Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 74 (Wednesday, June 14, 2000)

[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

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

[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.

____________________