because their manager, their overseer, the Department of the 
Interior, will no longer be active.
  I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, finally, that the Members here 
understand what is being done. This is

[[Page H4454]]

 technically accurate but it is wholly mischievous. It is going to 
result in substantial damage. We will have to immediately find ways to 
correct the damage which has been done by the striking of this 
language.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) makes a point of 
order that the provision beginning with ``Provided further'' on page 
18, line 6, through line 19 proposes to change existing law in 
violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI.
  The provision directly waives any other provision of law and assigns 
new duties to the Secretary of the Interior with respect to water 
allocation in Florida. As stated on page 799 of the House Rules and 
Manual, a proposition to establish an affirmative duty on an executive 
officer is legislation. By establishing new duties on the Secretary of 
the Interior, the provision constitutes legislation on an appropriation 
bill in violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the provision is 
stricken.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through page 21, line 13, be considered as read, printed in 
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill from page 18, line 20, through 
page 21, line 13, is as follows:

                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the National Park Service shall be 
     available for the purchase of not to exceed 340 passenger 
     motor vehicles, of which 273 shall be for replacement only, 
     including not to exceed 319 for police-type use, 12 buses, 
     and 9 ambulances: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated to the National Park Service may be used to 
     process any grant or contract documents which do not include 
     the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated to the National Park Service may be 
     used to implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the 
     southern end of Ellis Island until such agreement has been 
     submitted to the Congress and shall not be implemented prior 
     to the expiration of 30 calendar days (not including any day 
     in which either House of Congress is not in session because 
     of adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day 
     certain) from the receipt by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President of the Senate of a full and 
     comprehensive report on the development of the southern end 
     of Ellis Island, including the facts and circumstances relied 
     upon in support of the proposed project.
       None of the funds in this Act may be spent by the National 
     Park Service for activities taken in direct response to the 
     United Nations Biodiversity Convention.
       The National Park Service may distribute to operating units 
     based on the safety record of each unit the costs of programs 
     designed to improve workplace and employee safety, and to 
     encourage employees receiving workers' compensation benefits 
     pursuant to chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to 
     return to appropriate positions for which they are medically 
     able.

                    United States Geological Survey

                 surveys, investigations, and research

       For expenses necessary for the United States Geological 
     Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research 
     covering topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the 
     mineral and water resources of the United States, its 
     territories and possessions, and other areas as authorized by 
     43 U.S.C. 31, 1332, and 1340; classify lands as to their 
     mineral and water resources; give engineering supervision to 
     power permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     licensees; administer the minerals exploration program (30 
     U.S.C. 641); and publish and disseminate data relative to the 
     foregoing activities; and to conduct inquiries into the 
     economic conditions affecting mining and materials processing 
     industries (30 U.S.C. 3, 21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and 
     related purposes as authorized by law and to publish and 
     disseminate data; $816,676,000, of which $60,553,000 shall be 
     available only for cooperation with States or municipalities 
     for water resources investigations; and of which $16,400,000 
     shall remain available until expended for conducting 
     inquiries into the economic conditions affecting mining and 
     materials processing industries; and of which $32,763,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2002 for the operation 
     and maintenance of facilities and deferred maintenance; and 
     of which $140,416,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2002 for the biological research activity and the operation 
     of the Cooperative Research Units: Provided, That none of 
     these funds provided for the biological research activity 
     shall be used to conduct new surveys on private property, 
     unless specifically authorized in writing by the property 
     owner: Provided further, That no part of this appropriation 
     shall be used to pay more than one-half the cost of 
     topographic mapping or water resources data collection and 
     investigations carried on in cooperation with States and 
     municipalities.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       administrative provisions

       The amount appropriated for the United States Geological 
     Survey shall be available for the purchase of not to exceed 
     53 passenger motor vehicles, of which 48 are for replacement 
     only; reimbursement to the General Services Administration 
     for security guard services; reimbursement to the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for Refuge Revenue 
     Sharing payments made by FWS to local entities for the FWS 
     real property transferred to the Geological Survey; 
     contracting for the furnishing of topographic maps and for 
     the making of geophysical or other specialized surveys when 
     it is administratively determined that such procedures are in 
     the public interest; construction and maintenance of 
     necessary buildings and appurtenant facilities; acquisition 
     of lands for gauging stations and observation wells; expenses 
     of the United States National Committee on Geology; and 
     payment of compensation and expenses of persons on the rolls 
     of the Survey duly appointed to represent the United States 
     in the negotiation and administration of interstate compacts: 
     Provided, That activities funded by appropriations herein 
     made may be accomplished through the use of contracts, 
     grants, or cooperative agreements as defined in 31 U.S.C. 
     6302 et seq.

                      Minerals Management Service

                royalty and offshore minerals management

       For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and 
     environmental studies, regulation of industry operations, and 
     collection of royalties, as authorized by law; for enforcing 
     laws and regulations applicable to oil, gas, and other 
     minerals leases, permits, licenses and operating contracts; 
     and for matching grants or cooperative agreements; including 
     the purchase of not to exceed eight passenger motor vehicles 
     for replacement only; $127,200,000, of which $84,362,000, 
     shall be available for royalty management activities; and an 
     amount not to exceed $107,000,000, to be credited to this 
     appropriation and to remain available until expended, from 
     additions to receipts resulting from increases to rates in 
     effect on August 5, 1993, from rate increases to fee 
     collections for Outer Continental Shelf administrative 
     activities performed by the Minerals Management Service over 
     and above the rates in effect on September 30, 1993, and from 
     additional fees for Outer Continental Shelf administrative 
     activities established after September 30, 1993: Provided, 
     That to the extent $107,000,000 in additions to receipts are 
     not realized from the sources of receipts stated above, the 
     amount needed to reach $107,000,000 shall be credited to this 
     appropriation from receipts resulting from rental rates for 
     Outer Continental Shelf leases in effect before August 5, 
     1993: Provided further, That $3,000,000 for computer 
     acquisitions shall remain available until September 30, 2002: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this Act 
     shall be available for the payment of interest in accordance 
     with 30 U.S.C. 1721(b) and (d): Provided further, That not to 
     exceed $3,000 shall be available for reasonable expenses 
     related to promoting volunteer beach and marine cleanup 
     activities: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, $15,000 under this heading shall be 
     available for refunds of overpayments in connection with 
     certain Indian leases in which the Director of the Minerals 
     Management Service concurred with the claimed refund due, to 
     pay amounts owed to Indian allottees or tribes, or to correct 
     prior unrecoverable erroneous payments: Provided further, 
     That MMS may under the royalty-in-kind pilot program use a 
     portion of the revenues from royalty-in-kind sales, without 
     regard to fiscal year limitation, to pay for transportation 
     and gathering expenses, processing, and any contractor costs 
     required to aggregate and market royalty production taken in 
     kind at wholesale market centers: Provided further, That MMS 
     shall analyze and document the expected return in advance of 
     any royalty-in-kind sales to assure to the maximum extent 
     practicable that royalty income under the pilot program is 
     equal to or greater than royalty income recognized under a 
     comparable royalty-in-value program.


          Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York

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

       Amendment No. 44 offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
       Page 24, beginning line 6, strike ``transportation and 
     gathering expenses, processing, and any contractor costs 
     required to aggregate and market royalty production taken in 
     kind at wholesale market centers'' and insert 
     ``transportation to wholesale market centers and processing 
     of royalty production taken in kind''.

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this 
amendment, which will enable the Minerals Management Services to 
operate the royalty-in-kind pilot program more efficiently.

[[Page H4455]]

  I first want to thank both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their efforts to resolve 
this issue in a positive way. This amendment will strike language that 
would have given the royalties-in-kind program the ability to finance 
the gathering and marketing of oil and natural gas products.
  It will continue to allow the Department of the Interior to finance 
the cost of transportation and processing of oil and natural gas.
  Currently the Minerals Management Service is conducting three 
royalty-in-kind pilot programs located in Wyoming, Texas, and the Gulf 
of Mexico. We have worked in a bipartisan manner closely with the 
Department of the Interior to develop language that achieves their 
goals without affecting broader oil valuation policy or costing 
additional funds.

                              {time}  1930

  My amendment will accomplish this purpose. So, again, I would like to 
thank the chairman and ranking member for their support, and I would 
urge all of my colleagues to support this common sense amendment.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I am the chairman of the authorizing 
subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Minerals Management Service. 
MMS is the agency charged with collecting royalties from mineral 
lessees of the federal government. Usually, the producer pays one-
eighth of the value of the oil and natural gas from the wells on the 
lease to MMS to satisfy their royalty obligation, but the Secretary of 
the Interior is able to take royalty production in kind rather than in 
value, if he so chooses.

  MMS has been conducting ``R-I-K pilot programs'' over the last 
several years, first for oil from leases in Wyoming and later for 
natural gas off the coast of Texas. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the MMS has 
reported to me that royalty natural gas taken in-kind from the Gulf of 
Mexico has been sold to the General Services Administration for heating 
federal buildings, including this very Capitol building last winter.
  MMS is seeking to expand the scope of its natural gas R-I-K program 
to learn how best to add value for the taxpayer by aggregating 
significant volumes of gas from many leases throughout the Gulf and 
marketing those volumes to the highest bidders. This is known as 
``market uplift'' and it is a source of added value for the government. 
Why? Because when lessees pay their royalty in value it is based upon 
the wellhead value of the oil or gas, not the greater value one can 
receive from transporting product and aggressively marketing one's 
crude oil or natural gas downstream of the lease. Just two months ago a 
federal court ruled that there is no duty for oil and gas lessees to 
market their production without cost to the government. To my knowledge 
the federal government has not appealed this summary judgment.
  Mr. Chairman, this simply means the producer of oil and gas owes 
royalty on the value of production at the lease. If the oil or gas is 
first sold downstream of the lease, then transportation, processing (if 
necessary) and marketing costs are deducted from the proceeds when 
calculating the royalty owed. Likewise, if and when the MMS takes its 
royalty in kind at a point downstream of the lease, a similar deduction 
is owed the producer. This bill, as reported by the Committee on 
Appropriations, recognized this requirement, as does Mrs. Maloney' 
amendment. Thus, I shall not object to the gentlelady's amendment even 
though it will hinder the MMS in its efforts to explore adding value 
for the taxpayer. This is because the Maloney amendment strikes 
language allowing the MMS to contract with outside marketers who are 
skilled in aggregating volumes of natural gas and finding the best 
price for it. Yes, MMS will be able to do this work ``in house'' with 
its own personnel, but MMS itself recognizes that its employees lack 
the trading skills learned in the competitive marketplace. We cannot 
expect them to match the ``uplift'' private marketers would bring to 
the government's natural gas supply.
  Mr. Chairman, the provision which follows the Maloney amendment in 
the text of this bill insures the taxpayers will not lose money in the 
conduct of the R-I-K pilots, but the shame here is that the opportunity 
to add further value for the taxpayer is unduly constrained by this 
amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Regula

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous 
consent to return to page 17, line 7, and that this amendment be made 
in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Regula: On page 17, line 7 after 
     the dollar amount insert ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is increases the 
Park Service's land acquisition by $20 million, and the funding is 
directed to the high priority inholdings. I think it is very important, 
as they acquire land, that wherever possible we should purchase 
inholdings and thereby complete the parks. This funding, of course, is 
for purchases from willing sellers.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we will accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and enter 
into a colloquy with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. Chairman, I was going to offer an amendment today on snowmobile 
use in certain national parks. Mr. Chairman, the national parks has 
more than 375 units. These units run from the historic homes here in 
Washington, D.C., the beauty of the Great Lakes, all the way up to 
Alaska. For all these units, their popularity is directly related to 
their access to the parks. As one generation immerses itself in the 
beauty and history of our national parks, so will the next.
  This appreciation is often heightened by providing year-round access 
to parks. In some units, snowmobiles are necessary for traversing the 
isolated park lands of our northern States. In other units, like the 
Pictured Rocks in my district, snowmobiles are used for recreational 
purposes on restricted routes.
  Unfortunately, on April 27, 2000, Interior Department Assistant 
Secretary Don Barry issued an announcement that many regarded as a ban 
of snowmobile use in the national park. The announcement said that the 
National Park Service must enforce existing regulations regarding 
snowmobile use. While I understand the need to balance the preservation 
of our park units with the public's desire for recreation, this issue 
is about much more. Foremost, the issues of public input must be 
addressed.
  Most of these parks have general management plans that permit 
snowmobiling in designated areas. These plans, promulgated in law as 
special regulations, were agreed to by the local park officials and 
neighboring communities. How then can park officials in Washington, 
D.C. chastise local communities for not enforcing a snowmobile ban? In 
many cases, the local communities wanted snowmobile use, not restricted 
use. Snowmobilers wanted controlled and sensible use. That is why the 
designated snowmobile routes were promulgated as special regulations in 
Pictured Rocks National Park and other parks. Snowmobilers want to be 
held to a high standard.
  To overturn these regulations, the National Park Service will require 
a new regulation or rule under the Administrative Procedures Act. The 
National Park Service cannot simply make an announcement and expect it 
to carry the weight of law. There is a process to be followed here. The 
process includes publishing a proposed rule or regulation in the 
Federal Register, taking comments from the public and issuing a final 
rule.
  The method used by the Park Service announcement, however, attempts 
to circumvent the Administrative Procedures Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I implore the National Park Service, before it proposes 
such a rule, to go to my community and determine if snowmobiles are 
damaging

[[Page H4456]]

the park; ask local residents if they want to continue with some 
controls on snowmobile use; but please do not make a national 
announcement that undermines local involvement, ignores local concerns 
and bans snowmobile use when such an announcement is not enforceable 
and does not carry the weight of law.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. The gentleman is correct that a new regulation must be 
promulgated by the Park Service before a ban on snowmobile use can be 
enforced at Pictured Rocks. If the Park Service proposes such a 
regulation, the constituents of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak) will be provided with ample opportunity to express their 
concern and interest.
  I agree with the gentlemen that before proposing such a regulation 
that the Park Service should solicit the input of the park 
superintendent and the local community and follow the Administrative 
Procedures Act.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for his support and for his understanding 
of what we are trying to do. I would also like to thank the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. Chairman, I will not offer my amendment. It will not be offered 
at this time or later tonight. I would withdraw that proposed 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                           oil spill research

       For necessary expenses to carry out title I, section 1016, 
     title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, and title VIII, 
     section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $6,118,000, 
     which shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
     Fund, to remain available until expended.

          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

                       regulation and technology

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public 
     Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not to 
     exceed 10 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only; 
     $97,478,000: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior, 
     pursuant to regulations, may use directly or through grants 
     to States, moneys collected in fiscal year 2001 for civil 
     penalties assessed under section 518 of the Surface Mining 
     Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1268), to 
     reclaim lands adversely affected by coal mining practices 
     after August 3, 1977, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That appropriations for the Office of 
     Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement may provide for 
     the travel and per diem expenses of State and tribal 
     personnel attending Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement sponsored training.

                    abandoned mine reclamation fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out title IV of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87, 
     as amended, including the purchase of not more than 10 
     passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, $197,873,000, 
     to be derived from receipts of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation 
     Fund and to remain available until expended; of which up to 
     $8,000,000, to be derived from the Federal Expenses Share of 
     the Fund, shall be for supplemental grants to States for the 
     reclamation of abandoned sites with acid mine rock drainage 
     from coal mines, and for associated activities, through the 
     Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative: Provided, That grants 
     to minimum program States will be $1,500,000 per State in 
     fiscal year 2000: Provided further, That of the funds herein 
     provided up to $18,000,000 may be used for the emergency 
     program authorized by section 410 of Public Law 95-87, as 
     amended, of which no more than 25 percent shall be used for 
     emergency reclamation projects in any one State and funds for 
     federally administered emergency reclamation projects under 
     this proviso shall not exceed $11,000,000: Provided further, 
     That prior year unobligated funds appropriated for the 
     emergency reclamation program shall not be subject to the 25 
     percent limitation per State and may be used without fiscal 
     year limitation for emergency projects: Provided further, 
     That pursuant to Public Law 97-365, the Department of the 
     Interior is authorized to use up to 20 percent from the 
     recovery of the delinquent debt owed to the United States 
     Government to pay for contracts to collect these debts: 
     Provided further, That funds made available under title IV of 
     Public Law 95-87 may be used for any required non-Federal 
     share of the cost of projects funded by the Federal 
     Government for the purpose of environmental restoration 
     related to treatment or abatement of acid mine drainage from 
     abandoned mines: Provided further, That such projects must be 
     consistent with the purposes and priorities of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act: Provided further, That 
     from the funds provided herein, in addition to the amount 
     granted to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under Sections 
     402(g)(1) and 402(g)(5) of the Surface Mining Control and 
     Reclamation Act, an additional $2,000,000 shall be made 
     available to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to reclaim 
     abandoned coal mine sites and for acid mine drainage 
     remediation caused by past coal mining practices: Provided 
     further, That the additional funds are to be used to address 
     such problems in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania.

                        Bureau of Indian Affairs

                      operation of indian programs

       For expenses necessary for the operation of Indian 
     programs, as authorized by law, including the Snyder Act of 
     November 2, 1921 (25 U.S.C. 13), the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450 et seq.), as amended, the Education Amendments of 1978 
     (25 U.S.C. 2001-2019), and the Tribally Controlled Schools 
     Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), as amended, 
     $1,657,446,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002 
     except as otherwise provided herein, of which not to exceed 
     $93,225,000 shall be for welfare assistance payments and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, including but not 
     limited to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as 
     amended, not to exceed $125,229,000 shall be available for 
     payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract 
     support costs associated with ongoing contracts, grants, 
     compacts, or annual funding agreements entered into with the 
     Bureau prior to or during fiscal year 2001, as authorized by 
     such Act, except that tribes and tribal organizations may use 
     their tribal priority allocations for unmet indirect costs of 
     ongoing contracts, grants, or compacts, or annual funding 
     agreements and for unmet welfare assistance costs; and of 
     which not to exceed $406,010,000 for school operations costs 
     of Bureau-funded schools and other education programs shall 
     become available on July 1, 2001, and shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2002; and of which not to exceed 
     $39,722,000 shall remain available until expended for housing 
     improvement, road maintenance, attorney fees, litigation 
     support, self-governance grants, the Indian Self-
     Determination Fund, land records improvement, and the Navajo-
     Hopi Settlement Program: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, including but not limited to the 
     Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, and 25 
     U.S.C. 2008, not to exceed $42,160,000 within and only from 
     such amounts made available for school operations shall be 
     available to tribes and tribal organizations for 
     administrative cost grants associated with the operation of 
     Bureau-funded schools: Provided further, That any forestry 
     funds allocated to a tribe which remain unobligated as of 
     September 30, 2002, may be transferred during fiscal year 
     2003 to an Indian forest land assistance account established 
     for the benefit of such tribe within the tribe's trust fund 
     account: Provided further, That any such unobligated balances 
     not so transferred shall expire on September 30, 2003.

