[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 75 (Thursday, June 15, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4498-H4567]
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 (Mrs. Biggert). 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} 1039
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 Wednesday June
14, 2000, the amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor)
had been disposed of and the bill
[[Page H4499]]
was open for amendment from page 53 line 10 through page 53 line 22.
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, the amendment by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), adding a new section at the end
of title I, if offered, shall begin with his initial 5-minute speech in
support of the amendment. No further debate on that amendment shall be
in order.
Amendments to that amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Nethercutt) or the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), each shall be
debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence of both the chairman and
the ranking member to allow me to speak out of turn.
The reason I would like to address the House this morning is with
respect to the roadless forest initiative. My colleague and friend, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), had originally looked at
introducing some limitation amendments on the roadless forest
initiative and as he will say shortly has decided not to introduce
them. In some ways I regret that but I certainly respect his decision.
I rise in opposition to the roadless forest initiative. I represent a
national forest that was once the Chequamegon and Nicolet National
Forest. Like so many others, I have a concern over the effect of the
roadless forest initiative on the economy of my district and the health
and safety of our national forests.
I would like to make three brief quick points this morning to show
the breadth of opposition in my home area to this roadless forest
initiative.
First, local units of government in the State of Wisconsin in
general, and in the Eighth Congressional District, oppose the roadless
forest initiative. The Wisconsin Counties Association opposes it. The
Counties of Vilas and Oneida and Oconto and others oppose it. They
oppose it because they understand how dependent our communities and our
economy is upon the national forest, recreation, and timber harvesting.
They also oppose it because they recognize that cutting off these
forests to human access poses substantial fire and safety risks.
Point number two, the roadless forest initiative violates a historic
compact between local units of government and the Federal Government.
This national forest in northern Wisconsin was created in the 1920s.
There were a series of transactions between local units of government,
county forests, the private sector and the Federal Government.
On record, on the public record and in public documents, specifically
these transactions were made with an understanding that access to the
national forests would be maintained, in fact, explicitly that
commercial access to the forests would be maintained. Yet, the roadless
forest initiative, if it is implemented, would break that
understanding, would break that agreement.
Very clearly, the Federal Government is on the verge of breaking its
word with the people of northeastern Wisconsin and very clearly these
local leaders would never, would never, have transferred county forest
to the national forest if they knew that years down the line we would
go back on our word.
Finally and most damning, the Forest Service employees of northern
Wisconsin themselves oppose the roadless forest initiative. The very
people being called upon to implement the roadless forest initiative
oppose it. They have taken a formal position through Local 2165 of the
National Federation of Federal Employees, they have taken a formal
position against the roadless forest initiative. They understand the
difficulties of enforcing it. They understand how it will do tremendous
damage to our way of life and they understand how the roadless forest
initiative has failed to take into account the local concerns in
northern Wisconsin.
I will later place in the Record these resolutions demonstrating the
clear opposition in northern Wisconsin to this initiative.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) indicated,
we were prepared to offer up to several amendments to block the
roadless initiative and the road management rule. Instead, through
conversations with the Chair and the ranking member, we have decided
not to.
These policies and rules that are currently pending before the
National Forest Service are still pending. We will have time in the
months ahead to help fashion and mold hopefully something we can all
live with.
Let me just take a few minutes here and explain what is going on with
the roadless initiative and the road management policy.
{time} 1045
These are new Forest Service policies. They are decisions affecting
the national forests throughout the country. They are not found in any
of the local-national forest management plans, and they are developed
without a local input and without local forest officials' input.
Now, the roadless initiative on the face of it does not sound too
bad, because it includes defined roadless areas. In my two national
forests in Ottawa, that is 4,600 acres and in the Hiawatha National
Forest, that is 7,600 acres.
We could probably agree that, in those areas that are identified, it
makes some sense not to put roads; and we agree that could make some
sense. But then it calls for other unroaded areas, other unroaded
areas. We do not know the size of those areas. We do not know where
they are located. It cannot be simply identified.
So if we cannot identify the other unroaded areas, why would we let a
policy go through and we as Members of this Congress allow a policy to
go through that we have no clue, no clue where these other areas are.
Talk to Washington officials, they say one's local officials know. Talk
to our local forest officials, and we have had hearings on this part,
and they said we do not know because we do not have the guidelines. So
they would let a policy go through.
Look, the proper role on roadless initiative, identify the areas; and
if one wants it to be a wilderness area, that is a proper role of
Congress. We should do it.
Proposals undetermine other roaded areas. It limits one's access. It
limits one's use. It limits one's enjoyment of the forest.
If it was the roadless initiative, we could probably live with that,
but look at what else is going on at the same time. At the exact time
is this thing called road management rule. The only way one can build a
road in the national forest if this road management rule goes through
is if there is a compelling reason for a road.
Temporary roads that we use and rely on for fire fighting, for insect
control, for harvesting timber are not recognized. No more temporary
roads, none whatsoever.
Who has to agree to it? Not the local foresters, but the regional
forester. In Milwaukee, they are going to decide for Michigan and
Wisconsin whether or not there is going to be a road in northern
Michigan regardless of what the local forestry officials say.
So it virtually bans road construction and reconstruction. So in
other words, one cannot even fix up a forest road if this policy goes
through, only essential classified roads, no feeder roads, no feeder
roads. It does not recognize temporary roads for forest timbers.
So put the roadless initiative with this road management rule that no
one knows anything about, put it together, and one has new policies,
new rules that will supersede existing locally developed forest
management plans in our national forest.
The results are one is going to have a national policy that says one
size fits all. We lose our local control. There is no control input.
Economic impact is not even recognized. For northern Wisconsin and
northern Michigan and Minnesota, we rely upon our national forests, not
just for timber sales, for recreation, no personal enjoyment, for
hunting; but one has no input. Those economies are not even recognized
as we develop these policies.
Last but not least, the new policies and rules change the established
use of the forest, the access to the forest, and the activities that
can be performed within the forest.
[[Page H4500]]
What we have here, as we have debated this bill many times in the
past, legislative attempts to limit road building, to limit
reconstruction of roads in our national forests. They cannot pass that.
They cannot come before Congress and legislatively pass it. So they are
doing this back-door approach through a rulemaking process on road
management that there is no input.
One can write one's comments, but there is not a meeting anywhere in
the United States where people from the local national forest did come
and confront the local forest people and say here is what we need roads
for. Why cannot one reconstruct this one road that goes to our lake?
Because they are going to put through an administrative rule underneath
the Administrative Procedures Act.
So I urge all Members to look at the roadless initiative. When one
applies the road management on top of that roadless initiative, we have
serious problems with what is going on in our national forests. I ask
them to be vigilant and fight these policies by the National Forest
Service. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking member, for allowing the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and I to proceed outside of order.
New Forest Service Policies/Rules
(Decisions affecting National Forests; not found in Forest Management
Plans; developed without local community & local forest officials
input)
roadless initiative
(Includes defined Roadless Areas and undefined ``other unroaded''
areas)
Wilderness Designation is proper role of Congress.
Proposes undetermined ``other unroaded areas''.
Limits access, use & enjoyment of forest.
road management rule
(Only if compelling reason for a road; no ``temp'' roads; EIS signed by
Regional Forester)
Virtually bans forest road construction & reconstruction.
Only essential classified roads (no feeder roads).
Does not recognize temporary roads for timber harvest.
new policies/rules that supersede existing locally developed Forest
Plans--Results
National Policy--``one size-fits-all'' mentality, loss of
local control.
Economic Impact--not recognized, local economies depend on
National Forests.
New Policies/Rules--change established uses, access &
activities.
Amendment Offered By Mr. Dicks
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report copy B of the Dicks amendment.
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.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House yesterday, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is recognized for 5 minutes in
support of his amendment.
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which would overcome
section 334 and 335 of the Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year
2001.
My amendment seeks to overcome the funding limitation imposed in the
bill under section 334 and 335 relating to the Interior-Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Plan, known as ICBEMP, and the design, planning,
and management of national monuments.
Both of these provisions are objectionable to the Clinton
administration, and the committee has received a letter from the Office
of Management and Budget director Jack Lew stating that the President's
senior advisors would recommend a veto unless these riders are removed.
Section 334 of the bill would stop the Interior-Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project, ICBEMP, from going forward. The author of
the provision included report language to the bill language stating
concern that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are
not in compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Flexibility Act by completing a regulatory flexibility analysis. The
administration, on the other hand, believes that such an analysis is
not required. This is a major issue in this debate.
Now, I understand that the author of the amendment may have concerns
about the agencies complying with all laws, but I have been assured by
the administration that they are, in fact, in compliance with all
existing Federal laws and, therefore, object to the inclusion of this
provision which would basically stop their work on this particular
project.
Further, I do not know whether the author of the amendment does or
does not support the Columbia Basin Project's goals, but I think it is
vitally important to articulate why it should go forward and not be
stopped with a rider in this Interior appropriations bill.
The Columbia Basin Project was initiated by President Clinton in 1993
to respond to landscape-scale issues, including forest and rangeland
health, the listing of Snake River salmon, bull trout protection, and
treaty and trust responsibilities to the Tribes in the area. It also
sought to bring more certainty and stability to the communities located
in the Columbia River Basin, which were impacted by these events.
What we had before were literally dozens of smaller management plans
that only addressed specific areas within the basin. The goal of ICBEMP
was to better assemble each individual plan into a more coordinated
watershed-based program. ICBEMP has several goals. Among them is to
better protect the habitat important to threatened and endangered
species and also to provide a long-term plan for mining, grazing, and
timber harvest, all of which are still allowed under the project.
It is not a land grab, nor does it take decisions out of the hands of
local communities and local management offices. It is an important step
to better manage these critical lands, and it has had several years in
development and has received extensive public comments and
participation.
Section 335 prevents the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary
of Agriculture from using any funds for the purpose of designing,
planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments which
were designated since 1999.
This provision attempts to restrict the designation of monuments by
the President under the authority of the 1906 Antiquities Act by using
a back-door method: funding limitation. A prohibition on spending funds
for these monuments would not change their legal status, but it would
prevent any ongoing spending within the monument areas as defined by
law.
I would say to all of my colleagues who had monuments declared, that
the author of the amendment chose not to cover his monument, but he is
covering our colleagues' monuments.
The author of the amendment included language in the Interior
Appropriations report to accompany the bill which states: ``Nothing in
this language prevents either Secretary from managing these Federal
lands under their previous management plans.'' But the bill language
clearly states that no money shall be expended for the purpose of
design, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments.
Once the President has acted to designate these lands, they are
legally designated and would thus be subject to the spending
limitation. All this provision would do is ensure that no Federal
dollars by our land and resource management agencies could be spent in
these areas.
A monument designation does not lock up these lands. Quite the
contrary, monument status does not preclude such activities as grazing
or mining.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, monument status also involves an extensive
community involvement process so that programs can be established for
all public uses. Hunting, fishing, hiking, canoeing are all allowed in
these areas. But they would all be stopped if we could not do necessary
wildlife surveys and environmental programs.
This provision would not allow any funds to be spent for law
enforcement
[[Page H4501]]
and staffing in the monument. In the areas where there are visitors'
centers, they would be closed because the provision would preclude any
funds from being spent to operate, maintain, or staff them.
I understand that some of the President's recent designations have
been controversial. But he has had, in each instance, the complete
authority to act under the jurisdiction of the 1906 Antiquities Act. If
the authorizing committees, and I note the presence of the chairman of
the authorizing committee, if the authorizing committee of jurisdiction
wishes to reexamine the Antiquities Act or wishes to pass legislation
to cancel any specific monument designation, then they should do so.
But the inclusion of this provision and the other provisions are ill-
advised and ensure a veto by the President.
I urge support of my amendment and hope the House agrees that these
provisions should not be included in this bill.
Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt to the Amendment Offered By
Mr. Dicks
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the
amendment.
The text of the amendment to the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. Nethercutt to the amendment
offered by Mr. Dicks:
Strike ``monuments,'' and insert ``monuments or''.
Strike ``, or activities related to the Interior Columbia
Basin Ecosystem Management Plan''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June
14, 2000, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Dicks amendment
would strike the provision in the Dicks amendment concerning the
Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, called ICBEMP.
First and foremost, the linkage of the national monuments portion of
the Dicks amendment with the Interior-Columbia Basin Management Project
language in his amendment requires that they be separated. They are not
the same. They are completely different. They have no relevance to each
other. They have no relationship to each other. Therefore, on that
point alone, my amendment should be adopted. My amendment seeks to
strip the ICBEMP language from the Dicks amendments. So that is point
number one, and that is the simplest way to look at this whole issue.
The second issue and the reason for removing it from the Dicks
amendment is that this ICBEMP project was begun in 1993 as a scientific
assessment of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. Now, I want my
colleagues and the chairman to keep this in mind, it started as a
scientific assessment. We were going to take a look at the ecosystem
condition of eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. The scientific
findings were to be used as forest and Bureau of Land Management
districts updated their land management plans.
Since 1993, this administration has grown this project to a size that
encompasses Idaho, western Montana, parts of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.
{time} 1100
Seven States, 144 million acres, are affected by what started out as
an assessment informally.
Even more troubling is that it has grown to a scope that it has now
become a decision-making document with standards, meaning that the
recommendations of the project managers will automatically amend the
land use plans in the region. The seven-State region; 144 million
acres.
In 1998, the House had this issue before it. It voted to keep the
Columbia Basin project advisory in nature. Not a rulemaking, not a
decision-making document, but advisory. That language, which I
sponsored and which was adopted by the House, rejected the idea that it
should be more than advisory in nature. Unfortunately, in the
negotiations on this whole issue at the last minute with respect to the
omnibus appropriations, that language was sacrificed by the leadership
and on the insistence of the President.
Section 334 of the bill, language which I put in, requires the Forest
Service and the BLM to comply with existing law. That is the second
broad but important point in this whole debate. It requires this
administration to follow existing law, the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act, prior to finalizing any interior Columbia
Basin ecosystem management project record of decision.
What is happening here, and those of us in the West understand this,
is that this administration has time and time again tried to rush to
judgment, to have a record of decision that will have the effect of law
and that will affect dramatically the land use ability and land use of
the western States, the seven western States which are part of this so-
called study. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
passed overwhelmingly in this House, signed into law in 1996, requires
agencies to do this simple task: Examine and mitigate for the impact
that a proposed rule will have on small entities.
This administration knows that the small entities, the small rural
communities of eastern Washington and the seven western States that I
mentioned, are impacted by this outside of the power that they have to
stop it. So the only resource we have is to make sure that this
administration complies with the law, and that is what this amendment
does. It says before a record of decision is issued, Federal agencies
must comply with the law that exists, that was signed into law by this
President.
I heard my friend from Washington say that he has an assurance from
the administration that they do not have to comply with the law in this
case; that this act does not apply to them. Only this administration
would urge that the Congress ignore the obligation that this
administration has to comply with the law. Only this administration
would do that. So I am not persuaded by the assurance that we have been
given that this law, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act does not apply. It applies, and there are court decisions that
confirm that it applies. The General Accounting Office has issued a
report confirming that it applies.
This plan, the ICBEMP plan, is going to amend 62 individual land use
plans in the West. It is going to amend land use plans on 32 national
Forest Service and BLM administrative units in this project area. It
will replace three interim strategies. The project is clearly a rule,
and there are court decisions that say so. Failure to comply with the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act is judicially reviewable by
courts, and courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis, against
Mr. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, in 1998.
Evidence is that the agencies have been wrong about this before. Over
$56 million have been spent on this project. It is not authorized. This
Congress has not authorized this project. The northwest industries have
indicated to me that if a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
completed, as required by law, and again that is all we are trying to
do is have this administration comply with the law, they will pursue
litigation which will throw this whole study into turmoil. Congress has
the responsibility to ensure that the project does not leave itself
open to litigation, if a record of decision is issued without having
completed a regulatory flexibility analysis.
This is overreaching by the administrative agencies of this
government, by this administration, by the Department of the Interior,
the Forest Service, and the BLM. They are trying to go around the law,
and that is wrong. That is wrong for rural America, it is wrong for the
States that are represented in the West, and we should not let it
happen.
So this should be separated out from this amendment because it does
not apply to the national monuments issue. It applies to the fairness
and the obligation to small businesses to be
[[Page H4502]]
true to the law, and this administration is lacking in that regard if
it tries to go forward.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
respond to my good friend and colleague that 7 years is hardly a rush
to judgment.
I want my colleagues to hear the language of this limitation in this
appropriation bill. It says right here, ``None of the funds made
available under this act may be used to issue a record of decision or
any policy implementing the interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project not prepared pursuant to law, as set forth in
chapter 6 of Title V of the United States Code.''
In all my years of being on the Subcommittee on Interior of the
Committee on Appropriations, the relevance of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act has been somewhat questionable. But
let us talk about the analysis that is done in an Environmental Impact
Statement. It looks at the socioeconomic impact of the EIS.
Now, either we can get serious and decide we want to really pass
legislation, and this bill. Frankly, it is fatally flawed, but these
limitations are objectionable to the administration every single year
because they offend the process. We do not have hearings, we do not get
into great detail on these things and, frankly, and the gentleman, of
course, has been here for a number of years, but that is why we have
authorizing committees and that is why in most instances we should let
the authorizing committees deal with these substantive issues and not
deal with them in the appropriations process. I think on both sides of
the aisle there has been a consensus that we should not do these
limitations unless there is just absolutely no other way to deal with
the problem.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 10\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer) in opposition to the Nethercutt amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me
this time to speak against the Nethercutt amendment and in favor of the
Dicks amendment.
First, as it relates to what my friend from Spokane has advanced, I
think it is important to allow the Columbia Basin Ecosystem plan to
proceed. If adopted by this chamber, the Nethercutt amendment would
retain the anti-environmental rider, which would block the
implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forests, watersheds
and endangered species.
It is true that it has grown somewhat in terms of scope and
dimension. It has done so because that is what has been dictated as in
the best interests of the region that we all care about and in terms of
what will make the most difference. Careful long-term planning is a
help, not an impediment, to the various challenges that we face in the
Pacific Northwest.
I have heard my colleague more than once on this floor talk about the
problems how this has stretched out over 7 years at a cost of $45
million. Well, adoption of this amendment, and subjecting yet another
requirement to this plan, is only going to make the process more
expensive and more time consuming. And, indeed, Congress itself is in
no small measure a culprit. Every year that I have been here, since
1996, the Committee on Appropriations has been interfering with the
orderly implementation of this review.
Now, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) pointed out, the
extension of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act to
this study is something that has never before been required. It is
vigorously disputed as to its applicability. But most important it
opens up a very real possibility that we are going to block the
potential Federal Government activity to improve the environmental and
management activities in the Columbia River basin.
It is going to make it more likely, not less likely, that a court is
going to intervene, possibly issuing a decree that could mandate
management plan changes and entirely halting the production of goods
and services on Federal lands in project areas throughout its
deliberations, and the variety of little pieces that are involved
there. It is wrong. We ought to get on with this business. It has the
greatest potential of solving some very real problems that we in the
Pacific Northwest face.
I would like to speak, if I could for a moment, to something that I
consider even more insidious, and that is the underlying amendment that
would include restrictions on the ability to have funding to implement
the National Monuments Act.
This is a major policy adjustment, as has been suggested by my
colleague from Washington, and it would have severe, I hope unintended,
consequences. Some may applaud at the prospect of not having law
enforcement on our public lands, but that is an extreme position that
would not be approved by my constituents, nor I think by the
constituents of at least most of us in this Chamber.
It is not going to do us any good to not be able to regulate off-road
vehicles, law enforcement, mining, the grazing activities. This is
categorically wrongheaded, and it is, in and of itself, why the
administration will veto the bill. They would have no choice. But it is
an example of the environmental extremism that we hear so often about
on the other side of the aisle.
If my colleagues do not like the Antiquities Act, they should go
ahead and repeal it. If they do not like what the President has done in
any specific designation, they should have the courage to bring a
specific bill to Congress and undo it. They do not because these are
popular actions, they are things that would be supported by this
Chamber, and the environmental extremists on the other side of the
aisle would rather play havoc with our ability to manage public land in
an orderly fashion.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's point is right on target, as
far as I am concerned. The gentleman mentioned this Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. According to the Department of the
Interior, the House requires, under this amendment, the Federal
Government to prepare analysis, to their knowledge, that has never been
prepared for any land use planned effort, no matter its scope.
As a result, the House action will unreasonably extend the duration
of planning for this project, which, in part, due to requirements
placed on the Federal Government by riders to every full year
appropriation for Interior since 1996, has already taken 7 years to
complete at considerable cost to the American taxpayer.
The thing that I worry about is that we are going to get ourselves
into the same mess we did before the forest plan was put into place,
and that is that a Federal judge is going to say that we have not done
the right things in terms of watershed protection, that we are not
protecting these fish under the Endangered Species Act. He will stop
all the logging, all the mining, all the grazing, and an injunction
issue. And that is the worst possible outcome.
So I am saying to the gentleman from Washington, who I do consider to
be a friend and a thoughtful person, that it is time now to let this
process go forward and finish this EIS and make the changes that are
necessary to protect the bull trout, to protect the salmon runs on the
Snake River, to make sure that we are doing the watershed protection so
that we do not get the Endangered Species Act implemented in an adverse
way in the gentleman's area.
But we cannot simply do nothing. We cannot just say we have no plan,
no strategy. I have supported both gentlemen from Washington on the
issue of the Snake River dams. But if we are not going to take out the
Snake River dams, then we have to do other things to protect the
habitat, to deal with hatchery problems, to deal with harvest. And
protecting the habitat is a major part of this requirement in order to
protect these fish.
I am going to let the gentlemen on the other side here have a chance,
because I know the gentleman from Alabama is ready to go, but this
amendment is offered in good constructive spirit. I think the strategy
of trying to stop any change here is simply not going to work. It is
going to wind up with the Endangered Species Act being applied by the
Federal judges in a way none of us want, and so we have to make some
hard decisions.
[[Page H4503]]
{time} 1115
We cannot say no to everything. That is why I supported the
protection of the Hanford Reach. Because if we are not going to take
out the dams, at least we will protect these salmon in the Hanford
Reach.
So I appreciate my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) yielding to
me on this. This is something I feel very strongly about. I think the
strategy here of continuing to delay this is a mistaken strategy, and
that is why I offered this amendment. And I appreciate speaking on it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just
conclude by expressing three things.
First, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in attempting to balance a very complex set
of issues that we deal with in the Pacific Northwest. And oftentimes I
know he must feel like he is the man in the middle. But I think he has
addressed this in a direct and forthright manner.
I do not think there is anybody in the Pacific Northwest who has
worked harder to reach out to try to find middle ground and to avoid
the catastrophe, I think, on all sides of these controversies. If we
are going to cede our ability to plan in a thoughtful and manageable
fashion and have it done on a piecemeal basis via the courts, I think
we ought to move forward in terms of supporting what the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) has proposed.
I want to make clear that, as far as the national monuments are
concerned, my Republican colleagues have been in control here for the
last 4 years, and they have been unable to fashion a compromise
acceptable to the American public to go ahead and repeal this
legislation. And we have been in fact left with, and I am pleased that
we still have, an Antiquities Act that has been utilized by 14
Presidents over the course of the better part of this last century,
since 1906, Republicans and Democrats alike.
I think it would be a tragedy for this House to use this back-door
attempt to try and take away a power to have disastrous consequences on
lands that belong to the American public, and they want us to exercise
this sort of stewardship.
I would ask them to at least have the decency to bring forward
legislation to repeal the Antiquities Act and do this in a
straightforward fashion.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and everybody on that side
voted for two pieces of legislation to not repeal it but to take care
of it. And what the gentleman has said and the other gentleman has said
about law enforcement and other areas is just not true.
What this does, if this gets through, all that ground will stay under
the management plan it now has, which allows for law enforcement, which
allows for cars. It does not make any changes whatsoever.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, that is simply not what the Department of
the Interior and the Forest Service say. They say that once it is
designated as a monument, this amendment applies. They cannot do law
enforcement, they cannot do planning, they cannot take care of the
visitor. They legally changed the designation and thus would be
impacted.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would be happy if he would put in there to repeal that project. I would
be very happy to have him do that. And when all else fails, read it and
he will see he is wrong.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to say this slowly to my friends on the
other side just so we keep our eye on the ball here. This requires that
the agencies of the Federal Government to deal in land management
comply with the law.
Talk about lawsuits. We are going to have big lawsuits if they do not
comply with the law and adopt this amendment. That is what we are
talking about here.
The means to do justify the end. That is what this administration
seems to want to do is just say, we do not care about the law, we just
want to get this done.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Chairman, it has been an interesting conversation. I will stay
away from the monuments, but we will talk about that later. We did vote
on them on this floor. If the gentleman did not vote for it, he was not
doing his duty.
I am a little disappointed that the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks) opposes the Nethercutt amendment. The Nethercutt amendment does
exactly what he says it does, it follows the law.
I know the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) likes to follow the
law. He goes to the State of Alaska and catches all my salmon. And the
best thing I want to do is have the salmon reestablished on the
Columbia River so he quits raiding my fish in Alaska. I mean,
especially when he takes numerous amounts of those fish that I would
like to take myself.
I would like to suggest one thing. The Nethercutt amendment does
exactly what is correct, following the laws that this Congress passed.
But this administration has a great tendency to not to follow the law
in any way, shape, or form. This is their habit. This is their MO. They
care little about this Congress. We are going to do what we think is
right and forget the people of America.
Now, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) said it exactly
right, the Columbia initiative was in fact a designation and a study on
the Columbia River concerning mostly Oregon and Washington, Montana,
Idaho, State River, Columbia River, etc.; and it is all being done by
the agencies.