                              construction

       For construction, repair, improvement, and maintenance of 
     irrigation and power systems, buildings, utilities, and other 
     facilities, including architectural and engineering services 
     by contract; acquisition of lands, and interests in lands; 
     and preparation of lands for farming, and for construction of 
     the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project pursuant to Public Law 
     87-483, $184,404,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such amounts as may be available for the 
     construction of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project may be 
     transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed 6 percent of contract authority available 
     to the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Federal Highway 
     Trust Fund may be used to cover the road program management 
     costs of the Bureau: Provided further, That any funds 
     provided for the Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 
     13 shall be made available on a nonreimbursable basis: 
     Provided further, That for fiscal year 2001, in implementing 
     new construction or facilities improvement and repair project 
     grants in excess of $100,000 that are provided to tribally 
     controlled grant schools under Public Law 100-297, as 
     amended, the Secretary of the Interior shall use the 
     Administrative and Audit Requirements and Cost Principles for 
     Assistance Programs contained in 43 CFR part 12 as the 
     regulatory requirements: Provided further, That such grants 
     shall not be subject to section 12.61 of 43 CFR; the 
     Secretary and the grantee shall negotiate and determine a 
     schedule of payments for the work to be performed: Provided 
     further, That in considering applications, the Secretary 
     shall consider whether the Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization would be deficient in assuring that the 
     construction projects conform to applicable building 
     standards and codes and Federal, tribal, or State health and 
     safety standards as required by 25 U.S.C. 2005(a), with 
     respect to organizational and financial management 
     capabilities: Provided further, That if the Secretary 
     declines an application, the Secretary shall follow the 
     requirements contained in 25 U.S.C. 2505(f ): Provided 
     further, That any disputes between the Secretary and any 
     grantee concerning a grant shall be subject to the disputes 
     provision in 25 U.S.C. 2508(e).

 indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to 
                                indians

       For miscellaneous payments to Indian tribes and individuals 
     and for necessary administrative expenses, $34,026,000, to 
     remain

[[Page H4457]]

     available until expended; of which $25,149,000 shall be 
     available for implementation of enacted Indian land and water 
     claim settlements pursuant to Public Laws 101-618, and 102-
     575, and for implementation of other enacted water rights 
     settlements; of which $8,000,000 shall be available for 
     Tribal compact administration, economic development and 
     future water supplies facilities under Public Law 106-163; 
     and of which $877,000 shall be available pursuant to Public 
     Laws 99-264 and 100-580.

                 indian guaranteed loan program account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $4,500,000, as authorized 
     by the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as amended: Provided, 
     That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize total loan principal, any part of 
     which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed $59,682,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan programs, $485,000.

                       administrative provisions

       The Bureau of Indian Affairs may carry out the operation of 
     Indian programs by direct expenditure, contracts, cooperative 
     agreements, compacts and grants, either directly or in 
     cooperation with States and other organizations.
       Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (except the 
     revolving fund for loans, the Indian loan guarantee and 
     insurance fund, and the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program 
     account) shall be available for expenses of exhibits, and 
     purchase of not to exceed 229 passenger motor vehicles, of 
     which not to exceed 187 shall be for replacement only.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for central office 
     operations, pooled overhead general administration (except 
     facilities operations and maintenance), or provided to 
     implement the recommendations of the National Academy of 
     Public Administration's August 1999 report shall be available 
     for tribal contracts, grants, compacts, or cooperative 
     agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the 
     provisions of the Indian Self-Determination Act or the Tribal 
     Self-Governance Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-413).
       In the event any tribe returns appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for 
     distribution to other tribes, this action shall not diminish 
     the Federal Government's trust responsibility to that tribe, 
     or the government-to-government relationship between the 
     United States and that tribe, or that tribe's ability to 
     access future appropriations.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau, other than the amounts provided 
     herein for assistance to public schools under 25 U.S.C. 452 
     et seq., shall be available to support the operation of any 
     elementary or secondary school in the State of Alaska.
       Appropriations made available in this or any other Act for 
     schools funded by the Bureau shall be available only to the 
     schools in the Bureau school system as of September 1, 1996. 
     No funds available to the Bureau shall be used to support 
     expanded grades for any school or dormitory beyond the grade 
     structure in place or approved by the Secretary of the 
     Interior at each school in the Bureau school system as of 
     October 1, 1995. Funds made available under this Act may not 
     be used to establish a charter school at a Bureau-funded 
     school (as that term is defined in section 1146 of the 
     Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2026)), except that a 
     charter school that is in existence on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and that has operated at a Bureau-
     funded school before September 1, 1999, may continue to 
     operate during that period, but only if the charter school 
     pays to the Bureau a pro-rata share of funds to reimburse the 
     Bureau for the use of the real and personal property 
     (including buses and vans), the funds of the charter school 
     are kept separate and apart from Bureau funds, and the Bureau 
     does not assume any obligation for charter school programs of 
     the State in which the school is located if the charter 
     school loses such funding. Employees of Bureau-funded schools 
     sharing a campus with a charter school and performing 
     functions related to the charter school's operation and 
     employees of a charter school shall not be treated as Federal 
     employees for purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, United 
     States Code (commonly known as the ``Federal Tort Claims 
     Act''). Not later than June 15, 2001, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall evaluate the effectiveness of Bureau-funded 
     schools sharing facilities with charter schools in the manner 
     described in the preceding sentence and prepare and submit a 
     report on the finding of that evaluation to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and of the House.

                          Departmental Offices

                            Insular Affairs


                       ASSISTANCE TO TERRITORIES

       For expenses necessary for assistance to territories under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, 
     $69,471,000, of which: (1) $65,076,000 shall be available 
     until expended for technical assistance, including 
     maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, insular 
     management controls, coral reef initiative activities, and 
     brown tree snake control and research; grants to the 
     judiciary in American Samoa for compensation and expenses, as 
     authorized by law (48 U.S.C. 1661(c)); grants to the 
     Government of American Samoa, in addition to current local 
     revenues, for construction and support of governmental 
     functions; grants to the Government of the Virgin Islands as 
     authorized by law; grants to the Government of Guam, as 
     authorized by law; and grants to the Government of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by law (Public Law 94-
     241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $4,395,000 shall be available for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of Insular Affairs: 
     Provided, That all financial transactions of the territorial 
     and local governments herein provided for, including such 
     transactions of all agencies or instrumentalities established 
     or used by such governments, may be audited by the General 
     Accounting Office, at its discretion, in accordance with 
     chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code: Provided further, 
     That Northern Mariana Islands Covenant grant funding shall be 
     provided according to those terms of the Agreement of the 
     Special Representatives on Future United States Financial 
     Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands approved by 
     Public Law 104-134: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     provided for technical assistance, not to exceed $300,000 may 
     be made available for transfer to the Disaster Assistance 
     Direct Loan Program Account of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency for the purpose of covering the cost of 
     forgiving a portion of the obligation of the Government of 
     the Virgin Islands to pay interest which has accrued on 
     Community Disaster Loan 841 during fiscal year 2000, as 
     required by section 504 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended (2 U.S.C. 661c): Provided further, That of 
     the amounts provided for technical assistance, sufficient 
     funding shall be made available for a grant to the Close Up 
     Foundation: Provided further, That of the amounts provided 
     for technical assistance, the amount of $700,000 shall be 
     made available to the Prior Service Benefits Trust Fund for 
     its program of benefit payments to individuals: Provided 
     further, That none of this amount shall be used for 
     administrative expenses of the Prior Service Benefits Trust 
     Fund: Provided further, That the funds for the program of 
     operations and maintenance improvement are appropriated to 
     institutionalize routine operations and maintenance 
     improvement of capital infrastructure in American Samoa, 
     Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia 
     through assessments of long-range operations maintenance 
     needs, improved capability of local operations and 
     maintenance institutions and agencies (including management 
     and vocational education training), and project-specific 
     maintenance (with territorial participation and cost sharing 
     to be determined by the Secretary based on the individual 
     territory's commitment to timely maintenance of its capital 
     assets): Provided further, That any appropriation for 
     disaster assistance under this heading in this Act or 
     previous appropriations Acts may be used as non-Federal 
     matching funds for the purpose of hazard mitigation grants 
     provided pursuant to section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5170c).

                      compact of free association

       For economic assistance and necessary expenses for the 
     Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 
     232, and 233 of the Compact of Free Association, and for 
     economic assistance and necessary expenses for the Republic 
     of Palau as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 232, and 
     233 of the Compact of Free Association, $20,745,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as authorized by Public Law 
     99-239 and Public Law 99-658.

                        Departmental Management

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for management of the Department of 
     the Interior, $62,406,000, of which not to exceed $8,500 may 
     be for official reception and representation expenses and of 
     which up to $1,000,000 shall be available for workers 
     compensation payments and unemployment compensation payments 
     associated with the orderly closure of the United States 
     Bureau of Mines.

                        Office of the Solicitor

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, 
     $40,196,000.

                      Office of Inspector General

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $26,086,000.

             Office of Special Trustee for American Indians

                         federal trust programs

       For operation of trust programs for Indians by direct 
     expenditure, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and 
     grants, $82,428,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That funds for trust management improvements may be 
     transferred, as needed, to the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     ``Operation of Indian Programs'' account and to the 
     Departmental Management ``Salaries and Expenses'' account: 
     Provided further, That funds made available to tribes and 
     tribal organizations through contracts or grants obligated 
     during fiscal year 2001, as authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), shall 
     remain available until expended by the contractor or

[[Page H4458]]

     grantee: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the statute of limitations shall not 
     commence to run on any claim, including any claim in 
     litigation pending on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     concerning losses to or mismanagement of trust funds, until 
     the affected tribe or individual Indian has been furnished 
     with an accounting of such funds from which the beneficiary 
     can determine whether there has been a loss: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary shall not be required to provide a quarterly 
     statement of performance for any Indian trust account that 
     has not had activity for at least 18 months and has a balance 
     of $1.00 or less: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     issue an annual account statement and maintain a record of 
     any such accounts and shall permit the balance in each such 
     account to be withdrawn upon the express written request of 
     the account holder.

                       indian land consolidation

       For implementation of a program for consolidation of 
     fractional interests in Indian Lands and expenses associated 
     with redetermining and redistributing escalated interests in 
     allotted lands by direct expenditure or cooperative 
     agreement, $5,000,000 to remain available until expended and 
     which may be transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 
     Departmental Management, of which not to exceed $500,000 
     shall be available for administrative expenses: Provided, 
     That the Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement, 
     which shall not be subject to Public law 93-638, as amended, 
     with a tribe having jurisdiction over the reservation to 
     implement the program to acquire fractional interests on 
     behalf of such tribe: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     may develop a reservation-wide system for establishing the 
     fair market value of various types of lands and improvements 
     to govern the amounts offered for acquisition of fractional 
     interests: Provided further, That acquisitions shall be 
     limited to one or more reservations as determined by the 
     Secretary: Provided further, That funds shall be available 
     for acquisition of fractional interests in trust or 
     restricted lands with the consent of its owners and at fair 
     market value, and the Secretary shall hold in trust for such 
     tribe all interests acquired pursuant to this program: 
     Provided further, That all proceeds from any lease, resource 
     sale contract, right-of-way or other transaction derived from 
     the fractional interests shall be credited to this 
     appropriation, and remain available until expended, until the 
     purchase price paid by the Secretary under this appropriation 
     has been recovered from such proceeds: Provided further, That 
     once the purchase price has been recovered, all subsequent 
     proceeds shall be managed by the Secretary for the benefit of 
     the applicable tribe or paid directly to the tribe.

           Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration

                natural resource damage assessment fund

       To conduct natural resource damage assessment activities by 
     the Department of the Interior necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 
     et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 
     U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public 
     Law 101-380) (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Public Law 101-
     337, as amended (16 U.S.C. 19jj et seq.), $5,374,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                       administrative provisions

       There is hereby authorized for acquisition from available 
     resources within the Working Capital Fund, 15 aircraft, 10 of 
     which shall be for replacement and which may be obtained by 
     donation, purchase or through available excess surplus 
     property: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, existing aircraft being replaced may be sold, with 
     proceeds derived or trade-in value used to offset the 
     purchase price for the replacement aircraft: Provided 
     further, That no programs funded with appropriated funds in 
     the ``Departmental Management'', ``Office of the Solicitor'', 
     and ``Office of Inspector General'' may be augmented through 
     the Working Capital Fund or the Consolidated Working Fund.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or 
     office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the 
     emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft, 
     buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment 
     damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other 
     unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until funds specifically made 
     available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies 
     shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds 
     used pursuant to this section are hereby designated by 
     Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, and must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible.
       Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or 
     transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in 
     addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of 
     the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency 
     prevention of wildland fires on or threatening lands under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for the 
     emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its 
     jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or 
     actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other 
     unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to 
     actual oil spills; for response and natural resource damage 
     assessment activities related to actual oil spills; for the 
     prevention, suppression, and control of actual or potential 
     grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the authority in 
     section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 Stat. 1658); for 
     emergency reclamation projects under section 410 of Public 
     Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year funds 
     available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit 
     assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy 
     State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in 
     this title for wildland fire operations shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding 
     fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies 
     for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in 
     connection with their use for wildland fire operations, such 
     reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently 
     available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further, 
     That for wildland fire operations, no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until the Secretary determines 
     that funds appropriated for ``wildland fire operations'' 
     shall be exhausted within thirty days: Provided further, That 
     all funds used pursuant to this section are hereby designated 
     by Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, and must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible: Provided further, That such 
     replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro rata 
     basis, accounts from which emergency funds were transferred.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for operation of warehouses, garages, shops, and 
     similar facilities, wherever consolidation of activities will 
     contribute to efficiency or economy, and said appropriations 
     shall be reimbursed for services rendered to any other 
     activity in the same manner as authorized by sections 1535 
     and 1536 of title 31, United States Code: Provided, That 
     reimbursements for costs and supplies, materials, equipment, 
     and for services rendered may be credited to the 
     appropriation current at the time such reimbursements are 
     received.
       Sec. 104. Appropriations made to the Department of the 
     Interior in this title shall be available for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the 
     Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment 
     of dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library 
     membership in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members.
       Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of the 
     Interior for salaries and expenses shall be available for 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902 and D.C. Code 4-204).
       Sec. 106. Annual appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for obligation in connection with contracts issued 
     for services or rentals for periods not in excess of 12 
     months beginning at any time during the fiscal year.
       Sec. 107. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore 
     leasing and related activities placed under restriction in 
     the President's moratorium statement of June 26, 1990, in the 
     areas of northern, central, and southern California; the 
     North Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; and the eastern Gulf 
     of Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude and east of 86 
     degrees west longitude.
       Sec. 108. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore 
     oil and natural gas preleasing, leasing, and related 
     activities, on lands within the North Aleutian Basin planning 
     area.
       Sec. 109. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior to conduct offshore oil and 
     natural gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the 
     eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area for any lands located 
     outside Sale 181, as identified in the final Outer 
     Continental Shelf 5-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 1997-
     2002.
       Sec. 110. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior to conduct oil and natural 
     gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the Mid-
     Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas.
       Sec. 111. Advance payments made under this title to Indian 
     tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia pursuant 
     to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) or the Tribally Controlled Schools 
     Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) may be invested by the 
     Indian tribe, tribal organization, or consortium before such 
     funds are expended for the

[[Page H4459]]

     purposes of the grant, compact, or annual funding agreement 
     so long as such funds are--
       (1) invested by the Indian tribe, tribal organization, or 
     consortium only in obligations of the United States, or in 
     obligations or securities that are guaranteed or insured by 
     the United States, or mutual (or other) funds registered with 
     the Securities and Exchange Commission and which only invest 
     in obligations of the United States or securities that are 
     guaranteed or insured by the United States; or
       (2) deposited only into accounts that are insured by an 
     agency or instrumentality of the United States, or are fully 
     collateralized to ensure protection of the funds, even in the 
     event of a bank failure.
       Sec. 112. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
     National Park Service shall not develop or implement a 
     reduced entrance fee program to accommodate non-local travel 
     through a unit. The Secretary may provide for and regulate 
     local non-recreational passage through units of the National 
     Park System, allowing each unit to develop guidelines and 
     permits for such activity appropriate to that unit.
       Sec. 113. Refunds or rebates received on an on-going basis 
     from a credit card services provider under the Department of 
     the Interior's charge card programs, hereafter may be 
     deposited to and retained without fiscal year limitation in 
     the Departmental Working Capital Fund established under 43 
     U.S.C. 1467 and used to fund management initiatives of 
     general benefit to the Department of the Interior's bureaus 
     and offices as determined by the Secretary or his designee.
       Sec. 114. Appropriations made in this title under the 
     headings Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special 
     Trustee for American Indians and any available unobligated 
     balances from prior appropriations Acts made under the same 
     headings, shall be available for expenditure or transfer for 
     Indian trust management activities pursuant to the Trust 
     Management Improvement Project High Level Implementation 
     Plan.
       Sec. 115. Notwithstanding any provision of law, hereafter 
     the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to negotiate and 
     enter into agreements and leases, without regard to section 
     321 of chapter 314 of the Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 
     303b), with any person, firm, association, organization, 
     corporation, or governmental entity for all or part of the 
     property within Fort Baker administered by the Secretary as 
     part of Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The proceeds of 
     the agreements or leases shall be retained by the Secretary 
     and such proceeds shall be available, without future 
     appropriation, for the preservation, restoration, operation, 
     maintenance and interpretation and related expenses incurred 
     with respect to Fort Baker properties.
       Sec. 116. A grazing permit or lease that expires (or is 
     transferred) during fiscal year 2001 shall be renewed under 
     section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
     1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1752) or if applicable, sections 
     306 and 510 of the California Desert Protection Act (16 
     U.S.C. 410aaa-50). The terms and conditions contained in the 
     expiring permit or lease shall continue in effect under the 
     new permit or lease until such time as the Secretary of the 
     Interior completes processing of such permit or lease in 
     compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, at which 
     time such permit or lease may be canceled, suspended or 
     modified, in whole or in part, to meet the requirements of 
     such applicable laws and regulations. Nothing in this section 
     shall be deemed to alter the Secretary's statutory authority.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Regula

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return to page 
5, line 12, to offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Regula: On page 5, line 12 after 
     the dollar amount insert ``(decreased by $1,000,000 and 
     increased by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment decreases construction 
funding for the Escalante Science Center by $1 million. It is not quite 
ready to go forward. It increases funding for the National Trail Center 
in Casper, Wyoming, which we had an oversight on and had previously 
committed to do.
  The Members involved in this switch are both in agreement with it, 
and I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee.

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee: Page 49, beginning at line 
     23, strike section 116.

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike section 116, 
which has a considerable anti-environmental impact both because of the 
way it was drawn and because of existing law, because basically the 
existing section of the bill, if allowed to stand, would essentially 
lock in the livestock levels and practices, on various areas that are 
leased, for grazing after the permit expires, after the lease has 
expired and after BLM and other agencies have made good faith attempts 
to improve the environmental activities in the grazing.
  For instance, when a lease expires now, our Federal Government is 
charged with the responsibility of making sure that before there is a 
renewal that there is not overgrazing that occurs in the land or there 
is not erosion that occurs on the land.
  Under existing law and for the last probably 100 years, they had the 
right to do that, not subject to the unilateral decision-making by the 
permittee.
  Unfortunately, the way this language is drafted in the existing 
proposed bill, it would allow the permittee to unilaterally, in a 
sense, insist on the continuation of the number of animals on the unit, 
of the uses and the practices on the unit, even to the extent one can 
have environmental damage. The way that that is drafted, it essentially 
would turn the lease on its head, because for decades in this country, 
when the permit expired, the permit expired. Essentially, in a Supreme 
Court decision that took place very recently, just in May of this year, 
called Public Lands Council versus Babbitt, the Supreme Court 
reaffirmed the proposition again that permittees do not have a right 
title in interest of land that is constitutionally protected after the 
expiration of the lease or permit.

                              {time}  1945

  Unfortunately, the way that this action is drafted, it would allow, 
and I want to repeat that not all folks who are grazing are bad 
stewards in the land. Many of them are doing a tremendous job as 
stewards of the land. But there are some that, frankly, have loads of 
grazing that are causing damage to the land in the environmental aspect 
that we want to protect. It would allow those permitees to essentially 
unilaterally tell the BLM or the Forest Service that, No, no, I do not 
agree. Your process is not completed. I do not believe your process was 
adequate; therefore, I am going to appeal your process to another level 
or to a Federal court or to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme 
Court.
  While that was going on, Uncle Sam and the taxpayers would be 
required to be submitted to whatever the permitee had going on in the 
land in the first 10 years of the lease. I think that really is not 
consistent with our idea that, when the permit expires, Uncle Sam ought 
to have the ability to negotiate in good faith with the permitee about 
what provisions occur.
  Now, I am not alone in being concerned about the environmental 
aspects of this. Our amendment is supported by the League of 
Conservation Voters and Trout Unlimited, U.S. PIRG, the National 
Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, and the Wilderness Society. The 
reason, Mr. Chairman, that those groups are concerned about this is 
that they believe it could be a fairly significant opening up and 
restriction of our agency's ability to fulfill their environmental 
mandate.
  I also wanted to point out, and I presume the drafters of the 
language had some concern, that there would be some wholesale refusal 
or failure to simply reprocess these permits. But I have done some 
looking into it; and I found that, under existing loads, the agency 
ought to be able to handle these permits.
  In the next year, about 1,600 permits will expire. They will have to 
do about 170 for previous years for under 2,000 permits. Last year, the 
agencies processed 3,847 permits.
  So basically the agencies are capable of doing this. Our concern is 
that if we pass this language the way it was written, it will allow 
some permitees, some, not all, but some to essentially prevent BLM from 
enforcing environmental laws by essentially saying, even though my 
permit is expired, I am going to force Uncle Sam to except however many 
animals I have had, and that we are going to keep those animals on even 
if my permit is expired as

[[Page H4460]]

long as I keep this tied up in the courts.
  I believe that is inconsistent with long-term practices and 
environmental law.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Washington for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of his amendment because I think the 
language of the bill raises serious questions and goes beyond what is 
needed. I am told, as is the gentleman from Washington, by the BLM that 
they do not need this provision and that they are capable of processing 
all of the grazing permits that will expire in the next fiscal year.
  So I think for that simple reason alone, we ought to adopt this 
amendment and not get in the way of the work that the BLM is doing on 
its own at this point.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee) understand that the decision rests with BLM? This is permissive 
authority for them to deal with the problem in the event, for lack of 
resources, both monetary and manpower that they would not be able to 
address all of the permits that have an environmental consideration. We 
are simply giving them some latitude to make the decision, but they do 
not have to do this.
  I do not think it gives the permitees any standing because they have 
to negotiate with BLM. This is language similar to what we had 
negotiated with the President last year and just simply recognizing 
that the task was so huge they may not be able to effectively 
renegotiate all of these permits within the time allocated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) 
has expired.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I think we have a significant drafting 
issue that I very much would encourage the Chair to look at because I 
have looked at it very carefully. There is quite a number of folks that 
have looked at it.
  I am very clear that the way the language is drafted at this time, it 
would allow the permittee to insist in the continuation of the lease 
for as long as this process in appeal period is involved. If that was 
the intention of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) to make this 
permissive or discretionary with the Bureau rather than mandatory to 
the permittee, I really believe we need some changes in the drafting. 
If that is the intention, I would perhaps encourage us to defer this 
for a few minutes so we could have that discussion. I really believe we 
need some drafting changes here.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it is our understanding, and this was 
negotiated with the President and the BLM last year. We put the 
identical language in this year. We do not think it would be 
appropriate next year because it is our hope that the BLM will have the 
resources to process the expiring grazing permits in conformance with 
the court's decision. Perhaps rather than remove it, we could change a 
word or two to give the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) some 
comfort to at least accomplish what we think is being the effect of the 
language.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, with the Chair's permission, if we can find 
a parliamentary way to do this, table this for at least a few minutes 
while we have discussions in that regard, if the Chair would allow in 
that regard.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the parties here, if we 
could defer this amendment, I would ask unanimous consent to return to 
this section at some later point, and allow some time to see if we can 
reach a meeting of the minds on the language that accomplishes the 
objectives of all the parties.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn without prejudice and may be 
returned to at a later time in the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     the purpose of reducing the backlog of Indian probate cases 
     in the Department of the Interior, the hearing requirements 
     of chapter 10 of title 25, United States Code, are deemed 
     satisfied by a proceeding conducted by an Indian probate 
     judge, appointed by the Secretary without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing the 
     appointments in the competitive service, for such period of 
     time as the Secretary determines necessary: Provided, That 
     the basic pay of an Indian probate judge so appointed may be 
     fixed by the Secretary without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51, and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, 
     United States Code, governing the classification and pay of 
     General Schedule employees, except that no such Indian 
     probate judge may be paid at a level which exceeds the 
     maximum rate payable for the highest grade of the General 
     Schedule, including locality pay.
       Sec. 118. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior is authorized to redistribute any 
     Tribal Priority Allocation funds, including tribal base 
     funds, to alleviate tribal funding inequities by transferring 
     funds to address identified, unmet needs, dual enrollment, 
     overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution 
     methodologies. No tribe shall receive a reduction in Tribal 
     Priority Allocation funds of more than 10 percent in fiscal 
     year 2001. Under circumstances of dual enrollment, 
     overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution 
     methodologies, the 10 percent limitation does not apply.
       Sec. 119. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     establish a new National Wildlife Refuge in the Kankakee 
     River basin that is inconsistent with the United States Army 
     Corps of Engineers' efforts to control flooding and siltation 
     in that area. Written certification of consistency shall be 
     submitted to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations prior to refuge establishment.
       Sec. 120. The Great Marsh Trail at the Mason Neck National 
     Wildlife Refuge in Virginia is hereby named for Joseph V. 
     Gartlan, Jr. and shall hereafter be referred to in any law, 
     document, or records of the United States as the ``Joseph V. 
     Gartlan, Jr. Great Marsh Trail''.
       Sec. 121. Funds appropriated for the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs for postsecondary schools for fiscal year 2001 shall 
     be allocated among the schools proportionate to the unmet 
     need of the schools as determined by the Postsecondary 
     Funding Formula adopted by the Office of Indian Education 
     Programs.
       Sec. 122. None of the funds in this Act may be expended by 
     the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to establish a 
     National Wildlife Refuge in the Yolo Bypass of California.


                      Amendment Offered by Mr. Ose

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ose:
       On page 52, strike lines 12 through 15.

  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I want to preface my remarks this evening by 
expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). In 
particular, over the last 6 months as he has worked with me to try and 
address an issue of significant concern to my district.
  I will tell my colleagues, coming to Congress recently with the 
expectation that it was a place of contentiousness and divisiveness, I 
will tell my colleagues that, having worked with the gentleman from 
Ohio (Chairman Regula), he has affirmed my faith in our legislative 
body. He is a bulwark against inappropriate action and has taught this 
freshman so much for which I am appreciative.
  To the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, who 
has taken the time to pull me aside sometimes with resistance from 
myself, I want to extend my compliments. I know the gentleman has been 
here far longer than I have.
  I will tell my colleagues, working with the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is an eye opener. 
It is truly something that I wish our citizens could see firsthand for 
themselves. It is far different than perhaps the worst of our examples. 
It is, in fact, exactly the way that the system works. I want to, in 
particular, also recognize their assistance in this manner and express 
my appreciation for it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield just for a brief 
comment?
  Mr. OSE. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose) that he has been a gentleman to work with and very 
persistent, but that is a good trait where I come from. We just 
appreciate his attitude and his approach to this problem.

[[Page H4461]]

  Mr. OSE. I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for those 
remarks.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OSE. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, this is a good example of our working 
together in a bipartisan way to meet a problem that affects the people 
that the gentleman from California represents. He is doing an effective 
job on behalf of his constituents, and that is what this House is all 
about.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking 
member, for their comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly highlight the problem that these two 
distinguished gentlemen have helped me solve. This is a map of northern 
California. I represent basically the center portion of this. 
Geographically, this area is roughly two-thirds the size of the State 
of Washington. It is larger than, say, four or five States one may wish 
to select in New England. It is the size of two-thirds the State of New 
York. The State of Ohio could potentially fit right here.
  The purpose of this map is to highlight how this entire area, rather 
than draining to the Pacific Ocean, the water that falls within this 
area works its way south down the Sacramento River and its tributaries 
for which one can see the vast expansion and number past a particular 
point opposite downtown Sacramento.
  The main channel of the Sacramento River can hold around 150,000 
cubic feet a second. The difficulty we have from this region is that, 
by virtue of the large geographic expansion, the rainfall in this 
region can generate up to 650,000 cubic feet a second of water flowing 
past downtown Sacramento.
  The area that is the subject of our concern tonight is the Yolo 
Bypass. The Yolo Bypass, as many of my colleagues may realize, is the 
relief valve that protects the Sacramento area from an inordinate 
amount of water being forced down the main channel. The bypass contains 
up to 500,000 cubic feet a second. That is the subject of our 
discussion tonight.
  At the suggestion of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), I have taken the opportunity to 
visit with the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Ms. Clark. We 
have, contrary to where we were headed earlier today, we have come to 
an agreement that allows us to work together to solve the competing 
needs between flood protection in one instance and the creation of an 
adequate amount of habitat in our State in another. I look forward to 
that.
  I do want to, if I may, enter into a colloquy at this point with the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) to establish understanding of how 
we are going to proceed from here as it relates to this issue.
  If I could, I would like to share with the gentleman from Washington 
my understanding of my discussion with Ms. Clark and have him affirm 
it, if he will.
  When I spoke with Ms. Clark, what we agreed to do as it relates to 
the Yolo Bypass and any proposed refuge is to complete the existing 
environmental work that has been under way for quite some time. Ms. 
Clark has agreed that she will withhold any designation of a refuge in 
this area until such time as we can resolve any identified outstanding 
issues to our satisfaction and that I would withdraw my language from 
the bill as I have in the body of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the 
ranking member, if that is his understanding.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, yes, I had an opportunity to talk to Jamie 
Clark, our distinguished director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. She 
certainly indicated to me a willingness to work with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose) and the other officials from that area.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Ose was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I promise the gentleman from California, 
one, that we will work to make sure that all commitments are kept by 
the administration, and, number two, that I am very interested in this, 
and I want to work with the gentleman and the other Members in that 
area in resolving this issue to the gentleman's satisfaction.
  The most important point here is that the Fish and Wildlife Service 
understands the crucial importance of having adequate flood control and 
reliable flood control even in the context of this new wildlife refuge 
once it is created. So I think this is a good outcome. And I appreciate 
the gentleman's interest and will work with him to resolve this problem 
in a proper way.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OSE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) and also Mrs. Clark, Director of the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, for working with the gentleman in a very bipartisan 
fashion to solve a problem that affects the people in the gentleman's 
district.
  I think it is a great example of how government officials, executive 
and legislative, can work together to do something that is beneficial 
to the people. We hear so much about the lack of bipartisanship, but 
this is a great example that it does work.
  Mr. OSE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Ohio, the chairman of the subcommittee, and I thank the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Washington, and I look forward to resolving this 
appropriately.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       Page 52, after line 15, add the following new section:
       Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this title are 
     revised by decreasing the amount made available under the 
     heading ``NATIONAL PARK SERVICE--CONSTRUCTION'' by $9,000,000 
     and by increasing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``NATIONAL PARK SERVICE--LAND ACQUISITION AND STATE 
     ASSISTANCE'' for acquisition of lands or waters, or interests 
     therein, by $9,000,000.

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment really is 
very simple. It is designed to ensure that this $9 million, which is 
appropriated in the interior appropriation bill, goes to the State of 
Florida, as it was intended by the chairman and the members of the 
committee; and that that $9 million would be used for land acquisition 
in a way that would enhance and protect the Everglades in the State of 
Florida.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  We are in agreement with this amendment. I think it reaches the 
intent of what we are trying to do in the committee, and that is to 
provide funding to match what the State of Florida is doing in land 
acquisition. This does not remove it, but rather ensures that the money 
that we have appropriated from all the taxpayers in the United States 
will be used to benefit a resource that is very valuable to the people 
of this Nation, namely: the Everglades National Park.
  This goes to make sure that the money we appropriate goes to the kind 
of purpose that the constituents, the people of this Nation, would find 
very desirable. I commend the gentleman for the language, and I am 
willing to accept the amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and I very much appreciate, as always, having the 
opportunity to work with him in a constructive way.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

[[Page H4462]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Dicks

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, a consolidated 
amendment at the desk.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks:
       On page 52, after line 15, add the following new section:
       Sec. __. Any limitation imposed under this Act on funds 
     made available by this Act related to planning and management 
     of national monuments, or activities related to the Interior 
     Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan shall not apply to 
     any activity which is otherwise authorized by law.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate and 
votes on the gentleman's amendment and all amendments thereto be 
temporarily put aside, without prejudice, and that it be the first 
order of new business after 9:30 this evening.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio that the amendment be withdrawn and be permitted to be reoffered 
later during the bill?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             Forest Service

                     forest and rangeland research

       For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as 
     authorized by law, $224,966,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                       state and private forestry

       For necessary expenses of cooperating with and providing 
     technical and financial assistance to States, territories, 
     possessions, and others, and for forest health management, 
     cooperative forestry, and education and land conservation 
     activities and conducting an international program as 
     authorized, $197,337,000, to remain available until expended, 
     as authorized by law: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act or 
     otherwise available to the Secretary shall be used to carry 
     out any activity related to the urban resources partnership 
     or similar or successor programs.

                         national forest system

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and 
     utilization of the National Forest System, $1,207,545,000, to 
     remain available until expended, which shall include 50 
     percent of all moneys received during prior fiscal years as 
     fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
     of 1965, as amended, in accordance with section 4 of the Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)): Provided, That unobligated balances 
     available at the start of fiscal year 2001 shall be displayed 
     by extended budget line item in the fiscal year 2002 budget 
     justification.


                Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

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

       Amendment No. 35 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Page 53, line 14, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $26,000,000)''.
       Page 67, line 16, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $53,000,000)''.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment.
  As the esteemed chair of the subcommittee refers to the Forest 
Service as the working man's country club, it is an everyday recreation 
area for tens of millions of Americans across the western United 
States.
  I think everyone in this body would agree, certainly including the 
members of this subcommittee, that our recreation needs on the Forest 
Service lands are not being met. There is an extraordinary backlog in 
trails and facilities maintenance. There is virtually no construction 
of new trails, with the exception of volunteer activities. Recreation 
is up phenomenally, and the Forest Service has no capability of dealing 
with it.
  This amendment would take money from the petroleum and natural gas 
industries, the Department of Energy budget. I believe that those 
industries are quite capable on their own, particularly given the huge 
run-up we have seen recently in oil prices, in conducting their own 
exploration, for instance. I do not think that the Federal Government 
needs to be providing incentives for exploration and in production for 
the oil industry.
  Reservoir life extension and management? Certainly the industry, with 
these extraordinarily high oil prices and gas prices, has its own 
incentive plus huge tax breaks to invest in that area. Likewise, for 
exploration and production of natural gas.
  I just met with my natural gas folks from the Northwest, and they 
said things are going swimmingly. They are drilling all sorts of new 
wells up in Canada and in parts of the United States and they did not 
give me any inkling they felt they needed a taxpayer subsidy to 
undertake very profitable exploration activities.
  But we do know that we do not have enough money to fund everyday 
recreation needs of tens of millions of Americans in the western United 
States on Forest Service lands. So I think this would be a really great 
trade-off. Let us give average Americans a break, a break they are not 
getting from the oil and gas companies today when they go to the pump. 
It is costing them a heck of a lot more to get to the forests because 
of the gas prices that they are being charged.
  And when they get to the forests they find the facilities are 
overcrowded, outmoded, inadequate. They find their trails are blocked 
by downed trees. They find that the same areas they have been going to 
for 30 years are no longer maintained by the Forest Service. Sometimes 
the roads are gated because the Forest Service cannot afford to 
maintain them and do the work.
  This is an amendment for average Americans. Let us give them a break 
today. Let us take their tax dollars and spend them on something they 
want, need and enjoy, and not give it as a subsidy to the petroleum and 
the gas industry.
  I would urge Members to support my amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I agree with the gentleman that we need and can always use more money 
in the Forest Service recreation program. However, I do not want to do 
that at the expense of developing oil and gas technology.
  We already know that the price of gasoline has soared to over $2 a 
gallon in some parts of the country; that we import more than 50 
percent of our oil and it is estimated that this will rise to 64 
percent by 2020. The only answer that we have is to improve the 
technology for producing oil in this country.
  It is pretty well accepted in the industry that now we only get about 
30 percent of the oil that is in the reservoir with today's technology. 
If we could double the amount of oil that is produced in a well, it 
does not take a lot of mathematics to figure out what it could do for 
the shortages that we are experiencing.
  I think it is vitally important that we continue developing better 
technologies not only to increase production but also to reduce 
production costs. The more we produce onshore, the less we are subject 
to OPEC pricing. There is no question that the spike that we have seen 
on oil prices today results in part by the fact that OPEC can more or 
less determine what the price per barrel should be simply because we 
are so dependent on the oil that they produce.
  Now, it is not that we have ignored recreation in the bill. I agree 
with the gentleman. Recreation is extremely important, and we have 
recognized that by putting a $25 million increase in funding for the 
Forest Service recreation program. It is a fast-growing program. It is 
something that our citizens enjoy. It serves us well. It is quite 
evident when we look at the numbers that of all the Federal land 
agencies, the Forest Service has substantially the far greater number 
of visitors, and we want to continue supporting the recreation program.
  This is very much a part of the service that the forests provide to 
our people, but I just do not want to do it at the expense of risking 
higher and higher oil prices, gasoline prices, and becoming more and 
more dependent on other countries to supply our petroleum. And one of 
the most important ways we can avoid that, the higher prices, avoid 
that dependency, is to continue to do research on oil and gas 
technology.
  If we have more funding available down the road, I would like to 
increase the amount we commit to recreation and all of our land 
programs because that is a very important asset to the

[[Page H4463]]

people of this Nation. We have increased it by $25 million. Perhaps 
conditions will be such that we can do even more. But let us not do it 
at the expense, as this amendment would propose, of crippling our oil 
and gas technology research.
  For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I join to oppose the DeFazio amendment for the following reasons: How 
dependent do we have to get on unstable parts of the world before it 
concerns us? In my view, there is no issue facing America more 
important than energy self-sufficiency.
  Just a year and a half ago we had $10 oil, and we had it for quite a 
while. We became drunk on cheap oil in this country. We had no energy 
policy, we had no incentives for production in this country, and our 
dependency continues to grow.
  In a few short months, unstable parts of the world that we cannot 
trust suddenly engineered price increases that tripled the price of oil 
will per barrel. There is nothing to prevent them from doubling it 
again. What would happen to the American economy if oil became $60 a 
barrel? It could devastate the economy of this country.
  I am not opposed to where the gentleman is putting the money. I am 
very pro recreation. But I cannot support taking the money away from 
energy self-sufficiency when we have allowed ourselves to become 
dependent on parts of the world that we cannot trust, that are 
unstable, and who care nothing about our future. I believe it is very 
poor public policy to take money out of energy self-sufficiency, to 
take money out of improving our own ability to produce oil.