And my colleagues want to have a decision that goes against the laws
on the books today, a decision made by an administration that does not
really follow the law? They want to include this Congress in that
decision on how it will affect the local economy? They want to have a
decision made now so we do not have further actions by the judicial
branch?
I am going to suggest, respectfully, if the Nethercutt amendment is
not adopted it will end up in court and nothing will occur and no
solution will be reached.
So I am suggesting that the Nethercutt amendment is the right way to
go. This is what should be done and will be done if we do what is
right.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me the time, and I rise in opposition to the Nethercutt
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is very poorly directed in a
sense that if my colleagues are complaining about whether or not it is
too expensive, I think this amendment only makes this process far more
expensive. I think, also, the amendment is targeted at trying to
declare the Basin Management Plan something that it is not, and that is
that it is not a regulatory process, it is a management plan.
All of us have gone through this. We have gone through this in the
Sierra Mountains, where we have known that we cannot deal with this on
an individualized little watershed bill; we have got to look at the
entire ecosystem.
In California we just completed with the governor and the Secretary
of Interior the Cal Fed plan. Why? Because if we do not do that, it is
very clear that all the pieces in and of themselves are deficient and
they are deficient so we end up shutting down the water system in
California, whether it is the irrigation system for our farmers,
whether it is the drinking water for our cities, because the system
cannot be operated in such a fashion.
In order to stave that off, we engaged in comprehensive basin
management just as we are talking about on the Columbia River. Because
the gentleman from Washington is right, if we stop this process, if we
kill this process, then we go back to the status quo. And
[[Page H4504]]
the status quo, it is a no-brainer for a court to put them right back
into the situation that they are in on the other side of the mountains,
on the western side, where they had chaos, where they had just chaos
ruling in terms of whether people lost their jobs or communities did
not do well or whether the forests were harvested or not harvested.
This is a chance to get ahead of that curve. They spent $15 million
trying to get ahead of that curve. They had endless meetings with local
towns and communities and political subdivisions and all of that. And
the question is, can they come up with a plan so they can continue to
improve this, may continue the viability of the basin.
This is no different than what we are confronting all over the West.
And we are doing it so that we can escape the chaos of individualized
slapping down of endangered species problems and all the rest of that.
Because that is why this plan came into being, because we know what we
can front down the road.
So it is very easy that if they stop this, in fact, the evidence is
so clear on its face that the judge simply decides that they cannot
provide the level of management to provide the kinds of protections
that are necessary to the habitat, to the watersheds, to the species;
and, therefore, they are back into chaos.
And it is difficult. We have been at this a number of years in
California with the Cal Fed process. As difficult as it is, all parts
of the puzzle recognize that, with a comprehensive management plan,
they in fact are in a better place than what they would be.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Oregon.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with the fact
about how complicated and difficult these are to work through. I think
we would all agree on that.
But what I keep hearing is how ICBEMP is going to resolve this issue
just as the Northwest Forest Plan was resolved on the West side. Is the
gentleman arguing that the Northwest Forest Plan is a success and has
met its goals?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
am arguing that what we have learned is that, absent comprehensive
plans that address all facets of the various large basins, the large
systems, whether it is the Sierra or the Columbia River or the
California water system, absent that, what they get is they get back
into chaos because the individual attempts are not sufficient to
provide the level of protection. So they find themselves with the court
running their systems as opposed to the political leadership and the
local communities.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say this. We have been through
this. On the West side, we were enjoined by the Federal judge, no
timber harvesting. Zero.
The new administration came in and held a summit in Portland, and
nobody was entirely pleased with the outcome, but we got the
injunctions lifted. We got some timber harvest restored. We got a $1.2
billion-a-year plan to help the communities deal with these problems.
And we moved on.
What we are talking about here with the Nethercutt amendment is going
back to the way we used to do business, and that way is going to lead
us to the Federal Court's injunction. And, again, he is going to hurt
his own people. That is why I do not understand why he is doing this.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Oregon.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Because, as my colleague knows, the court is
back saying the plan that has been put forward after that has been done
on the Northwest Forest Plan is still not in compliance. Because the
survey and manage requirements that were shoved in in the dark of night
by this administration says the Forest Service has been unable and may
indeed be incapable of meeting. We still are not achieving the goals of
that plan.
My point in this debate right here, right now, is that to use that as
an example of success is not fair when it has been a failure. I agree
we have got to have the science in place.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
think that is the case. Listen, they are going to continue to challenge
us on Cal Fed from either side, from the agricultural side and from the
environmental side. They will continue to challenge us on the Sierra
plan. But the fact that they have a plan in place allows the judge to
look at that in a much different fashion than if they have nothing in
place so the judge can then tinker with the plan, but they are not back
into wholesale injuctions on an eco-wide system. So that plan is
serious, serious insulation from going back to where they were.
I mean, maybe time has erased our memory what was going on in the
Northwest. But take ourselves back to the late 1980s and 1990s, we had
total chaos.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, so what he is arguing is that, if we are going to err at all, we
need to err on the side of following the law. Right?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. No. The gentleman can say whatever
he wants to say.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. But the General Accounting Office, in 1997,
says that this does constitute a rule in their opinion and, therefore,
this small business would follow.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, and obviously, the
Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture seriously
disagree with that. Let us not pretend that they do not.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just say
to my friend from California, not from the Northwest, this is not
killing the process at all. We are just requiring that the agencies of
the Government comply with the law.
The means do not justify the end.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Hastings), a distinguished member of the Committee
on Rules.
{time} 1130
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend from Eastern
Washington for all the work that he has been doing on this issue. I do
enjoy working with my friend from western Washington. We have worked on
a lot of issues together that is obviously important to my district. I
do appreciate that very much. But on this issue, obviously there is a
basic difference as to how we should approach our economy and our
resources in our given area. It is an honest difference of opinion, I
think.
What I find very interesting in the arguments that I have heard
heretofore from my friend from western Washington and my friend from
Oregon, they were saying that if we do not like this process by going
through the appropriation process, we ought to use the authorizing
process. I have always been a proponent of that, but I would make this
point very clear. ICBEMP was never authorized. It was done at a time in
1993 when that side of the aisle controlled both houses of the Congress
and for some reason they felt that they did not need to authorize this
project. It was put in an appropriations bill and now we are living
with the consequences of something that has grown from $5 million now
to $56 million. It has kind of grown like Topsy and it has grown in
scope, too.
Let me make a couple of points that were made by those on the other
side as far as their arguments. In his opening remarks, my friend from
western Washington was saying that in the planning process, the ICBEMP
provides more certainty and it does not take planning out of the local
jurisdictions. I would just make this observation. This ICBEMP as it
has been expanded in this time period covers some 105 counties in those
seven States. Not one of those counties has passed a resolution in
support of ICBEMP. In fact, to the contrary, 65 of those counties have
passed resolutions in opposition to ICBEMP for the very reason opposite
of what the gentleman said, they are concerned that this affects their
planning process.
[[Page H4505]]
Again, this seems to be a pattern from this administration that we
will have these meetings that has been mentioned a number of times, but
at the end of the day we are not going to listen to the concerns of
those at the local level. That seems to be a pattern over and over and
over.
What are the reasons why? I can state one of my large counties in my
district, why they are concerned about the Federal Government doing
this planning and governing in one area, in the northern part of my
district in Okanogan County. They are concerned about how the Forest
Service is addressing the issue of noxious weeds. They are not
addressing the issue of noxious weeds in the forest land. That is going
over into the private lands and it is putting a burden on the taxpayers
in that area to fund the noxious weed board. That is just one example
why they have a concern about the Federal Government taking over this
planning.
Finally, I would like to as far as the resource part of it make this
observation, because the Endangered Species Act has been a threat, that
if we do not do this, the Endangered Species Act is going to preempt
everything, and we will end up in a bad situation. I would make this
observation, that unless we listen to the local people that are
affected, we are going to be in worse shape than we ever possibly think
we could. Because it seems to me the implicit idea or thought process
of this administration is to not trust those that are elected at the
local level to make decisions. I find that, frankly, wrong.
There is another example in my district where local people have
worked together trying to comply with the Endangered Species Act as it
is written right now through the HCP process. That was signed a couple
of years ago by the Chelan and Douglas County PUDs. It still has not
gone through the whole NEPA process yet, but they are very confident
that if they go through that process, they can live to the letter of
the law with the Endangered Species Act. I for one, by the way, think
that the Endangered Species Act ought to be changed, but in the letter
of the law they can. Why? Because this is local people working together
to come to a solution. But ICBEMP, the way it is structured and what we
have seen does not allow for that to happen.
Finally, from the regulatory standpoint here with my friend from
eastern Washington's amendment. This area that we are talking about is
largely an agricultural area. There is no huge urban area like
Portland, Oregon or like Tacoma or like the Bay Area in California.
There is no large urban area like that. It is largely agriculture. If
we do not know what the impact is going to be on the farm implement
dealers or the farm chemical dealers or the food processors who are
largely smaller businesses in that area, then we are not doing a
service to those that are going to be affected. That is all that this
amendment does, is to say, let us put everything into the mix and
follow the law. After all, this is an unauthorized project. If the
concern is that it goes for one more year, what is wrong with that, as
long as we get it right? Because this will have a big impact on my
constituents.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my friend from
eastern Washington's amendment. I think it is the right thing to do in
order to clarify where ICBEMP is going.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Hill).
(Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HILL of Montana. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, my constituents are deeply concerned about this
interior Columbia Basin management plan. They see this as kind of a
classical bait and switch that occurred. Basically what happened is
that the Clinton administration proposed this study as a scientific
assessment so that we would have a regionwide science that could be
applied to the individual forests for the development and the renewal
of the individual forest management plans. In the process, the
administration went to the local governments and solicited their input
and their participation and invited them to participate in the process.
As a consequence of that, there was pretty broad support for doing this
scientific assessment, because, as the gentleman from California
pointed out, it was necessary for us to be able to have local forest
management plans, to have regionwide science in the development of
those plans.
But along the way, things changed. The administration decided that it
was going to shift this from a scientific assessment to a decision-
making document. What does that mean? It means that the standards and
the rules and regulations that would be determined in interior Columbia
Basin would be imposed on the local forests. The consequence of that is
that now the individual forests cannot make individual forest
management decisions. They have to comply with an increasing number of
standards and rules and regulations that are on a regionwide basis. We
have heard some talk out here about the success of this in a narrow
regional area west of the Cascades. But, Mr. Chairman, the forests and
the BLM lands that are being impacted by interior Columbia Basin are
diverse. The species of trees is diverse. The elevations are diverse.
The amount of rainfall that occurs is diverse. There is little
similarity in these forests except that they are all part of the
Columbia River drainage.
In any event, the administration then determined that it was going to
basically override the intent of Congress. Congress has said it wants
forest management, land management decisions made locally by making an
overriding regional decision document.
The problem today is that this Interior-Columbia Basin issue and the
Reg Flex issue is kind of caught up in a bigger set of issues. Because
right now we have the designation of national monuments going on, the
roadless forest initiative going on, mineral and oil and gas
withdrawals of the Clinton administration, proposals to breach the dams
on the Snake River and ICBEMP all occurring at one time. It is no
wonder that the people in this region feel like there is a war being
declared on them with all these things happening.
What the gentleman from Washington's amendment is trying to do is
deal with just one narrow area. That says that if ICBEMP is going to go
through and it is going to be a decision-making document, then let us
make sure that it complies with all the laws. If the goal of this
device is to eliminate injunctions in court overriding local decisions,
then it has to comply with all the law. That is what this amendment
intends to do.
I urge the support of the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) who is a valued member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the more unfortunate aspects of the
present majority's rule of this House over the last several years has
been this propensity to attach antienvironmental riders to
appropriations bills. Essentially that is what we have here today in
this particular context. Seven years ago, the administration embarked
upon a plan to improve environmental management in the Columbia River
Basin. All of the land affected by this plan, by the way, and very
importantly, is public land.
It is not private land. It is public land. It is land owned by all of
the people of the country. So my constituents in New York as well as
every constituent of every Member of this House has a stake in the
development of this plan to manage important public resources in the
Columbia River basin. That project has gone forward. It has gone
forward very carefully, very intelligently, and in a very open way.
An environmental impact statement has been produced. A supplemental
environmental impact statement has been produced. All of the activities
here have been based on good, sound, responsible science. The intention
is to improve habitat in the Columbia River, to improve habitat for
bull trout, for salmon, to improve recreational resources, to improve
timber resources, and to have a comprehensive plan which will stand and
which will allow people all across the spectrum, from recreational uses
all across the spectrum to extracted uses to be able to use this public
land in the most effective and efficient way.
Now we have this amendment to the Dicks amendment which would block
[[Page H4506]]
implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forest watersheds and
endangered species. It would do so by attempting to superimpose an
aspect of the small business law onto the environmental law, to take
one piece of a law and inappropriately attach it to a situation where
it does not belong, has no standing, has no meaning and makes no sense.
Therefore alone, for that reason alone, just on the structural basis
of it, the technical aspects of it, this amendment ought to be
rejected. But it ought to be rejected on much more solid ground and
much more important ground, and that is this, we are here discussing
the future of a very important part of America. Again, I emphasize, a
part owned by all of the citizens of this country, held in trust by the
Federal Government, administered by the Bureau of Land Management and
other agencies within the Department of the Interior.
Now, everybody has a responsibility to make sure that this works and
this antienvironmental rider inappropriately attached to this bill
ought to be very soundly and solidly rejected.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that
just because someone says that it is an antienvironmental rider does
not mean that it is. This is complying with the law.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden) who is from the region that is affected by this study, not from
outside our region.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to follow
somebody from New York who has a district along the river much like the
Columbia River, the Hudson River. There is a lot of similarity there.
The difference is they do not have this kind of a planning process in
place by the Federal Government, ICBEMP.
I want to talk for a moment, Mr. Chairman, about the relationship of
this requirement for this rule. The GAO, the General Accounting Office
general counsel wrote in July of 1997 a letter to Congress that a
national forest land and resource management plan generally was
considered a rule for the purposes of this Small Business Regulatory
Act. Failure to comply with this act is judicially reviewable and
courts have invalidated agency rules on this basis.
All we are asking here is for this administration to follow the law.
And if there is a question about whether this is legal or not, would it
not be time for this administration to err on the side of following the
law if there is a question? Would that not be refreshing?
Mr. Chairman, let me talk for a moment about the monument issue,
because we have heard a lot about the Antiquities Act. I have a copy of
the relevant statute here. Let me read from it, that ``any person who
shall appropriate, excavate, injure or destroy any historic or
prehistoric ruin or monument or any object of an antiquity situated on
the lands owned or controlled by the government of the United States.''
{time} 1145
That is what we are talking about, these objects, these archeological
fines. It goes on to say, that the Government may reserve as a part
thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be
confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and
management of the objects to be protected.
And then it goes on to talking about archeological sites, small
little objects, and we are going to protect the land around it. Ladies
and gentlemen, this is not the smallest area possible to protect an
archeological find, is it?
These are the areas that have been approved already, and, in fact, I
want to point out a factual error because the Hanford Reach National
Monument declared a week or so ago is actually 202,000 acres, not
195,000 acres. These are monument proposals all in the works right now
that people are talking about, could total 149 million acres, almost
150 million acres. Ladies and gentlemen, the ICBEMP proposal covers 144
million acres.
I want to share with my colleagues the fact that that is an area, if
we took all of these national monuments that are being considered by
different groups and perhaps this administration into account, this is
an area more than all these States combined: West Virginia, Maryland,
Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut,
Delaware, Indiana, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia combined.
This administration can do this by fiat. This is not the way to
manage public lands in this country. This is a violation of the
Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act is about objects and monuments and
those sorts of things. Read it. It is right here; I will share it with
my colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Nethercutt amendment. We can have this
science in this planning, and we can have this administration follow
the law as well.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee), who formerly represented this part of the
area, who is a distinguished member of the House and a very strong
environmentalist.
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the Washington delegation, I
rise in very, very vigorous opposition to the Nethercutt amendment. And
I would like to share with my fellow Members why I do.
I know this area very, very well, and the Interior-Columbia Basin. It
is an area my colleagues should come see. It is an area where Lewis and
Clark first encountered the salmon cultures of North America, where
they first came down the Snake River and they ran into the Columbia
River, and guess what they found? They found an entire people who lived
on salmon.
Lewis and Clark in their journals in Undaunted Courage, Members
should read it, it is a great book, said they could walk on the backs
of salmon literally across the small areas of the Columbia River when
the first European arrived.
Now, today, we have at least 12 runs of salmon that are endangered.
They are on the verge of going to extinction forever at our hands, at
our hands, at the hand of the Federal Government, who has not to date
acted in their interests to make sure that we do not take natural-use
land policies on Federal land that drive them to extinction.
I am here to ask that my colleagues from across the country to come
to the aid of the State of Washington to save the salmon that Lewis and
Clark first discovered in the Columbia River. And I want to tell my
colleagues that if this amendment were to pass, it would gut the most
meaningful effort we have to date to make sure that we the Federal
Government plays its role in saving these salmon.
Now what would this do, what would the study simply do? It would do
what I think is common sense. It would try to have some coordination
between the 62 land-use plans, the 32 forest plans that are now
independently running off in their separate directions like chickens
with their heads cut off. This would send us right back to those old
days of agencies not acting in coordination.
I want to address specifically those. I want to address those who are
very concerned about the potential of dam breaching on the Snake River,
and those are legitimate concerns.
I want to tell my colleagues that the single most effective way we
could send us all down this dam breaching road, is to ignore the common
sense things we need to do that we hope the Forest Service and BLM will
do to help restore habitat. Because I can tell my colleagues this, if
we fail in our obligation to restore salmon habitat, if we fail in our
obligation to change hatchery processes, if we fail in these
obligations, in these responsibilities, then the potential exists that
we do get into a dam breaching scenario.
Those who want to speak about dam breaching, the last thing we should
do is to try to stop the Federal Government from taking common sense
measures to do something about salmon.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I just simply want to make
this point, because the basis of the argument of the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee) has been on the salmon, and the implication of
his argument is such that only the Federal Government can make the
right plans.
[[Page H4507]]
My question to the gentleman, since the gentleman used to represent
that district that I now represent, is the gentleman aware of the
Vernita Bar agreement, which is a local agreement between the local
State and Federal Government that has enhanced the salmon runs? In
fact, we are now seeing the benefits of that. Because I think the
gentleman probably is aware that the spring chinook run coming back to
the Columbia River is higher than it has ever been since they started
keeping records in the mid-1950s.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to just say
this does not gut anything. The Nethercutt amendment simply says comply
with the law, so we do not have huge lawsuits later.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good debate.
Mr. Chairman, one of the gentlemen says that if we have a plan that
gives a judge a better opportunity to look, well, look at the tuna
dolphin bill, that passed the House, that passed the Senate, over 300
votes here. It was signed by the President, environmental groups
supported it, animal rights groups supported it, but the gentlewoman
from California in the other body judge-shopped to get that stopped,
and that is why we are talking about this.
I have heard extremists, and I have heard anti-environmentalists to
ask the Government to follow the law is not extremist. And I would like
to take a look at the things that we are actually looking at in this
amendment.
Californians, when they complain, they call it extremists because we
do not want to follow the Antiquities Act on millions of acres without
review. This is East Coast and all the colored lands in here are owned
by the Government.
Now, when we turn this chart around, Mr. Chairman, this is what is in
the West. When the President takes Utah and millions of acres and
millions of acres in Oregon and other areas, when the Antiquities Act
was met, the average is 47 acres, then that is damaging to California
and the West.
Yet we are called extremists because we want to limit that. And all
we are asking, and what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt)
is asking, is that for the Government to follow the law; that is not
extremist. That is not anti-environmentalist.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman
on tuna dolphin, the Government did not follow the law. They failed to
do the studies but went ahead with the action and the judge said, no,
the law says you have to do the studies, do the studies.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the White House,
violation after violation of things, look at what Secretary Babbitt has
done; and we are saying that in those cases then the Government should
have to follow the law, and that is the reason I support the Nethercutt
amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask, my colleague from
eastern Washington said talk real slow, the allegation here is
following the law. What they are basing this on is a GAO report on the
Tongas wilderness. This would subject a precedent that they somehow
want to stretch to every land use decision. No court has ever decided
this.
This was a GAO opinion from 1973. No court has ever decided it, but I
find it ironic that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
somehow holding up to such reverence a GAO report when they do not do
this for mining practices, for timber practices, for abuse in the oil
industry. These are all GAO reports that the majority has seen fit to
avert their eyes; but here, they would subject every land use process
to an opinion that devolves from this one item.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just point
out to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Blumenauer), he has not read the
law with respect to Northwest Mining Association versus Babbitt, 5 F.
Supp. 2d 9, DC District Court, 1998. That is absolutely contrary to the
statement that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has just
made.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs.
Chenoweth-Hage).
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, we really have to focus on what the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) is trying to do here. As I sat and listened
to the debate last night and as I listened to it today, I find that
this side of the aisle is really trying to constrain spending and keep
the agencies confined to the letter of the law, while we see the other
side not really seeming to care if we go overbudget or spend a lot of
money.
Spending and spending seems to be their flavor and the American
people are saying pay down the debt and constrain government and
constrain spending. Now, this is the biggest, best example, this ICBEMP
project, of a project going way overbudget. This is the poster child
for the real paralysis of analysis that we find in the Federal
Government of overspending, overanalyzing, overregulating and not
producing anything for $56 million, but a huge plan that covers 62
Forest Service plans, multiple States, private property and State
property.
All they have done is plan for $56 million. My colleagues, the Dicks
amendment attempts to override reasonable language requiring the
administration to follow the law, and that is all the Nethercutt
amendment is doing. We should not have to be here, but the agencies
tend to ignore the law. What the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Nethercutt) is doing is saying it simply is not fair as the Congress
had recognized before in the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and
Fairness Act. It simply is not fair for a small business not to have
the impact of government agency decisions analyzed.
The Forest Service and all of the agencies must comply to that. We
should not even have to be here, except the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Nethercutt) is having to remind the agencies and this
administration once again we simply need to follow the law.
The ICBEMP decision will have major impacts on small businesses, in
Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington; and this administration ignores
its responsibility under the law. And Congress must not condone its
efforts to side-step the law.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I
find it hard to believe that in one breath we can say we are going to
delay this process now for 7 years and then complain about the fact
that it has cost $56 million to do the process.
If we stop delaying it, let them issue the Record of Decision, we can
get on with this. We have looked at the socioeconomic consequence in
the EIS.
THE CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise both Members that the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has 4 minutes remaining and the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining and the
right to close.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Udall), who survived the fires; and we are glad he is here.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the issue here is one of do we
proceed on a piecemeal basis with the devastating consequences that we
have had or do we proceed and look at the overall basin. All of us know
that the great explorer that came out West, John Wesley Powell, when he
looked at organizing governmental units in this area, said we ought to
look at basins; we ought to look at watersheds. And we did not take
that advice, and what we have gotten today is a piecemeal approach.
{time} 1200
It has been absolutely devastating to the natural resources, to the
salmon, to the watershed, to the forest.
So what we have today is an attempt, what we have today is an
attempt, to continue piecemeal, to continue to go
[[Page H4508]]
into court, to continue to try to bog and slow down the process, rather
than look at the whole Columbia River Basin. That is what the issue is
here today, and it is an important issue, and it is an issue.
I am from the West. There have been criticisms here from the other
side turning around and saying, oh, these Easterners should not be able
to talk. We ought to look at all of our basins in the West. I am
willing to have the Rio Grande looked at. We are looking at the
Columbia River Basin. We ought to continue to look at a sound
scientific approach on our river basins.
So I would urge all of my colleagues, all of my colleagues, to reject
this amendment. It is antienvironmental, it is a return to a piecemeal
approach, and it is not the approach that we should be heading into in
the 21st century in terms of dealing with our resources.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that I
am interested in the gentleman from New Mexico's comments. The
gentleman has come out and says he wants to breach the dams in the
lower Snake River. So I do not give much credibility to the idea that
this is somehow antienvironmental. It is just not.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), for a comment on the legal
issue.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I went over and looked at the citation
from my colleague from eastern Washington, and I apologize for not
being conversant with it, but it seems to me quite clear that what that
is, it talks about this as potentially reviewable. The point I made is
that there is no judicial determination on point that would apply this
to a land use planning process, and I stand by that assertion.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my friend from Washington, we
have had a very spirited debate here today. We have discussed this
issue. The administration feels very strongly that further delay of
this draft environmental impact statement is counterproductive, because
what we are trying to do is to protect this habitat and make sure that
we restore these salmon runs, and also to make sure there is some
commodity production on the lands that the gentleman is concerned
about.
What the gentleman is opening himself up to by further delaying a
rational answer, a scientifically credible, legally defensible answer,
is the same kind of injunction that we got on the West side which led
to a total halt in all timber harvesting. So it is a high-risk strategy
that I think will fail.
I must say also to my colleagues, who say do not breach the dams in
the Snake River, if you are not going to do that, and I agree with you
on that issue, but if you are not going to do that, then you have got
to do something to protect this other habitat, so that we can restore
these fish runs, so we can restore the bull trout, restore the salmon
runs on the Snake River. Yes, they may be healthy on the Columbia
River, but we have endangered listings on the Snake River.
One cannot stop everything and say you are addressing the problem.
What government is about is coming forward with leadership, coming
forward with proposals, working these things out. Our State had the
forest and fish plan, we have had habitats conservation plans, where
good people get together and work these things out.
I say to the gentleman, it is time to stop blocking this ICBEMP
proposal, because you are undermining our ability to solve these
environmental problems.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's passion, but he is wrong.
We are not trying to stop anything. We are trying to make this
government comply with the law. Everything that has been done, the $56
million that has been submitted on this issue, it is going to remain.