                              {time}  2015

  We are looking at sonification, where we would double and triple the 
amount of money that we would get out of existing old oil wells without 
drilling new ones. We are looking at sonification programs that have a 
lot of promise by using soundwaves down the well hole where we would 
drastically increase the amount of oil we got out of those wells, 
reviving many old wells in this country.
  Now, it needs a little more work. It needs a little more research. 
Those are the kind of projects we need to be dealing with. Those are 
the kind of incentives. There has been no incentives in this country.
  $10 oil destroyed this country's oil business. We do not have rigs in 
this country to drill. We have a fraction of the rigs to drill wells 
that we used to.
  We are on a course and the DeFazio amendment will push us down that 
road to where we will be dependent on Iraq and Iran and countries like 
that for our economic future, and it is ludicrous.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Peterson) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. DeFazio and by unanimous consent, Mr. Peterson of 
Pennsylvania was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) 
really believe it is necessary for the taxpayers of the United States 
to socialize and/or subsidize our oil industry, which is immensely 
profitable, is price gouging, involved in supporting OPEC in their 
price fixing, that we need to give them taxpayer dollars to increase 
their production to go back to old reservoirs and get more production?
  Does the gentleman really believe that? I mean, does he really 
believe that they do not have an incentive from the marketplace to go 
and do this, we have to give them a taxpayer subsidy?
  This is taxpayer dollars. We are underfunding recreation which 
millions of Americans enjoy.
  Yes, we need to become energy independent. This is not about energy 
independence. It is about subsidizing a vastly profitable industry.
  How much is $50 million? Is it 1 minute or 2 minutes' profit for that 
industry?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the 
gentleman absolutely misses the point.
  With $60 oil, people are not going to be able to afford to go on 
vacation, people will not get out to have recreation, people will not 
be running motorboats, people will not be having vehicles out there 
driving.
  I want to tell my colleagues, if it does not scare them when oil can 
go from $10 a barrel to $32 a barrel in a few short months because 
foreign countries like Iran and Iraq can manipulate this country, if 
that does not scare my colleagues in the future, I do not know what 
does.
  We have the ability in this country in environmental and sound ways 
to produce a lot more of our oil. If we produce 60 percent of our oil 
instead of 48 percent of oil, we would be less dependent on these 
unstable parts of the world.
  I think that is a greater threat to our economic future and the 
defense of this country than any other foreign power. I think the 
energy crisis that is looming out there and our vulnerability to it, 
and there is no reason that we cannot have $40 oil in a month. We can 
have $50 oil in 2 months. All they have to do is slow down what they 
are going to sell us, and we are vulnerable; and there is nothing we 
can do about it. And until we become more self-sufficient and get 
people we can purchase oil from that are our friends that we can trust, 
we better be investing in our own security and our ability to produce 
energy.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Peterson), if I might, he is, of course, a Republican; and I would 
imagine that he is familiar with the 1997 Republican budget resolution 
which touched on this issue. So let me quote it for him. This is from 
the Republican budget resolution of 1997:
  ``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.''
  I think that is the point that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) is trying to make.
  Some of this activity is simply corporate welfare for the oil, gas, 
and utility industries. Much of it duplicates what industry is already 
doing. Some has gone to fund technology in which the market has no 
interest.
  That is not me. That is the Republican budget resolution of 1997 
regarding the Fossil Fuel Energy Research and Development Program.
  I do not often agree with the Republican budgeteers, but I think on 
this one they are right.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I think it is an 
indictment of the Clinton-Gore administration with a complete lack of 
energy policy and an inappropriate management of research dollars. Yes, 
I think it is an indictment of the last 5 years previous to that of 
this administration, who had had no energy policy and helped us become 
dependent on foreign countries.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I really was not 
trying to be partisan. My colleague can attack Clinton and so forth.
  The only point that I was making, and I did not mean to be partisan, 
I only meant to record for the Record what the Republicans in 1997 
said. And I think what they said was appropriate.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, just recently this body voted on a bill 
called CARA, which would spend almost $4 billion annually on a lot of 
worthy causes. That money is to be generated from royalties on oil 
wells on Federal property.
  What we are saying here, in part, is that it is incumbent on the 
Federal Government to support some research to make these wells even 
more productive to get more of the resource, which will support the 
CARA bill.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is no argument 
with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) in the sense

[[Page H4464]]

that we all want to be energy independent and that we want lower 
prices. No one is arguing about that.
  I think the question is that we have an oil industry which some 
believe is already rigging the game and artificially raising prices; we 
have an oil industry today that makes billions and billions of dollars 
in profits. And some of us would ask, why are they not investing 
heavily into making more oil efficiently.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman previously spoke a lot about 
energy independence. I support energy independence with alternative 
energy, energy conservation, and a whole host of other things.
  I did vote against the amendment to strike money from real 
investigation and real research earlier in energy efficiency on an 
amendment previously. But this is giving more money to the oil industry 
which is engaged with its OPEC partners in price fixing.
  I wonder if the gentleman is a cosponsor of my legislation to require 
the President, the Metcalf legislation, of which I am a cosponsor, to 
require the President to file a WTO complaint against their WTO illegal 
price-fixing activities.
  They are proud of it. The president of Venezuela says, hey, we are 
restraining production, we are fixing prices, and we are sticking it to 
the Americans. And our President and this Congress is silent on the 
issue.
  Giving $53 million to a multihundred-billion-dollar industry, which 
is price fixing with overseas partners, is not good. Do my colleagues 
think they are not happy with the high price of oil? Do my colleagues 
think that this money is being spent to bring down the price of oil, 
$53 million would bring down the price of oil?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would simply say 
that, while we all want energy efficiency, providing corporate welfare 
to some of the largest and most profitable corporations in this country 
is not the way to go.
  In a few moments, perhaps, I will be introducing legislation which 
increases funds for weatherization. Making homes of low-income and 
working people's homes more energy efficient is a lot better way.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the two gentlemen on this side. In 
California, when we asked why in San Diego the prices were so high of 
gas, the oil industry said, because the market will bear it.
  I think the oil companies are ripping us off. It would surprise the 
gentleman that some of us do believe that when we look at gas prices 
and what they are across this country.
  We had a staged event out here with the truck drivers in this 
country. They are all going to go bankrupt. They cannot afford the gas 
prices to haul the products around this country.
  So I do not disagree with the gentleman on that. I think we ought to 
have an investigation through the President on why these oil prices are 
fixed and are costing us so much.
  I would object and I will not support the amendment of the gentleman, 
however. I will tell my colleagues why.
  I also agree with the gentleman that there is a backlog in 
maintenance and everything else. My whole family used to go to Yosemite 
in California and the Redwoods. There are gated areas where we cannot 
get into the roads in San Diego for recreation areas, whether it is 
even horseback riding; they will not let us into those roads now.
  But I would ask of the chairman of the committee, first of all, if 
there is this big backlog, I understand the President under the 
Antiquities Act put aside millions of acres in Utah; and our concern, 
and I see the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), we had one 
of the most lengthy debates on this floor on the California desert 
plan. We lost that issue. The gentleman prevailed. But one of our 
concerns is, if we put all of these acres into national monuments, into 
wilderness, where are we going to get the additional funds, especially 
since we are in backlog?
  Now, we asked Secretary Babbitt what areas are they, at least, 
looking at under the Antiquities Act to nationalize all these millions 
of acres, most of them in the West, where more than 50 percent of the 
land is already owned by the Government? Do my colleagues know what the 
answer was when we asked him would he share where they are, at least, 
looking? The answer was, no.
  So I would ask my colleagues that will support this presidential 
plan, up to 25 of these, where we are going to get the additional 
revenue, when we are already short, to nationalize all of these areas. 
I think it would be a mistake.
  The area in Utah that the President nationalized into a park, if we 
take a look, it was one of the cleanest coal areas in the whole world. 
Well, the President nationalized that. The next week he gave $50 
million to China to crack coal. Guess who now has the monopoly on clean 
coal? Mr. James Riady. And guess where he cracks his coal? In China.
  So we have a question, first of all, of where we want to take and do 
a backlog; but, on the other hand, they want to nationalize all these 
different areas.
  I think we do need more money for our forests and our parks and our 
recreations. I think some of that may be through a study to find out 
why these oil companies are gouging the American public. I think it is 
scandalous what they are doing.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against this particular amendment. I 
think it is important for us to understand a little bit about the 
technology that arises from the research that the gentleman is seeking 
to take the funding from.
  The technology that we are talking about is technology that the 
purpose of which is to make our oil fields more productive. As oil 
fields age, the production drops in these oil fields; and, of course, 
the royalties that accrue to governments drop along with it.
  Also, what often happens then is that the ownership of these oil 
fields migrates from the large companies to small producers. The 
technologies that are developed as a consequence of this research are 
really intended to help the small producers as opposed to the large oil 
companies and to keep these small producers going.
  What ends up happening usually is it extends the life of these oil 
fields. The consequence of that is that it often sustains the economy 
of those local areas. It protects the environment because instead of 
developing new oil reserves, they can utilize the oil reserves that are 
there. It increases the revenues that go to local governments and to 
State governments and even the revenues that come to the U.S. Treasury. 
They are the principal beneficiaries.
  I happen to have a university in my district that has done some of 
the research, biofilm research, associated with this technology. The 
consequence of the research that was done originally to try to get a 
better understanding of what caused oil fields to sour is a whole new 
area of biofilm that has had incredible benefits in the area of 
medicine, benefits in the areas of the environment, and is creating 
whole new industries and whole new jobs all as a consequence of this 
kind of research.
  And so, I think it is important for us to understand that what we are 
talking about, what this gentleman is trying to take the dollars away 
from are not the big oil companies. They do not need this research. It 
is the small producers. It is the universities that are doing this 
research. And in the end, the loss of this research will mean that we 
will not have that scientific knowledge and the new opportunities that 
go with it.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HILL of Montana. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to counteract the comment that 
has been made that this is just a handout to large oil companies. The 
vast majority of oil and gas produced in America is by small 
independent producers with less than 20 employees. Eighty percent of 
these independent companies are

[[Page H4465]]

family owned. They are small companies that drill 85 percent of the new 
wells in this country. Not many wells have been drilled. Of the oil 
research projects funded in this bill, more than 95 percent of them 
will be carried out by small independent companies, oil field service 
companies, universities, and laboratories. They also deal with fuel 
efficiency. They also deal with cleaner burning of fuels. That is what 
we are taking money from.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. The people who have offered it 
do not understand who produces energy in this country. I come from the 
original oil patch where the Quaker States and the Pennzoils began, 
where all the energy began in this country, in western Pennsylvania. 
The oil was never produced by them. The vast majority was produced by 
little mom and pops. It is true across this country, in the Texas and 
the Oklahomas. Most of it is individuals, small companies. It is not 
the majors. The majors are the marketers and the sellers. They do not 
produce the energy in this country out of the ground, the vast majority 
of it.
  We need to be more fuel efficient. We need to be using fuels and 
burning them cleaner. We need to continue to research. Just like we 
have realized that in health, research is vital to the health of this 
country. Research is vital to the economic health and being energy 
efficient in this country and being energy self-sufficient. If we 
follow the course of those who want us to stop producing oil energy in 
this country, this country will have no future. I certainly do not want 
to depend on the Irans and the Iraqs and countries like that for our 
future. Today we are. They can turn the key. They can make us squirm in 
a moment. They could double our energy costs in the next 2 months. We 
must not let that happen.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment does 
one of two things. Either this amendment stands between us and energy 
independence in a globalized energy world or it saves mom and pops. 
They have used all the arguments. Never do we see people run so fast to 
mom and pop oil operations than when they talk about the oil industry. 
All of a sudden Chevron disappears, Shell disappears, Exxon disappears, 
Mobil disappears, and it is only the mom and pops that we care about. I 
remember when we got rid of the oil depletion allowance, it was going 
to be the end of mom and pops, it was going to be the end of the oil 
companies, it was going to be the end of the industry. If everybody who 
said they had a mom and pop oil company in their district had one, we 
would have been independent then. That was 1975.
  For the gentleman to argue that this amendment is the difference 
between energy independence and nonenergy independence, this is the 
difference between $30 barrel oil and $60 barrel oil just shows a lack 
of understanding of the world oil market. Oil did not go above $30 a 
barrel a few weeks ago, a few months ago when we in California were 
paying $2 a gallon because they knew that they would drive down the 
world economy and they would lose their customers. You do not go to $60 
a barrel because you can. Because if you do, you turn off your 
customers. That is why they have got a range. They said they would go 
between 20 and 30 or 22 and 30 or 28 and 22.
  There is only one market in the world. There is only one price of oil 
in the world. We used to have a domestic market. Domestic producers 
produced at one price and foreign producers produced at another price. 
That does not happen anymore. The world price of oil is set once a day. 
That is the world price of oil. It does not matter if it comes from 
Texas, it does not matter if it comes from Saudi Arabia or if it comes 
from the former Soviet Union. That is the world price of oil. That 
world price of oil is managed very carefully. It is managed very 
carefully by those producing states because they have to have enough 
because they have high unemployment, terrible economies, they have got 
to keep showering money on their people, and not too high so that they 
turn off the rest of the world economies.
  So let us not pretend like this amendment is the difference. We take 
10 million barrels a day. That is 260 million gallons of gasoline a 
day. If you just took the 50 cents extra they charged on the people in 
Chicago and Michigan, they could pay all this research time and again. 
It is four times that amount.
  I have these research facilities in my district for the oil 
companies. Oil executives will tell you that they do not make any 
decisions based upon what the United States Government does because 
they have to make such great commitments of capital that they cannot 
worry about our tax laws, our depreciation laws or our research laws. 
They make those commitments because they have to think in 10-year time 
lines, they have to think in billion dollar drilling rigs and they have 
to think in multi-billion dollar pipelines and they have to think in 
multi-billion dollar commitments around the world.
  Did the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) know that he could affect 
this whole industry with $53 million? These are people who are betting 
billions of dollars on a single rig, drilling in a thousand feet of 
water in some of the most hostile environments in the world, people who 
are deciding whether they are going to take a pipeline through Iran or 
Turkey, a wonderful choice. But they are betting their companies are 
shareholders in it all. But for the gentleman from Oregon's amendment, 
it will not come together.
  What are we doing? What are we doing using the taxpayer dollars to 
subsidize this research? The marketplace takes oil out of the ground. I 
remember those tight, tight sands up there in Wyoming. They were just a 
tax break away from busting loose in those sands. Gas would have come 
flowing out of those sands. Just one more tax break. Money is what 
takes oil out of the ground. It is funny, those mom and pops, they turn 
it down at $15 a barrel and they turn it right back on at $30 a barrel. 
It is money. It is the marketplace. It is not this.
  At this point in time, this research is simply wasted taxpayer 
dollars. We are better off putting it into the National Forest System 
lands, we are better off putting it into the recreational opportunities 
where we have an incredible backlog of public lands that the people of 
this country want to use on behalf of their families and to recreate 
and to enjoy. In that one we are not meeting our needs.
  We can take this money and transfer it from this program where 
according to their own Committee on the Budget there is no discernible 
evidence that this is in fact working as the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) pointed out. So we ought to put it to a place where it 
can be deployed immediately and it can be deployed on behalf of the 
American people. The oil companies I think will take good care of 
themselves given the price increase.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to 
hear the gentleman's comments about producers turn their wells right 
back on. That shows the gentleman does not understand the oil industry.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I understand it perfectly. I 
understand shut-in wells. I have shut-in wells all over California. We 
shut in the Bakersfield.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Thirty dollar oil has not turned a lot 
of them on.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. DeFazio, and by unanimous consent, Mr. George 
Miller of California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we had oil that you 
could not give away and at the right price it became one of the most 
valuable fields in the entire State, in the entire Nation. I understand 
people shut in their wells. But let us not pretend that it is a lack of 
this research that shuts in those wells. People make an economic 
decision and that is the marketplace.
  I have been through this cycle. I have been through this with all of 
the oil companies in my district, with all of this research to inject. 
We have been through it in Prudhoe Bay. We have

[[Page H4466]]

been up there, and we have talked to them about means to make the oil 
process more efficient. That is what the oil companies are doing, 
because it is in their interest to do the enhanced recovery, the 
tertiary recovery, all of those programs. That is what they are doing. 
It is in their interest, also. It is in their interest also to collect 
it from the mom and pops.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
DeFazio amendment. This amendment purports to benefit the National 
Forest Service by cutting $53 million from the Department of Energy's 
fossil energy research activities.
  In reality, this amendment will cut energy efficiency research.
  Today, 70 percent of the electricity generated in this country comes 
from fossil fuels. Our nation's demand for electricity will continue to 
increase with the rapid growth of our high tech economy.
  Do we really want to cut funding for research that will allow us to 
use nonrenewable resources more efficiently? Do we really want to cut 
funding for research that will further reduce the impact of fossil 
energy on the environment?
  The answer is no.
  Funding for fossil energy research supports national laboratory and 
university efforts to improve the fuel efficiency and reduce the 
emissions of fossil energy facilities.
  Although it does not fall under the budgetary category of ``Energy 
Efficiency,'' fossil energy research is, in reality, ``energy 
efficiency'' research relating to fossil fuels and fossil energy.
  The United States is already benefiting from the improved efficiency 
and environmental protections of fossil energy research. For example, 
three-quarters of America's coal-fired power plants use lower-pollution 
boilers developed through private sector collaboration with the 
Department of Energy.
  Future research efforts promise even greater benefits. Let's not halt 
this kind of progress by cutting important fossil energy research.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote against the DeFazio amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Hill of Montana

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
for the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) to offer his amendment out of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, just out of 
respect here, some of us have been sitting here and have amendments 
that are coming down the pike.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. If the gentleman will yield, I attempted to 
offer this amendment earlier and there was some confusion at the desk 
so I was not permitted to offer this amendment. And so I am not 
offering it early. We are actually going back and reopening.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hill of Montana:
       Page 53, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $500,000) (increased by $500,000)''.

  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, before I speak to this amendment, 
I want to join my colleagues in complimenting the chairman and the 
ranking member for their hard work on this bill. This is obviously a 
bill that has been produced from a great deal of bipartisan 
cooperation. I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) deserve recognition for that. It 
is a very important bill. Our public lands are extraordinarily 
important. As we just witnessed, there are some very contentious issues 
associated with those, but I think that the one point I want to make is 
that this Congress and I think the country is going to miss the 
chairman's leadership that he has provided to this subcommittee. As the 
Members here know, term limits will be imposed in the next Congress and 
this will be the last time that he will be permitted to offer this. His 
understanding of the issues and knowledge of the facts about our 
forests and about our public lands astounds me. The help he has given 
me has been very much appreciated. I want to let him know that. I 
compliment the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment to H.R. 4578. 
The purpose of this amendment is to make a change within the economic 
action program of the State and private forestry appropriation. 
$500,000 should be moved from the economic recovery base program 
component and disbursed as a special project in support of the 
Traveler's Rest site in Montana. These funds are to be issued to the 
Montana Community Development Corporation in the form of a direct lump 
sum payment to preserve and enhance the historical, archaeological and 
cultural values of the Traveler's Rest site at Lolo, Montana. It is a 
very important project for local and rural development.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HILL of Montana. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept this amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss an issue which is of great importance 
not only to the State of South Dakota but to the entire Northern Great 
Plains ecosystem and that is the Rocky Mountain Research Station in 
Rapid City, South Dakota.
  Mr. Chairman, the Rocky Mountain Research Station plays a vital role 
in solving resource problems in the several national grasslands and 
national forests found in the Northern Great Plains ecosystem. This 
research station which focuses on managing prairies to sustain 
livestock and wildlife has been instrumental in decisions affecting 
wood production, stream flows and fire ecology research in order to 
provide forage for livestock and wildlife species. Therefore, it is 
vital that the Rocky Mountain Research Station receives the funding 
necessary to fulfill its mission in the year 2001.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior.
  It is my understanding that the fiscal year 2001 funding for the 
United States Forest Service reflects the same level of funding that 
the Forest Service received in fiscal year 2000 plus inflation. Is that 
correct?
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, yes, that is correct.
  Mr. THUNE. That would mean, therefore, that the fiscal year 2001 
funding to operate the Forest Service research facility such as the 
Rocky Mountain Research Station in Rapid City, South Dakota is also at 
the same level as in fiscal year 2000 plus inflation; is that correct?
  Mr. REGULA. Yes, it is correct.
  Mr. THUNE. So is it accurate to state that the Committee on 
Appropriations intends for the Forest Service to fund the Rocky 
Mountain Research Station in Rapid City, South Dakota at least at the 
same level in fiscal year 2001 as it did in fiscal year 2000, that is, 
at at least, very roughly, $536,000 plus inflation?

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. REGULA. Yes, that is the intent of the Committee on 
Appropriations. We agree that this is important research, which 
benefits citizens and the Nation at large.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula), for clarifying that issue.


                   Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Wu

  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H4467]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 31 offered by Mr. Wu:
       Page 53, line 14, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $14,727,000) (increased by 
     $14,727,000)''.

  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), and I offer this amendment to 
increase the Fish and Wildlife Management account of the United States 
Forest Service by $14.7 million, which would bring the account to the 
administration's request.
  As an offset, the Wu-Udall-Smith amendment reduces the forest 
products line item to $230 million, still $10 million above the 
administration's request.
  Similar to the amendment that I offered last year with the 
gentlewoman from Ohio, this amendment is environmentally and fiscally 
responsible. Investing in forest, fish and wildlife now will help us 
mitigate for past poor management and balance timber harvest with 
wildlife conservation.
  Briefly, if we believe in sustainable timber harvest and in 
preserving fish and wildlife, both for aesthetic purposes and to permit 
harvest, then vote for this amendment. If we want to cut and run and 
leave my hunting and fishing buddies without either a job or a place to 
fish and hunt, then oppose this amendment.
  Unless we take adequate steps now to protect watersheds, fish and 
wildlife, the courts will block further timber harvest in the future.
  With more and more species listed as endangered or threatened, we 
jeopardize the future of timber. The Wu-Smith-Udall amendment strikes a 
balance between timber harvest, fish, and wildlife.
  By redirecting funds to programs that improve the health of our 
Nation's forests, we protect the future of our Nation's resources. We 
need a fiscally responsible and environmentally sound approach to 
managing our Federal forests. The Wu-Udall-Smith amendment is just 
that, a bipartisan and common sense approach.
  Our amendment is both environmentally and fiscally responsible.
  As a hunter and fisherman, I care deeply about the future of our 
forests, as well as the health of our forest products industry. The 
administration requested $220 million for timber sales management and 
the subcommittee funded it at $245 million. Meanwhile, the fish and 
wildlife account was underfunded by $14.7 million.
  Our amendment restores fish and wildlife habitat funding to the 
administration requests and leaves $10 million above the 
administration's requests for timber harvest purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for fiscal 
responsibility, vote for a commitment to fish and wildlife, vote for 
the Wu-Udall-Smith amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern of the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Wu) about increasing wildlife and watershed funding. But I would 
point out that the reduction of the amount available for timber sales 
has a couple pretty serious impacts.
  First of all, surprisingly the gentleman may not agree with this, but 
it as an antienvironment amendment. I say that because much of this 
funding goes into thinning overstocked stands, enhancing habitat 
values, reducing dangers of wildfires and tree mortality caused by 
insects or disease.
  One of the things we tried to do in the committee is ensure that 
there is good management of the forest. We must thin them, take care of 
insects, generally due for stewardship. I think one of the reasons we 
have had these severe fires is that we have not had adequate management 
of the forests, and the result is we get an enormous fuel buildup on 
the floor of the forest. When there is a fire, it is much hotter and 
much more destructive than if we were able to do thinning, if we were 
able to do removal of dead and insect-ridden trees.
  We have reduced the sales, as the gentleman knows. When the 
Republicans took over the House, we were at about 12 billion board feet 
of authorized sales. Now we are at 3.6--70 percent reduction. I think 
we reflect the American public who puts great value on the forests. But 
on the other hand, we have to have adequate funding to manage these 
forests.
  Of course, if we reduce the funding, it results in a decrease of 
something like $30 million in receipts to local government. Something 
that is overlooked is that local governments get a lot of benefit out 
of the forests, from the production of wood fiber. And for all of these 
reasons, I do not think given the fact that we in the committee have 
tried to be responsible in providing an adequate amount of money on the 
advice of the forestry division to manage the sales of 3.6 billion 
board feed, as a practical matter, we probably will not get over about 
2.5.
  I think it is a mistake to reduce the amount, and we have tried to be 
conservative to begin with in the amount that is available. While we 
can always provide more for wildlife and watershed funding, keep in 
mind that good forest management is really important to wildlife 
habitat, really important to watershed protection. We have tried to put 
that funding in an adequate level to do that.
  I would hope that the gentleman would consider withdrawing the 
amendment. I think the gentleman has made his point. But I would simply 
say that working with the minority, with the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who has a good understanding of 
the forest needs. We have tried to have a responsible number here in 
what we have allocated for forest management.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words and rise in support of this amendment.
  I do want to acknowledge the good work of the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Wu). I think his points are very well made. The gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu) pointed out that this is really a balanced and moderate 
amendment. What it does is, it moves $14.7 million from the forest 
products line, and it adds it to the fish and wildlife habitat 
management line.
  The effect of the amendment is to add additional funds to maintain 
this critical fish and wildlife habitat that we all support. It is 
additionally important to note that the forest products line item 
remains at $10 million over the administration's request if this 
amendment passes; and then at the same time, concurrently, the wildlife 
fish and habitat management account will be at the requested level.
  This is a balanced and moderate amendment. By restoring $14 million 
to fish and wildlife, we ensure timber harvest for the long term. We 
also provide more jobs by investing in the wildlife of our forests 
today. So I think this is a responsible way to go. It is balanced and 
it is moderate.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, his State has a lot 
of forests, and I think the gentleman would agree that management of 
these forests is probably a very vital responsibility of the Forest 
Service. It does take adequate funding to do that and, perhaps, we 
should have more. But this is the best we can do, given the allocation 
that was available to us.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Reclaiming my time, again, when I look at the 
numbers, Mr. Chairman, it seems to be that we leave that ability to the 
Forest Service. We have increased the amount available to them in this 
upcoming fiscal year; and yet we are also doing more directed at our 
wildlife in making sure that the forest is preserved in such a way that 
the wildlife also have an opportunity to thrive.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) is 
certainly well-intentioned, but in the wrong direction. Earlier this 
year, I asked for $9 million in the supplemental, because I felt the 
Forest Service had insufficient funding to deal with storm recovery 
problems all across this Nation, including the disastrous storm that 
struck the Boundaries Waters canoe area in northern Minnesota in my 
district, blowing down 450,000 acres of trees, 6 million cords of wood, 
26 million trees. And we have a calamity on our hands. We do not have 
enough money in the Forest Service budget to deal with this problem.
  But beyond the eighth district of Minnesota is 65 million acres of 
national forest land in a severe health

[[Page H4468]]

 crisis, high risk of wildfire disease and insect infestation. In the 
first 6 months of this year, 1.2 million acres of public lands had been 
consumed by wildfire.
  In the previous 10-year average, that was 719,000 acres by this time. 
We are more than 50 percent above 10-year average in wildfires 
principally because of these problems of forest health. To cut these 
funds would cut the ability of professional foresters to manage the 
renewable resource of this Nation, our forestry, to manage the ability 
of our forests to continue to absorb carbon dioxide and return oxygen 
to the atmosphere, to keep our air clean, but also to provide jobs and 
economic stability for communities that are dependent upon those 
national forests.
  And these forests pay for themselves in revenues returned to the 
Federal Government. The timber program generates over $300 million a 
year in tax revenue. The net contribution to the national economy is 
over $25 billion a year from these public lands that professional 
foresters manage in the public interests; and in our State of 
Minnesota, that is a $1.3 billion industry, forestry and allied 
products. 38,000 jobs in Minnesota, value of the products shipped, 
$7\1/2\ billion.
  Now, it is not all dependent on U.S. forest lands, but those forest 
lands are the cornerstone of our whole forestry program. The more those 
forest lands are cut back, and we have already had the road lists 
program that was announced last year, which we fought out on this floor 
and opposed, we already had cutbacks. We have already had rare 1, rare 
2, rare 3. We have already had more lands added to wilderness, and I am 
for wilderness; but when we take it out of living forests and deny 
people job opportunities and livelihoods of community, we are squeezing 
us too hard.
  And when we put that pressure on the public lands, it shifts over to 
the less well-managed and less available private forestry lands. I 
would say well, this is $15 million, but this will take us below the 
President's budget, which is below what we need.
  I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) of our 
subcommittee, for adding the resources that we need to manage these 
public resources in the best public interest. Do not take a short-
sighted view. A forest is forever.
  Trees that were blown down in the boundary waters a year ago this 
summer, a year ago this July, were saplings at the time of the Civil 
War; managed well, they can last for another 150 years. I urge this 
body to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman that 
the account for timber sales management remains at $10 million above 
the administration request; and that with respect to blowdown and other 
nongreen trees, there is a separate account for salvage purposes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, I would just say to these 
gentleman, I know how these budgets work. We cut $15 million here, then 
we have to shift that money someplace. So it is going to come out of 
the hide of the resources that I have just addressed, and so I really 
cannot agree. We must oppose this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in support of passage of the Wu-Smith-Udall 
amendment which shifts $14.7 million to the fish and wildlife habitat 
conservation line item from the forest products line item within the 
budget of the U.S. Forest Service.
  Let me just say that I do believe that the chairman, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), has tried very hard within the budget 
constraints to allocate sufficient monies for programs within the 
jurisdiction of his subcommittee. It is a very tough balancing act--as 
chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations I found how 
hard it was to write our bill. Last year the Congress passed my State 
authorization bill which is now law and it too was a balancing act--287 
pages of desperate provisions and allocations. So I emphasize.
  But in response to my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), there is more money not less, but more federal dollars, as 
my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), just pointed out. The 
pending legislation includes an additional $10 million more than the 
President's request for the Forest Service line item, the timber sales 
management program. Our amendment retains that plus up but shifts 
another $14.7 over to the fish and wildlife programs. It is a 
reasonable and environmentally sound redirection of scarce resources. 
It is fiscally prudent. And it deserves support.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service through their fish and wildlife 
conservation program manages 192 acres of public lands, ensuring that 
animals such as elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, waterfowl, and song 
bird enjoy the habitat they need to remain viable and productive. Over 
360 threatened and endangered species live in National Forests and the 
Forest Service works in this program to provide ecological conditions 
that provide for the plant and animal community diversity which will 
allow these species to survive and to thrive.
  Mr. Chairman, yes, this a difficult choice, but, again, we are 
talking about redirecting a modest amount of resources from this 
account that has already been plussed up, and we are looking to take 
some of that and put it in the area where we think it will do the 
greatest good. I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wu amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think our side has worked with the chairman to try to 
come up with a balanced package. I would point out to my colleagues 
that in the Pacific Northwest we have reduced timber harvests because 
of endangered species issues by 85 percent, maybe 90 percent.
  The administration, when it came to office, held a summit in 
Portland, Oregon, and said we are going to try to get out of court. We 
appreciated that. We were enjoying no timber harvest at all, zero, 
under the previous administration. We worked out a plan, the Northwest 
Forest Plan, to deal with it. Unfortunately, because the Forest Service 
has not done all of its work on some of the species they were supposed 
to monitor, instead of getting to the one billion board feet, down from 
four billion to one billion, we are now down at about 300 million to 
400 million board feet a year in harvest. So what this amendment would 
do would mean that we would not be able to try to build back up to the 
one billion board feet that was in the President's plan.
  We are spending money, a substantial amount of money, on ecosystem 
management, on watershed restoration. I have made sure that the 
President's program to help the Northwest was funded over the last 7 
years, and we are putting a lot of money into wildlife protection, into 
the Endangered Species Act, et cetera, et cetera. What we have got to 
do though is to keep the commitment we made to all of those rural 
communities that we would stay at about one billion board feet. Last 
year we were down at about 300 million board feet because of the court 
decisions.
  Now, I would be delighted to work with the gentleman from Oregon in 
trying to do something on the wildlife account, to move it up a little 
bit as we go to the conference committee. The gentleman from Oregon I 
think always tries to be constructive, and the gentleman is correct 
that the forest products account is up a little, and, therefore, we 
have some room to make some adjustments. But I think, frankly, that 
this effort to try to build back up is going to take a couple more 
years, frankly, so, again, we are going to have the people out there 
from our areas who we told that we were going to get up to one billion 
board feet, we still have not lived up to that commitment. That is why 
I think the committee felt that adding a little money here was 
appropriate.
  Number two, we have a crisis in the West, and it has been pointed out 
here. We have seen the fire at Los Alamos, we see the fires every 
night. Because of what? Because, as the chairman said, we have not 
properly managed these forests. We have understorage, undergrowth, that 
is there, that is explosive at this point because we have not done the 
thinning, we have not done the pruning and the other things you do to 
properly manage a forest.
  There was a professor at Berkeley who was denounced by everyone who

[[Page H4469]]

said you have to use control fires; and now, 30 years later, people are 
saying he was the guru, the genius, who really understood that these 
forests have to be managed.
  Mr. Chairman, I have always been a believer in balance and fairness. 
I think, because we are so far behind, especially in the Northwest, not 
to add this small amount of money to try to get timber sale preparation 
done, to do the pre-commercial thinning and the other things, which 
will have a good effect on forest health, but also will help us build 
back up to that one billion board feet, would be a very serious mistake 
in judgment. That is why I support the chairman and oppose the Wu 
amendment, though I remain open to deal with the gentleman and try to 
work out something in conference if the amendment is not successful.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue of fish and wildlife management is what we 
are talking about. I ask all Members, how much time do you spend in the 
forest? I am not a golfer, I am a gardener, and I have spent a lot of 
time in the forest. I grew up as a youngster, I camped out in the 
forest more than I did anything else. I have always loved nature and 
the forest, and a healthy forest is the most important thing to fish 
and wildlife management. A healthy forest is the most important thing 
to fish and wildlife management, and we do not have a healthy forest in 
this country, not what we should have. It was already mentioned, 65 
million acres at risk; 39 million for fire, 26 million with disease-
insect infestation, and 1,200,000 acres have burned this year.
  How much wildlife and what kind of quality of streams do you have in 
a forest that is burned? A few years ago I was with the Speaker and the 
leaders of the House, and we were out in Idaho and went over the burned 
area, 400,000 acres. There was not a blade of grass, there was not a 
live tree, there was no greenery. The streams were sliding into the 
rivers, the rivers were ruined, the streams were decimated, and 
wildlife was not there.
  A healthy forest will bring us the fish and wildlife management that 
we need. Let us look at the record. Our forest is growing by 23 billion 
board feet a year. We have six billion board feet that blow down and 
die annually, and we are cutting less than three billion, so we are 
having a net gain of 14 billion board feet a year on Forest Service 
land. Over the last 5 years, that is an average. That is 70 billion 
board feet of additional timber than we had 5 years ago. And the 
wildlife will be flourishing on the land that is healthy. Wildlife will 
be extinct, will not be endangered, it will not be there, and the fish 
will not be there when a forest burns.
  Where do you find grouse in the woods? Where do you find deer, wild 
turkey, and song birds? Where the forest has been adequately pruned and 
the forest is healthy. Somebody else mentioned, you do not hear much 
about it, a fast growing forest that is growing fast and has been 
pruned is a carbon dioxide reducer. It is a carbon sink. It takes the 
CO2 out of the air, which we are worrying about. An old 
dying forest adds CO2 to the air and adds to the air 
pollution. Not a healthy, well-mature, well-managed growing forest. The 
Forest Service has 200 million acres. They have the wilderness and the 
roadless areas which are appropriate.
  The GAO study says we should be treating three million acres a year 
at a minimum, and we are treating about 200,000. We are not managing 
it, and the gentleman's amendment will prevent us from treating more, 
and we are treating too little already.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the concept of wildlife habitat, but allow 
them to manage the forest adequately. Let them make the investment. Let 
them prune the forest where it is too thick and there is a lot of fire 
danger. Let them cut out the diseased trees so it does not infest the 
acres nearby. That is how you manage a forest, that is how you keep it 
healthy, that is how you have a home for wildlife and creatures.
  The gentleman's amendment takes us in the wrong direction. We need to 
be managing our forest, we need to be treating our forest. It is like a 
garden, and, when you ignore it, the weeds take over and you do not 
have much of anything.
  Our forest is a valuable resource for this country. It is also a job 
creator. We have not even talked about the economics. But areas that 
are basically owned by the Federal Government, there has been no 
dependency, because the Federal Government, you cannot depend on it to 
adequately market any amount of timber. Many counties in the West and 
parts of other States, their economies have been decimated, and for no 
good reason.
  We can manage our forests, we can prune them properly, we can enhance 
wildlife habitat, and we can do it without the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This is 
an unfortunate and uninformed amendment, especially in view of the 
importance of the timber sale program to preventing tragedies like we 
recently saw in Los Alamos, New Mexico.
  Contrary to the myth created by some in the environmental community 
that cutting timber harms the environment, today's Federal timber sale 
program is a critical and cost-effective tool for reducing fire risk, 
improving wildlife habitat and protecting communities.
  Let me give Members an example. Last summer I visited a timber sale 
in the fire-prone forests of Northern California. The purpose of the 
sale was to reduce the risk of fire on 2,000 acres of forest and return 
the forest to a more natural state. The strategy was to thin the forest 
by removing undesirable fir trees while leaving the large majestic 
Ponderosa pines. The result was a more fire resistant forest and better 
wildlife habitat.
  This result was achieved through a timber sale contract, a contract 
that simply thinned the forest of the most undesirable trees, a timber 
sale contract that reduced fire risk and created better wildlife 
habitat, a timber sale that helped protect the local communities from 
the devastation of catastrophic wildfire. What added to the benefits of 
this project was that it actually made money for the Federal 
Government. A contractor actually paid the Forest Service $8 million to 
thin the forest by removing the most undesirable fire-prone trees.
  Mr. Chairman, what I am describing is today's Federal timber sale 
program. The notion that this program is harmful to the environment is 
a myth, is a political fabrication. Today's timber sale program is 
designed to reduce fire risk and improve wildlife habitat in a way that 
is more cost effective than any program that the Wu amendment will 
fund. Even more importantly, it is our most effective tool for 
preventing tragedies in communities like Los Alamos, where the single-
most important strategy for protecting homes and lives from devastating 
wildfire is to thin overstocked timber stands.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not be cutting funding for this program. If 
we have learned anything from Los Alamos, we should be increasing the 
funding for this program.
  Make no mistake, a vote in support of this amendment is a vote to cut 
our ability to reduce the risk of wildfire and thereby protect homes 
and lives. It is a vote against cost-effective wildlife habitat 
restoration. A vote for this amendment is a vote for a myth. I urge my 
colleagues to reject the myth and support cost-effective management of 
our forests.
  Earlier this evening the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior 
of the Committee on Appropriations and I engaged in a colloquy in which 
we discussed the needs of the wildlife management program. I was 
pleased just a few minutes ago to hear the ranking Democrat on the 
subcommittee say that he, too, was interested in working with the 
gentleman to find increased funding for the wildlife program, without 
taking it from the modest increase that is taking place in the forestry 
program.
  Therefore, it seems to me far more appropriate to join in and accept, 
reach across the aisle, accept the chairman's offer, accept the ranking 
member's offer, to work to find that increase elsewhere, rather than 
take it away from a program that obviously has far greater need than we 
are addressing, given the fact that we have more than 40 million acres 
of our National Forests that are subject to high risk of catastrophic 
wildfire.