We are not going to stop anything. But, doggone it, if you are from the
east side of the State of Washington, and the gentleman is not, these
decisions by these agencies have real consequences on our people.
So I am not persuaded by the idea that this is somehow stopping
anything. It is simply saying comply with the law. That is something
this administration has not done. It ought to stop right here.
We are going to use this ICBEMP project, but, doggone it, do it
right. Do not rush to judgment and use any means to get to your end,
and that is lock up our region, frankly, and do things that are going
to hurt our people.
So this is in the best interests of our people. We are going to have
litigation if we do not do this, my friend; we are going to have
litigation if we do not do it.
So I am saying to my friends is, this issue is separable from the
national monument issue, and all the crying about antienvironmental is
just wrong. This is the most environmental thing we can do, is make
sure we are not tied up in litigation on the other side of the issue.
Comply with the law, administration; do what you are supposed to do,
and do not confuse this with some antienvironmental attitude. It is
not. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and do the right
thing for this country.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206,
noes 221, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 279]
AYES--206
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--221
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
[[Page H4509]]
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--7
Campbell
Danner
Hinojosa
Lofgren
Myrick
Vento
Young (FL)
{time} 1226
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Mrs. Roukema, and Messrs. Andrews, Porter,
and Petri changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SCARBOROUGH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN: Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee on
Appropriations.
As the gentleman is aware, the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
is in my Eleventh Congressional District in California. Due to the
controversy over its existence and management, the chairman has been
instrumental in limiting funds from being spent on land acquisitions
for the refuge. I thank the chairman for his support over the years on
this issue.
Unfortunately, it has come to my attention that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has intentionally ignored the direction from the
Congress and commitments made to myself on this issue. The Service has
been actively seeking and approving land purchases for the Stone Lakes
refuge. One documented purchase used CVPIA funds, Land and Water
Conservation Funds, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Funds,
Packard Foundation grant money, and Stone Lakes environmental grant
money. The amounts used for these various sources totaled over $1.9
million.
It gets better. When the Director of Fish and Wildlife Service was
asked about this, she was not immediately aware of the purchase of land
at Stone Lakes.
{time} 1230
Apparently the regional manager initiated and approved the purchases
without consulting her office. This action was in violation of
congressional direction, and violated instruction from the director
that proposed purchases for this refuge be brought to her attention.
While I would like to see the purchase negated, the damage is done.
The innocent landowner who sold his property was lied to and misled
about the Federal Government's authority to buy his property for Stone
Lakes. The Federal taxpayer is out the money and Congress has been
ignored.
I have contacted the director of Fish and Wildlife, and we have met
this morning. However, as the Representative of the area in question I
must act to ensure that there is a consequence to this ill-advised
Federal action.
Mr. Chairman, in light of the Fish and Wildlife Service's blatant
disregard of the direction of Congress I ask that the gentleman work
with me as this bill moves forward in conference to include the
strongest language possible to prevent any funds from being spent or
handled by the Department of Interior for purposes of buying land or
easements for Stone Lakes, including administrative funds. I also ask
that such language address the Department's escalating acceptance of
non-Federal funds to carry out purchases of land and easements. The
routine practice of foundations and conservation organizations giving
money directly to the Department has contributed to problems at Stone
Lakes. Without congressional oversight or accountability, the
Department is bound to repeat history.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. I thank my colleague for bringing the Stone Lakes
situation to my attention. I am very concerned over the actions taken
by the Service and the disregard of congressional intent and of the
commitments made to the gentleman by the director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
The committee held a hearing this year to address the multiple
sources of funds used by the Service to establish refuges and acquire
land. At the request of the committee, the General Accounting Office
looked at this issue. At the hearing, the GAO reported several facts
that are cause for alarm and relate to the gentleman's problem. Let me
share a few of the GAO's findings with the gentleman.
One, the Fish and Wildlife Service established 23 new refuges in the
5 years from 1994 through 1998. Fifteen of those refuges were
established with nonappropriated funds, donations and exchanges.
Congressional approval, or even notification, is not required to
establish a refuge with nonappropriated funds. After establishing
refuges with donated funds, the Service routinely adds more land to
those refuges with appropriated funds.
The Service has authority to acquire land for many different habitat
and endangered species preservation purposes. As a result, just about
any piece of undeveloped land appears to be a potential target for land
acquisition by the Service.
The Service has many different sources for Federal land acquisition,
appropriated funds through the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the
North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, nonappropriated funds
through the Migratory Bird Fund, and donations and land exchanges.
To complete the land acquisition for all the current and planned
refuges will require about $4 billion.
The Service continues to create new refuges and expand existing
refuges. Six new refuges were created in 1999.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Regula, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Pombo was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the Service does not consider the annual
operations and maintenance requirements associated with establishing
new refuges when making its decisions on refuge establishment.
I want to say to the Members, I think this really goes around the
policy-making responsibility of the Congress to have this happen, and I
think we need to address this issue in statute and require the Congress
to have a voice in the establishment of refuges, because we end up with
the cost of maintaining them.
I want to assure the gentleman that I will work with him on this
issue as this legislation moves into conference with the Senate.
[[Page H4510]]
Mr. POMBO. I want to thank the gentleman for all of the help he has
given me on this issue over the year and I look forward to working with
him.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hansen to Amendment Offered by Mr. Dicks
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hansen to the amendment offered by
Mr. Dicks:
Strike ``planning and management of national monuments,
or''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June
14, 2000, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, the great conservationist Teddy Roosevelt
could see, as he went through the West, and he was very familiar with
the West, that there were some things that needed protection. So he
asked Congress to pass a law, and that was called the Antiquities Law
that was passed in 1906.
It is kind of fun and interesting to go back and read the information
regarding the Antiquities Law. As they stood on the floor and debated
it, they said what is this really going to do? Between the gentleman
from Texas and the other gentleman, they said it will protect the cave
dwellers, or what they had there, and it should be called the cave
dwellers bill.
In this particular instance, what does it say? It amazes me, Mr.
Chairman, because we have passed two previous pieces of information
about this, 408 to 2 this year and one the term before, but very few
people even take the time to look at the law.
As Chairman John Sieberling used to say, when all else fails, read
the legislation. I could not agree more with that.
When one goes to what this does, it talks about going into these pre-
historic ruins and what one can and cannot do. Then in the next section
it says this, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined, now
keep this in mind because everyone seems to ignore this, shall be
confined to the smallest area compatible to protect that site.
What sites does it talk about? It talks about archeology. The Rainbow
Bridge is a great example of a monument in archeology.
It talks about historic. Where the two trains came together and we
called it the Golden Spike is a great historic example of what we have.
Out of these things, and many people have argued this, they say, gee,
we would not have the parks without these.
Out of the Monuments Act came the Grand Canyon, came Zion's and
others, but we did not have other laws up to that point.
Now, I say that many of the presidents that my colleagues on the
other side have talked about did a good job and they created these very
small, unique areas. However, along comes this administration, we have
another thing happen. In September of 1996, the President of the United
States went to the Grand Canyon and created the Grand Staircase
Escalante. He forgot to tell anybody about it. Let us say they
intentionally told nobody about it.
Out of that, they did not take a small thing like the law says. They
did not mention an archeological or historic or scientific thing, like
the law says, but they went ahead and did 1.7 million acres.
We were very curious, why did they do that? So we subpoenaed that. We
even wrote a little book. I hope somebody has read it. I doubt it, from
the arguments I have heard about this, but it is called Behind Closed
Doors.
Now let me read from this book what they say. McGinty, who was the
chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality, she says this, I am
increasingly of the view we should just drop this Utah issue. These
lands are not really in danger.
Now, I would say to my colleagues, please listen to this if they
would. This is a letter we had as we subpoenaed these papers. The real
remaining question is not so much what the letter says but the
political consequences of designating these land as monuments, now
listen, please listen, when they are not really threatened with losing
wilderness status and they are probably not the areas in the country
most in need of this designation.
Now listen to this. I talked about what other presidents have done.
Now listen. Presidents have not used their monument designation
authority in this way in the past; only for large, dramatic parcels
that are threatened.
Do we risk a backlash from the bad guys? I guess I am one of those.
It talks about it, but the discretion is too broad. So now we find
ourselves in a situation where, where is all of this going? From that
time to this time look at all of these on this map that have now come
about; every one of them exceeding what the law says.
Do we designate what it is? No. Do we use the smallest acreage? No.
And we find ourselves in a position where we are losing this.
I find it interesting that the Secretary of Interior, Mr. Babbitt, to
the Denver School of Law said this, it would be great to get these
protection issues resolved in the congressional legislative process,
but if that is not possible I am prepared to go back to the President
and not only ask, not only advise but implore him to use his power
under the Antiquities Act and say, Mr. President, if he does he will be
vindicated for generations to come.
So we have a brand new abuse, a brand new way to use it, never been
used before until this President comes about.
I would ask people to realize what is happening now and all over
America is for political purposes, and if they do not believe that,
please read what the White House says, what the Department of Interior
says. To me, in my opinion, I cannot believe that we are letting anyone
do this.
Article 4, section 3 of the Constitution says the ground of America
is the purview of Congress, not the purview of the President of the
United States.
This act has outlived its usefulness, but as we saw from the
gentleman from Oregon what we are going to see is a whole bunch of
them, 25 more they are telling me. Why does somebody not just say let
us put the whole West in? Let us put all western States in and call it
the Western National Monument and get it over with. It will not mean
anything, but it sure will make a lot of people happy around here.
Nothing will change but it may make a few people happy around here,
because nothing has changed now.
Let me use the Grand Staircase as an example. We talk about
protection. Do we realize under the management plan of all of these
areas, which it can still do, we have more protection than we do under
the Antiquities Act?
Now my friend from Washington and the gentleman from Oregon said, oh,
we cannot work these lands if this happens. Here is the report, written
by the Committee on Appropriations. Nothing in this language prevents
either Secretary from managing these Federal lands under their previous
management plan.
So what happens? They just go on as ever. They can call it that, but
nothing happens. They can have police protection. They will continue to
manage the plans. That is a red herring.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member, who has done a
lot of work and research on the Antiquities Act.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a static country. In the next decade, we
will have 20 to 25 million new people added to our population. We will
have 35 to 40 percent more commercial airline flights, God help us all.
We will have about 35 million more people knocking on the doors of
national parks.
If one does not think that those parks are overburdened, I invite
them to visit Yellowstone or Yosemite or any other of a couple dozen
national parks around the country and see how much people are crammed
in.
It is in the national interest of the United States for additional
areas of special value to be preserved for future generations.
Now we have heard an attack on President Clinton for abusing his
power
[[Page H4511]]
in adding 9 additional national monuments to the Nation's storehouse.
I would like to cite what the record has been since 1906. Teddy
Roosevelt, and I recognize that the former Speaker of the House, Mr.
Gingrich, indicated that one of his goals was to eliminate the
Roosevelt legacy from the Republican Party and return it to the
philosophy of William McKinley, but nonetheless, thank goodness, Teddy
Roosevelt served a wonderful stint as President and he acted 18 times
to put aside territory just like this.
William Howard Taft, that well-known ``leftist,'' acted 11 times.
Harding, Harding, that terrible, terrible ``liberal,'' added 8 to the
national storehouse. Calvin Coolidge, that well-known ``champion of
activist government,'' added 14.
{time} 1245
Herbert Hoover, that well-known enemy of rugged individualism, let us
see, he added 12. Then we had Eisenhower and Nixon. We know how far
left they were. Right? They added eight. Wilson added 12. FDR was the
champion of them all, 23. Harry Truman, Harry Truman is the Democrat
the Republicans love to quote but hate to emulate; he added seven.
So now my colleagues are beating up on President Clinton for adding
nine. The fact is, out of 151 that were added to the national
storehouse since 1906, nine of them have been added by this President.
That is hardly out of line with the historical record for the previous
occupants of that office.
There is only one I see who was literally asleep on the job when it
came to having an opportunity to add protected areas to the national
storehouse. That was President Bush who did a grand total of one.
So it seems to me that President Clinton is well within the
historical tradition of the country in doing exactly what he has done.
I would also say that, despite the fact that my good friend indicates
that the Secretaries maintain the ability to manage these lands as
their former status would indicate, as forests or as wilderness, or as
wildlife refuges, the general counsel has said that is not true. So we
do not believe it is true. At best, it is an open question.
So it seems to me that we ought to stick with the amendment of the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). What the President is trying to
do is do what this Congress has not had the gumption to do, and I
congratulate him for it.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Resources.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I was listening with great
interest to the statement of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
But if one took all the land of all the Presidents that set aside those
monuments, it equals one-third of what this President has done in the
past 3 years. The original intent of the Antiquities Act was not to set
aside vast areas of land; it was to set aside those that are special.
I challenge anyone to show me where any of the areas this President
set aside in the massive acreage that has occurred that has anything
specifically special in those great borders. If it was special, that
one small area should have been set aside. But this President is using
this act, which was never intended to do so, to designate and to
dictate the use of lands.
Under the Constitution, it says only the Congress shall have that
responsibility. For this Congress and that side of the aisle and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) and the rest of my colleagues to acquiesce to the executive
branch is unconstitutional. My colleagues swore right up as I did, I
swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Yet,
we sit in this body and allow this act to be misused by this
administration and say, oh, it is to protect those lands.
By the way, there was no local input, no understanding what effect
would occur economically, culturally, psychologically. It was decided
downtown, in big Washington, D.C., who knows best for all. This is
against the Constitution. He is not protecting what should be
protected. He, in fact, is running this as a fiefdom and a kingdom.
This Congress, to my knowledge, has never accepted any one of his
monuments by the Representative from that district. If one goes back
and checks Truman and Roosevelt and all those others, he did it in
consultation with that Representative that was duly elected by the
people. I challenge the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) to show
me one Congressman that supports that area as declared a monument.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who has been a strong protector
of the environment.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
We need to reject this amendment and strike the rider.
The language needs to be stricken because its effect, to put it very
bluntly, would be perverse. This language would put land in newly
created national monuments in a state of limbo. The lands would remain
national monuments; but the design, the planning and management
necessary to fully protect the lands and to make them accessible could
not be accomplished.
Who could possibly gain from keeping lands in this sort of halfway-
house condition? Nobody.
Not those who want to preserve the environmental value of the lands.
The prohibition in this rider would block the planning and management
needed to protect the environmental and cultural values that prompted
the monumental designation.
Not those who want recreational access to the lands. The prohibition
in this rider would prevent the development of programs or centers to
enable the public to take greater advantage of the lands.
Not even those who have mineral or other economic interests in these
lands. The prohibition in this rider would prevent the development of
rules and policies that would determine how to handle their claims.
So why would anyone propose a rider that cannot help anyone concerned
about national monuments and a rider that would cause this entire bill
to be vetoed to boot? The reason is that the proponents of this rider
want to signal their opposition to the 1906 Antiquities Act itself and
with the particular monument designations that have been made this
year.
But they have plenty of other ways to do that directly. The Congress
could amend the Antiquities Act. The Congress could override any
particular monument designation. The Congress could reject any
particular management plan for a monument. Congress has all the direct
authority it needs to have a full debate about lands policy.
But they do not want to do that because Congress has repeatedly shown
its unwillingness to significantly alter with monument authority or
designation. So, instead, we have a rider to try to do it in an
indirect and inartful way through the appropriations process which
could not be done through direct congressional action; namely, derail
efforts to protect Federal lands through the use of the Antiquities
Act. That is a misuse of the appropriations process, and it is
especially misguided in this case because the direct impact of the
language is so counterproductive.
So I urge my colleagues not to turn the discussions on this rider
into a debate over the legitimacy of the Antiquities Act or the wisdom
of any particular monument designation. If Congress wants to weigh in
on these matters, it can and should do so directly. In any event, the
rider leaves the act and all recent proclamations entirely intact.
This debate should be about the specific language in the rider which
will leave the status of the land in an uncertain State which would
hobble efforts to protect Federal lands and which would improperly take
advantage of the appropriations process. It is a bad rider, and it
should be stricken.
I urge a no vote on the Hansen amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from New
[[Page H4512]]
York (Mr. Boehlert) on his statement and make this point: the effect
statement of the Department of Interior basically says that, if this
language passes, that we have basically neutered or gutted the
Antiquities Act. It makes it impossible for the President to protect
these important lands.
Mr. BOEHLERT. That is exactly right, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the other point I want to make is he does
not just go out and do this on any land. It has to be land that has
previously been under Federal management. In most cases, they are still
hunting and hiking and canoeing and other things that can be done on
this land.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we are not instantly creating wilderness. So
the gentleman is a moderate, a centrist, one of the most respected
Members of this House. I think this language goes way too far. I think
it will be a bad thing for, not only this President, who a lot of the
people in this Chamber do not seem to like, but for the future
President who may want to protect an important monument for this
country.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Utah for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I am very much in favor of this amendment. The previous
remarks that were made by the gentleman from western Washington (Mr.
Dicks) and by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) was that this
land had to be under Federal ownership. That is exactly right.
But let me tell my colleagues about what happened in my district with
the latest monument that was created. Those lands largely in the early
1940s were under private land; but because of the Second World War, the
Government took them over.
Now, the Hanford Reach runs through that area. For those of my
colleagues who do not know, the Hanford Reach is the last free-flowing
stretch of the Columbia River. The issue, the people will talk about
the Hanford Reach and say we need to protect it for spawning reasons.
Well, this Congress already acted on that. In 1995, we passed a bill to
prevent any dam building, any dredging, any channelling of that river.
So the spawning beds are already protected. What we are talking about
is the lands surrounding the river.
Now, there has been a lot of discussion on this, and there are
different ideas. My idea is an idea that is proposed by a citizens
committee that worked for nearly 2 years coming up with a management
plan that is in opposition to a one-size-fits-all Federal plan.
What they came up with is a shared plan that involved the Federal
Government, that involved the State government, involved the local
government. It allowed for local decision-making for the people that
live and work and recreate in that area.
But with this action of the monument, with this action of the
monument, all of this work is taken away. As a matter of fact, this
monument designation for the Hanford Reach is more likely, more extreme
than any bill that had been introduced addressing this issue in the
time that I have been in Congress.
So I think, frankly, it is a slap in the face to those that live and
work in that area. I think that the amendment of the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen) is exactly the right amendment, because what we are
talking about here, as the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) pointed
out, is an abuse of power and process by this President in designating
monuments. This is a classic example of how that has happened because
the people in that area came up with the plan.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment and this debate is really about
America's lands. It is not about the lands that any one Member of
Congress controls. It is not about the lands of any one State. It is
about the lands of this Nation, the great public lands that belong to
all of the people of this Nation.
This summer, millions of Americans will set off with their families
to visit our wilderness areas, to visit our national parks, to visit
our national monuments, to visit our historical sites, one, because
they want to enjoy the historical aspects, the cultural aspects of
these great lands, of the tradition of our country, of the history of
our country. They want to share that with their children, with their
grandparents, their grandchildren. Many of them will remember when
their parents took them on such a trip.
Because of the bold actions of this President, the vision of this
President, of this administration, to think about the future, to think
about the threat to these lands, they will be able to do that, and
their children will be able to do that, and their grandchildren will be
able to do that.
They will be able to visit the pinnacles of the midcoast of
California whose protection is enhanced because of the enlargement of
that monument. They will be able to visit the 3,000-year-old Sequoia
trees that reach 300 feet into the air because this President made them
a national monument. Because if we do not do this, we go back to the
old management regime, if my colleagues believe what the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen) said, that everything just goes back to the way it
was. The way it was, we were cutting the Sequoias. We were destroying
the environment of the Sequoias.
The Sequoias, the cathedral trees, the largest of the largest were
threatened by the actions around them. That is why this President took
his action. This is a gift. This is a gift to our Nation, just as
Yosemite was a gift to our Nation, just as Glacier was a gift to our
Nation, the Grand Canyon and the Everglades.
This is a gift to our people, of having the foresight to go in,
whether it was Teddy Roosevelt or Franklin Roosevelt or President
Clinton, to go in and understand the threat and the need to preserve
these lands, to understand that this country is filling up with people,
that California is filling up with almost 35 million people, and that
they want a place to go and to take their families so that they can
recreate, that they can enjoy the history.
{time} 1300
Because of the actions of this President in southern Oregon, parts of
the Oregon Trail will be preserved so people can go there and undertake
and look at the remarkable actions of the people who had the courage to
set out from the Mississippi River to settle the West.
A member of my family walked that five times, bringing young people
to the west from Missouri. A member of my family set out and he walked
that first group, his children, as a wedding gift, because he thought
they were too young to cross the country by themselves. They were 15
and 16 years old, they were married and they were going West. They
ended up in Eureka, California, where this President had the foresight
to protect the Headwaters Forest, the great cathedral trees of the
redwoods on the North Coast, like the great cathedral trees of the
Sequoias.
This amendment should be rejected because this amendment is an attack
on our culture, our history, our legacy, and the great environmental
assets. If my colleagues go to a foreign nation, their people will talk
about our national parks, the so-called crown jewels. Talk to the
businesses in these areas, and they will talk about the economic
engines that wilderness areas, that monuments, and that national parks
become for the business communities and for local communities.
This amendment should be rejected and America's wild lands and
America's great environmental assets should be protected.
Announcement By the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind members in the gallery that they
are guests of the House, and either approval or disapproval of any
statements made by the Members is against the rules of the House.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by my friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), and I would
simply say to the House that, sadly, what the preceding speaker is
telling us is that the ends justify the means. If we mean
[[Page H4513]]
well; if we, through good intentions or perhaps a form of arrogance,
say we are better than others, that our motives are more pure than the
Constitution of the United States, well, then, the law really makes no
difference.
Perhaps, my colleagues, it would be good to actually listen to the
words of the Constitution that we all swear to uphold, protect and
defend; article 4, section 3, the second paragraph. ``The Congress
shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the
United States.''
My colleagues, the history was laid out correctly by the gentleman
from Utah. The Antiquities Act was designed to protect archeological
treasures and, really, in the fullness of time, to jump start a
national parks system. The problem we have is not the Antiquities Act,
it is not living up to the Antiquities Act, not setting aside the
smallest amount of land possible and ignoring the process of turning to
the Congress for Congress' constitutionally mandated responsibilities.
Indeed, to see a friend from Arizona, the Secretary of the Interior,
testify in front of a congressional committee and to have the Secretary
of the Interior asked what his intention is regarding these lands;
could he tell this committee what lands he plans to designate, and then
to have the Secretary of the Interior say no, my colleagues, that is
contempt of Congress. That is contempt for the Constitution. That is
not love of the land.
This is not a question of preservation and conservation. We all
believe in that. There are ways to do that. And whether it was Franklin
Roosevelt or Theodore Roosevelt, other presidents have acted in
consultation with the Congress. That is what is important. And in our
drive to preserve and protect lands, let us not destroy the
Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, on another note, if my friends on the left want to
acquiesce here, then none of them should ever stand in the way of any
president who wants to usurp his constitutional authority vis-a-vis our
military.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in opposition to the Hansen amendment.
I want to give my colleagues a sense of how the administration feels
about the subcommittee action and why they believe that it is so
dangerous.
``Although not completely clear on the face of the rider, its
prohibition on managing national monuments as national monuments during
FY 2001 is intended to effectively repeal the President's proclamations
made since the end of FY 1999.'' Very cleverly written language, by the
way. ``This intent is made clear in the Committee report, which calls
on the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to continue previous
management scenarios until such time as Congress ratifies the Monument
declaration. As described in the report, then, the amendment would
repeal the effect of recent monument proclamations until Congress
ratifies them, thus effectively nullifying the President's exercise of
the authority Congress gave him in the Antiquities Act.
``The Antiquities Act has been one of the Nation's most effective
protection tools, implemented by both Republican and Democratic
administrations since 1906. The proposed amendment, a rider to an
appropriations bill, would essentially neuter the Antiquities Act by
denying the responsible Federal agencies the ability to enforce key
elements of the monument proclamations made since 1999. In the
Antiquities Act, Congress vested in the President the ability to act
quickly to protect portions of the existing Federal estate. In this
appropriations provision, added without the congressional consideration
that would normally accompany the substantive modification of an
authorizing statute, the subcommittee is attempting to undo much of
that authority for areas designated since 1999. The amendment would
effectively strip the President of his ability to protect objects of
historic and scientific interest for their unique value and for the
enjoyment of the American people.
``A related effect of the House amendment would be to expose national
monuments designated since 1999 to abuse and resource degradation, with
potentially devastating results. Management as national monuments is
prohibited by the rider language, so that any action constrained or
described in a monument proclamation would be disallowed if affecting
it required an expenditure of funds appropriated by the FY 2001
interior bill. This suggests one of two outcomes, both unfortunate for
the American people. Either the Federal agencies, unable to enforce an
otherwise valid Presidential proclamation, would be forced simply to
close those lands to any form of public use; or the Federal agencies,
denied funding to manage these monuments, would have to abandon them to
vandals, invasive species, uncontrolled resource exploitation and other
harm, until Congress restored the funding needed to manage them.
``For example, the rider would prevent the BLM from stopping mining
activities in these monuments on claims located after the proclamation
had withdrawn the area from operation under the Mining Law. The
language would also prevent the responsible agencies from managing
these lands for livestock grazing, even when grazing is a use
recognized in the proclamation, because such uses cannot be managed
without funding.
``A similar problem arises from a lack of funding to enforce
restrictions on highway vehicle use. The proclamation that established
the Grand Canyon-Parashant in Arizona, for instance, provides
specifically that the BLM shall continue to issue and administer
grazing leases within the portion of the monument within the Lake Mead
National Recreation Area consistent with the Lake Mead National
Recreation Area authorizing legislation.
``And for the purpose of protecting the objects identified above, all
motorized and mechanized vehicle use off road will be prohibited,
except for emergency and authorized administrative purposes.