[[Page H4470]]

  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make very, very clear that what I am 
standing up for is not just good fish and wildlife management, but good 
long-term forestry management. But there is one issue that I want to 
take off the table.

                              {time}  2115

  That is that there is a lot of discussion today about fires on forest 
land. I understand the concern. I am completely sympathetic to it.
  I just want to point out to the gentleman and to the prior speaker 
that there is more than $600 million in the Department of Agriculture 
funds to prevent wildfires and address wildfires if they occur. 
Separately, there is $297 million in the Department of the Interior 
budget to address wildfires and to suppress wildfires.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Goodlatte was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows 
those funds are available for the purpose of fighting the fires once 
they get started, or for other fire prevention methods.
  But the best way to long-term prevent that catastrophe and to improve 
the wildlife habitat and the general condition of the forest is to have 
a viable timber sale program, geared in the new directions of the 
Forest Service, to use that program to thin these areas that are 
exposed to very high risk.
  While I join with the gentleman in his interest in making sure that 
wildlife habitat is promoted, taking this money from one fund that 
promotes that wildlife habitat and putting it into another does not 
achieve that, whereas working with the chairman to first preserve this 
fund and then look for additional help, as the ranking Democrat also 
proposed, that is a better way to proceed.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Wu, Smith, and 
Udall amendment.
  I also believe we should invest wisely in our National Forest 
resources, but I have a different view on how to accomplish this worthy 
goal.
  Clearly this amendment put thousands of forestry jobs at risk and 
jeopardized the economic stability of rural communities such as 
Northern Michigan.
  I want to speak about a larger issue. The amendment claims to be 
concerned with an extensive backlog of fish and wildlife habitat needs. 
However, this singular approach is misguided. The real backlog is in 
the overall forest management, the backlog of improvement projects 
needed to restore forests to stable ecological conditions.
  Fish and wildlife habitat is an important part of forest restoration. 
Many of us in Congress are aware of the tremendous accumulation of 
forest fuels on our public lands. Poor forest conditions are a major 
contributor to larger forest fires, like the recent fire in New Mexico. 
It is estimated that 65 million acres of our National Forests are 
currently at risk of catastrophic wildfire, insect infestation, and 
disease.
  While there may be a large backlog of watershed and wildlife habitat 
restoration needs, there is even a larger national backlog of general 
forest restoration work.
  This amendment is a contradiction. It is misguided to focus solely on 
fish and wildlife program funding and fail to address the broader 
forest health crisis that currently exists on our Nation's forest 
lands. In fact, it is impossible to separate the two goals.
  Large-scale watershed and wildlife habitat improvement activities are 
certainly needed. A lot of work is needed in the removal of massive 
amounts of wood that currently is a fire hazard on Federal lands.
  The rationale that the forest products line item is excessive is 
simply false. In spite of what others may have us believe, timber sales 
are not bad. Modern timber sales are a necessary tool and an economic 
means to an environmentally beneficial end. Professional foresters can 
develop silvicultural prescriptions and design timber sales to 
accomplish fish and wildlife restoration objectives.
  It certainly would be nice to have more funds for fish and wildlife 
programs. There certainly is a lot of good work to be done in the 
woods. But increasing fish and wildlife habitat management funds at the 
expense of forest products would be a serious mistake. It is 
unreasonable. Indeed, it would be wrong. It would be wrong to take 
these funds from Forest Service timber programs. Such a change is 
misguided and would only serve to hurt both programs in the long run.
  These funds are needed to protect the forest product line, to counter 
inflation, and pay the salaries of people who work in the woods 
preparing and administering timber sales. Reducing the capacity of the 
Forest Service to prepare these timber sales would ultimately be 
detrimental to fish and wildlife habitat.
  Timber sales are often of the most effective way to achieve 
vegetation management objectives. An example of this work is thinning 
dense forest stands to restore ecological conditions, reduce the risk 
and intensity of catastrophic fire by removing excessive forest fuels, 
and create desired wildlife habitat. Removing excess wood from the 
forest lands improves the long-term health of watersheds and protects 
fish and wildlife habitat.
  A broad forest health strategy and a variety of tools are needed to 
effectively meet this challenge. Prescribed fire is one tool, but there 
are many constraints and dangers that limit the use of fire, as we have 
seen in the catastrophic fire at Los Alamos.
  Removing flammable wood requires the use of many tools, including 
properly planned timber sales. Well designed timber sales are a good 
way to remove large amounts of dead, dying, or overmature wood from our 
accessible public lands.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. I thank 
the chairman and the ranking member for increasing the account for 
timber sales. Let us not cut the timber sales. Let us have a holistic 
approach to our National Forests.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the passion that we see on both sides of 
this issue. I simply want to say that I understand the good intentions 
of the gentleman who offers the amendment. He is very concerned about a 
very important cluster of programs.
  But I think the problem we face here tonight is that we are seeing 
efforts to move very small amounts of money around from one program to 
another. It sort of depends on what kind of district you come from, 
whether you think that is a good idea or not. If you come from a 
district like mine, which is heavily dependent upon a broad 
understanding of multiple use, so that forest lands are used for 
economic production, so that they are used for recreation, so that they 
are used for wildlife, we have one view of this amendment. If one comes 
from a different kind of district, one has quite another.
  I would urge Members to oppose the amendment because we are not going 
to fix the wildlife problems in this country by taking a few million 
dollars out of the forestry program. The real problem is that we need 
more money in all of these programs. We had a good excuse not to put 
that money there when we had huge deficits, but now we do not.
  So it seems to me that we need a more aggressive forest management. 
We need much greater investments in wildlife. We have a huge backlog in 
maintenance for our parks and our forests.
  I do not think that we do any good by playing a beggar thy neighbor 
game. I am going to vote against this amendment because I think the 
best way to deal with this is to remember what was said yesterday when 
the labor-health-education bill was on the floor.
  The main reason that we do not have enough money in this bill for all 
of these programs, whether it is land acquisition or forestry 
management or anything else, is because the majority has chosen to 
commit a huge amount of its resources to providing tax cuts, most of 
which are aimed at very high-

[[Page H4471]]

income people, the richest 1 percent or 2 percent, so everything else 
that this Nation tries to do suffers. That in the end is the problem 
with this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to remember that, and I would urge 
Members in the end, after efforts are made to reflect Members' various 
districts' differences, I would urge Members to vote against this bill 
because it is inadequate to meet the Nation's needs on a whole host of 
fronts, and I would urge rejection of this amendment in the process.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I am hopeful 
that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) will in the end withdraw this 
amendment. I know or I believe that he is sincere in offering this 
amendment because he sincerely believes that wildlife habitat is 
important, and providing more dollars for that is important. I do not 
disagree with him about that.
  I think it is important for us to remember that this bill increases 
the wildlife and fish habitat management funds by about $6 million over 
last year's funding level. It is about a 5 percent increase over last 
year's budget. It only increases the timber sales management by $8 
million, which is about 2\1/2\ percent increase over the last year 
budget.
  In other words, the amount of increase for the wildlife and fish 
habitat management fund is twice as much proportionately as the amount 
of money that is offered for the timber sale.
  I think it is important also for us to remember that the dollars in 
this budget are not going to be enough dollars for us to meet the 
targeted timber harvest that the bill calls for. It is not even going 
to come close to enough money. We have not been meeting these targets. 
These are targets that Congress has determined are necessary for us in 
order to manage the forest.
  The events of the last few weeks that others have talked about, the 
fires at Los Alamos, in Arizona, in California, in my home State of 
Montana, demonstrate the increasing risks that we have to fires in our 
Western National Forests.
  What the forest supervisors will tell us if we go talk to them is 
that the biomass in these forests and the threat of fire is at the 
highest that they have ever seen, ever in their lives. The kinds of 
fires that we are going to have are going to be more intense, they are 
going to be more destructive than the fires that we have experienced in 
the past. The General Accounting Office points out and says that 40 
million acres in the Western forests are at risk of catastrophic fire. 
This is over 20 percent of the National Forests that we have in this 
Nation.
  When we talk about catastrophic fire, we are talking about an 
environmental catastrophe. We are talking about the destruction of 
soils, we are talking about the destruction of watershed, and we are 
talking about fires that destroy the habitat that the gentleman claims 
to seek to protect with his amendment.
  We have already cut timber sales in this country by 80 percent. These 
are having huge impacts on rural communities. I know the gentleman's 
district has been impacted as well. We have lost 1,500 jobs in Lincoln 
County, Montana, alone, a county of 10,000 people.
  The consequence of this has been the huge loss of revenues to the 
local governments. At the same time, the people who live in these 
communities have lost their jobs, the schools in those districts who 
depend on the timber receipts have lost their revenues, the counties 
have lost their revenues, and the local hospitals have lost their 
revenues. Teachers have been laid off, counties have been required to 
cut back their budgets, at a time when we desperately need to manage 
this resource and to thin these forests.
  The Government Accounting Office says we need to spend $750 million a 
year for the next 25 years to restore the health of these forests. This 
bill is $500 million short of what it is going to take just to get us 
on track. So at this level, we are going to lose ground. It means the 
risk is going to be even worse than the risk is today.
  That means the intensity of these fires is going to go up, not down. 
It means they are going to destroy more habitat, not less. It means it 
is going to destroy more watershed, not less. It is going to destroy 
more fisheries, not less.
  While I know the gentleman's intention is to preserve wildlife and 
habitat, and I agree with him, and he has heard the chairman of the 
subcommittee and he has heard the ranking member say that he is willing 
to work for more funds for his purpose, and I support him in that, let 
us not do it by taking it from this necessary and important area.
  We need to mechanically manage these forests to get them to the stage 
that we can reintroduce fire as a management regimen. It is incredibly 
important that we have the dollars to do that. I urge the gentleman to 
withdraw his 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, let me say at the 
outset that the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), had it about right. That is 
that we are arguing over a pot of money here that in and of itself does 
not cure either problem. If we left it in the account, it would not 
cure the problems that the gentlemen in opposition to the amendment 
have spoken about, and if we are fortunate enough to transfer it into 
the fish and wildlife account, the fact of the matter is that we still 
will not deal with that account with the urgency which it is due.
  The problem with this amendment is that it is different in different 
parts of the country, but I would invite colleagues to come to the 
Sierra and look at the watershed there and see that we are in continued 
decline in those great mountains from activities that have taken place 
in the last several years, and many years ago.
  We still have not been able to restore habitat. We still have not 
been able to restore water quality.

                              {time}  2130

  In fact, they all continue to be in decline. The very species that 
have already been listed continue to be in decline so it is not about 
recovery. That is why this money is so urgently needed in the fish and 
wildlife account. That is why the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) felt 
it was necessary to offer this amendment. It is not as though this 
would leave the forestry account naked because, in fact, it puts the 
forestry account back to what the administration requested, and several 
million dollars above last year's level so that they can continue.
  It is not like the investment in the forestry account has been the 
best deal for the American taxpayers. From 1995 to 1997, we spent $1.2 
billion to administer this fund and we got back $125 million. We lost 
almost $900 million administering this forest program.
  The suggestion is that one is either for forest health if they want 
to cut trees or one is against it if they want to do fish and wildlife 
habitat. The fact of the matter is that both of these are tools of 
forest management. Habitat restoration is part of forest management, as 
is forest health. But this leaves the salvage accounts that are used in 
forest health intact. It leaves the wild lands fires account intact, 
and it allows us to address some of the most urgent needs where we 
continue to have these watersheds, habitat, and species in decline.
  The bottom line is this, our budget may be in surplus but our society 
is not. We have argued now appropriation bill after appropriation bill 
where the needs, the urgent needs, for those who are from States with 
great forest resources, are telling us we need $750 million a year, and 
we are arguing over $14 million. We are arguing over $14 million.
  So we have a society that is in great deficits. When HHS was out here 
earlier in the day, we were arguing over the lack of being able to 
provide a decent education to children, to be able to provide help for 
handicapped students, all of which are in deficits.
  We walk around pulling our suspenders and talking about a surplus. 
Well, this is a deficit account here, both on the forestry side and on 
the fish and wildlife side, but the more urgent account in this 
particular case

[[Page H4472]]

 happens to be fish and wildlife because the decline is continuing and 
that threatens the economy; that threatens the ability of commercial 
fishermen; that threatens the forest health in a grander scale and then 
comes back and calls for more people to limit the logging. So we should 
support the Wu-Smith-Udall amendment.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have here some charts that I think really tell a 
story very graphically. The first one here is the USDA Forest Service, 
acres harvested, fiscal year 1997 versus 1999 acres burned, and what we 
see here is the difference of what is going on in our forests in terms 
of acres harvested versus those that are burned.
  The next picture I show, Mr. Chairman, is from my district, the Upper 
Grand Run. That is not snow we see there. That is ash. That is from a 
fire in 1996.
  This particular part of my district was slated to have a timber 
management sale. That sale was let and then appealed. No harvest took 
place.
  Mr. Chairman, this area then burned. Do we want to talk about fish 
habitat; want to talk about fish habitat? After this forest fire 
occurred in my district, this is riparian area, this was a stream. This 
washed out in the next major rainfall, and 30 miles of salmon habitat 
were destroyed.
  Now, why does that matter in the course of this debate? It matters 
because we are not taking good care of our forests. As the General 
Accounting Office said in their report right here about western 
national forests, we believe the threats and costs associated with 
increasing uncontrollable catastrophic fires, together with the urgent 
need for action to avoid them, make them the most serious immediate 
problem related to the health of national forests in the interior West.
  We also believe the activities planned by the Forest Service may not 
be sufficient and may not be completed during the estimated 10 to 25 
year window of opportunity remaining for effective action before damage 
from uncontrollable wild fires becomes widespread.
  The tinderbox that is now the interior West likely cannot wait that 
long for a cohesive strategy.
  Mr. Chairman, there was another fire in my district this summer, 113 
acres near Sun River, Oregon. I quote from the local newspaper there, 
the fire started in a 75 acre stand of unthinned trees and consumed it, 
according to the Deschutes National Forest spokesman, but when the 
flames were blown into a 30 acre area to the northeast that had been 
thinned fire fighters stopped it. Fire fighters credited the quick 
control of the fire to the stands that had been thinned as a part of a 
recent timber sale, thereby reducing its intensity and allowing the 
crews to get the upper hand.
  Both of these programs are important to us, as we manage these forest 
lands, Mr. Chairman, and this is not an amendment that should be 
adopted to shift these funds.
  Frankly, my colleague and friend from Oregon should recognize when he 
has a good deal, and the deal he has is he can have both. He can have 
this timber management program to stop this kind of catastrophic fire, 
at least help with the timber sales and prevent that from occurring, 
and he has gotten a commitment from the ranking member of the 
subcommittee and the subcommittee chairman to work for the funds we 
need for fish habitat improvement as well.
  I will say, I have not been around this process a long time but that 
sounds like a pretty good deal that I think my colleague would be wise 
to accept and withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, more than half of the timber sales on Forest Service 
lands are about stewardship purposes. They are to thin, because the 
biggest problem we have is disease and overstocking. Since 1909 we have 
done one heck of a job of putting out forest fires and we have reduced, 
as we heard the ranking Democrat say on the Northwest Forest Plan, an 
extraordinary level of harvest down to a very, very low level we have 
reduced.
  These fires burn. One cannot tell which way they are going when one 
is in them.
  Mr. Chairman, our forests are choking. Our communities are hurting. I 
represent people in counties that if they were in an urban setting one 
would say are oppressed, because 70, 75 percent of the lands around 
them are Federal lands. They live in these neighborhoods. Their homes 
abut these forests. These fires are as real in northeastern Oregon as 
they are in New Mexico.
  Let us not move this amount of money around and take money away from 
the timber sale program. Let us do both. Let us defeat the Wu amendment 
or hopefully have it withdrawn, which would be the better course of 
action, Mr. Chairman.
  With that, I would urge a no vote on the Wu amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the environmentally and 
fiscally wise amendment from my colleague from New Jersey, my 
colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), and my colleague, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). The Wu-Smith-Udall amendment adds, 
as we have heard, $14.7 million to the fish and wildlife management 
line of the Forest Service.
  Yes, both of the programs that we are talking about here are 
important, but what we want to do is to establish some balance. How did 
this come about? The administration requested $220 million for the 
forest products account, what used to be called timber harvest, and the 
committee gave the Forest Service $245 million, an increase of $25 
million above what the agency requested.
  Meanwhile, the committee funded the valuable wildlife and fish 
habitat management accounts $14.7 million below the administration 
request.
  Now, fish and wildlife management sorely needs an increase in 
funding. Of course, they both do. For years, this fish and wildlife 
program has been underfunded. At the forest level, biologists are 
scarce and are involved in planning and NEPA work and are frequently 
unable to do the on-the-ground work that needs to be done.
  Now on the other hand, there is evidence that the Forest Service 
timber program is not cost effective. According to the GAO, the program 
costs the American taxpayer over $2 billion from 1992 to 1997. The 
Forest Service estimates that this year recreational jobs will account 
for 77 percent of the national forest employment, whereas timber-
related jobs will account for only 2.3 percent.
  The Wu-Smith-Udall amendment is not only a statement of fiscal 
responsibility, it is a commitment to preserving natural resources. 
Without the Wu-Smith-Udall amendment, the current funding levels for 
fish and wildlife habitat will result in the loss of hundreds of miles 
of fish habitat restoration and thousands of acres of wildlife habitat 
restoration.
  The head of the Forest Service, Chief Dombeck, has changed the focus 
of the Forest Service. He has done a great job in promoting a 
sustainable supply of timber, while promoting conservation and habitat 
restoration.
  The Wu-Smith-Udall amendment is consistent with Chief Dombeck's 
leadership in continuing a future and sustainable supply of timber, 
while maintaining a habitat necessary for healthy fishruns and for 
healthy stocks of wildlife.
  I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this important 
amendment.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong disapproval of this amendment. I think 
we have heard a great deal tonight. We have heard about the President's 
budget, and it is obvious that that budget does not understand or does 
not want to realize the benefits of timber management.
  The zero cut philosophy will get us somewhere where we do not want to 
be. Our timber has been managed for hundred of years by wildfire. We 
have suppressed those wildfires in this century pretty successfully, so 
now we have a ladder of trash, we have a very unhealthy forest and it 
is susceptible to cataclysmic fire. We saw that in New Mexico.
  If the forest is not going to be treated with wildfire, and we do not 
want to do that, it is dangerous, it has to be

[[Page H4473]]

treated somehow. The underbrush has to be removed. There has to be 
harvesting. This resource has to be managed.
  Our forests are one of the greatest resources that have been left to 
this country, and we need to use our best judgment to manage them.
  This amendment does not use good judgment. It pulls $14 million away 
from these very sound programs to manage our forest resource. As we 
manage that resource, as has been said earlier this evening, we will 
provide fish and wildlife habitat. Every time there is a cataclysmic 
fire, it destroys that fish and wildlife habitat and it destroys it for 
two or three generations. So by properly using these stewardship cuts 
to improve our forest stand, we will get the economic benefit of the 
removed trees. We will have a safer stand. It will not be as 
susceptible to fire. It will grow more rapidly. It will absorb more 
carbon dioxide. That is a win/win.
  Our chairman has offered to work with the other side on the budget 
for fish and wildlife. Let us stop trying to take a foolish cut out of 
the forest management program.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, there is $297 million 
already allocated in the Department of Interior for fire suppression 
and for thinning activities and additionally there is over $600 million 
allocated for fire suppression and thinning activities under the 
Department of Agriculture funds. So every speaker is coming up and 
talking about fire, and this is just a smokescreen for bad forestry 
practices of the past. That is something that we were trying to correct 
with this amendment. We should take the fire issue off the table 
because that is funded separately in this bill.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. I could not disagree more. The $600 million the 
gentleman is talking about is for fire suppression. This is fire 
prevention. $14 million, if it prevents a fire, we will not have to 
spend that other money. That is good management. Fire cannot be taken 
off the table here because fire is a result of a poorly managed forest, 
and this is money to properly manage our forests.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would note the Pennsylvania delegation is slightly 
out of order.
  We have, almost have the deck chairs on the Titanic arranged through 
this debate, and that is interesting, because as a number of people who 
have spoken before me have said quite truthfully, there is not an 
adequate amount of money in the Forest Service budget to perform its 
many diverse functions.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. Chairman, I offered earlier an amendment to increase the 
recreation budget. We earlier had an amendment to take $4 million out 
of the wild horse management program of which I am a big supporter. But 
it was to go to a slightly higher priority, which is fighting fires and 
fire suppression and fuels management.
  Now, these are choices this Congress should not be forced to make. We 
should not be starving these resource management agencies. We should be 
investing in the future, the future of our forests, not starving them. 
That is what we are doing. Do not try and treat them like cash cows.
  This amendment, in the past, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and 
before that Ms. Furse and others have offered amendments similar to 
this; but in those amendments, they actually cut the Forest Service 
budget. From those amendments, they actually transferred the money to 
other agencies or transferred money to deficit reduction.
  Tonight the amendment before us is trying to divide a pie which is 
too small. It is trying to decide whether we should undertake crucial 
activities on the wildlife side. If we do not fulfill those functions 
and those activities, we will not be harvesting any timber anywhere 
because we will not be meeting the needs of the forests as a healthy 
ecosystem.
  On the other side, we have the Forest Service struggling to implement 
in my region the Clinton forest plan, and we are in gridlock again. If 
fact, I have asked the Clinton administration to begin an early plan 
update because I believe the plan has failed. It has failed both to 
protect old growth and to deliver what it said would be predictable 
supplies of timber.
  So the question becomes on this amendment, what can we do. Well, 
unfortunately, we are slicing up and dicing up the pie into little bits 
and pieces. The amendment of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) will 
leave an increase of $10 million in the account for timber harvesting. 
It will transfer some money to another underfunded account.
  This is a difficult choice for those of us who live in areas more 
than half owned by the Federal Government, someone who represents a 
district like mine that has been formerly the most public timber-
dependent district in the United States.
  So the question becomes, what should we do here? I am going to 
recommend that this amendment is not going to break the forest 
gridlock. It is not going to resolve the controversies. It is not going 
to be an incredible setback for the Forest Service on the timber 
management side. There are other monies that have been allocated to the 
committee by other forms of vegetation management. I am certain in 
conference they can move some of those funds around. I am certain that 
they can deliver on the promise they made to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Wu).
  We will both better fund wildlife and better fund reasonable timber 
management. But I do not think unless a change is made here tonight 
that necessarily that problem will be fulfilled. I believe, if this 
amendment passes, we will get more money for both accounts when we come 
out of the conference committee. So I will support the amendment.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a member of the Subcommittee on Forests 
and Forest Health of the Committee on Resources in support of the Wu-
Smith-Udall amendment.
  Just a few short weeks ago, we all stood on this floor to debate the 
CARA bill, probably the most importance piece of environmental 
legislation to pass the House of Representatives this Congress.
  I was pleased to support that legislation, as it represented a solid 
and productive effort by the Congress to ensure the protection of 
America's delicate forest land, open space, waterways, and park lands.
  Today the Congress has another chance to go on the record of 
supporting our environment. This amendment boosts clean water efforts 
and improves the health of our national forest recreation and 
commercial users.
  The Wu-Smith-Udall amendment also redirects vital resources towards 
improvement of our drinking water and our fish and wildlife.
  This amendment reduces what is basically a subsidy for timber sales 
management and directs the Federal funds to desperately needed forest 
restoration projects throughout this country.
  As the Representative of the most urban district on the Committee on 
Resources, I know the value of green space and the need to protect 
these lands for future generations of Americans. By keeping ecosystems 
at a healthy level, clean air and water can be supplied to all 
communities throughout this land.
  Protection of our watersheds is important for making our communities 
more livable and making sure that we all have the safest and cleanest 
water available for drinking and for recreation.
  There is absolutely no reason to put the interest of the timber 
industry ahead of the health of our forests and drinking water, 
especially when both can peacefully co-exist.
  I strongly support this environmentally sound and fiscally 
responsible amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, certainly every Member of this House has a right to 
weigh in on issues no matter how they fail to affect that particular 
Member's district. Just as I do not claim any authority over the 
boroughs of New York

[[Page H4474]]

 City, so, too, do I think it is important that we understand precisely 
what it is we are talking about. We are talking about jobs. But more 
importantly, we are talking about forest health.
  I have heard some interesting claims tonight. One of my friends from 
California again says we need more and more and more and more money; 
and yet this House, against the better judgment of some of us, enacted 
CARA, calling for an additional $900 million a year over the next 15 
years to purchase even more land.
  I would invite my friends from the east coast metropolises and also 
those who hail from coastal districts from the West in urban areas to 
come visit the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona to understand 
the very clear and present forest fire danger that exists because we 
fail to employ effective forest management techniques.
  Oh, we do have one rallying cry that comes from the inner cities of 
the East. Over 30 years ago, the cry ``burn, baby, burn'' has now been 
inflicted into this debate, because people seem to think let us let the 
forests go up in smoke; that is the way one controls this renewable 
resource. That is wrong.
  This amendment, though well intentioned, is wrong, because it does 
not protect the fish and wildlife its sponsors would purport to 
protect. It, instead, sets up a situation for ecological disaster.
  Those of my colleagues who say they embrace the notion of balance and 
ecological principles, Mr. Chairman, I implore my friends on the left 
to withdraw this amendment, to work in a constructive way with the 
ranking member of this subcommittee and the subcommittee chairman, to 
strike that true balance.
  While, again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and we 
certainly rejoice in that fact, I would, Mr. Chairman, ask my 
colleagues to think of the people who live in the districts whose homes 
and livelihoods are affected and the very wildlife they purport to want 
to protect.
  Sadly, we see a situation where some in this Chamber and around this 
Nation cannot see the forest for the trees. No to this amendment.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wu-Smith amendment, and I 
want to share with my colleagues from a very personal perspective why I 
think this is a bad idea.
  I come from an area of Texas where we have four national forests. 
Now, when one looks at those national forests on a map, one thinks they 
are entirely Federal property. But when one looks at a more detailed 
map, what one sees is that those Federal properties are interspersed 
with private property tracks.
  As a consequence, everyone who is a private land owner who adjoins 
the national forest is at risk in terms of their property and the 
ability of them to be free from forest fires if we, as the Federal 
Government, fail to properly manage the Federal forests.
  If my colleagues or I were living in the midst of the national forest 
tonight, and we heard that Congress was going to reduce the funding for 
management of the forest, we would have every reason to be worried 
about the risk of forest fire and danger to our own properties.
  So even though we are debating tonight an issue that calls for the 
reduction of funding in the amount of $15 million, and some would argue 
who have offered this amendment that we ought to increase funding for 
the protection of wildlife, I say to them that it is equally, if not 
more important, to protect the lives and safety of those citizens who 
are all across this country in areas where we have national forests who 
own private property within and adjoining those national forests.
  It is also, I think, important to remember that those who have 
opposed traditionally logging in our national forests have gotten the 
better end of the deal in recent years. In fact, we are at an all-time 
low in terms of the volume of timber harvested from our national 
forest.
  We see today based on the statistics that are available to all of us 
that we are growing timber six times faster in the national forest than 
we harvest it. As a consequence, we have an abundant supply of 
available marketable timber in our national forest.
  If we are going to be good stewards of the land and if we are going 
to protect those who adjoin and live in the midst of our national 
forest from the threat of forest fires engulfing their own homes, we 
have got to be willing to spend the necessary funds to be sure that we 
properly manage the forest.
  Now, I have talked to the district forester that manages and overseas 
the four national forests in east Texas. I can tell my colleagues that, 
when we talk about reducing funding for forest management, it gets his 
attention, because he understands that it takes personnel and it takes 
equipment and it takes time to go out and properly manage a forest.
  There are some here tonight who criticize the cost of management of 
our national forests even to go so far as to suggest that it costs more 
to manage the forests than we get in harvestable commercial timber. 
Well, the truth of the matter is we may manage our forest well and it 
may cost a lot, but I will tell my colleagues, there is a whole lot of 
regulations that our national forests have to abide by in management of 
those forests.
  I, frankly, as a private forest land owner only wish that I could 
afford to manage my property the same way that the Federal Government 
manages our national forest, because the amount of control and 
regulation and attention to detail that takes place in the management 
of our national forest far exceeds anything that I see going on in the 
private sector.
  But the bottom line here for me is that this amendment and any future 
effort to cut funding for the management of our forest directly affects 
the school children in my congressional district, because as we all 
know, 25 percent of the proceeds of the sale of timber goes to the 
school districts in our respective congressional districts.
  I know personally firsthand the hardship that has been placed upon 
many of our school districts and the disadvantages that it has placed 
the school children in those districts from the reduction of harvesting 
from our national forest.
  There is a piece of legislation that passed this House that is now 
pending in the Senate that is designed to try to help that situation. I 
hope that when that bill comes back, we will all support it. But in the 
meantime, we do not need to be reducing funding for the management of 
our national forest.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to advise the membership of what we 
are doing.
  We have an agreement that has been agreed to between the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and myself, and I have a colloquy, and 
then we have two votes on amendments that have been rolled, and that 
will complete the activities tonight. Then we will get time agreements 
to start tomorrow morning, as soon as the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs have completed their 
markup.
  We are going to make every effort to finish this bill tomorrow. We 
have to finish it tomorrow, but will attempt to do so in order to get 
people out of here in time to make their airplane connections.
  So we have no more debate on this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman why we do not just 
go ahead and vote on this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let us defer that one.
  Mr. DICKS. I believe we have to vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. We have not put the question on the amendment.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Wu).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I

[[Page H4475]]

make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Regula

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return to page 
49 to offer an amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee) and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Regula:
       On page 49 line 24 strike ``shall'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``may'' and on page 50 line 5 strike ``shall'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``may at the discretion of the 
     Secretary.''

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reflects an agreement 
between the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and myself on an 
amendment, and I urge the Members to support it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment on this side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman I would like to enter into a very brief colloquy with 
the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I represent the State of 
Oklahoma, a State that is home to 23 percent of the Native Americans in 
this country. Despite the fact that almost one in four Native Americans 
live in my State, we receive only 13 percent of Indian Health Service 
dollars. Of the 12 Native American service areas in the country, 
Oklahoma City receives less than $900 per capita, while Nashville 
receives $1800 per capita, and some tribes receive as much as three 
times that of Oklahoma City, $2700 per capita.
  Our hospitals in Tahlequah and Claremore receive $141, while the 
Phoenix Indian Medical Center receives $400 per capita.
  I believe that the Native Americans in my State should receive more 
equitable treatment when IHS funds are distributed. Rather than 
receiving 13 percent, Oklahoma should be receiving close to 20 percent, 
if not more.
  Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Ohio commit to working with me 
to close these gaps in funding?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LARGENT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this 
important issue today. I agree that this disparity is problematic, and 
that the IHS funding mechanisms are lacking. I agree that the Director 
of Indian Health Services should develop a plan for ensuring that every 
Native American is treated in an even-handed manner.
  Last year, we provided funding through an Indian Health Care 
Improvement Fund to bring these tribes funded at very low levels of 
need up to more reasonable levels. Unfortunately, the Indian Health 
Service has not decided on a method for distributing these funds. It 
was the committee's intent that these funds be devoted to the most 
underfunded tribes rather than spreading the funds across the large 
number of tribes.
  I will be more than happy to work with the gentleman from Oklahoma to 
see that the IHS functions are distributed in a more equitable way.
  Mr. LARGENT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
and look forward to working with him to ensure Oklahoma's Native 
Americans receive something closer to their fair share.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and, Mr. 
Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentlewoman identify the page and line for us?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Page 69, line 10.
  The CHAIRMAN. We are not at that portion of the bill yet.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman want to enter into a 
colloquy, in lieu of the amendment?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. What I wanted to do was to introduce 
the amendment, withdraw it, and then enter into the colloquy as a part 
of that whole package.
  Mr. REGULA. We are not at the right place in the bill for that. Let 
us get these votes over, frankly, and if she wants to do the colloquy 
we can do that, but we need to get on to the votes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Well, that was not my understanding, Mr. Chairman, but I 
would move to strike the last word and would like to submit for the 
Record articles in The New York Times today and in the Toledo Blade 
concerning gas prices and enter into a colloquy with the chairman and 
ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe there is a critical need for a comprehensive 
report on how biofuels, including ethanol and biodiesel, can be more 
fully incorporated into the strategic fuel reserves of our country. 
Alternatives such as swaps or sales of a portion of current crude 
reserves for biofuels should be evaluated with estimates of funds 
realized to be directed toward biofuels purchase and storage costs. 
Also, options to encourage on-farm storage of biofuel inputs and 
related biofuel processing and storage capacity as a ready reserve 
should be evaluated.
  Therefore, I would ask the chair and ranking member if they could 
consider the need for such a report and possibly include language in 
the conference report on this bill to request such a report from the 
Departments of Interior, Agriculture and Energy?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio that we would be happy to look into this situation. I believe we 
need an overall national energy strategy that addresses issues such as 
this in the larger context.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentlewoman for her 
outstanding leadership on this issue, and I assure her that we will 
give this request careful consideration and we will work with her in 
the conference to see if we can get the language that the gentlewoman 
would like. We will also work with the administration to try to make 
sure this commitment is kept.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
very much for his openness and leadership on this, and also the 
chairman of the subcommittee for his fine work on clean coal and other 
alternative fuels over the past years.
  Mr. Chairman, the articles I referred to above are as follows:

                [From the New York Times, June 14, 2000]

                   In Gas Prices, Misery and Mystery


                  costs in midwest exceed $2 a gallon

                            (By Pam Belluck)

       Chicago, June 13.--Gasoline is so expensive in the Midwest 
     that a retired railroad worker in Cleveland says he had to 
     cancel his annual summer drive to visit his daughter in San 
     Francisco.
       A volunteer agency that delivers meals to shut-ins in 
     Milwaukee cannot afford to pay its drivers enough to fill 
     their tanks.
       A florist in Urbana, Ill., is talking about raising what he 
     charges to deliver roses and carnations.
       And in suburban Chicago, Kathy Stachnik says she now 
     considers putting gas in her blue 1997 Honda Accord an ``evil 
     necessity.''
       ``Whenever I stand at the pumps these days, I'm just 
     furious,'' said Ms. Stachnik, 38, as she bought 10 gallons of 
     gas at an Amoco in Arlington Heights for $2.25 a gallon. ``I 
     know that something fishy is going on with these prices.''
       Gasoline prices in the Midwest have risen sharply in recent 
     weeks, jumping as much as 50 cents a gallon and far 
     outstripping increases in the rest of the country. In Chicago 
     and Milwaukee, drivers are paying more than $2 a gallon, the 
     first time prices have ever soared that high in the United 
     States, analysts says.
       In recent days, the federal government has been trying to 
     determine why the prices in the Midwest have risen so 
     steeply. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy 
     Department met with oil refiners on Monday in Washington. And 
     the Clinton administration and the House Judiciary Committee 
     have asked the Federal Trade Commission to look into whether 
     the increases involve price gouging or collusion.

[[Page H4476]]

       ``We don't have good explanations,'' said Robert 
     Perciasepe, the environmental agency's assistant 
     administrator for air and pollution programs. ``We're not 
     seeing this anywhere else in the country.''
       Gas prices increased across the country in the last few 
     weeks as the summer driving season began. Gasoline 
     inventories are being depleted, and new requirements for 
     cleaner burning gasoline became effective on June 1. But the 
     spikes in the Midwest are especially steep.
       On Friday, the most recent day for which figures are 
     available, the average prices of self-serve regular gasoline 
     in Chicago was $2.13 a gallon, up from $1.37 a gallon in 
     January, according to Trilby Lundberg, an analyst who 
     compiles the Lundberg Survey of gas station prices. By 
     comparison, prices on Long Island averaged $1.67 a gallon 
     last week, up from $1.39 in January. And prices in Los 
     Angeles averaged $1.56 a gallon in June, up from $1.29 in 
     January.
       Industry representatives say the price increases in the 
     Midwest are a result of several factors.
       The most significant, they say, is the new federal 
     requirement for cleaner-burning gasoline, known as RFG-2. In 
     the Midwest, unlike in other regions, the additive oil 
     refiners use to make their gasoline comply with the 
     regulations is ethanol. Because ethanol evaporates quickly it 
     requires a special formulation of gasoline, said Edward H. 
     Murphy, general manager for downstream operations at the 
     American Petroleum Institute an industry group.
       ``It's more difficult to produce that gasoline,'' Mr. 
     Murphy said, ``As a result, production is significantly 
     lower,''
       Another factor, industry officials say, was the rupture in 
     March of a Texas pipeline that Midwest refineries depended on 
     for their supply. The pipeline was repaired two weeks later, 
     but it is still operating at only 80 percent capacity.
       A third factor is a court ruling that the Unocal 
     Corporation can collect royalties on a particular type of 
     cleaner-burning fuel. That has prompted smaller refineries to 
     curtail RFG-2 production to avoid paying royalties to Unocal, 
     industry analysts say.
       ``In a situation where supplies are tight, and you have 
     relatively inelastic demand for gasoline, the price increase 
     you need that occurs in the market is disproportionately 
     large,'' said Mr. Murphy, who said some refineries are 
     carting in the fuel they need by barge from Nova Scotia or 
     the Gulf states. ``If the price of lemons goes up, you move 
     to limes. If the price of coffee goes up, you move to tea. 
     But with gasoline, consumers don't adjust very quickly in a 
     very short term. Obviously you don't go out and trade in your 
     brand new Ford Excursion for a Toyota Camry.''
       Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
     Energy Department acknowledge that all these factors play a 
     role in increasing gas prices somewhat. But they say none is 
     sufficient to account for the precipitous price jumps in 
     cities like Chicago and Milwaukee.
       ``All of these may have some impact but they don't seem to 
     explain the size of the disparity,'' Mr. Perciasepe said. For 
     example, he said the cost of producing cleaner gasoline with 
     ethanol should lead to only about a 5 cent to 8 cent increase 
     in gas prices. ``Whether people are taking advantage of some 
     of these situations is something that we hope to be able to 
     understand better.''
       A senior official at the Energy Department said that 
     although the supply of oil was tight in the Midwest, ``we 
     weren't persuaded by the arguments of the refiners. Generally 
     speaking, all of the large suppliers say they have adequate 
     supplies to serve the demand.''
       The official added, ``It has the administration very 
     concerned, obviously,''
       Sam Stratman, a spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee 
     and its chairman, Representative Henry J. Hyde, Republican of 
     Illinois, said that oil companies had years to prepare for 
     the increased costs of the RFG-2 regulations.
       ``This is a complicated issue,'' Mr. Stratman said. ``It 
     deals with issues of supply and demand and regulatory changes 
     mandated by E.P.A., and you wonder, have these changes given 
     oil companies a chance to gouge consumers?''
       Of course, Americans still have the lowest gas prices in 
     the world. The Organization of petroleum Exporting Countries, 
     which controls nearly half of the global oil supply, will 
     meet next week to decide on whether to increase production.
       Although the prices in Chicago and Milwaukee are the 
     highest on record, they are still lower than gas prices were 
     at their peak in March 1981, when the national average price 
     of a gallon of gasoline was $2.67, if adjusted for inflation, 
     Ms. Lundberg said.
       That is hardly comforting to beleaguered drivers across the 
     Midwest these days.
       ``It's outrageous,'' said Colleen Posinger, 44, of 
     Streamwood, Ill. ``I'm really upset about the gas prices, 
     because we told our 1-year-old daughter that we'd drive to 
     South Dakota this summer. The vacation was already planned, 
     so I guess we'll just have to take the crunch.''
       Others, like Adam Matavovszky, the retired railroad worker 
     in Cleveland, decided they could not afford their vacations.
       In Milwaukee, Goodwill industries which delivers meals to 
     the elderly and also takes disabled people to workshops and 
     training programs, has been hit by $23,000 in extra fuel 
     costs this year, said Roger Sherman, vice president for human 
     services. He said the organization had asked for emergency 
     assistance from the Milwaukee County Department of Aging and 
     might have to cut back on transportation.
       ``We are running 150 percent over budget,'' Mr. Sherman 
     said, ``We have not kept up with the rising gasoline 
     prices.''
                                  ____