``The House amendment makes it impossible to implement these portions
of a monument proclamation that depend on funding. Thus, enactment of
the rider could force BLM to remove livestock from the Grand Canyon-
Parashant, and close the area to vehicle use of any sort.
Alternatively, BLM would be forced to walk away from this land all
together, and abandon the enforcement of OHV restrictions, the
monitoring of grazing allotments, and the review and renewal of grazing
permits.''
So I think this amendment is wrong. I do not think we properly
considered it in our committee. I think the gentleman from Utah, and
others who are against the Antiquities Act, should deal with it in the
authorizing committees and not here as an appropriation rider. That is
why I so strongly object to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage).
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah
for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of his
amendment.
My colleagues, this administration is involved in a very desperate
grab of our Federal land, and I have to ask myself why does the
government need all this land. The President is currently engaging in
the biggest land grab since the invasion of Poland.
Now, it was pointed out by the gentleman from Arizona very succinctly
that there is a strong reason why the gentleman from Utah is offering
his amendment, and this is the reason why. The Constitution clearly
assigns to the Congress the power to dispense with public lands.
Now, I put together a list here, Mr. Chairman, to show that the
administration's abuses of the Antiquities Act is taking in about 150
million acres, that we know of, that the President intends to lock up.
Now, that is what we know of. But this administration is reluctant to
even tell the Congress exactly how many monuments and exactly how much
land is involved.
In fact, the process that has been set up previously by the United
States Congress to have these processes go in a manner so that we
understand the environmental and economic impact and how it affects
people's lives, how it affects counties and States, all of this has
been abused. This is all done without the benefit of the National
Environmental Policy Act.
[[Page H4514]]
But, environmental organizations are working to declare lands, or
having the President declare lands in the West, these vast national
monuments, nearly 150 million acres. The Sierra Club and the Wilderness
Society, among others, have announced their desire to have the
President create over 50 more new monuments, with a land area of more
than 150 million acres. This is an area larger in the West than that
compared to West Virginia, Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, New York, Connecticut, Delaware,
Indiana, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia combined. And this
is done by presidential edict.
The gentleman is absolutely right, we must support his amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey), a very valued member of our subcommittee and a
person who has had great experience in these areas.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The first point I want to make is that land cannot be ``grabbed'' if
it is already owned. All of these lands that are being designated and
have been designated as national monuments are owned by the people of
the United States, held in trust by the Federal Government and managed
by the Department of the Interior. The amendment that we have before us
here today would prevent, interestingly enough, Federal funds from
being spent on nine fairly recently designated national monuments.
Now, the designation of national monuments under the 1906 Antiquities
Act, passed by the Congress, of course, allows for the protection of
natural and cultural resources that are under threat or need for
preservation or protection. The point has been made that 14 presidents
since 1906 have used this authority. Lands designated as monuments are
already owned by the American public. Fifty million Americans enjoy
these monuments every year. Monument designation provides permanent
protection for long-term conservation of areas that are critical to the
protection of resources and enjoyment by the public.
This antienvironmental rider targets nine recent monuments that were
created to protect unique national resources for all future generations
to enjoy.
{time} 1315
A prohibition on spending funds on these monuments does not change
their legal status as monuments but would prevent any ongoing spending
within the monument areas.
Visitors would still visit these lands, but this would prevent
Federal maintenance and appropriate actions taken. The Department of
the Interior would not be able to provide law enforcement service to
visitors or maintain roads, thereby threatening visitor safety. The
Department would be unable to process grazing applications for the
lands or manage hunting or other suitable uses to public enjoyment.
This would hurt local people and local economies. It would hurt them
the most by preventing outfitters and guides from going into these
monuments and not allowing management of suitable uses.
There is one other interesting aspect to this particular amendment
that is before us now. It would prevent spending on nine monuments, but
it would not prevent spending on a particular monument in the State of
Utah.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
kidding me? Is he telling me that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen)
exempted his monument?
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen) has exempted his monument.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, so
he is going to get funding for his monument?
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this amendment says
they cannot spend Federal funds for nine monuments, and those monuments
are located in California, in Arizona, in Colorado, Oregon, Washington;
but they can spend money on the monument in Utah.
The budget that we have here today would spend, in fact, $5.3 million
on a visitor center for a national monument in the State of Utah. I
believe that is located in the district of the sponsor of this
amendment, which would prevent spending on these nine monuments in
these other States. This is an interesting feature of this particular
amendment.
Now, I have always thought that cynicism is a personality trait to be
avoided, but one does not have to be terribly cynical to make the
observation that something very odd and unusual is going on here. It is
okay to spend money on the monument in my district, but it is not okay
to spend money on the monuments in people's other districts in other
States. That strikes me as being very strange.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, when the President started this tirade,
this was the first one he put in was the Grand Staircase Escalante. It
has been there 4 years. Money has been appropriated for it.
I would be happy, as I told the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks)
and anyone else, to take all of the money out. Why did they not do
that? We did not ask for that 5.3 million acres. That did not come from
Utah. That was from the administration. That did not come from us. If
my colleagues want to strike that and put this in the amendment, I
would accept that in a heartbeat. Go ahead and take it. Take the dang
thing.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are not interested
in striking funding for that monument or for the other nine that they
would strike either. We believe that these national monuments,
belonging to all the people of the country, deserve to be protected and
that the 50 million people who visit them ought to be treated properly
and fairly. My colleague would deny then that opportunity.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
(Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate about national monuments. Every
American takes pride in their national monuments. This is a debate
about abuse of national monuments.
I just want to harken back to the last speaker. He would not yield
time to me, but he began with a passionate debate saying we cannot lock
up land that we do not already own because the law specifically says
the Federal Government must already own these lands. Yes, the law says
that. But I would like the gentleman to tell me, was he aware that, in
fact, the President is locking up lands the Federal Government does not
own?
In the State of Arizona, in the last 6 months, the President has
created three new national monuments. Three. Count them. And he has
done so by incorporating into those national monuments tens of
thousands of acres of not Federal land but State land.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) was defending the use of
the law in a proper fashion. This is the use of a law in an improper
fashion. In Arizona, in one monument, they locked up 53,000 acres of
State land, not Federal land. In another one, they locked up another
30,000 acres of State land.
Mr. Chairman, I have here a map showing the thousands of acres of
State land that was put into a national monument in violation of the
Federal law.
That is precisely why this amendment is here, because this
administration is abusing the law.
Indeed, here is an editorial by the leading newspaper in the State of
Arizona saying that preservation requires input and that they were not
given that input and says, declaring monument was not done right. The
paper generally supports monuments, as I think all Americans do, but
not when the process is abused.
In Arizona, for example, there were no public hearings whatsoever.
Now,
[[Page H4515]]
my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), says this
is a wonderful thing, all being done in accordance with the law and all
a good idea and a compliment to this administration doing this in the
proper order of business.
If that is true, should we not ask ourselves why, of the nine
national monuments which have been created by this administration,
eight of the nine have been created in the last 6 months only? If these
needed to be created, where were they 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 6 years
ago, 7 years ago?
This is about abuse of this law. Let me explain this. These are the
American people's lands, and they do take pride in national monuments.
But 8 months ago I personally, in a formal hearing of this United
States Congress, looked Secretary Babbitt in the eye, eyeball to
eyeball, and said, Mr. Secretary, the people of America and the people
of Arizona have a right to input in this process. Will you provide this
committee with a list of the monuments you are considering across this
Nation?
Secretary Babbitt looked me and the chairman and every other member
of the committee in the eye and said, no, a one-word answer, no, I will
not provide you a list.
That cuts the American people out of the process. It is an abuse of
the law.
I support the amendment, and I call on my colleagues to support it,
as well.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in vigorous opposition to this
amendment.
Presidents, Republican and Democrat, for decades have left the
American people great gifts across this country; and today the U.S.
House, or some therein, attempt to gut the ability to leave those gifts
to the American people. And, apparently, the way they are trying to do
it is to make sure there are no fingerprints on the weapon to gut the
ability to protect these gifts of the American people. Let me tell my
colleagues why.
We should be allowing Presidents to create national monuments. If
this amendment passes, all we will create are monuments to futility,
monuments where we cannot do anything to protect these gifts.
Let me tell my colleagues why that is important. In the State of
Washington, 6 days ago, the President left a gift to the American
people creating the Hanford Reach Monument Area. Six days ago.
I will tell my colleagues, the people of the State of Washington want
that monument. The people of the State of Washington deserve that
monument. And the people of the State of Washington are going to get
that monument. And let me tell my colleagues why.
This is a picture of the Hanford Reach, the last free-flowing stretch
of the Columbia River. Very close to this is where Lewis and Clark
first came to the Columbia River. My colleagues can see these white
bluffs form a spectacular scenery over the Columbia.
Let me show my colleagues what happened when we did not have this
monument. When we did not have this monument, certain practices
resulted in the absolute collapse of these white cliffs; and we would
have a quarter mile of, essentially, dirt collapse into the river right
into this area and destroy salmon habitat and destroy spawning habitat.
We need to stop that from occurring. There was a comment by my
colleague about something about the local people do not want this.
Well, I have got a message for the U.S. House from the first family of
people who settled this area and broke this ground.
Lloyd Wheel, a 90-year-plus former judge, who grew up with the first
European family who homesteaded on this property right outside this
picture, Lloyd Wheel has a message for the U.S. House: do not destroy
this monument. Protect these salmon. Make sure the natural heritages
are protected.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my
colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly that managing land through
unilateral executive orders establishing national monuments is wrong.
It ignores the role of Congress, the role of the people who live nearer
and closest to the land, and the role of local elected officials. I
believe the consensus-based management accomplishes more to protect the
land than hierarchical mandates.
Unilateral national monument designation avoids the compromise
necessary for consensus and implementation of the whims of the current
administration.
Secretary Babbitt, in a hearing earlier this year, said, ``I believe
that the Congressional delegation is the way to go.'' He continued by
saying that, ``In most cases, there is now legislation, not all, but
most,'' speaking of these nine recently designated monuments. ``And in
the cases where we did make the designation, particularly the ones in
Arizona, it was crystal clear that there was no interest in the
Congress at all. In one case, there was not even a sponsor of a bill
for Aqua Fria, and in the case of the Grand Canyon, the bill that was
offered before this committee reduced the existing level of
protection.''
If Congress concludes that the Nation's interest is best served in a
manner different from what Secretary Babbitt and this administration
may recommend, Secretary Babbitt apparently believes that the President
should simply declare a national monument.
This amendment supports constitutional process. Congress makes
decisions about the management of public lands because the Constitution
gives us that responsibility. We passed FLPMA in 1976 and established
that we must first have the input of the locals.
Secretary Babbitt and the administration have not done this with
their monument designations. Congress, therefore, has the
responsibility to curb this excess by this administration by refusing
to fund these monuments.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to just speak to my colleague from Utah
(Chairman Hansen) and say to him, I understand his frustration, I have
listened to his frustration around this issue, and I have respect for
it. But I would urge us to continue to discuss this, as we have in the
Committee on Resources, and there is legislation pending that would
alter the Antiquities Act in ways that he thinks is appropriate and
others do; and I would continue to be interested in having that debate.
But I think this amendment goes at it in the wrong way. It comes in
through the back door; and it has the potential, as previous speakers
suggested, of making only monuments in name and would be very, very
counterproductive.
The other piece that I want to add to this discussion today has to do
with local and specific examples in southwestern Colorado. The
President just created the Canyon of the Ancients National Monument.
I will include for the Record a letter from the Commissioners of the
County down there, who, in effect, said, ``We need to move immediately
and decisively to put our local input on the management of this area.
The only way that we as a community can minimize the negative impacts
and be in a position to reap the positive benefits is if we are
organized and actively engaged in the planning management and problem
solving connected with the monument from day one. If funding is
blocked, we will lose this opportunity. Blocking funding will hurt the
very communities that are already saddled with the impact of the
monument.''
Now, I might not have used those same words, but I strongly agree
with him with the need for maintaining that funding.
So, again, I appreciate the point of view of the chairman, but I
think this is the wrong way to have the debate about the Antiquities
Act and how it is applied.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following letters for the Record:
[[Page H4516]]
Montezuma County
Board of County Commissioners,
Cortez, CO, June 12, 2000.
Hon. Mark Udall,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Udall: The Canyons of the Ancients
National Monument in Southwest Colorado, which we spent a
year working to avoid is a reality as of last Friday. The
challenge now is to work together to realistically address
the potential impacts on our constituents, our fiscal and
economic health and the wide variety of important resources
within the monument boundary. We are asking for your support
in opposing budget amendments that would block funding to new
National Monuments is critical for the reasons outlined
below.
We need to move immediately and decisively to put our local
imprint on the management of this area. We have, as a
starting point, the summary of public input produced by the
RAC citizen Working Group, and the resulting NCA legislative
draft to guide the management planning process. We are not at
all comfortable with the vague language in the Proclamation,
and feel that it would be risky to let the management of this
area drift on the basis of ``interim guidelines'' established
without local involvement. We have been promised an advisory
council representing the spectrum of local interests. We need
to get the advisory group in place and immediately begin to
engage the planning and management of this area.
With all the publicity that has and will result from the
proclamation, we must be prepared and funded to deal with a
wide range of immediate impacts. It is our understanding that
visitation to the Grandstaircase-Escalante increased 250%
upon Monument designation. The Working Group Report points to
key areas of concern including the impact on services such as
road maintenance, search and rescue, fire protection and law
enforcement. Given the commingling of BLM and private land,
we anticipate more problems with trespassing and damage to
private property. The community is adamant about the
protection of multiple-use, and we cannot allow the
deterioration of archaeological resources to be used as a
pretext for restricting these rights, privileges and
activities including archaeological research. Nor can we
afford to allow a lack of funds for BLM staffing to be used
to justify restricting uses and areas of the Monument.
Restrictions on grazing would undermine our local ranching
industry. Restrictions on oil and gas production would put at
risk 30% of the County tax base. Restrictions on recreational
uses would disrupt an important focal point for community
pride and enjoyment. Much of the 164,000 designated acres are
rugged and remote, while the more accessible Sand Canyon is
already close to being over-run. Dealing with both the remote
and the ``loved to death'' areas is going to require a major
community effort involving everyone that uses and values the
area. Even the economic benefits that will result will
require close coordination between people in contact with
visitors and the land management agencies.
The only way that we, as a community, can minimize the
negative impacts and be in a position to reap the positive
benefits is if we are organized and actively engaged in the
planning, management and problem solving connected with this
monument from day one. If funding is blocked we will lose
this opportunity.
While we understand the anger and frustration which has led
to efforts to block funding for National Monuments, we
believe that it is far better to go to the root cause of
these abuses by supporting legislation such as H.R. 1487
introduced by Congressman Hansen and S. 729 introduced by
Senator Craig, which directly address a more participatory
process for establishing National Monuments.
In the meantime we hope you will actively voice the concern
to your colleagues and in the upcoming floor debate that
blocking funding will hurt the very communities that are
already saddled with the impacts of new monument
designations. We appreciate your consideration. Please let us
know if we can help or provide further information.
Sincerely yours,
G. Eugene Story, Chairman.
____
[From the Durango Herald, June 11, 2000]
Canyon of the Ancients
monument is on the map; now it needs funding
On Friday, some 160,000 acres of rugged dry washes, canyons
and rock formations covered with scattered sage, pinon and
juniper between Cortez and the Utah state line were protected
by the Clinton administration from further degradation. The
land, occupied by pre-Puebloans between about 750 and 1300
A.D. and carved from lower elevation public lands controlled
by the Bureau of Land Management, now will be known as the
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument.
The monument designation, one of four announced across the
West by Vice President Al Gore that day, occurred because
increasing numbers of visitors threatened the fragile
landscape and the remains of rock and wood-built pre-Puebloan
structures. The monument designation should--must--provide
additional federal money to properly protect its priceless
contents.
While Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt has promised
that a locally composed board will advise the BLM on its
management of Canyons of the Ancients, the president's
proclamation makes positions clear on several substantive
issues dear to locals and Westerners: The monument status
will not give the federal government any water rights, nor
change the way the state of Colorado manages wildlife on the
land. Nor will it impact any rights to the land claimed by
American Indians. Grazing will continue, under BLM
regulations as in the past. Carbon dioxide, gas and oil
production will continue, under BLM regulations as in the
past. Carbon dioxide, gas and oil production will continue,
but further exploration will have to a greater degree take
into consideration protection of the surface's natural
resources and pre-Puebloan remnants.
Mining, other than CO2, and gas and oil
extraction, is forbidden.
The monument designation does call for a transportation
plan, and it's expected that off-road travel by motorized
vehicles will be eliminated, and that the number of
historical access roads will be significantly reduced. As a
result, access to private inholdings may be more limited than
they are currently.
The monument status was forced on Montezuma County, as some
local critics charge noisily. But unlike the administration's
previous monument designations, especially in southern Utah,
it was not a surprise and it was not done without
consultation with locals. The Secretary of the Interior
signaled it was coming, and urged that Congress--lead by an
initiative from Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Congressman
Scott McInnis--instead provide the needed protections. But
that was not to be, as Campbell deemed that extremists on
both sides of the issue would make legislative compromises
impossible.
The specifics of the monument designation did not originate
in Washington, However. The administration listened closely
to local testimony in front of a stakeholder group convened a
year ago to address issues surrounding the proposed monument,
and Babbitt made a couple visits to the area. And, his
telephone call to the Montezuma County commissioners two
months ago allayed some fears as to what the monument
designation would contain. In conversations with Babbitt, he
was very familiar with the issues that surround the monument.
Now what's needed is a representative advisory board that
applies thoughtfulness and vision in helping the BLM shape
the future of the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument.
And money is also needed. In Southwest Colorado last week, it
was encouraging to hear McInnis say that although he was
opposed to the way the acreage was designated by the
administration, he would work to secure funding to implement
the needed protections. With public lands budgets already
limited, that extra money is critical.
New maps of the Four Corners and Colorado will soon be
leaving the printers, and on them will be the state's newest
monument. We're glad the Canyons of the Ancients will be
there, it's stunning natural features and man-made structures
to be better protected for generations to come.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure that it would be his preference that such an
issue were not necessary here on the floor. But the reality is, this is
the President of the United States who has necessitated this discussion
for clearly abusing and misusing in a reckless fashion the law, which
has been on the books for many, many years and as many Presidents
previously, as has been indicated before, have used with due discretion
and have used in cooperation with local entities, State jurisdictions,
and certainly Members of Congress who represent the affected areas. But
that is the distinction and the difference.
This President has made two fatal errors in his execution of the
Antiquities Act: one is by dramatically expanding the coverage of these
monuments beyond the archeological or historic focus of what a
legitimate monument might constitute; and, secondly, doing so without
even the consultation of Members of Congress, who have the ultimate
policy-making authority and responsibility where monuments are
concerned.
{time} 1330
But the third thing that this President has done is used the
Antiquities Act in establishing monuments in a blatantly political
fashion and has consequently jeopardized the underlying purpose of the
law and caused us to pay close scrutiny as we do here today.
These monuments are issued around election time where great, vast,
beautiful landscapes are used as nothing more than a backdrop for
politically motivated press conferences. Mr. Chairman, all of the
flannel shirts and blue jeans cannot obscure the nakedness of a
President bereft of the constitutional covering that we would
[[Page H4517]]
hope any President would rely on when orchestrating public policy on
behalf of the country.
That is what this amendment really tries to get at and why we must
adopt it, because it brings back into some semblance of reality the
original intent and scope of the Antiquities Act, that these are small
acreages designed to protect and preserve truly remarkable features
that the American people want to enjoy and protect. I urge its
adoption. I thank the gentleman for offering it today.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hansen amendment.
Let me talk for just a minute if I can about the proposal being
considered in Idaho to expand the Craters of the Moon National Monument
into the Great Rift National Monument. It might surprise some of my
colleagues that I am not necessarily opposed to the expansion of the
Craters of the Moon into the Great Rift area. It is truly a unique
geological area.
But what I am opposed to is a process by which any administration,
Republican or Democrat administration, can ignore the input of local
people, can ignore the input of local- and State- and Federal-elected
officials and Congress can ignore its constitutional responsibility to
dictate land management policies. It is the process that is a problem
here.
The Secretary has been out to the State of Idaho twice. I appreciate
the fact that he has called me twice when he is going out there to
inform me of that. Mr. Chairman, I have requested information on the
designation. Under the Antiquities Act, the requirement is that the
President put the request in to the Secretary of Interior for what area
ought to be designated as a national monument. I have requested the
letter from the President and have not received it.
Secondly, they are supposed to use the least amount of land available
to protect this area. The Secretary has not sent me the information on
that. Thirdly, the area being protected is supposed to be of some
geological, scientific, or historic nature. The Secretary has not told
me what the nature that he is trying to preserve of this area is. But,
fourthly, the most important thing is the area is supposed to be under
some threat, some imminent threat. So far, the Secretary has refused to
tell me what the imminent threat is in this area.
Mr. Chairman, this is not pristine habitat or natural forests or
salmon habitat or anything like that. What it is is lava rocks. It is
under no threat currently, and the Secretary refuses to acknowledge
that.
Earlier one of the speakers from New York said, Congress already has
the authority to control this by undoing a national monument if we want
to. The reality is that a former congressman tried to enact this and
could not get support from his own party or the people of Idaho.
I urge the support of the Hansen amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to my good friend,
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, we continue to have the language being
employed of the extreme antienvironmentalists, people who are talking
about reckless. If it were truly reckless, my colleagues would be
proposing alternatives to eliminate these as monument designations.
They are not, and I think that that is prima facie evidence that it is,
in fact, not reckless. These are reasonable approaches and are
supported by the majority of the public.
There is the notion of a land grab. As my colleague from New York
pointed out, this is not a land grab. These are lands that are already
owned and managed by the Federal Government. There may have been
surrounded some parcels of private property as our colleague from
Arizona pointed out, but they have always been surrounded by the
Federal Government and that does not change it. What is changed under
this antienvironmental rider is that you can no longer use Federal
funds to manage them. Bear in mind they do not change the category but
things that were legal earlier to use Federal money, for example, to
deal with issues of vandalism or invasive species which would have been
legal under the prior designation are no longer legal because they
would have to be managed as monument property.
Earlier you had legal grazing activities which require money to be
able to manage, but now since it is monument land and would not be
designated to spend money managing a monument means that you make that
impossible for grazing; for mining. This is absolutely inappropriate
and would not be supported and is truly going to lead to a condition
that these folks in other contexts would be going absolutely bonkers if
it were proposed. But their amendment, were it to be so unfortunate to
be adopted, would put that into effect.
Last but not least, it would not allow funding for the planning and
engagement of the community to make these processes work. These are
efforts that the people talk about engaging the public. It would not
allow money to do so. It is a bad idea. I hope that this
antienvironmental rider is firmly rejected.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, previous speakers not only in this
amendment but in other amendments have used the term antienvironmental
extremists 11 times. Doth us think that there is a little politics
here?
First of all, we feel that the President, a single individual
designating land in violation of the law taking State lands and
affecting private property is wrong, a single person, without going
through the Congress. Even yesterday we had talk about a backlog of
taking care of our national forests and fish and wildlife. Just like
with the California desert plan and other things, the moneys that are
going to be required to take care of these, we do not have. The only
way to do it is increase taxes. We do not want to do that.
Mr. Chairman, this map indicates the property that is controlled on
the East Coast by the Federal Government. If I turn this over, this is
the property in color controlled on the West Coast. What is too much?
In Utah, Arizona, and Nevada, 70 and 80 percent of the land is
controlled by the Federal Government. In California, over half the land
is controlled by the Federal Government. What is too much?
All we are doing is saying that if we want these parks to be
designated or these national monuments, at least bring it before
Congress. Let us have a debate. We may lose the debate. But at least
bring it before us. Do not have a king with the sign of a pen designate
land. That is all our position is. We think that that is a test of
fairness. The test of fairness in the past with the President and with
Secretary Babbitt has been a one-way street. We think that that is
wrong, also.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Again I want to
point out, we already own these lands. There is no land grab here. We
are not adding anything additional here. We are creating a monument
which the President has the authority to.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Farr), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, there are only five States that are affected by this
amendment. It is interesting that the author's State is not affected.
Thank God for the Antiquities Act. Thank God for the action of the
President to take Federal lands and upgrade their status so that they
are more protected. The reason the President had to do it by executive
order is because this Congress under this leadership is failing to
deliver these things.
I introduced two bills in Congress on these issues that did not even
get a hearing in the committee. The only member of the other party that
has been supportive of all this effort is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula). He has been the best environmentalist the Republican Party has
because he is on the Committee on Appropriations and he can appropriate
money. But to try to get a hearing in the other committees and try to
get some substance out and get these lands protected, no way. Now they
want to take them away.
Give me back my monuments. Give me back Sequoia in California. Give
me
[[Page H4518]]
back the Grand Canyon-Parashant in Arizona. Give me back Agua Fria in
Arizona. Give me back the California Coastal Monument. Give me back the
Pinnacles National Monument in my district. Give me back the Canyons of
the Ancients in Colorado. Give me back Ironwood Forest in Arizona. Give
me back Cascade-Siskiyou in Oregon. And give me back Hanford Reach in
Washington. This amendment would take all those away and take it away
from the public who owns that land.
This is your land, ladies and gentlemen of the United States. Defeat
this amendment. Give them back to the people.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that I do not
oppose designating national monuments, I do not oppose the Antiquities
Act, but I do oppose the abuse of power. This is not taking these lands
back to the people. Quite frankly, whether or not they are national
monuments or not national monuments, they belong to the people. Some
Presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt have used the Antiquities Act to
preserve large threatened areas. But when we look at the previous
examples of that like the Grand Canyon, they were clearly being
privatized and degraded. It was being debated in Congress. There was
public outrage. But in the case of President Clinton's new monuments,
these monuments already are Federal lands. The fact is that if they are
being degraded, it is under this administration.
FDR designated previously the highest number of public lands. In four
presidential terms he designated 2.5 million acres. This President has
already done 4 million unilaterally. It is clear that we need to and
will continue to expand national monuments and parks. It is clear that
our crown jewel parks are already in existence. And so now the question
is really, are we going to adequately fund the existing parks plus as
we add to this system, where will they be and what will the funding
priorities be?
We heard earlier that this is about invasive species and grazing
questions, but these new monuments are all in the West, where they
already have at least 25 percent federally owned lands, in some cases
50 percent and in some the proposals are in States where it goes up to
60 percent. East of the Mississippi, we have lands that already have
willing sellers that are clearly either culturally, naturally, or
recreationally valuable for the public sector but we have willing
sellers. But because the President has unilaterally designated
additional lands in States where they already have 25 to 65 percent
Federal lands, money will not be available for other places in the
country where there are natural, cultural and recreational
opportunities.
How is it fair to let a lame duck President unilaterally, in one
year, exceed any other President's designation, including the two
Roosevelts, who had, in FDR's case, four terms, and tie the hands of
the Committee on Appropriations where we cannot meet the needs of
existing parks or the demands we have in other parts of the country.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Metcalf).
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Many
of these areas recently designated as national monuments are beautiful
and sensitive and may well deserve protection. However, article 4,
section 3 of the Constitution grants to Congress the power to make
decisions respecting the property of the United States.
In these recent designations, the President has usurped and
completely bypassed the authority of Congress. These new national
monuments represent the worst abuses of executive power. No
environmental assessments are conducted, and the public is not even
allowed to comment on the merits of the designations as required. The
administration is using the 1906 Antiquities Act, intended to protect
small parcels of land, to set aside millions of acres. It is time for
this body to reassert its authority and reject this latest presidential
overreach.
{time} 1345
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hansen amendment.
The President of the United States clearly has authority under the
Antiquities Act. Clearly, if the majority party wants to, they could
repeal that act. They could pass it here, but they do not seem to want
to do that. What they want to do is use an appropriations bill with a
very cleverly drafted rider to prohibit the President from implementing
these monuments.
I think it is terrible. I think the Federal government will wind up
being embarrassed because we cannot do law enforcement. We cannot do
planning. We cannot do anything once these monuments are designated.
And try as you want to with report language, it does not nullify the
effect of this amendment, which is to take away from the President the
authority to name these monuments and then to have them properly
implemented.
Again, I believe that these riders are wrong. We should do it only
when we have had thorough debate and hearings, and we have not had that
here. I would suggest to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) in his
own committee that people want to work on this, if they want to improve
the Antiquities Act, do it there, not on the Interior Appropriations
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, it has been a very interesting debate that we have had
here. I think it all comes down to one thing, abuse of power. I do not
know of one President who has abused his power more than this gentleman
has. He has done more than all of the other Presidents combined, and
the interesting thing is, just what Member of Congress was consulted
and which one agrees with what he has done?
Now, I always thought that the Constitution said ``we the people,''
but when we read this thing behind closed doors, it said we cannot let
this out, this has to remain secret. Now, to me, that is not the way we
do things in America. What is this about?
Article IV, section 3 says, ``Congress has the right of these powers
of the land.'' It does not go to the President. The gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) had some things brought up that is the biggest
red herring I have ever heard. Right here in their own manual, right
here in the report, nothing in this language prevents either Secretary
from managing these Federal lands.
These lands will go on as they were. This idea that they will not be
managed and vandalized is nonsense. Of course they will be managed.
Call up the local BLM director, call up the local forest director. They
will tell us they will take care of the land. There is nothing in here
that says they cannot maintain those lands at this time.
A little personal shot was made at me. I am big enough to take that,
saying why not put your own in there? That was done in 1996, and it was
funded by this Congress. I would be more than happy if my colleagues
feel that way, why did colleagues not put an amendment in to do that,
and I would have stood up and I said accept it; but my colleagues did
not do that. It is more important to take a few shots, I guess.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the people in this particular body to do
their best and do what is right for America and do what is right for
the West. Help us out in this and vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offer by the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Hansen) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Under clause 6(f) of rule XVIII, the Chair will reduce
to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the underlying
Dicks amendment that may follow immediately this 15-minute vote on the
Hansen perfecting amendment.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 234, not voting 13, as follows:
[[Page H4519]]
[Roll No. 280]
AYES--187
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--234
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Phelps
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--13
Becerra
Campbell
Danner
Franks (NJ)
Greenwood
Hinojosa
Jones (OH)
Lofgren
McCollum
Norwood
Shows
Vento
Young (FL)
{time} 1418
Messrs. BILBRAY, MINGE, GILCHREST, RUSH, REYNOLDS, and HORN changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BARR of Georgia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, is the next vote going to be on the
underlying Dicks amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct, yes.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 243,
noes 177, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 281]
AYES--243
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--177
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
[[Page H4520]]
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--14
Becerra
Campbell
Danner
Franks (NJ)
Greenwood
Hinojosa
Jefferson
Lofgren
McCollum
Mollohan
Nussle
Shows
Vento
Young (FL)
{time} 1428
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
wildland fire management
For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression
activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency
fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands
under fire protection agreement, and for emergency
rehabilitation of burned-over National Forest System lands
and water, $614,343,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That such funds are available for repayment of
advances from other appropriations accounts previously
transferred for such purposes: Provided further, That not
less than 50 percent of any unobligated balances remaining
(exclusive of amounts for hazardous fuels reduction) at the
end of fiscal year 2000 shall be transferred, as repayment
for post advances that have not been repaid, to the fund
established pursuant to section 3 of Public Law 71-319 (16
U.S.C. 576 et seq.): Provided further, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, up to $4,000,000 of funds
appropriated under this appropriation may be used for Fire
Science Research in support of the Joint Fire Science
Program: Provided further, That all authorities for the use
of funds, including the use of contracts, grants, and
cooperative agreements, available to execute the Forest
Service and Rangeland Research appropriation, are also
available in the utilization of these funds for Fire Science
Research.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
Page 54, line 4, insert ``(increased by $1,000,000)'' after
the dollar figure.
Page 85, line 7, insert ``(reduced by $1,960,000)'' after
the dollar figure.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, 5
minutes on each side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. The objection is heard.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the other side, would they
agree to a unanimous consent agreement of 10 minutes on each side? The
gentleman and I have been through this many times and I have great
respect for the other side and I can remember most of the arguments
very vividly. They are very clear. I think we could limit this. Many
Members want to leave at 6:00.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, now the gentleman understands we are having
a separate discussion here?
Mr. STEARNS. Yes.
Mr. DICKS. We are going to treat this amendment separately from this
previous discussion in terms of everything else, but on this one we
will agree to 7\1/2\ minutes on each side, split it down the middle.
Mr. STEARNS. How about 10? All right. 7\1/2\ minutes is fine.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side have
7\1/2\ minutes on this amendment and all amendments thereto.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair's understanding of the unanimous consent
agreement is 7\1/2\ minutes per side on all amendments to the Stearns
amendment.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each
will control 7\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I heard the amendment read and I need, I
believe, to withdraw and clarify because I think the Clerk read it
incorrectly.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may either withdraw the first amendment
or ask unanimous consent to.
Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw that,
and I think the Chair has the correct amendment, which is the same
thing. It is basically a 2 percent cut in the National Endowment for
the Arts and the rest goes into the wildland fire management. I believe
I gave it to the folks correctly.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
In the first instruction strike out ``$1,000,000'' and
insert ``$1,960,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns) that his amendment be modified?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will still conduct the debate in accordance
with the previous unanimous consent request.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized for 7\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington reserves a point of
order.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is an amendment that has come up annually.
Basically for my colleagues, we are taking a 2 percent reduction in the
National Endowment for the Arts and we are putting this money into the
wildland fire management. Let me just read where it is going to go. For
necessary expenses for forest fire pre-suppression activities in the
national forest system lands, and for emergency fire suppression and/or
adjacent to such lands or other lands under fire protection agreement.
Of course, this would affect my home State of Florida, as well as Los
Alamos in New Mexico, as well as Denver, Colorado, recently where the
fires came up to this wonderful city.
My home State of Florida is facing severe drought conditions after
having the second driest May in history in this State of ours. As a
result, of course, Florida is battling another season of wildfires.
Since January, Florida has had 3,422 fires that have burned 121,000
acres. This is a staggering amount of land. Were it not for the
tireless efforts of the Department of Forestry, fire departments, and
countless, countless volunteers, these numbers would be probably even
higher, perhaps twice as much.
My amendment is, I think, very important. It is significant in many
ways. It obviously is taking a very small amount from the National
Endowment for the Arts budget and allocating it to fire fighting.
I think we can talk about getting serious about government spending.
A part of this money, obviously, in the way the outlays go would go to
retire the debt. So it has an added benefit.
I think many of us agree that the NEA does not shield us from any
invasion or protect us from crime or other economic hardship, so
basically I am
[[Page H4521]]
here to talk about the NEA, as a program, as one of many programs that
support the arts. Lots of times on the House floor we talk about the
NEA as if it is the sole body that is protecting the arts, but last
year there were 200 programs for the arts and humanities in this
country. Last year Federal funding for the arts exceeded $800 million.
Interesting enough, before the program was created, President Kennedy
stated, quote, I do not believe Federal funds should support
symphonies, orchestras, or other opera companies.
So I think when we consider the funding for the arts, it has been
reduced. I know that. I will hear that from the other side, but there
is so much out there in terms of private support for the arts. In fact,
it is over $10 billion in private funds go for the arts. So I think
just taking $2 million to help fire fighting personnel in this country
is worthwhile for us to do.
So we take a small step, reducing questionable spending that many of
us feel on this side and perhaps a few on that side feel, so I believe
our money would be better spent to help the fire fighters retire the
debt.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) insist
on his point of order?
Mr. DICKS. I withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is recognized
for 7\1/2\ minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as many of us know, the National Endowment for the Arts
was created in 1965. I believe that this endowment has done a
tremendous amount to help foster the arts in this country. When the
Endowment was created, we did not have the great range of the arts we
now have. We now have performing symphonies and ballets all over this
country. We have seen a tremendous growth in the arts, and I believe
that one of the major reasons for that is because of the challenge
grants and the other programs that the Endowment approved over the
years.
The private sector looking to an entity, an arts organization getting
a National Endowment for the Arts grant, is almost the Good
Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Since the endowments were created, we
have seen a tremendous growth in the amount of money that the private
sector contributes to the arts all over this country.
A few years ago, we were funding the National Endowment at about $170
million. It was cut back dramatically. Today we only fund it at $98
million. In fact, we will have a bipartisan amendment after we take
care of the Stearns amendment to increase the money for the endowments
in a modest way.
The President has requested for each of the endowments $150 million.
A few years ago, Congress had some concerns about the quality of the
grants and some of the grants that were approved by the National
Endowment for the Arts. We put in very strong language saying, since
they cannot approve every grant that comes in, use quality as a
standard for judging and assessing these grants, and do not let an
entity get a grant and then give it to a sub grantee for some other
purpose.
I believe that under Jane Alexander and Mr. Ivey, Mr. Ferris at the
Humanities, that we have seen managers who have seen the words from the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and myself that were crafted, and have
implemented it. We now have congressional Members who are on the
advisory boards of the panels to give congressional input, to make sure
that the American people's voice is being heard on these issues.
So I think this is an amendment that Congress has defeated over and
over again. I am confident that we will again defeat it today, because
I think the American people believe that the modest investment we make
in the arts, and I think also in the humanities, is tremendously
important in communities all over this country. We see education,
education in the arts being an important item in many communities.
I can remember going with Jane Alexander to Garfield High School in
the city of Seattle and seeing an after-school program where the kids
were doing very good high quality work in the arts. The kids were
enthused about it. It helped us, I think, in dealing with crime and
also furthered their education. It gave them something to believe in.
I think that educational programs are good. Dale Chihuly, one of the
world's renowned glass artists from my district in Tacoma, Washington,
has an after-school program to teach kids how to create blown glass and
create glass art. These kids, some of which have been juvenile
delinquents, swear that this has transformed their lives. One, they
have something to do after school and, two, they are working in the
arts in a very creative way.
I had a chance to go up and visit them to see their work, to actually
try to create glass art myself. I was not as good as the kids, but it
really made an impression on me and showed that programs like this that
are sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts are truly very
important to our country.
So I urge today that we will resist this amendment.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I would be delighted to yield to my friend, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Horn), for any comments he wants to make.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to praise the gentleman on behalf of
the Arts Caucus, which is much more than 130 in this Chamber. I
appreciate all he has done, both in the committee and are going to do.
I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns),
the fact is we are not talking about funding the great symphonies of
America. They can find the money in Los Angeles, New York, San
Francisco, and Boston. We are concerned about kids that live in urban
America that have never seen a symphony, never seen an opera, never
seen any aspect of the arts.
Let me say, in the last 5 years there has been a complete turnaround.
It is not only the people in urban America, it is where I grew up in
rural America. In the 1930s, I can remember as a 6-year-old seeing this
wonderful WPA symphony. That came to Hollister, California, population
3,000. It inspired me to be a musician.
Those are the communities we are talking about throughout America,
and William Ivey has done just an outstanding job as administrator of
the Endowment.
I would hope the gentleman would actually withdraw his amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just tell my colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn), when he grew up the NEA did not exist. It
started in 1965. Second of all, most of the money goes to six major
cities. There are almost 150 Congressional districts that get no money.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Pitts).
{time} 1445
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, some people think that conservatives hate
the arts. They think that, because we oppose Federal subsidies for the
arts, that we are uncultured dolts who do not appreciate the finer
things in life.
Let me try to correct the record, Mr. Chairman. The arts are an
essential part of our culture. I love the arts. I love art in many
forms. In fact, I am an amateur artist myself. I do not want this to be
a show-and-tell session, but let me just illustrate. Here is a print of
an oil I did last year of an area in my district called the Brandywine
Valley. Here is a little sculpture that I do for volunteers who donate
for people helping in my campaign. My daughter is an artist. We have a
show at this present time in Lancaster County at an art gallery there.
We have never received one red cent. There are millions of amateur
artists out there who do not get any kind of funding.
Mr. Chairman, in fact, there is no correlation between NEA funding
and the state of the arts in America. The arts are flourishing in
America today. It is not because they are subsidized.
Although NEA funding has gone down as much as 40 percent in the past
[[Page H4522]]
few years, there are more people working in the arts today than ever
before. Employment in the arts is growing three and a half times faster
than general employment at a time when we reduced NEA funding by
millions of dollars.
In the last 5 years, attendance at artistic activities have increased
by 37 percent, remember all this time when NEA funds are decreasing.
Now, the thing that outrages the taxpayers is when the NEA, and they
have the pattern of doing this, funds the shock art, the outrageous
art, the anti-Catholic bigotry, the pornography.
There is a play recently in New York City entitled ``The Pope and the
Witch,'' which is funded. It depicts the Pope called John Paul, II, as
a heroin addicted paranoid advocating birth control and legalization of
drugs. As long as this type of funding is done by NEA, we need to send
them a signal and give them the modest cut of 2 percent. I support the
Stearns amendment.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time on our side to
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington
for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to first say, in the Catholic lead, when
it had the thing that was called ``The Pope and the Witch,'' I would
like to read from the notes here. ``Please note that the NEA is not
supporting the development or the production of this play. All NEA
grants are by law for a specific project, and this was not included in
any of their projects.''
I would also like to say that, in my little small town of Hickory,
North Carolina, we built an art museum. The National Endowment gave us
$1,000. One would not think that was of any great value one way or the
other. But with that $1,000 we were able to go to all the corporations
and supporters in that little town, and we raised $3 million to build
an art museum.
The $1,000 is just like the best thing one can say when some
corporation wants to know, what have you done? Who are you getting it
from?
I would also like to say, when we cut it $65 million in 1995, I voted
for that cut because I thought the National Endowment had gotten out of
hand, and we should mandate changes; and we did mandate changes because
of problems that were there. They have had no increase in 8 years now.
Let me just give my colleagues a couple of things. They have a cap on
the amount of money that can go to any one State; whereas, previously
New York got way out of their share of it.
The State grants program, the State set-aside, has been increased.
Every State gets more money, and my colleagues would be surprised at
the number of every State that participates. State grant programs and
State set-asides I say have increased. Anti-obsenity requirements for
grants, this is supported by the Supreme Court. They have to live by
this.
No matter what anybody wants to say, they are doing what was mandated
and what they deserve. There is a large number of us that think that,
in spite of what they say, art does add a great deal to the quality of
life.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just point out to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Ballenger) that, if he wants the list of projects they have
supported since 1980, they have a 20-year record here, from the Sorano,
Mapplethorpe, I mean, to the one that the gentleman from North Carolina
just mentioned. I mean, it goes on and on and on.
So the fact that the gentleman from North Carolina got $1,000, the
rest is going to six major cities.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. One of
the most amazing characteristics of the human race is our ability to
express ourselves artistically. All of us have been touched by a piece
of music, a beautiful and interesting sculpture, an outstanding
theatrical performance.
Art can be as enriching to the soul as nature itself. But sometimes
in this job, we are forced to choose priorities. I think wildland fire
management is a higher priority for the amount of money that we are
talking about.
Because the arts are flourishing in America. Most people do not know
that more people attend artistic events in a given year than sporting
events. The private sector contributes over $9 billion to the arts
every year. Employment in the arts is growing 3.6 times faster than the
general employment. Of the money that we do give to the arts from the
Federal Government, 20 percent is consumed in overhead. A majority of
the remaining amount is spent in New York or California.
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) was relishing that
he got $1,000 for his district, $1,000. It is not very much money. Very
little of this money makes it out to the rest of America.
I think our Founding Fathers noted that the benefits of keeping the
Government out of the arts were great. But if any of my colleagues have
lost personal possessions to a fire or to a flood or to theft, they
know how serious that is. Sometimes it is merely a scrap of paper with
a signature on it or a canceled check or photo, something that cannot
be replaced.
If we can support the wildland fire management, I think we are going
to help people from losing their possessions and keep our natural
heritage, the wildlife areas, from burning.
So this issue is not about the importance of our arts in our society,
as much as it is about helping protect those who stand to lose
everything from wildfire.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment takes a very small step in reducing
questionable spending and shifts it to a much more needed important
area. I believe our money would be better spent protecting Americans
than being used to promote art that is many times antireligious and,
recently last month, anti-Catholic.
We hear repeatedly that the NEA has changed. It simply has not. The
New York Times reported that 70 percent of its grants go to the same
recipients every year, while fires are ravaging our country.
The people who believe in giving it to just six major cities are
subsidizing them, and I think it is an amendment between public safety
and environment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Stearns amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns)
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
capital improvement and maintenance
For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, $424,466,000, to remain available until
expended for construction, reconstruction, maintenance and
acquisition of buildings and other facilities, and for
construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance of
forest roads and trails by the Forest Service as authorized
by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205: Provided,
That up to $15,000,000 of the funds provided herein for road
maintenance shall be available for the decommissioning of
roads, including unauthorized roads not part of the
transportation system, which are no longer needed: Provided
further, That no funds shall be expended to decommission any
system road until notice and an opportunity for public
comment has been provided on each decommissioning project:
Provided further, That any unobligated balances of amounts
previously appropriated to the Forest Service
``Construction'', ``Reconstruction and Construction'', or
``Reconstruction and Maintenance'' accounts as well as any
unobligated balances remaining in the ``National Forest
System'' account for the facility maintenance and trail
maintenance extended budget line items may be transferred to
and merged with the ``Capital Improvement and Maintenance''
account.
[[Page H4523]]
land acquisition
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of 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
Forest Service, $50,000,000, to be derived from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended.
acquisition of lands for national forests special acts
For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of
the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the
Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San
Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests,
California, as authorized by law, $1,068,000, to be derived
from forest receipts.
acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges
For acquisition of lands, such sums, to be derived from
funds deposited by State, county, or municipal governments,
public school districts, or other public school authorities
pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16
U.S.C. 484a), to remain available until expended.
range betterment fund
For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection,
and improvement, 50 percent of all moneys received during the
prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock on
lands in National Forests in the 16 Western States, pursuant
to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as amended, to
remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 6
percent shall be available for administrative expenses
associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation,
protection, and improvements.
gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research
For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $92,000, to
remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund
established pursuant to the above Act.
administrative provisions, forest service
Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal
year shall be available for: (1) purchase of not to exceed
132 passenger motor vehicles of which 13 will be used
primarily for law enforcement purposes and of which 129 shall
be for replacement; acquisition of 25 passenger motor
vehicles from excess sources, and hire of such vehicles;
operation and maintenance of aircraft, the purchase of not to
exceed six for replacement only, and acquisition of
sufficient aircraft from excess sources to maintain the
operable fleet at 192 aircraft for use in Forest Service
wildland fire programs and other Forest Service programs;
notwithstanding other provisions 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; (2) services pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2225, and not to
exceed $100,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; (3)
purchase, erection, and alteration of buildings and other
public improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4) acquisition of land,
waters, and interests therein, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (5)
for expenses pursuant to the Volunteers in the National
Forest Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 558a note); (6)
the cost of uniforms as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and
(7) for debt collection contracts in accordance with 31
U.S.C. 3718(c).
None of the funds made available under this Act shall be
obligated or expended to abolish any region, to move or close
any regional office for National Forest System administration
of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture without the
consent of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management
appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency
rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters
under its jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe
burning conditions if and only if all previously appropriated
emergency contingent funds under the heading ``Wildland Fire
Management'' have been released by the President and
apportioned.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for assistance to or through the Agency for International
Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service in
connection with forest and rangeland research, technical
information, and assistance in foreign countries, and shall
be available to support forestry and related natural resource
activities outside the United States and its territories and
possessions, including technical assistance, education and
training, and cooperation with United States and
international organizations.
None of the funds made available to the Forest Service
under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the
provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture
Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b unless
the proposed transfer is approved in advance by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the
reprogramming procedures contained in House Report No. 105-
163.
None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be
reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
procedures contained in House Report No. 105-163.
No funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund of the Department of
Agriculture without the approval of the Chief of the Forest
Service.
Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to
conduct a program of 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 the Act of August 13, 1970, as amended by
Public Law 93-408.
Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $1,500 is
available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official
reception and representation expenses.
Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, up to
$1,250,000 may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial
assistance to the National Forest Foundation, without regard
to when the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative
expenses or projects on or benefitting National Forest System
lands or related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That
of the Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no
more than $200,000 shall be available for administrative
expenses: Provided further, That the Foundation shall obtain,
by the end of the period of Federal financial assistance,
private contributions to match on at least one-for-one basis
funds made available by the Forest Service: Provided further,
That the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a non-
Federal recipient for a project at the same rate that the
recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching funds:
Provided further, That hereafter, the National Forest
Foundation may hold Federal funds made available but not
immediately disbursed and may use any interest or other
investment income earned (before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of this Act) on Federal funds to carry out the
purposes of Public Law 101-593: Provided further, That such
investments may be made only in interest-bearing obligations
of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both
principal and interest by the United States.
Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244,
$2,650,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall
be available for matching funds to the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 6201-3709,
and shall be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial
assistance within 60 days of enactment of this Act, without
regard to when expenses are incurred, for projects on or
benefitting National Forest System lands or related to Forest
Service programs: Provided, That the Foundation shall obtain,
by the end of the period of Federal financial assistance,
private contributions to match on at least one-for-one basis
funds advanced by the Forest Service: Provided further, That
the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a non-Federal
recipient for a project at the same rate that the recipient
has obtained the non-Federal matching funds.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for interactions with and providing technical assistance to
rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 80 percent of
the funds appropriated to the Forest Service in the
``National Forest System'' and ``Reconstruction and
Construction'' accounts and planned to be allocated to
activities under the ``Jobs in the Woods'' program for
projects on National Forest land in the State of Washington
may be granted directly to the Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife for accomplishment of planned projects.
Twenty percent of said funds shall be retained by the Forest
Service for planning and administering projects. Project
selection and prioritization shall be accomplished by the
Forest Service with such consultation with the State of
Washington as the Forest Service deems appropriate.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and (2),
and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to enter into
grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements as appropriate
with the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, as well as with
public and other private agencies, organizations,
institutions, and individuals, to provide for the
development, administration, maintenance, or restoration of
land, facilities, or Forest Service programs, at the Grey
Towers National Historic Landmark: Provided, That, subject to
such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture may
prescribe, any such public or private agency, organization,
institution, or individual may solicit, accept, and
administer private gifts of money and real or personal
property for the benefit of, or in connection with, the
activities and services at the Grey Towers National Historic
Landmark: Provided further, That such gifts may be accepted
notwithstanding the fact that a donor conducts business with
the Department of Agriculture in any capacity.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be
available, as determined by the Secretary, for payments to
Del Norte County, California, pursuant to sections 13(e) and
14 of the Smith River National Recreation Area Act (Public
Law 101-612).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service not
to exceed $500,000 may
[[Page H4524]]
be used to reimburse the Office of the General Counsel (OGC),
Department of Agriculture, for travel and related expenses
incurred as a result of OGC assistance or participation
requested by the Forest Service at meetings, training
sessions, management reviews, land purchase negotiations and
similar non-litigation related matters. Future budget
justifications for both the Forest Service and the Department
of Agriculture should clearly display the sums previously
transferred and the requested funding transfers.
No employee of the Department of Agriculture may be
detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by this
Act to any other agency or office of the Department for more
than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or
office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office
for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of
assignment.