                 [From the Toledo Blade, June 13, 2000]

                    EPA Can't Find Reason for Hikes

       Washington.--Federal officials met for two hours with 
     refiners yesterday, and the EPA's top air pollution official 
     said he heard ``no good explanation'' for soaring gasoline 
     prices in Midwest cities, in which new requirements require 
     cleaner-burning gas.
       The Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Department 
     said inspectors were sent to the Milwaukee and Chicago areas 
     to investigate price increases in recent weeks of 30 to 50 
     cents a gallon. They focused on refining and distribution, 
     one official said.
       At the White House, spokesman Joe Lockhart said the Midwest 
     price increases ``seem to be out of whack,'' and any evidence 
     of price gouging that investigators find will be turned over 
     to the Federal Trade Commission for further investigation.
       Officials from eight major oil refineries sat in on the EPA 
     and Energy Department meeting, and further sessions were held 
     later with individual companies.
       ``We see no good explanation for why the [high] prices 
     exist. . . . We think the prices are unfair and 
     inappropriate,'' Robert Perciasepe, the EPA's assistant 
     administrator for air and pollution programs, said.
       He said that while gasoline supplies are lower than normal, 
     ``there are adequate supplies'' to keep prices in check. The 
     additional cost of the cleaner-burning gasoline, called 
     reformulated gasoline, costs only 5 to 8 cents a gallon more 
     to produce, Mr. Perciasepe said.
       The Energy Department released data that showed prices of 
     reformulated gas were on average 9 cents a gallon higher as 
     of June 5 than conventional gas nationwide, but 23 cents 
     higher in the Midwest. The newly blended gas was required 
     beginning this month in areas with severely polluted air.
       Mr. Perciasepe and Melanie Kenderdine, a senior DOE 
     official who attended the meeting, would not characterize 
     explanations given by industry officials except to say the 
     two sides has a general discussion about supply and 
     distribution problems.
       ``We're suspicious of gouging,'' Dave Cohen of the EPA 
     said.
       Urvan Sternfels, president of the National Petrochemical 
     and Refiners Association, said some of the price increases in 
     the Midwest stem from unexpected problems refiners had with 
     meeting the new, higher vapor-pressure requirements for the 
     cleaner gas. Corn-based ethanol, used widely in the region as 
     a fuel additive, reduces vapor pressure and complicates fuel 
     blending, he said.
       The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents the 
     ethanol industry blamed the refiners for not building 
     adequate stocks of reformulated gasoline and the EPA for 
     ``failure to make appropriate regulatory changes that would 
     reduce the cost of producing RFG in Chicago and Milwaukee.''
       Gas prices have increased for five consecutive weeks 
     nationwide with the beginning of the heavy summer driving 
     season, but they soared in some parts of the Midwest--
     especially Illinois and Wisconsin.
       But EPA officials said they are puzzled as to why the price 
     difference between conventional and the cleaner-burning gas 
     is as wide as it has been in the Midwest. ``We do not believe 
     that the cleaner-burning gasoline is causing the major price 
     increases,'' Mr. Perciasepe said.
       According to the Energy Department, the average price of 
     regular-grade gas in areas requiring reformulated gas 
     nationwide was $1.63 a gallon on June 5, or 9 cents a gallon 
     more than the average price of gas sold in other parts of the 
     country that not require reformulated gas.
       The average price for the cleaner gas was $1.84 a gallon in 
     the Midwest, a 23-cent difference from conventional gas; 
     $1.56 a gallon on the East Coast, a 9-cent difference; $1.61 
     on the West Coast, only a 5-cent difference; and $1.48 a 
     gallon on the Gulf Coast, a difference of 2\1/2\ cents, 
     according to the DOE's Energy Information Administration.
       Environmental groups have questioned the soaring prices.
       ``The oil companies have known for five years that they 
     would have to sell the cleaner-burning gasoline by June 1. 
     Why didn't the industry plan for known supply needs,'' asked 
     Frank O'Donnell of the Clean Air Trust, an environmental 
     advocacy group.
                                  ____


                   [From Toledo Blade, June 9, 2000]

               Gasoline Price Surge Shocks Toledo Drivers

       Alex Alvarado filled up his gas tank just in time 
     yesterday, saving big bucks. Most were not so lucky.
       By lunchtime, gasoline prices around Toledo had surged to 
     $1.86 or more for regular-grade gasoline and more than $2 for 
     premium gasoline--an unexpected price jump at many stations 
     of more than 30 cents per gallon.
       A 30-cent-per-gallon increase costs someone with an 18-
     gallon tank an extra $5.40 each fill-up.
       ``It's ridiculous,'' Mr. Alvarado said as he topped off his 
     tank with the last of the gasoline that cost $1.549 for 
     regular grade at the

[[Page H4477]]

     Clark station on Eleanor Avenue at Lewis Avenue. Several 
     yards away, a gas station clerk was posting the new prices.
       The next customer would pay $1.859 per gallon of regular 
     grade at the same pump.
       ``It's price-fixing,'' Mr. Alvarado of Toledo grumbled. 
     ``I'm lucky I just made it in here before they changed.''
       Some drivers took their frustrations out on the clerks 
     working at the stations.
       Regina Chiles, assistant manager at the Speedway on Dixie 
     Highway off I-75 said as she tacked up the new numbers on her 
     outside sign. ``You'd think they'd be a bit more appreciative 
     that we were still a bit cheaper, but instead they just yell 
     at us because prices are going up.''
       An informal survey by The Blade found that gas prices 
     around the Toledo area spiked by midday from $1.549 to $1.859 
     for regular-grade gasoline and $1.729 to $2.07--or more--for 
     premium gasoline.
       Just two weeks ago, the Kroger gas station at Jackman and 
     Laskey roads was selling gas at $1.419 to $1.619 per gallon. 
     Yesterday, prices at the same pumps had climbed to $1.879 to 
     $2.079 per gallon.
       If you think it was bad in northwest Ohio, Michigan has 
     been dealing with similar prices for a week.
       Yesterday at the Total stations in Adrian on North and 
     South Main streets, the price of regular was $1.94 per gallon 
     and premium was $2.16 at the Speedway on South Main.
       There may be several reasons for the increases, industry 
     experts said.
       A demand for environmentally-friendlier gasoline in bulk 
     markets such as Chicago and Milwaukee have forced up gas 
     prices because of the more complicated, expensive refining 
     process, Tom Kloza, publisher of Oil News and Prices, in 
     Rockville, Md., said.
       And because motorists continue to fuel up in those cities--
     even with the higher prices--suppliers know they can raise 
     prices at pumps in other areas throughout the Midwest, he 
     said.
       ``We reached the whining state. We reached it a few weeks 
     ago,'' Mr. Kloza said. ``But we haven't reached the stage 
     when we change our behavior.''
       Chris Kelley of the Washington-based American Petroleum 
     Institute agreed.
       ``Everyone loves to drive their gas-guzzling SUVs,'' he 
     said. Economic prosperity globally means people are consuming 
     more petroleum-based products world-wide, he added.
       Add to that the high price of crude oil now--nearly $30 a 
     barrel compared to $18 this time last year--and consumers 
     will feel the pinch at the pump, he said.
       U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo), said she has tried 
     several times this year to pass amendments that would release 
     some of the strategic petroleum reserves to ease the gas 
     crunch.
       She said Republicans have defeated the measures. She said 
     the government should promote efforts to develop nonpetroleum 
     fuel sources.
       In West Toledo before lunchtime, Earl Price waited several 
     cars deep to take advantage of some of the lower prices at 
     the Shell station at Secor Road and Monroe Street.
       The gas there ranged between $1.559 and $1.739 per gallon, 
     while across the intersection, BP's prices were $1.879 to 
     $2.119 per gallon.
       ``I'm driving around here comparing gas prices and the 
     lines at the stations,'' said Mr. Price, who installs pools 
     and works with a moving company. He said he drives 100 miles 
     daily on his 1978 pickup, which gets eight miles a gallon.
       Behind him, Pam Green, a hospital technician, chuckled.
       ``You have to laugh,'' she said. ``I'm sitting here using 
     up all my gas waiting in line to buy gas.''
       But with gasoline 30 cents or so cheaper per gallon at some 
     stations, ``it adds up,'' she said. ``I'll wait.''
       It adds up even quicker for those who buy in great 
     quantities, although Julian Highsmith, Toledo's commissioner 
     of facility and fleet operations, said prices are a bit more 
     stable than they are at the pump.
       The city buys its fuel in bulk from suppliers and gets a 
     price estimate each week from the Ohio Petroleum Index 
     System. It has fluctuated, Mr. Highsmith said, between 80 
     cents per gallon and the current $1.08, the highest so far 
     this year.
       ``It goes up and down, but our costs have been a little 
     more constant than what you've been seeing at the pump,'' he 
     said.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: Amendment No. 35 offered by the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and amendment No. 31 offered by the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).


                Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 35 offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
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 15-minute vote followed by a 5-minute 
vote on the Wu amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 254, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 276]

                               AYES--167

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--254

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney

[[Page H4478]]


     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Ackerman
     Bachus
     Barrett (NE)
     Campbell
     Clay
     Cook
     Danner
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Martinez
     Shuster
     Vento

                              {time}  2231

  Messrs. THORNBERRY, REYES, TERRY, HINOJOSA, RODRIGUEZ and TOOMEY 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HOEFFEL, SALMON, ROHRABACHER and HOYER changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the additional 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                   Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Wu

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) 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 173, 
noes 249, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 277]

                               AYES--173

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--249

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Ackerman
     Campbell
     Clay
     Cook
     Danner
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Martinez
     Meek (FL)
     Murtha
     Shuster
     Vento

                              {time}  2258

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

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that consideration 
in the Committee of the Whole of the amendment by the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) to H.R. 4578, adding a new section at the end of 
title I proceed as follows: After the initial five-minute speech by 
Representative Dicks in support of his amendment, no further debate on 
that amendment shall be in order; and amendments thereto offered by 
Representative Nethercutt of Washington, or by Representative Hansen of 
Utah, each shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and Representative Dicks.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi:
       On page 56, line 3, after the figure insert ``(and in 
     addition $2,000,000, to be available to the Department of 
     Interior for the acquisition of Cob Island, Mississippi''.
       On page 69, line 13, after the figure insert ``reduced by 
     $2,000,000.''

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I believe we have an 
agreement on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the consideration of the Taylor 
amendment at this point in the bill?
  Mr. REGULA. We have no objection.
  Mr. DICKS. We have no objection. We strongly support the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Taylor amendment will be 
considered at this point.

[[Page H4479]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, again I have already spoken 
to the Majority and Minority on this. They have been very helpful. It 
is the reallocation of some funds for wildlife conservation. I 
appreciate everyone's assistance on it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Wu-Smith-Udall 
amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill. The purpose of this 
amendment is to restore adequate funding to an important forest service 
program designed to protect and manage fish and wildlife habitat within 
the national forest system. Specifically, this bipartisan and fiscally 
responsible amendment calls for a transfer of $14.7 million from the 
consistently overfunded Forest Service forest products program to the 
chronically underfunded fish and wildlife habitat management account.
  The mission of the U.S. Forest Service is to provide for the multiple 
uses of our Nation's great forests. Traditionally, timber management 
and extraction has been the principal goal of the Forest Service. In 
recent decades, with the rise of recreational uses of our national 
forests and environmental regulations that require careful assessment 
of natural resources impacted by timber cutting and road-building 
activities, the Forest Service has been called upon to survey and 
monitor fish and wildlife populations and to protect and restore 
important fish and wildlife habitat.
  The problem is that Congress has not appropriated adequate funds to 
the Forest Service for this important habitat protection work which is 
demanded by the public and required by law. It makes no sense to boost 
funding for the Forest Service forest products program by $25 million 
over the administration's request at the expense of the fish and 
wildlife habitat management program. To ensure the future health of our 
Nation's forests and to make sustainable forestry a reality instead of 
a mere promise, the Forest Service must be given the resources it needs 
to fulfill its complex and changing mission.
  At this time I would also like to point out that this bill fails to 
adequately fund crucial habitat protection and restoration activities 
conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The pressing needs of 
region 3, especially of the upper Mississippi River and Mark Twain 
National Refuge Systems--which serve as the migratory pathway for over 
40% of North America's waterfowl and which receive more visitors 
annually than Yellowstone National Park--continue to go unrecognized in 
this bill.
  As a co-chairman of the bipartisan upper Mississippi River 
congressional task force, I have worked hard with other members within 
the region to draw attention to the underfunding of region 3 Fish and 
Wildlife Service programs relative to other regions in the country. For 
three years running now, we have requested that approximately $6 
million of additional funds be appropriated for region 3 programs. 
These funds would be used to address the huge backlog of operations and 
maintenance work within the refuge system, to address increasingly 
serious invasive species problems, and to assist in the recovery and 
restoration of endangered species.
  I remain deeply troubled by the shortcomings of the Interior 
Appropriations bill, especially in relation to Fish and Wildlife 
Service programs. At the very least, I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of the Wu-Smith-Udall amendment, which deals with the pressing 
need for fish and wildlife habitat protection and restoration within 
the National Forest System. Thank you and I yield back the remainder of 
my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman. I rise today to speak about what seems like 
an annual ritual. We are now in the thick of the appropriations process 
and that can mean only one thing. My colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle have sharpened their pencils and are loading up budget bills 
with legislative riders that surrender our environment to special 
interests.
  There riders not only threaten important environmental and public 
health protections, but they subvert the democratic process by trying 
to force through legislative changes without the benefit of hearings or 
public scrutiny.
  I am calling on my colleagues and the public to demand an end to this 
yearly assault on our precious natural resources and our open form of 
government.
  I would like to highlight a few of the attacks within the FY 2001 
House Interior Appropriations that is before us today.
  One rider would prohibit any spending on national monuments developed 
after 1999. Among the monuments affected are the Grand Canyon-
Parashant, Giant Sequoia, Agua Fria and the California Coastal National 
Monuments. The monuments were created by the Administration to 
strengthen protection of these unique federal lands.
  Apparently, for some, it is not important to protect our land.
  Another rider would effectively prevent agencies from implementing 
the American Heritage Rivers Program. This is a program where the 
federal government provides help to river communities looking for 
backing on environmental and economic development projects. This 
program helps communities improve water quality.
  Apparently, for some, it is not important to help communities.
  Another rider within the bill would block federal agencies funded 
within the bill from action on global warning. This rider is not even 
needed because the Administration does not intend to implement the 
Protocol prior to congressional ratification. The President is 
continuing to work on international negotiations on this important 
treaty.
  Apparently, for some the climate is not important.
  Finally, besides the various riders, the bill does not adequately 
fund many programs at the levels needed to carry them out. One such 
program is the President's Land Legacy Initiative. This appropriation 
bill places these important conservation programs in jeopardy by 
rejecting the President's request for a permanent funding source. This 
program is also drastically under-funded. As a result, federal land 
conservation efforts to protect national treasures, such as the 
Everglades, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and various 
Civil War Battlefields are in jeopardy.
  Apparently, for some, our national treasures are not important.
  Well, for many, including people in central New Jersey, our national 
treasures, our constitution, our communities and our land are 
important. I urge all of my colleagues to reject these 
antienvironmental riders that threaten our environment and our 
democracy.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to any amendment that 
strikes language currently in the Interior Appropriations legislation 
for Fiscal Year 2001 to not allow any federal funds to be used on 
national monuments created since 1999. I support Mr. Hansen's effort in 
the Interior Appropriations bill to bring accountability back to the 
Administration's use of the 1906 Antiquities Act.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress has spent too much time in the last few months 
reacting to monument designations after unilateral declaration by the 
Administration.
  When Secretary Babbitt first announced his desire to create a higher 
protective status on lands in the Arizona Strip region, he agreed to 
work legislatively on a proposal to protect the historic uses of this 
area. After his announcement, I worked closely with local residents, 
elected officials, tribal officials, conservationists in the region, as 
well as the Governor, federal land management agencies and the State 
Lands, Minerals and Game and Fish departments to develop legislation 
reflecting the Secretary's publicly stated objectives.
  On August 5, 1999, I introduced H.R. 2795, the Shivwits Plateau 
National Conservation Area Establishment Act. The original intent of 
the legislation was to initiate a dialogue with the Secretary, 
particularly considering the Secretary had not outlined his ideas in 
any form of legislation.
  On January 11, 2000, after months of negotiating, the President, with 
the Secretary's recommendation, walked into Arizona and declared two 
national monuments, the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument in 
northern Arizona and the Agua Fria National Monument north of Phoenix.
  In regard to the Agua Fria National Monument, the Secretary first 
made public his proposal to create a more restrictive status for the 
area just four months before the actual monument designation.
  The original intent of the 1906 Antiquities Act was to protect small 
areas of land and specific items of archaeological, scientific, or 
historic importance in imminent danger of destruction. While the 
Administration contends that the areas designated as national monuments 
are threatened by increasing development and recreation, the government 
controls the development which occurs on those lands and has the 
authority to address problems if and when they exist.
  Frankly, the Administration's decision to preempt any action by 
Congress is political. No reasonable public process has been used to 
secure public input on the merits of these designations and no 
environmental assessments have been done. The designations are 
occurring without any formal public input as mandated by NEPA, the 
National Environmental Policy Act.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, by highlighting these lands as national 
monuments, the President is merely calling more attention to the areas 
and significantly increasing recreation and visitation and jeopardizing 
the very resources he is attempting to ``protect.'' I urge my fellow 
members to vote no on any amendment to remove

[[Page H4480]]

language in the Interior Appropriations language to prohibit funds to 
be used on any national monuments created since 1999. Congress has 
already spent too much time reacting to the unilateral declaration of 
such monuments.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today in support of 
H.R. 4578, the Interior appropriations bill and wishes to particularly 
thank the chairman of the Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the ranking member, the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their hard work on the bill.
  This Member understands that the Members of the Subcommittee were 
extremely limited by the 302(b) allocation received and as a result 
were forced to make tough spending decisions. However, this Member is 
pleased that continued funding was made available for the next phase of 
construction of the replacement facility for the existing Indian Health 
Service hospital in Winnebago, Nebraska. As the members of the 
Subcommittee know, this on-going project has a long and difficult 
history, and the Subcommittee's support is greatly appreciated.
  In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes to acknowledge and 
express his most sincere appreciation for the extraordinary assistance 
that Chairman Regula, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and the 
Subcommittee staff have provided thus far on this important project and 
urges his colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease), having resumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4578) 
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________