The Forest Service shall fund overhead, national
commitments, indirect expenses, and any other category for
use of funds which are expended at any units, that are not
directly related to the accomplishment of specific work on-
the-ground (referred to as ``indirect expenditures''), from
funds available to the Forest Service, unless otherwise
prohibited by law: Provided, That the Forest Service shall
implement and adhere to the definitions of indirect
expenditures established pursuant to Public Law 105-277 on a
nationwide basis without flexibility for modification by any
organizational level except the Washington Office, and when
changed by the Washington Office, such changes in definition
shall be reported in budget requests submitted by the Forest
Service: Provided further, That the Forest Service shall
provide in all future budget justifications, planned indirect
expenditures in accordance with the definitions, summarized
and displayed to the Regional, Station, Area, and detached
unit office level. The justification shall display the
estimated source and amount of indirect expenditures, by
expanded budget line item, of funds in the agency's annual
budget justification. The display shall include appropriated
funds and the Knutson-Vandenberg, Brush Disposal, Cooperative
Work-Other, and Salvage Sale funds. Changes between estimated
and actual indirect expenditures shall be reported in
subsequent budget justifications: Provided further, That
during fiscal year 2001 the Secretary shall limit total
annual indirect obligations from the Brush Disposal,
Cooperative Work-Other, Knutson-Vandenberg, Reforestation,
Salvage Sale, and Roads and Trails funds to 20 percent of the
total obligations from each fund.
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be used for necessary expenses in the event of law
enforcement emergencies as necessary to protect natural
resources and public or employee safety: Provided, That such
amounts shall not exceed $500,000.
Section 551 of the Land Between the Lakes Protection Act of
1998 (16 U.S.C. 460lll-61) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(c) Transition.--Until September 30, 2002, the Secretary
of Agriculture may expend amounts appropriated or otherwise
made available to carry out this title in a manner consistent
with the authorities exercised by the Tennessee Valley
Authority, before the transfer of the Recreation Area to the
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary, regarding
procurement of property, services, supplies, and
equipment.''.
Mr. REGULA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the bill through page 66, line 16 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
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
clean coal technology
(deferral)
Of the funds made available under this heading for
obligation in prior years, $67,000,000 shall not be available
until October 1, 2001: Provided, That funds made available in
previous appropriations Acts shall be available for any
ongoing project regardless of the separate request for
proposal under which the project was selected.
Amendments Offered By Ms. Slaughter
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I have four amendments at the desk, and
I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Ms. Slaughter:
Page 66, line 21, insert ``(increased by $22,000,000)''
after the dollar amount.
Page 85, line 7, insert ``(increased by $15,000,000 which
shall not be available until September 29, 2001)'' after the
dollar amount.
Page 85, line 21, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000 which
shall not be available until September 29, 2001)'' after the
dollar amount.
Page 86, line 19, insert ``(increased by $2,000,000 which
shall not be available until September 29, 2001)'' after the
dollar amount.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York?
Mr. REGULA. I object, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer my first amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter:
Page 66, line 21, insert ``(increased by $22,000,000)''
after the dollar amount.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, we are calling up this amendment to give
a much-needed raise to three agencies of the Federal Government that
have been starved by this Congress for a number of years simply because
of misperceptions and absolute downright lies about the kind of work
that they have done.
I do not think any reasonable person in the United States can dispute
the good work that these agencies do. As a matter of fact, in the years
which we struggled just to keep it alive, we have gotten a lot of help
from the associations, the counties, the conference of mayors, major
corporations in the United States who believe that creative thinking is
the key to success.
This year we can afford to give to the National Endowment of Arts $15
million more, and $5 million more to the National Endowment for
Humanities, and only 2 million more, I wish it were more, for the
Museum Service, which does so much, the Museum and Library Service.
The debate over the years about these three agencies, over this
government have taken such a terrible beating. Things have been said on
the floor that have been, as I said earlier, misperceptions and down
right wrong. But we struggle just simply to keep them alive. But we
have ample proof from the response of the people throughout the United
States that they not only want these agencies alive, they want these
agencies to survive.
I want to make it clear this afternoon that I am offering this
amendment on behalf of the Arts Caucus of the House of Representatives,
which is co-chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn). This
amendment is cosponsored also by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs.
Johnson) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
What we are asking is, as my colleagues know, the bill calls for a
deferral of $67 million. We would like to increase that by $22 million
for a total of $89 million, as we said before, to give the NEA a $15
million raise, the NEH $5 million more, and the Library and Museum
Service $2 million more.
People cry out for it. Even our opponents on the other side have
talked about how much people appreciate going to arts programs.
The National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for
Humanities have made certain over the years that they have reached out
to every nook and crannie from sea to shining sea in the United States,
trying to make the little bit of money that we give them stretch to
meet the needs of the growing population of the United States.
{time} 1500
We know more than we used to about the development of the mind. We
know more about what it is like for a child to be exposed to art at a
very early age. We know a child who has studied art for 4 years in high
school will do 80 points better on their SAT scores. And we know that
this House should vote to support these agencies.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
We also know that we could keep more talented young people in the
school system if we put resources into good programs in the arts,
learning about the arts, and the humanities. It is something that every
student in college, and some of our California State universities, have
to take at least one course in the arts and/or music. And that is
important because it broadens the mind, and it keeps the brain moving.
The arts also provide inspiration. We all know that. So we should not
have to go through these annual maulings where we have to refute some
new
[[Page H4525]]
bogus charge which is utter baloney. Some earlier grants often had
nothing to do with the National Endowment for the Arts.
In 1965, I happened to be on the Senate staff and the establishment
of the Arts and Humanities endowments were overwhelmingly passed by the
House of Representatives and the United States Senate. As far as
government support of the arts in the depression, the WPA, the Works
Progress Administration, put millions were put in when people were
unemployed, and they brought inspiration both in murals, in symphonies,
in opera.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to echo
what the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) has said.
It is unbecoming for this Congress every year to debate this subject
the way we do. Last night half of this group in this House went over to
the Kennedy Center for a free performance of To Kill a Mockingbird, and
this afternoon they have come back for a performance on the floor to
try to kill the NEA.
I think the time has come to stop that nonsense and fund these
agencies a little bit more so they can do three times more work.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this
amendment.
I had hoped that we could do this swiftly for our colleagues. I know
many of them would like to be heading home this evening. Except for
this one amendment, which we could not get agreement on, we could have
had an agreement on every other amendment in this bill. But if we have
to do it this way, we have to do it.
I think this issue is crucially important to our country, and I
believe that the gentlewoman's amendment, which would increase the
deferral by $22 million, would then allow us to have the room necessary
to vote for an increase of $15 million for the National Endowment for
the Arts, $5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities, and
$2 for the museums and libraries.
Now, believe me, that is not a lot of money. I do think it would send
a signal that after 8 years of holding down funding for the Endowment
of the Arts that we see that Bill Ivey and his people have done a good
job and that they deserve this small amount of additional money.
I want to commend the chair of the Congressional Member Organization
for the Arts, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the
vice chair, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), for their
leadership on this. It is bipartisan. There are people on both sides of
the aisle here that support the arts in this country.
When I go home to my State and I look at what has happened in
Washington State in the arts, and it is not just in Seattle, it is
Tacoma, in Bremerton, in Port Townsend, it makes me proud that that
small amount of Federal money has been used all over this country to
create performing arts' groups, ballets, and symphony orchestras. And,
also, we have been able to get funding from the private sector because
they see the government involvement, they see that Good Housekeeping
Seal of Approval, and they are willing to match those monies, as the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) previously talked about.
So I think this is a solid amendment. Unfortunately, we have to offer
it in three different steps. But I hope that on each of these steps
everyone in this House will recognize that this is the amendment on the
National Endowment for the Arts. If my colleagues support it, they
support the Slaughter amendment. If they do not, then they do not. But
I think there is a majority in this House. If given a chance to vote up
or down on this issue in this House of Representatives, I think there
is a majority here in support of the National Endowment for the Arts
and for the National Endowment for the Humanities.
I regret that we are forced to offer this amendment in this
convoluted fashion because the majority is so nervous about this issue.
What is wrong with the arts? What is wrong with the humanities? Why are
they afraid of this issue, when in every community in this country
there are great examples of where the arts and humanities are helping
the American people, and our museums as well?
I am very upset that we could not work out an agreement here. This is
the only issue we have not been able to resolve amicably, and I hope
that people will stay with us, vote for these amendments as we have to
go through this process. We will clearly identify which ones are for
the arts, and we appreciate the hard work of the gentlewoman from New
York who is chairman of the arts caucus.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This budget is
very tight. We have many needs to balance within the interior budget
and the overall budget, and we must not take funds from Social Security
and Medicare because we are afraid to make tough choices.
My opposition is based on budget grounds. In the past, I have helped
lead the opposition to NEA on a number of grounds which, under the
direction of Bill Ivey and the new guidelines passed by Congress, has
corrected a number of its past problems. No longer are NEA funds so
concentrated on the major cities of this country, where arts resources
are already plentiful. This has also helped alleviate the cultural
elitism of the past.
There has also been major progress in the area of performance
artists, where the only art is in the eyes of the artist. If art is to
be public funded, it needs to be more majoritarian or consensus art. If
the NEA wants me, my family, the people of Indiana, and America to pay
for it, it should be something appreciated by others not just the
artists.
Probably Americans are most familiar with the controversies around
the funding of morally offensive art by the NEA. It is unfortunate that
conservatives, such as myself, do not speak up often enough about the
importance of arts to the soul. A society without artistic expression
would be gray, boring, and depressing. But publicly funded art should
not gratuitously insult the deeply held religious beliefs of the
American public.
The Reverend Donald Wildmon and Pat Trueman of the American Family
Institute have performed a tireless public service in making sure
Americans and Congress aware of where our tax dollars are spent. It is
my belief that the new director and the new rules of the NEA help make
progress on limiting morally offensive art funded by our tax dollars.
I was shaken, as others have been, by several cases where NEA funds
have gone to organizations in the last few years that have either
performed or provided a venue for art that attacks Christian beliefs in
an aggressive calculated way. The clear goal was to cause insult and
offend, not to inspire the soul or cause reflection. They are crudity
designed to shock.
I decided to study the possible NEA involvement further, and this is
what I discovered. And it was not enough just to argue that the funding
was not for the individual projects because money can be fungible and
it can be used to send tacit approval to the organizations that
performed it.
There was recently a play entitled ``The Pope and the Witch.'' It
depicted the Pope, called John Paul II, as a heroin-addicted paranoid,
advocating birth control and legalization of drugs.
The NEA provided funding to the Irondale Ensemble Project and
provided funding for the New City, where the play was performed. But
here is the rest of the story. The $15,000 grant to the Irondale
Ensemble was for a musical theater piece of ``The Murals of Rockefeller
Center.'' The date was prior to the morally offensive anti-Catholic
about the heroin-addicted Pope.
The NEA did not fund the offensive play, nor did they know such a
play would later be performed by this organization. The real test is
next year. Now they know this theater has stuck its finger in the eye
of the American people. Now there should be no more funds.
The same is true for the theater for New York City. Their grant was
to fund education programs. It was given before the disgusting, anti-
Catholic play about a heroin-addicted Pope. While NEA did not know that
this organization was going to provide a venue for an anti-Catholic
play when their grant was given, they now know. No more funds.
[[Page H4526]]
The Brooklyn Museum in New York is a famous institution. It was not a
surprise that NEA would have supported an arts program at that museum.
After that funding was granted, the Brooklyn Museum apparently decided
that their best hope for raising money was to insult Christians to gain
attention. A Virgin Mary made out of dung certainly did that.
No NEA money was used for that art. NEA money to the Brooklyn Museum
had been given earlier, so it was not moral support or fungible money.
But now we know they will deliberately insult Christians with shock
art. No more funds.
Another case raised by critics actually started in 1996. In this
case, ``Corpus Christi'' promoted itself as a play about Christ being a
homosexual who had sex with the apostles. Clearly, not something
taxpayers would want to support. But once again the facts do not show
that NEA supported this play.
In 1996, the Manhattan Theatre Club received a grant to develop
Terrence McNally's new play ``Corpus Christi.'' Here is the application
that described this proposal. I have read it and gone through the
application. Here is all that it said. ``Spirituality has been one of
the major themes in Terrence McNally's most recent plays at MTC. His
next play, Corpus Christi, will be an examination of good and evil. He
will use certain miracles in the life of Christ as inspiration for the
story, which will have a contemporary setting.''
In case my colleagues missed the part about Christ being a homosexual
and having sex with his apostles, it is because it is not there. That
is why Congress now requires more in-depth descriptions.
But that is not even the rest of the story. The Manhattan Theatre
Club then wrote to cancel this grant and asked to transfer the funds to
``Collected Stories.'' I have reviewed the letter exchanges that
clearly show the grant transfer.
Nothing then happened for 2 years. In 1998, McNally completed the
disgusting shock art play, which was performed without NEA funds. Many
artists today would rather use their creative powers to mock God and
try to provoke outrage from people who love and honor our Creator
rather than develop art.
Our anger and legitimate concern that no tax dollars provide funding,
direct or indirect, or even in the form of moral support, is completely
justified. But we also, especially as Christians, have a moral
obligation to stick with the truth. NEA did not fund this art, directly
or indirectly.
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I wish to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from New
York.
It is my understanding that in the offset for the gentlewoman's
amendment, she seeks to defer until 2002 $22 million of previously
proposed funds for the Clean Coal Technology Program of the Energy
Department. For 15 years, through the Clean Coal Technology Program,
the Federal Government has been a solid partner, working jointly with
private companies and the States to develop and demonstrate a new
generation of environmentally clean technology using coal.
Companies were willing to sign agreements with the government because
Congress, under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula),
the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, and others, had the foresight to
appropriate the entire Federal share of funding in advance. The
companies knew the money would be available, and with that confidence
they came to the table ready to commit their own funds.
In fact, for every $1 committed by the Federal Government, $2 have
been committed by private industry and State agencies. This program is
coming to a conclusion. All projects have been selected and all
contracts have been negotiated. Can the gentlewoman give me her
assurance that the deferral of funds called for in her amendment will
in no way inhibit the Department of Energy's ability to fulfill its
contractual obligations for fiscal year 2001; and, further, can the
gentlewoman assure me that none of the current projects in the Clean
Coal Technology Program, for which contracts have already been signed
and agreed to by the government, will not be canceled as a result of
the deferral of funds in the gentlewoman's amendment?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLDEN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to respond to the gentleman's
inquiry.
I have contacted the Department of Energy and been assured that
deferring the additional $22 million would not cause any significant
problems and is not expected to result in the cancellation of any
contracts.
In fact, the Department of Energy originally proposed deferring $221
million and rescinding an additional $105 million in clean coal funds.
Consequently, a deferral of $22 million should not cause any major
hardship, and I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to allocate
the funding to the arts and humanities.
Mr. HOLDEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman
and will support her amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes, but it is important
to understand what this amendment is. This is the first of four
amendments which, in all, will try to add $22 million to cultural
programs; $15 million to the National Endowment for the Arts, $5
million to the National Endowment for the Humanities, and $2 million
from museums. It is paid for out of an account which will suffer no
impact if it loses that offset because that money cannot be spent.
I would remind my colleagues that the agencies that the gentlewoman
from New York is trying to fund are at this point funded at a level 40
percent below where they were a decade ago.
{time} 1515
I would just say, I understand the anger that persons have felt in
the past when they have seen obscene art or so-called works of art that
are morally offensive to large numbers of Americans, and I think that
has no place in a program like this. And as you know, we have
instituted many reforms to assure that, to the maximum extent possible
by any human being, that will not happen again.
At this point, I guess my suggestion to any Member would be: Whoever
on this floor has never made a mistake or never had their staff make a
mistake, whoever there is on this floor, please feel free to go ahead
and criticize this agency. Because they had a 99.9 percent record of
funding projects which are perfectly acceptable to everyone.
I would remind you that even a stopped clock is right twice a day,
and so there are times when even in the best of circumstances something
wrong will occur.
But as one of the previous speakers pointed out, in many of those
instances, the projects that were being objected to were never funded
by NEA in the first place.
I would also say, I just wish that you could see one action that is
taking place in schools in my district where one song writer goes into
schools and takes young people who have never had exposure to this kind
of program, finds out their interests, gets them to put the words down
on paper that express their feelings about those interests, and then,
in turn, puts those words to music. He has produced a wonderful CD as a
result of that. And it is incredible what some of those kids have been
able to do.
We need more projects like that all over the country. It would be a
terrible shame if we could not begin the new Challenge Program that
Bill Ivy and the National Endowment is trying to bring forth.
I congratulate the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for her
amendment, and I would ask the cooperation of the House so that she can
achieve what she is trying to do in piecemeal fashion because the rule
does not allow her to do it all at the same time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and I rise to speak in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is another year and another debate on a modest
increase in funding for the NEA and the NEH. Most of us could probably
dust off last
[[Page H4527]]
year's statement and just use that again because the issues have not
changed; they are the same every year.
Every year supporters of the National Endowment for the Arts come to
the floor, and we present overwhelming evidence that the NEA is a good
investment for our country. We talk about the broad geographic reach of
the NEA, with grants to all 50 State arts agencies as well as to the
hundreds of communities across the country.
We talk about how the NEA has extended the reach of the arts into
rural communities to which the arts never reached before all across the
country.
We talk about the importance of NEA seed money in leveraging private
support, like the $4 million in total funding Chamber Music America was
able to raise from just a $300,000 NEA grant.
We talk about the economic benefits of the NEA, pointing to the tens
of billions of dollars in economic activity generated, the millions of
jobs supported, and the billions of dollars in Federal income tax
generated by the arts every year.
And we talk about the numerous educational projects supported by the
NEA from programs for young children to life-long learners.
Finally, we talk about the inherent value of supporting a vibrant
arts community in this Nation, how the arts lift the spirits of our
citizens and bring us together, how they entertain us and make us
think, how they leave a lasting legacy for our children and their
children to remember and celebrate.
But as I said, we bring up these arguments year after year. Of
course, a few years ago we were debating whether the NEA should even
exist, whether it was the proper role of Government to subsidize the
arts. But we have won that fight.
Clearly, the American people support the NEA and the work it does.
Clearly, the American people believe the Federal Government also has a
role in promoting the arts and cultivating artists throughout the
country. But in order to carry out this mandate, we must fund the NEA
at a level that enables it to fulfill its mission.
Today, resources are stretched too thin to adequately fund worthy
projects. The average grant size has dropped by over half since 1997
and is expected to drop even further unless we provide an increase this
year.
As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, this agency
is funded at a level 40 percent less than a decade ago. When we limit
funding, we also hamper the ability of the agency to continue its work
in expanding the reach of the NEA to underserved areas.
The massive cuts to the NEA enacted a number of years ago has reduced
a once thriving agency to a very valuable but still shell of its former
self. In these times of unparalleled prosperity, of unparalleled huge
and increasing budget surpluses, it is nothing short of outrageous that
we have not provided a nickel's increase for this vital and popular
agency for the last several years.
I think we should return to the glory days of the Reagan and Bush
administrations when the NEA received almost twice what it does today.
Short of that, I urge my colleagues to support the modest increases we
are talking about in these amendments.
As is pointed out, the offset provided in this particular amendment
poses no danger to anything because they cannot spend that money now.
The offset has no negative impact. The modest increase of $15 million
to the NEA and $5 million to the NEA and $2 million to museums is less
than we should do, but we can do no less today.
I urge the adoption of these amendments.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues walk through the tunnel that connects
the Longworth Building and the Cannon Building with the Capitol today,
they will see the difference from what happened yesterday when the
walls were bare. Now the walls are hung with beautiful, live, vibrant
art. Now, we cannot miss it. We cannot miss the change from nothing to
what these young students have done around our country.
My favorite piece of art is the cow poking its nose through the
barbed-wire fence. But that is today. Tomorrow I will walk by, and I
will see another piece of art, and it will become my favorite. Because
that is what art does, it tickles us, it enthuses us, and it makes us
love living. And that is what art is all about.
What an embarrassment for the House of Representatives to once again
in an appropriations bill hold funding levels for the National
Endowment for the Arts and for the Humanities.
As anyone who has managed a budget knows, this really means we are
decreasing funds for the arts for the humanities, for the libraries.
Opponents of the NEA and NEH cry fiscal discipline as if the richest
Nation in the world needs to be the most culturally impoverished.
But money is not what this is all about. We know that the dollars
that we invest in the NEA and in the NEH leverage matching grants and
multiply many, many times over in every one of our communities.
What we are really witnessing here is an assault on free expression,
a war on culture. It is a battle as old as the stockades in Puritan
times, and it is absolutely wrong-headed.
The arts and humanities teach us to think. They encourage us to feel,
to see in a new way, and to communicate. A world without art would be
as dreary as those tunnels between the Cannon Building and the Capitol
when they are without the art of the young people across our country. A
world without art would be a dreary, dreary existence indeed.
I hope that all of my colleagues will support the Slaughter-Johnson-
Horn amendment to increase funds for the National Endowment for the
Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute for
Museum and Library Services. It is a small investment with a return as
vast as our very imaginations.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this critical
amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts
and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Arts are our cultural language. They bring our communities together
and serve to define who we are as a society. Both the NEA and the NEH
broaden public access to the arts and humanities for all Americans and
improve the quality of our lives for our children and our families.
I spent a good deal of my career in public schools, and I have seen
the positive impacts that arts has in our children's education. The
arts teach our children rhythm, design, creativity, and critical
thinking.
The arts have also been shown to deter delinquent behavior of at-risk
youth and to help dramatically to improve academic performance, truancy
rates, and other critical skills among our children.
As the new economy demands a workforce that can think and work
innovatively, arts education provides a crucial part of that skill
building, skills that can begin at a very young age. For example, in a
child's elementary school class trip to the museum.
In my district on the central coast of California, students have been
exposed to the virtues of music, poetry, and dance as a result of our
National Endowment of the Arts support.
Students from Santa Barbara, San Marcos, and Morro Bay High Schools
had the opportunity to participate in the Essentially Ellington program
and study the jazz music of Duke Ellington.
Students and adults have been exposed to poetry through National
Poetry Month at the Lompoc Public Library, Miguelito Elementary School,
the Dunn School in Los Olivos, the San Luis City County Library, and
the University of California in Santa Barbara.
Thousands of my constituents have been thrilled and inspired by the
Mozart Festival in San Luis Obispo, the Santa Barbara Symphony
Orchestra, and the LINES Contemporary Ballet, which has performed at
both Allan Hancock College in Santa Maria and CalPoly University in San
Luis Obispo. These exhibits and performances have been funded and
supported by NEA.
For slightly less than 36 cents a year, all Americans have access to
all that the arts have to offer. It is a small price to pay for one of
our Nation's richest and most effective resources.
And so I urge my colleagues, let us vote for our children and support
the
[[Page H4528]]
Slaughter-Horn-Johnson amendment to strengthen both the National
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, since its creation in 1965, the National Endowment for
the Arts has issued more than 110,000 grants; and of this total, fewer
than 20 have been considered controversial.
We can match that 20 against grant recipients who received 35 of the
past 46 National Book Awards, National Book Critics Circle Awards, and
Pulitzer Prizes in fiction and poetry since 1990.
Thirty-five of those recipients have been NEA recipients. Match it
against the grant recipients of PBS's Great Performances that were
nominated for 121 Emmys and won 51 Emmys.
Imagine all of those who are recipients of NEA awards. Great
performances or small, the NEA has supported hundreds of professional
orchestras, dance companies, nonprofit theaters. And before that NEA
support, they really did not exist. But given NEA seed money and given
the credibility that they get by NEA choosing to make an award to them,
even if it be a small award, they then go out and raise substantial
amounts that are in many multiples of the actual money that NEA gets.
But that little seed, that credibility, makes a world of difference.
Federal funding for music, dance, theater, literature, and visual
arts is not just about the quality of life; it is about investments to
fulfill our human economic potential. By directing funds toward
culturally diverse, educational community-oriented programs, we provide
places where at-risk youth can express themselves creatively rather
than destructively.
{time} 1530
One witness provides a living testimony for why Congress should
increase NEA's budget. Three years ago, I know I was moved by the
testimony and I think all of the members of the subcommittee were moved
by the testimony of a young opera singer named Denyce Graves. She
testified that without the NEA, she never would have heard an opera,
let alone determined that she was interested in pursuing a career as an
opera singer.
Growing up in Washington, D.C., Ms. Graves was only a few miles away
from the Kennedy Center but because her family could never afford
Kennedy Center productions, it might as well have been a world away. It
was not until Ms. Graves, as a teenager, saw her first opera at a local
community theater funded in part through the NEA that she changed her
whole career aspirations. She was so inspired by the music, the drama,
and the passion that she decided at that moment she would become an
opera singer.
Since that day, Denyce Graves has performed as Carmen at the Met and
sung all over the world in major opera productions. But she has never
forgotten the role that NEA had in her life. She devotes a large amount
of her time working in community theater groups sponsored by the NEA.
She talks to inner-city kids about the importance of arts as an
alternative to violence and about how they can find constructive ways
to express their passions, their fears, their desires and their dreams.
That is what this is all about, funneling people's passions into
constructive things rather than destructive pursuits. Promoting the
arts improves our culture and helps instill civility. Arts and the
humanities can lift people up and show them a different way of looking
at the world. This Congress should continue to help the young Denyce
Graves of the world to achieve their dream.
Today we have a chance to increase our investment for this worthwhile
program. We can vote to increase opportunities for our citizens, to
enrich their lives, their communities, and improve the social fabric of
our Nation. We ought to give more Americans the chance to enjoy the
arts the way Denyce Graves and countless others have had that
opportunity because of the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA,
the NEH, the Museums, all that we do for the arts pays multiple-fold
dividends. It is part of our quality of life and part of our social and
economic progress. We ought to increase that investment today.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to complicate this, because everybody
has expressed themselves adequately and there has been a lot of emotion
and a great deal of coverage here. I just think there are three things:
One, do you believe in the arts? Secondly, do you believe in the
government being in the arts? And thirdly, how much money is involved?
I do not think there is any question about the first issue. I do not
think anybody who is adamantly opposed to the government being in the
arts opposes the arts. I mean, it is clear that there is tremendous
benefit to our society, to our children, all of the richness of our
lives.
So the second thing is, should the government be in the arts? I
really think it should. I will tell my colleagues why. I will give an
example of a particular program that years ago was trying to start up
an arts camp in Massachusetts. They could not get any money. It was
unproven. They were not sure it was the right thing to do. So they
finally got a 5-year grant, I think it was $5,000 a year, from the NEA,
which clearly was not enough to cover the program but it was enough to
signal to the other program on the outside, this is really worthy of
something because the National Endowment for the Arts of the United
States is supporting this.
The end result of this is they got the money, that people,
individuals, corporations and foundations supported this thing and as a
result, there are 40 to 45 of these camps literally touching the lives
of thousands of students. That never would have been possible had it
not been for that authenticity.
The third area is how much. I do not know how much. I do not know if
there should be an increase of 15 for the NEA, five for the NEH and two
for the Museums or whether it should be more or less. I do know,
though, the trend has been going in the wrong direction. Somehow if we
believe in this, then we must reverse it, and the numbers expressed
here today make a great deal of sense.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
As a proud member of the National Council of the Arts, and I saw my
good friend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) here, I
cannot help but be impressed with the thoughtfulness, the seriousness
and the commitment of the Members who are making these judgments. I
have seen with the gentleman from North Carolina firsthand the NEA's
grant selection process. I just want to applaud them once again for
successfully increasing America's access to the arts despite level
funding for the last 3 years.
Unfortunately, the bill before us sorely underfunds the NEA and would
inhibit the NEA from funding worthy and creative programs such as
Chairman Ivey's ``Challenge America'' which would further arts
education and outreach, particularly in underserved areas. It is so
exciting to see and to talk with Chairman Ivey about what he wants to
do, to go to areas where young people do not have access to the arts,
to go into schools where many of our young people really cannot express
themselves as well as others can without access to music, to art, to
other cultural attractions. This is so very vital for their education.
In a Nation of such wealth and cultural diversity, it is a sad
commentary on our priorities that year after year we must continue to
fight for an agency that spends less than 40 cents per American each
year and in return benefits students, teachers, artists, musicians,
orchestras, theaters, dance companies and their audiences around the
country.
Mr. Chairman, let us make a change this year. Now is the time to
increase funding for the arts. Let us do the right thing. Let us
support our young people. Let us support these programs. And let us
make sure the United States of America can stand tall and be proud of
our commitment.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the NEA, the NEH, the
Museum and Library Services and in support of the Slaughter-Johnson
amendment. My colleague the gentleman
[[Page H4529]]
from New York (Mr. Houghton) said, Well, we support the arts. We
support the Federal Government involvement in the arts. The question
is, how much money?
Let me take a try at explaining why we should be putting more money
into these organizations at this time. The National Endowment for the
Arts has been treated unkindly by this body for too long. Since the
early 1990s, the NEA, for example, has seen its funding reduced from
$162 million in 1995 to $99 million in 1996, to $97.6 million last
year. So even if we adopt this amendment, the NEA budget would still
fall short of the President's budget request.
To the credit of the NEA, it is continuing to do more with less. Even
with the shrinking budget over the last 5 years, NEA has provided a
greater number of grants to more communities across the entire country.
Unfortunately, simple math will tell us, while the number of grants has
risen, the average grant amount has dropped by 45 percent. We must stop
starving the National Endowment for the Arts. We have won the fight, I
hope, for the existence of the NEA and the NEH and Library Services.
But every year, it seems, we have to fight to raise it above
starvation. Whether it is the Kennedy Center's touring company in
Manalapan or the Boy Choir School or the McCarter theater, all of those
in my district, or a nonprofit group in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, or in Lake
Placid, New York, funding for the NEA touches all of our constituents,
bringing them arts, cultural events and educational opportunities.
Visual and performing arts, literature and poetry help us know
ourselves as a society and help us stretch ourselves and grow as a
society.
The President made a reasonable request of $150 million for the NEA.
My colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations set the NEA allocation
at $98 million. This amendment, I think, is a reasonable increase and
will help raise this above starvation levels.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this opportunity for personal
enrichment, for societal enrichment, for cultural enrichment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of increased funding for the arts and
humanities. I know there is a philosophical difference over whether or
not there is a Federal responsibility to assist in the creation of the
arts and the humanities across this Nation and whether the Federal
Government should be involved in helping to expose more Americans to
the benefits of those arts. But I have come to the realization that I
think the Federal Government does have a role, not a primary role but
it does have a role.
I also believe that increased funding for the National Endowment for
the Arts is justified. There are a lot of arts groups in my district,
in my part of Arizona that benefit very directly from this funding,
such as dance theater performances and in-residence musical troupes
that have been there in communities like Safford and Thatcher, poetry
readings, photography exhibits in Tucson and other small communities
around the district. These activities are a real asset to the rural
towns and to the larger metropolitan areas. They are precisely the type
of cultural activities that got overlooked too often without the
National Endowment for the Arts.
But having said that and my support for added funding, as a member of
the Committee on Appropriations, as a member of the majority and as a
member of this subcommittee, I have a basic question and a basic
responsibility and, that is, how do we get this bill past the House of
Representatives? An increase is great if it helps us to pass this bill
on the floor of the House. But it does not do us much good if the
majority of this body end up voting against the overall measure. So my
question to the sponsors would be, do they intend to support this bill
if an amendment is passed to increase the funding of the NEH and the
NEA? I hope that we get this answered sometime before this debate is
over.
My concern is a very practical one. If we adopt the amendment, do we
gain support for the bill? It appears that we do not. But I can assure
my colleagues that its passage results in a loss of support,
unfortunately as far as I am concerned, but a loss of support by some
Members on my side who have a very different point of view and whose
view I also respect.
It is for that reason, until I have some assurance about this, that I
would have to oppose this amendment. Because if we cannot get the bill
through the House of Representatives, off the floor of the House and to
conference with the Senate, then we all lose. We have to govern
responsibly. I do not want to risk shutting down our national parks and
forests over a virtual increase in funding, and I say ``virtual''
because this amendment does not actually allow any additional money to
be spent or obligated to NEA or NEH until the last day of the fiscal
year. It is in essence an advanced appropriation for the fiscal year
2002, not 2001.
So it is my hope that when this process is completed, the
appropriations process is finished for this next fiscal year, we can
find a consensus somewhere in what I would call the ``radical center''
and achieve a responsible increase in funding for the arts and
humanities.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I rise in support of the Slaughter-Johnson-Dicks amendment and really
applaud them for all of their hard work on this amendment. This would
add additional funding for the National Endowment for the Arts by $15
million, the National Endowment for the Humanities by $5 million, and
the Institute of Museum and Library Services by $2 million.
These programs help communities across the Nation develop critically
important cultural resources. Through the NEA grants to local
communities, support is provided for more than 7,400 K-12 arts
educational programs in more than 2,600 communities all across this
great Nation.
Chairman Bill Ivey has listened to the concerns of Congress and
responded to them. He has initiated a series of reforms, first in how
grants are given, and secondly in the arts reach program, he has
reached out to all of the States with the goal of making the
contributions equal among the States.
{time} 1545
The Challenge America program of NEA is hoping to bring educational
programs to our public schools, to our young people in the early years,
which is tremendously important. Study after study shows that children
who are exposed to the arts do better in school and have higher self-
esteem.
NEA, NEH and IMLS reach out to all of our communities. They provide
cultural and educational opportunities to our children and families
that enrich each and every one of us.
At the same time, these programs generate an enormous amount of
revenue, approximately $3.6 billion each year for our local economies
across this country.
The NEA is useful to all our communities and comes at very little
cost to taxpayers. Funding for the arts is much less than 1 percent of
our Federal budget, and funding for these extremely beneficial programs
has been frozen for several years.
In fact, funding is now 40 percent lower than it was 10 years ago. So
it is time to do more for students and communities across our Nation.
In my own city of New York, I cannot even imagine what it would be like
without the arts.
It is such a vital and important part of the enrichment and cultural
life of our city. And every single city should have arts, humanitarian
programs, the humanities and library services.
This amendment reaches out to accomplish that goal. Again, one goal
is to make sure that all States have equal funding. So I urge all of my
colleagues to support this package.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to divide my time with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), who actually was here before me, and the
gentleman consented to this. I will speak for 2\1/2\ minutes or less.
Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong support of the Slaughter-Horn-
Johnson amendment to enable an increase in funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts by $15 million, for the National Endowment of
the Humanities by $5 million, and for the Institute of
[[Page H4530]]
Museum and Library Services by $2 million.
We have heard over and over again, and we do agree it is critical
that we support Federal funding for these programs. They serve to
broaden public access to the arts in humanities for all Americans to
participate in and enjoy. The value of these programs lies in their
ability to nurture artistic excellence of thousands of arts
organizations and artists in every corner of the country.
The NEA alone awards more than 1,000 grants to nonprofit arts
organizations for projects in every State. These programs are also a
great investment in our Nation's economic growth. Let us realize that
the nonprofit arts industry alone generates more than $36.8 million
annually in economic activity. It supports 1.3 million jobs. It returns
more than $3.4 million to the Federal Government in income taxes.
I know that each of us in Congress can point to worthwhile projects
in our districts that are aided by the NEA, the NEH, and the Institute
of Museum and Library Services. In my district, Montgomery County,
Maryland, the NEA funds, just as an example, the Puppet Theatre Glen
Echo Park, just a few miles from the Capitol. It is a 200-seat theatre
created out of a portion of an historic ballroom at Glen Echo Park.
The audience is usually made up of children accompanied by their
families and teachers, representing the cultural and economic diversity
of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. An NEA grant
allows the Puppet Company to keep the ticket prices low so that many
young families can attend the performances.
One reads every day in the papers about those groups that travel
there for the performances. And in the last five years other
institutions and individuals in Maryland have received $18.2 million
from the NEH and the Maryland Humanities Council for projects that help
preserve the Nation's cultural heritage, foster lifelong learning, and
encourage civic involvement.
By supporting the arts and humanities, the Federal Government has an
opportunity to partner with State and local communities for the
betterment of our Nation. Both the arts and the humanities teach us who
we were, who we are, and who we might be. Both are critical to a free
and democratic society. It is important, even vital, that we support
and encourage the promotion of the arts and humanities.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote on the Slaughter-Horn-Johnson
amendment package.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will move to strike the requisite
number of words and take my own time.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my
good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter).
As chairperson of the Congressional Arts Caucus, she has done a
remarkable job in educating her colleagues on the importance of the
arts, humanities, history and literacy programs here in the United
States.
This amendment would restore $22 million of urgently needed resources
to the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the
Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
These funds will be used to continue and expand upon a number of
important programs at these agencies, including the arts, education
programs at the National Endowment for the Arts.
Currently over 5 million American children benefit from the arts
education programs, including a number of my constituents in the Bronx
and in Queens.
In my district, the BCA Development Corporation, which runs the
WriterCorps project, recently received $30,000 to support the Youth
Poetry Slam. The poetry program is designed to use teens' natural
penchant for competition and self-expression to introduce them to the
written and to the spoken word.
It has been proven over and over again that children who are exposed
to the arts remain in school longer, receive better grades and stay out
of trouble, and hold themselves in higher self-esteem.
Additionally, the NEA provides grants to cultural and folk
institutions throughout our country to demonstrate and show respect for
the diverse ethnicities that make up our great Nation.
As an example of the importance of these funds, the Thalia Spain
Theatre in Sunnyside, New York, received $10,000 to support a series of
folklore shows of music and dance from Spain and Latin America. The
music and dance shows included Argentine, tango and flamenco, and
classic Spanish dance, as well as Mexican folklore.
I am especially pleased at the funding award for the Thalia Spanish
Theatre. I have worked very hard to make sure that the arts and
cultural organizations cater to nontraditional and new audiences. That
is why I am pleased to thank both the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for once again
including my language into this bill to include urban minorities under
the definition of an underserved population for the purpose of awarding
NEA grants.
My district, which is composed of a diverse wealth of neighborhoods
throughout Queens and the Bronx, has a number of ethnic groups that add
to the tapestry of New York City.
My language will open NEA funding to more local ethnic arts groups
and more residents of Queens and the Bronx. It would also help fulfill
the mission of the NEA to guarantee that no person is left untouched by
the arts.
Once again, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Regula); the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks),
for all their hard work to include that language.
I want to also ensure that all Americans have equal access to
cultural programs. Projects targeted at urban youth will greatly help
keep these young people off the streets and away from the lure of drugs
and crime. The arts also help to break down barriers. They bring
communities together; and they offer hope, hope to struggling
communities throughout our country.
That is why the Slaughter amendment today is so important.
Additionally, this amendment will increase the funding for both the
National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute for Museum and
Library Services. These two agencies both have strong reputations among
both Democrats and Republicans for the wonderful work in restoring the
folk, oral, and written traditions of America.
The NEH has been very active in providing seed money throughout the
country, and particularly in New York City, to address the issues of
electronic media in the classroom. A specific grant was given last year
to assist in the training of teachers in new media techniques to
communicate the humanities to our children.
This type of project represents the best of the NEH and of our
government working directly with local communities to advance the
education of our young and train them for the future.
The NEH and the IMLS have led the way in working to build and
strengthen relationships between our Nation's libraries and museums and
our children's classrooms to ensure that the knowledge, creativity, and
imagination of every child of our great Nation is at the fingertips of
every young Einstein, Rembrandt, and Twain to come in the future.
This is an excellent amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is a
champion of the arts and the NEA and the people that speak for the
National Endowment of the Arts. I just happened to disagree with the
manner in which they fund the arts, and I will be happy to explain.
I want to tell everyone about a little girl that escaped from
Vietnam; her name was Foo Lee. She participated in the arts caucus
every year which have art students from the high schools submit their
work and we pay for the student to come back here, out of our own
pockets. Foo Lee escaped in a boat from Vietnam, and if anyone sees the
[[Page H4531]]
painting, we would actually get tears in our eyes, because she and her
whole family escaped from Vietnam on a rickety boat, and she drew a
picture of that. We can see the pain and the anguish.
Mr. Chairman, the little girl has a fantastic talent. We found out
that Foo Lee's mom stayed behind when she came to the United States.
She knew that if they were captured, that they would be all put into a
re-education camp, and there is nothing education about a re-education
camp in Vietnam.
So the mom, who was a gynecologist, actually stayed behind so that
Foo Lee and the rest of the family could come forward. It took 2 years,
but we finally got Foo Lee's mom into Lindbergh Field in San Diego on
Christmas Day, and that little girl is still an artist.
I want to tell everyone that there are artists like that, and there
are paintings of the children in our schools that paint in the hallway
here. There is a lot of very gifted children and a lot of talent there.
It should be cultured.
I respectfully disagree with the way that the National Endowment for
the Arts deals with taxpayer funding.
I will come into the district of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), and I will campaign for the arts, not for the gentlewoman.
I will not raise money for the gentlewoman, but I will come in and if
the gentlewoman has something here in DC or wants to raise money for
the arts, I will be happy to do that.
I openly seek from private industry to give and contribute to the
arts. I would make a wager that with most of the majority, I give more
money to San Diego Symphony and the Escondido Arts Center than most
Members give out of your own pockets.
Again, I disagree with taking it out of taxpayer dollars for the
National Endowment for the Arts in this way. And we have a lady named
Mrs. Bell; her husband started Taco Bell. She lives in my district. The
first time I met her she told me to take the bucket of lettuce out
there and go feed the chickens, Congressman. That is how nonassuming
she is.
She provided a grant to start an entire music system in Encinitas
Elementary School System, and I think that is what we ought to do. If
we want to support tax deductions for it, private contributions,
industry investing in education and the arts, as I said, I will even
come to the most liberal districts; I will come to the districts. I
will even come to the district of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) and fight for the arts.
Mr. Chairman, I disagree with this; and I would say to those, the
individuals that have the beliefs in this, I know the Members mean well
in this and see it as the way to invest in the arts. Some of us
disagree with that, and I hope the Members understand that as well.
Whatever pro or con of this particular amendment, the bill we feel it
will be a killer to the particular bill, and if Members want the bill
to pass, then I would reject this amendment. Whether pro or against
this particular bill, it may not be the case, but we feel that the bill
will go down, one of the reasons for this particular amendment.
We would like to pass the bill, and I would say to my colleagues, let
us support the arts, but let us not do it through taxpayer-funded
messages.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words and rise today in support of the Slaughter-Johnson-
Dicks amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the
Arts.
The arts and humanities are important components of American life.
The arts really bring to life the struggles and challenges many people
are confronted with on a daily basis. Moreover, the arts and humanities
transcend cultural race, religion, income, age and geography.
{time} 1600
Whether it is at the Kennedy Center or a theater in Chicago, the arts
really help to enhance the quality of life for all Americans through a
breathtaking array of cultural activity.
Statistics suggest that art programs in schools and music concerts
tend to stimulate students' learning and improve overall academic
performance. In my congressional district in Chicago, the NEA has had a
significant impact on many of our great institutions and on improving
the quality of life. For example, the NEA has supported the West Side
Cultural Arts Council, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Chicago Black
Ensemble Theater Corporation, the School of Art Institute of Chicago,
the Black Ensemble's Little City Program, the Museum of Contemporary
Art, the Illinois Arts Alliance, and the Field Museum of Chicago, just
to name a few.
For me, increasing funding for the NEA is not an option, it is
actually a priority, and it is a priority because public support for
the arts and humanities is the finest expression of faith in the
individual's ability to think, create and express ideas.
The arts and humanities can speak of things that cannot be spoken of
in any other way. They foster a sense of community by advancing the
understanding of history, of culture, and of ideas. Cultural diversity
is something that we talk about a great deal in this country, and it
is, indeed, a source of great strength to our Nation, a source of
energy, a source of creativity.
Therefore, I believe that sustaining and supporting an increase of
funding for the arts and humanities must indeed be a national priority,
if we are to be able to pull together and shape the Nation, based upon
the culture, the tradition, the hopes, the aspirations and the
contributions of all of its people.
Mr. Chairman, I urge, in a vote, urge a vote in favor of an increase.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of all the Slaughter amendments to
increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the
Humanities and for the Institute of Museum and Library Services. I only
wish they could have been considered as one, rather than have been
split up as they have been.
These are very modest amendments, and, personally, I would support
significantly greater increases for each of these three agencies. The
reason why is very simple. These agencies are good for the third
district of Massachusetts, a district that I am proud to represent.
They contribute to the economic vitality and cultural vibrancy of the
communities I represent.
Let me highlight a few examples for my colleagues. The Institute of
Museum and Library Services has provided grant support to expand and
enhance educational programs and public outreach to the Worcester Art
Museum, one of the premier museums in New England, as well as to the
Willard House and Clock Museum in North Grafton and the Worcester
County Horticultural Society. By supporting these museums, large and
small, IMLS has helped foster leadership, innovation and a lifetime of
learning for these communities.
The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided grant support
to the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester to conserve and
acquire books and manuscripts in the Society's collection.
Let me tell you a little more about the American Antiquarian Society,
one of my favorite sites in Worcester. It is a precious resource for
every single American. The Society houses the largest and most
accessible collection of books, pamphlets, broadsides, manuscripts,
newspapers, periodicals, sheet music and graphic arts material printed
from the establishment of the colonies in America through 1876. It is a
unique resource for the understanding of our history and culture. The
NEH has provided support to nearly every aspect of the museum's
operations, including outreach to the public and to school children. It
has also helped leverage additional State and private support.
Mr. Chairman, I also have 16 colleges and universities in my
district, and the IMLS and the NEH have provided invaluable research
grants and support for their educational and cultural work.
The National Endowment for the Arts has provided direct support to
activities in Worcester and Attleboro, and with its support of the
Massachusetts Cultural Council, reaches schools and community centers
throughout Central Massachusetts. These three agencies, Mr. Chairman,
help the educational, community and cultural institutions in my
district meet the challenges of the future.
[[Page H4532]]
Through their grant support, my communities can provide greater
public access to the arts, the humanities, and the resources of our
libraries and museums. They help these institutions incorporate and
make available to the public new technologies, regardless of income.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments. They
are modest but worthy investments in education and families and
children and our cultural heritage and our future.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues tonight as we debate this to
substitute the word ``religion'' every time the word ``art'' has been
used here. I suggest that there is a great deal, in fact, an exact
comparison, between almost everything that has been said in support of
the funding for the arts that could be said, but certainly would never
be said on this floor, if an amendment were proposed to support
religion.
As the Managing Director of Baltimore's Center Stage put it, ``Art
has power. It has power to sustain, to heal, to humanize, to change
something in you. It is a frightening power, and also a beautiful
power. And it's essential to a civilized society. Because art is so
powerful, because it deals with such basic human truths, we dare not
entangle it with coercive government power.''
For exactly the same reason that, certainly I know my friends on this
side of the aisle would stand up and rail against anyone who would
suggest that we should take public money and subsidize religious
experiences, for exactly the same reason I ask you to think about what
you are doing when you ask people to subsidize the arts.
The arts are, in fact, as close a resemblance to religion as I can
possibly think of. They are expressions of the innermost feelings in
our souls, and certainly worthwhile. Think of it this way: If we
subsidized religion, could we not come to the floor as the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis) did with that beautiful and eloquent
explanation of all of the wonderful things that happen in our country
because we subsidize religion, all of the incredible things that go on
in our own communities, the many benefits that we could bring to
individuals in our own communities because we could subsidize religion.
Certainly it would be difficult to argue with the benefits of a
religious experience. It is difficult to argue the fact that art is an
uplifting, a wonderful thing, that we all enjoy, in our own specific
way. But just as God is in the eye and/or mind of the believer, art is
in the eye and mind of the observer, and I have no more authority, no
more responsibility, to compel people in this country to support
religion than I do having them support the arts. And that is really the
most basic, I guess, comparison that I can make; and I ask my
colleagues to think about it. It is something somewhat more esoteric
than the kind of debate we have been having, but I think just as
germane.
Something that was written in 1779, ``To compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he
disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'' 1789. The author, of
course, Thomas Jefferson, in the Bill for Religious Freedom.
What, may I ask, do you think is the difference between what he is
warning us about here and what we are preparing to do with both this
amendment and the funding of the arts in general? It is difficult, if
not impossible, to determine a distinction, and although I understand
entirely the altruistic intent on the part of the people who want to
fund the arts and who want to increase the funding for the arts, I ask
you to think about the basic issue that forces itself into the
discussion here, and that is that when you compel people to contribute
money for the propagation of opinions which one disbelieves in and
abhors, it is sinful and tyrannical.
Art is in the eye of the beholder, and the minute that you fund the
arts, you do exactly what they fear would happen when you fund
religion, you politicize it. You will always then have people arguing
about what is proper art, what is proper for public support, what kind
of movie or what kind of play or what kind of books should be funded
with public dollars. We will always have that because, of course, it is
the nature of the business. If we fund it, we will attempt to regulate
it; we will attempt to censor it. We should not censor art; we should
not fund art.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from Colorado, and I thank
certainly the sponsors on this side, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and others.
One great thing about our Nation, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo) knows and all of us in this Chamber knows is that there are
differences that exist among us. We are tied together with some common
threads, but what makes us so great is that there are people who wear
different clothing, who cling to different political beliefs. Obviously
there are those that harbor different political philosophies, as we see
aired on this floor day in and day out.
What ties us all together really as Americans is that we all really
sort of share the same dreams and same aspirations. I have constituents
of mine in the Chamber today, and I can assure the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) they are good church members. They are members
of Princeton Avenue Full Gospel Church back in my district, and all of
them want their kids to go to a good school, and all of them want their
parents to maintain their health benefits at work, to maintain a job
and their health benefits.
But there are differences that exist among us that really make
America what it is. The NEA and the NEH in many ways helps to foster
that, sponsors those initiatives and those efforts, and I might add in
my public school system, both NEA and NEH grants have done wonderful
things to assist teachers and educators in passing along ideas and
teaching lessons to kids who sometimes might not ordinarily get them.
We have all seen the stats and the data that clearly demonstrated that
kids that are exposed to arts and music early in life do better in
their core subjects, the math and the science, the English and the
history and the host of other core subjects that are so critical to a
young person's development.
It is my hope, and I understand my friend from Colorado's passion
about this issue, but the facts are the facts. We are not talking about
religion here, we are talking about the arts. The Constitution speaks
clearly, the founding of this country was predicated upon those seeking
religious freedom.
So I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and
even some on this side of the aisle, think about all of those museums
and universities and schools, think about all those nonprofit and
community organizations that benefit from these grants. Think of the
young people's lives that we impact and touch and improve, and think
about the heritage and the ways in which we are able to bring people
together, despite our differences, and how these grants and initiatives
help to do just that.
Seeing the look on a young person's face when they learn about their
history and learn about their heritage and how it fits into this larger
national fabric is truly phenomenal, as the Speaker knows, and I would
hope that my colleague from Colorado knows as well.
I would ask all of my colleagues to look beyond the rhetoric from one
moment, to look beyond the political contributions for one moment, to
look beyond those political constituencies that would lambast the arts
and humanities, and let us support an initiative and support an
amendment that in many ways helps to bolster and promote what is great
about our Nation, our ideals, our democracy and our freedom.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the sponsors, and would urge support of this
amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-Horn
amendment to increase the amend of funding that we provide to the
National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the
Humanities, the Institute of Museum and Library Services. It allows
these groups to expand and continue what is truly important work that
goes on around the country in these areas.
[[Page H4533]]
These are agencies that are charged with bringing our history, the
beauty, the wisdom, culture, into the lives of all Americans, young,
old, rich, poor, urban, rural. We in the Congress have said that
preserving our national heritage and making it accessible to all
Americans is a goal that is worthy of our support. It is time now to
make sure that these agencies have the resources that they need to
achieve this mission.
{time} 1615
This is about our humanity, this is about our civility. This is what
defines us as a people. These are the institutions that help to capture
who we are and what we are about.
Many years ago I spent 7 years as the chair of the Greater New Haven
Arts Council in my city of New Haven, Connecticut, so I know firsthand
how the arts not only enrich lives, but contribute to the economic
growth of the community.
Federal investment in the arts is not only a means of support for the
endeavor, but rather, our dollars, which represent a small fraction of
an annual budget, are used to leverage private funding and fuel what is
an arts industry. This industry creates job, it increases travel and
tourism, it generates thousands of dollars for a State's economy.
If Members cannot be persuaded on the humanity portions of this
effort and the cultural and the preservation of our heritage, gosh, I
would hope Members would be turned on the issue of the economics of a
vibrant arts community.
In addition, the NEA is an important partner in bringing arts
education to more American youngsters. Arts education is critical. It
helps to plant seeds of art appreciation. It cultivates talent that is
yet to be discovered in the young minds of our kids around the country.
In partnership with State arts agency, the Endowment provides $37
million of annual support for from kindergarten through 12th grade arts
education projects in more than 2,600 communities across the country.
When we are teaching youngsters music, we teach them mathematics. It
is found and proven that the development of a musical education in fact
increases the mathematical ability of youngsters today.
The National Endowment funds professional development programs for
art specialists, classroom teachers, and artists. We are truly just
beginning to understand the benefit of arts education and the way in
which it helps to foster self-esteem for our youngsters, helps them to
choose a constructive path rather than turning to violence. We need to
continue to support these efforts.
We know that the arts builds our economy, it enriches our culture, it
feeds the minds of adults and children. The NEA, the NEH, the Institute
for Museum and Library Services, need to have an increase in their
missions. It is time we gave them our support.
Let us focus in on the legacy that we want to give to future
generations on who we were and what we did. Let it flower in our music,
in our painting, in our buildings. Let generations to come understand
who we are and what we have done.
This is an expression of our humanity. Let us not shortchange it. Let
us understand that it imbues who we are and how we live our lives
today.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first, I am opposed to the clean coal deferral because
I think the program is important in terms of energy independence. We
have many research projects in the clean coal program. We are going to
be able to sell a lot of this technology to the Chinese because most of
their power plants are fueled by coal. Yet they are growing more
sensitive to clean air problems.
What this amendment does is defer $22 million of clean coal funding
so that the money would be available to do an increase in the National
Endowment for the Arts. That is why all this discussion has been
focused around the NEA. Without this window of money there is not
anyplace to do an offset, which of course would be required for an NEA
amendment.
Just so the Members understand, the vote will be on whether or not we
should defer $22 million of clean coal money which would be used for
potential projects in developing clean coal technology and use that
deferred money for an amendment later on.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, of course the gentleman, who has done so
much on this particular issue, realizes also that the administration
requested a much larger deferral; that we can defer this money until
the end of the fiscal year and the testimony is that it will not have
any effect whatsoever on the programs, the substance of the programs.
All the projects will go ahead, but it does make the money available
for this amendment.
Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is correct.
Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the Administration did request
more. I do not agree with them. I think that the Department of Energy
needs to have this space, although they might feel differently, in the
event that they have some projects that will fit the clean coal
technology objective.
In any event, just so the Members understand this vote, and it will
be the second vote this afternoon, the vote is to take $22 million of
clean coal money and make it available to do the increase that will be
proposed by amendment in the National Endowment for the Arts program.
That is why the debate was revolving around the NEA. So that will come.
I might say, I have been advised by the leadership, and I think a
memo that went out to this effect to all the offices, that they plan to
finish this bill tonight. So I think we need to keep working on it if
we want to get it finished. That is the present plan from the
Republican leadership. I just want to advise Members of that. I hope
that once we get by these two amendments we can reach some time
agreements in order to get this bill finished in a timely way.
I would urge my colleagues and the colleagues on the other side of
the aisle to vote against this second vote tonight. The first vote will
be on the Sterns amendment to reduce the funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts. The second vote will be on this proposal to
defer $22 million of clean coal money.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I appreciate the
chairman's concern about the clean coal technology research money, and
have for years supported it. I would hope that in conference he can
move the money around in an appropriate way.
Mr. Chairman, it is very, very important, and it is difficult within
our process, but it is very important for this Congress in this session
to provide some modest increase in funding for the NEA, the NEH, and
our museum folks.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell the Members why. Bill Ivey, the new head of
the NEA, deserves to be recognized and supported. He has earned our
support. He has not only brought that agency back on track, but he has
brought it in compliance with the letter of all the reforms this House
has adopted, and in compliance with the spirit of those reforms.
He has gone beyond that. He has developed a new NEA program called
``Challenge America.'' Challenge America is to do exactly what this
House said over and over again, particularly Republicans, what they
wanted the NEA to do. That is to bring arts money to the service of
local communities. If any Member has ever been in one of the HOT
schools, stood there and listened to that fifth grader tell you what it
means to go to a school that is a Higher Order of Thinking school, you
would have had to become a believer.
One of the problems in America is that kids are not learning well.
They are not learning to integrate logical thinking with intuitive
thinking. Kids who have arts education develop better skills in those
areas and do better lifelong. This is not an issue. The research is
overwhelming.
So for the NEA to take on Challenge America, to challenge our
communities at the local level to better integrate arts into their
curriculum so kids will
[[Page H4534]]
learn better, think better, and be stronger members of our Nation, that
is a very good thing. Bill Ivey is doing it.
Secondly, look at the rural communities, at least in my part of the
country. They are developing tourism as the way to save the rural
economies. They are developing theaters, they are developing museums in
their very old houses, and in Connecticut, resuscitating the old iron
industry, which built the cannons that won the Revolutionary War for
us.
So these areas of our country need this kind of Challenge American
money to be able to develop the economy that will compliment the farm
economy and create strong rural communities. What is the NEH doing? The
NEH is out there helping these small communities develop the very
museum capacity, that preserves our history and strengthens our
communities.
I have seen it happen. They come in with expertise far beyond what
any small community could mobilize. They connect that little museum
planning committee with nationwide intellect, experience, and
capability in both the area of planning exhibits, communicating with
kids, and developing outreach programs that make museums strong
economic entities, and also part of that chain of facilities that means
that tourism can compliment a rural economy to make it strong.
The NEA and the NEH are not just about some abstract cultural
strength of our country, they are integral to the development of the
arts, theater, music, poetry, educated children, a strong work force,
and strong economies in our cities and towns.
Anyone who has been involved in economic development of the cities
knows that we cannot do it without the arts. So for us to put just a
little money into the NEA, which is now on the right track and reaching
our local kids and local towns, a little money for the NEH, a little
money for the museum folks who are doing so much good in communities of
all sizes to build institutions that will last for generations is
right.
It would be simply a tragedy if we do not respond to the changes
these organizations have made, and to their ability now to reach into
every corner of America and help us achieve the goals we cherish: a
strong cultural heritage; to value that of the past and create that of
the future.
If this is not a perfect vehicle, we just have to set that aside. A
lot of things are not perfect vehicles around here. But if we can save
this money, pass the NEA amendment, then in conference with the Senate
higher levels and the Senate NEA money, we will be able to make just a
little tiny improvement in our funding for the arts, the humanities,
and our museum development capability.
I think we owe this much to ourselves and to our children and the
communities of America.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to rise in strong support
of these amendment which are offered by the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) who
just finished speaking very eloquently, along with the gentleman from
California.
These amendment provide $15 million in addition for the NEA, $5
million for the NEH, and $2 million for the museum and library
services. They are very modest amendments, and they have an excellent
value for the dollars that are proposed.
The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for
the Humanities play an important role in our society that we should not
allow to be trashed in the halls of this Congress.
Since 1995, the majority party has moved every year to either
eliminate or cut funding levels for the NEA and for NEH. At the $98
million proposed appropriation for fiscal year 2001, the funding level
for the NEA is 40 percent what it was only in 1995. The NEH has not
fared much better. The 2001 level proposed is 33 percent below what
have provided in 1995. Both are at less than half the appropriation
reached during the 1980s administrations of Presidents Reagan and Bush,
both Republicans.
By the proposed underfunding of the NEA, this Congress would once
again shift funding away from people whose opportunities in the arts
are the most limited among all Americans, and that at a time when the
NEA has redesigned the program to broaden its reach to all Americans.
The Challenge America initiative that has already been described so
well by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) is aimed at
making grants available to our Nation's small-and medium-sized
communities. For such communities, often NEH and the NEA are the
opportunity of last resort for exposure to arts and humanities in their
common form.
The smaller communities in western and central Massachusetts use
these funds to provide residents with theater productions, museums,
local arts centers, and such.
{time} 1630
If Congress refuses to increase funding for NEA above fiscal year
2000 levels, this Challenge America initiative will not grow and thrive
and thousands of underserved communities will continue to be denied
access to the arts.
Funding for the NEA and NEH represents a minuscule percentage of the
overall Federal budget and contributes enormously to the cultural life
of cities and towns throughout the Nation. Surely, these programs are
as deserving of a $22 million increase in funding in the combination of
these amendments as the few thousand wealthiest families in America are
deserving of billions of dollars of tax give-away that the majority
party pushed through this House only last week.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote on the amendments before us.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enter into a colloquy to clarify the
committee's position on an important technology program for fuel
economy. I recognize that the funding levels have placed severe
restrictions on the committee's ability to provide funding for many of
these worthwhile programs. For example, the transportation sector
within the Department of Energy is reduced by $5 million, resulting in
a reduced funding for critical research in fuel cell and hybrid
technology. Despite this restrictive allocation, I am still interested
in developing new technologies to improve fuel economy on our passenger
cars and sport utility vehicles. While some emerging technologies such
as fuel cells receive Federal funding, there are other technologies
such as engine boosting that need government investing to determine if
they can become a viable solution to improve fuel efficiency,
performance and air quality.
Finding a technological solution is particularly important in light
of concerns about rising fuel costs, continued consumer demand for
SUVs, and ongoing concerns about our air quality.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUYKENDALL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is correct that our fiscal year 2001
allocation, which is $300 million below the amount enacted for fiscal
year 2000, prevented us from providing funding for new programs.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Reclaiming my time, I proposed increasing funding for
the Department of Energy's Light Truck Program by $5.3 million over 3
years to support technology development and demonstration activities
for turbochargers and other boosting devices. Data from Europe on
production cars shows that turbocharging enables the downsizing of
engines to improve fuel economy while maintaining the performance and
power of larger engines.
The program I proposed adapts and demonstrates current boosting
technologies on SUVs here in the United States, and thus helps develop
other new engine boosting technologies. Ultimately, these technologies
may improve fuel economy on the SUV alone by 14 to 16 percent.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUYKENDALL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
[[Page H4535]]
Mr. REGULA. Developing and demonstrating energy-efficient
technologies for transportation applications is an important goal. I
understand the purpose of this initiative is to offer an alternative in
the U.S. market and generate near-term fuel economy improvements and
emission reductions.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Again reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for
his consideration of this important effort. As this bill moves forward
through the legislative process I urge him to keep this program in mind
and look for ways to provide some mechanism for getting it into the
fiscal year 2001 in the event that additional funds become available in
the future.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUYKENDALL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. We will certainly be mindful of this program and give it
every consideration as we move forward in the legislative process.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter-Horn-Johnson
amendment which calls for increased funding for the National Endowment
for the Arts. Over the past 30 years, our quality of life has been
improved by the arts. Support for the arts and Federal funding for the
NEA illustrates our Nation's commitment to our freedom of expression,
one of the basic principles on which our Nation is founded.
Cutting funding for the arts denies our citizens this freedom, and
detracts from the quality of life in our Nation as a whole.
The President's committee on the arts and humanities released the
report entitled Creative America, which made several recommendations
about the need to strengthen support for culture in our Nation. That
report applauds our American spirit and observes that an energetic
cultural life contributes to a strong democracy. This report also
highlighted our Nation's unique tradition of philanthropy but also
noted that the baby-boomers generation and new American corporations
are not fulfilling this standard of giving. It saddens us that
something as important as the arts, which has been so integral to our
American heritage, is being cast aside by our younger generation as
something of little value.
By eliminating funding for the arts, our Nation would be the first
among cultured nations to eliminate the arts from our priorities. As
chairman of our Committee on International Relations I have come to
recognize the importance of the arts internationally, as they help
foster a common appreciation of history and of culture that is so
essential to our humanity. If we were to eliminate the NEA we would be
erasing part of our civilization.
Moreover, I understand the importance of the arts on our Nation's
children. Whether it is music, drama or dance, children are drawn to
the arts. Many after-school programs give our young people the
opportunity to express themselves in a positive venue away from the
temptations of drugs and violence. By giving children something to be
proud of and passionate about, they can make good choices and avoid
following the crowd down dark paths.
However, many young people are not able to enjoy the feeling of pride
that comes with performing or creating because their schools have been
cutting arts programs or not offering it altogether. We need to make
certain that this does not continue to happen. I am doing my part by
introducing legislation to encourage the development of after-school
programs in schools around the Nation that not only offer sports and
academic programs but also music and arts activities.
Increasing children's access to the arts will only benefit this
country as a whole. It is our responsibility to make certain that our
children have access to the arts. I strongly support increased funding
for the NEA, and I urge our colleagues to oppose any amendment which
seeks to decrease NEA funding and support the Slaughter-Horn-Johnson
amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I did not want to let this opportunity go by without
having said a few words in favor of this amendment. I do so in the
context of my great respect for the chairman of the subcommittee,
recognizing that with the allocation that was provided him he has done
the best work that could possibly be done by anyone on this bill.
Within the parameters he was allowed to operate, he has provided us
with the best bill that could be provided within those parameters.
However, I think that there is something that we all would like to do
beyond that which has been done for the arts, the National Endowment
for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. These are
both very important entities for the American people.
It strikes me as somewhat ironic that many of the Members of the
House availed themselves of a very unusual opportunity last night, and
that was to go over to the Kennedy Center to see a live performance. It
happened to be a performance of a great American novel, to Kill a
Mocking Bird, a wonderful and striking story. Many people went over,
and I am sure those who went did enjoy it. Now today, we find ourselves
unable to provide the kind of funding that a civilized society such as
ours ought to provide for the enhancement of arts and humanities within
our country.
The amount of money that is being asked for in this amendment is,
frankly, very modest. Nevertheless, even with that very modest amount
of money, a very substantial difference can be made. I would just point
to one particular program that Bill Ivey has produced within the NEA,
and I think everyone would agree that he is an outstanding chairman of
the National Endowment for the Arts. I refer to the Challenge America
program. Now, this is a program that is designed to expand the NEA
outreach initiative, and they are doing so all across the country. The
NEA is reaching out into small towns and villages and counties in the
most rural areas and in urban areas as well. They are providing people
in those areas with opportunities to see important aspects of American
and world art, aspects which they would not have the opportunity to see
without this initiative.
The Challenge America program, reaching out into communities so that
young people, young and old, can have the opportunity to see ballets,
to see theater, to see a display of important art that is in the
Smithsonian. They are taking their show on the road all across America,
but that program will never see itself fulfilled, and many communities
across the country will be denied the opportunity to see the kind of
art that is available in our museums, as well as the great musical
productions that are available and dance productions that are
available, they will not be able to see them without additional funding
that would go to the Challenge America program.
So for arts education, to enhance our cultural heritage, to give art
programs for youth at risk, to provide access to the arts in
underserved areas and for community arts partnerships, the Challenge
America program is a model and we ought to be funding it. So if we pass
this amendment, if we provide this modest additional funding for the
NEA and the NEH, a great many people around our country will have the
opportunity to enrich their lives and enhance their experience that
they would not have without it.
So, Mr. Chairman, with particular and deep respect for the work that
our chairman has accomplished, I respectfully hope that the majority of
the Members of this House will adopt this amendment.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter
amendment to increase funding for arts and humanities programs.
The National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) provides important funding
for developing art education opportunities allowing each of and
everyone one of us to explore our creative talents. In my state of
North Dakota this funding has been used to support vital programs such
as the North Dakota Council on the Arts' ``Traditional Arts
Apprenticeship Program'' and the Plains Art Museum's educational
outreach program. These programs are only a few examples of the
important role that the arts can play in allowing each of us, whether
young or old, to express, develop and explore all our creative
dimensions. I strongly believe in the importance of the arts to all
Americans, especially our young children, and I support funding for the
program.
[[Page H4536]]
Some would suggest supporting funding for the NEA as proposed in the
Slaughter amendment is an attack on coal. Only a small bit of light on
this argument reveals that it is utterly baseless. I am a strong
supporter of the Clean Coal Technology program which provides important
funding for the development of new and innovative technologies to
reduce environmental impacts from the burning of coal. However, not one
dollar in funding for the Clean Coal Technology Program will be reduced
under this amendment. Further the amendment will in no way hinder the
operations of the program.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from New York,
Ms. Slaughter, for her leadership and determination for support of the
arts.
Since the earliest days of our Republic there has been an
appreciation for the arts in the lives of Americans. Indeed, our second
President John Adams wrote to Abigail Adams in 1780:
I must study politics and war that my sons may have the
liberty to study mathematics, philosophy, geography and
agriculture in order to give their children a right to study
painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and
porcelain.
How far we have strayed from that aspiration of our second President
when the House of Representatives supports the arts by a slim margin
and a meager budget.
Skimping on the arts is a false economy. The arts are their own
excuse for being--to paraphrase Emerson. The arts are important to our
economy creating jobs as well as ideas and works of beauty. And the
poet Shelley once wrote that ``the greatest force for moral good is
imagination.'' With the challenges facing our nation's children it is
clear that we need all of the imagination they can muster. We must
encourage their creativity--for itself and for the confidence it
engenders in them.
Children often express themselves through the arts more effectively
and sooner than through other endeavors. The confidence they find
through the arts enable them to face other academic challenges more
effectively. It enables them to face life's challenges with more.
Support creativity, support imagination, supports Ms. Slaughter's
amendment.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud today to join with so many
of my colleagues to increase funding for the National Endowment for the
Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of
Museum and Library Services. Fulfilling our commitment to the arts will
enrich the lives of many Americans, especially our children.
I would like to recognize the good work of the Illinois Arts Council
and the Illinois Humanities Council. They provide critical leadership
in the support and development of numerous arts and humanities programs
that touch the lives of so many in Illinois. Among those wonderful and
innovative programs in the Lira Ensemble in Chicago, the only
professional performing arts company specializing in the performance,
research, and preservation of Polish music, song, and dance. The Lira
Ensemble and other arts and humanities programs contribute greatly to
our communities. They deserve our support.
It cost each American less than 36 cents last year to support the
National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA in turn awarded over $83
million in grants nationwide and over $1.7 million in my home state of
Illinois.
Economically, support for the arts and humanities just makes sense.
The arts industry contributes nearly $37 billion into our economy and
provides more than 1.3 million full-time jobs. In addition, arts
education improves life skills, including self-esteem, teamwork,
motivation, discipline and problem-solving that help young people
compete in a challenging and ever-changing workplace.
Let's do the right thing for our communities and increase this
funding now.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
support for increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts
(NEA) as well as additional investment in the National Endowment for
the Humanities (NEH) and the Institute for Museum and Library Service
(IMLS). I congratulate my colleague from New York, Ms. Slaughter, for
the adoption of her amendment earlier in the day which adds funding to
these important programs. Further, I am astonished at the lengths the
majority is going to in order to deny the will of the House.
NEA has not had a funding increase since 1992 when its budget was
almost $176 million. In fact, in the 104th Congress when I arrived,
efforts were made by the Majority to eliminate the NEA. The funding
level in the bill under consideration today, $98 million, is inadequate
and should be increased within the context of a balanced budget.
Congresswoman Slaughter's amendment does not make the program whole but
it made a modest, much-needed increase in funding for the NEA.
We need additional funds to support grants for art education which we
know is key to reducing youth violence and enhancing youth development.
If we are serious about curtailing youth violence, cutting funds to an
agency that is getting positive results with its youth arts project is
counterproductive. Consequently, I commend Congresswoman Slaughter for
offering her amendment which would increase funding for the NEA by $10
million and provide an additional $5 million for the NEH and $2 million
for the IMLS.
In my district, NEA has successfully funded the Ailey Camp of the
Kansas City Friends of Alvin Ailey, which is a national dance troupe.
This 6-week dance camp has an 11-year history and has provided
opportunities for more than 1,000 children. This camp provides a
vehicle, through art, for children to grow and enjoy the experience of
success. Beyond the dancing, they also have creative writing, personal
development, antiviolence and drug abuse programs. Statistics confirm
the success of this program on behavior and learning of these at-risk
children.
The NEA funds several programs at the American Jazz Museum (AJM) in
Kansas City, the only museum of its kind in the country. NEA funding
helps the AJM preserve and present jazz so that people from all over
the city, the country, and the world learn to appreciate one of the
first original American art forms.
Four years ago, the NEA and the U.S. Department of Justice took the
lead in jointly funding the youth arts project so that local arts
agencies and cultural institutions across the nation would be able to
design smarter arts programs to reach at risk youth in their local
communities.
One of the primary goals of the youth arts project is to ascertain
the measurable outcomes of preventing youth violence by engaging them
in community based art programs. This program has had a dramatic impact
across the nation, and we must preserve adequate funding for NEA to
continue it and to expand it.
We should also be requesting additional funds to expand the NEA
summer seminar sessions which provide professional development
opportunities to our nation's teachers who are on the front lines in
our efforts to reach out to our children. Mr. Chairman, art and music
education programs extend back to the Greeks who taught math with music
centuries ago. Current studies reaffirm that when music such as jazz is
introduced by math teachers into the classrooms, those half notes and
quarter notes make math come alive for students.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose any back door attempt to
undo Congresswoman Slaughter's victory. It is the right thing to do
substantively as well as institutionally. Please support additional
funding for the NEA, NEH and IMLS to send a message that art and music
in the classroom increase academic achievement, decrease delinquent
behavior and contribute to reducing youth violence.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, today, we have the opportunity to award
the National Endowment of the Arts its first increase in funding in 8
years. It should be touted that the NEA we fund today is not the NEA
Republicans faced when they first came into the Majority in the 105th
Congress. In fact, the NEA is different because of the changes we
enacted.
In January 1996, after being reduced in size by 40 percent, the
agency went through major structural reorganization. After the NEA was
forced to consolidate programs and re-prioritizing funding, Congress
enacted a number of reforms which provided the NEA with greater
accountability and a more stringent grant process.
In the FY 1996 Interior Appropriations bill, we codified the
elimination of the use of subgrants to third party organizations and
artists. Simply, that means if an art museum in Hickory, NC, receives a
grant from the NEA, the grant money can only go to the projects the
museum applied for. The funding cannot in anyway go towards projects or
artists not mentioned on the application.
In fiscal year 1996, Congress prohibited grants to individuals except
in literature. This is important as it stopped the focus of handing
artists blank checks. This also enabled more funding to go to community
centers and projects which deal with a greater number of people. Again,
in 1996, we placed a specific prohibition on seasonal or general
operating support grants. Applicants must now apply up-front for
specific project funding or support. Grant terms and conditions require
that any changes in a project after a grant has been approved must be
proposed in writing in advance.
Then in 1998, Congress placed a percentage cap on the amount of NEA
grant funds that could be awarded to arts organizations in any one
state. Also in 1998, the agency created ArtsREACH, a program designed
to place more grant funds in under-represented geographic areas.
[[Page H4537]]
These reforms and the NEA's commitment to arts education and
community outreach programs represent the new NEA, not the NEA
Republicans faced in the 105th Congress.
As I have stated in my Dear Colleagues, I am one of five Members of
Congress who serve on the National Council of the Arts, which is the
governing board of the NEA. I've been to nearly every National Council
session, and I've been impressed by the depth of change at the agency
over the past two years. Grants are going to smaller organizations
located in small or medium-sized communities. These are the places that
are most in need and where the agency is targeting its new programs.
It has been 8 long years since the NEA has seen an increase in
funding. I'm not advocating a tremendous increase, but an increase that
rewards the NEA for the good job they have been doing in recent years.
Vote yes on this amendment, and support the new NEA.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by my good friend and colleague from New York, Congresswoman
Louise Slaughter.
As Chairperson of the Congressional Arts Caucus, she has done a
remarkable job in educating her colleagues on the importance of the
arts, humanities, history and literacy programs here in the United
States.
This amendment would restore $22 million of urgently needed resources
to the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the
Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
These funds will be used to continue and expand upon a number of
important programs at these agencies, including the arts education
programs at the National Endowment for the Arts.
Currently over 5 million American children benefit from the arts
education programs including a number of my constituents in the Bronx.
In my district, the BCA Development Corporation, which runs the
WriterCorps project, recently received $30,000 to support the Youth
Poetry Slam. The poetry program is designed to use teens' natural
penchant for competition and self-expression to introduce them to the
written and spoken word.
It has been proven over and over again that children who are exposed
to the arts remain in school longer, receive better grades, stay out of
trouble, and hold themselves in higher self-esteem.
Additionally, the NEA provides grants to cultural and folk
institutions throughout our country to demonstrate and show respect for
the diverse ethnicity's that make up our great nation.
As an example of the importance of these funds, the Thalia Spanish
Theatre in Sunnyside, New York received $10,000 to support a series of
folklore shows of music and dance from Spain and Latin America. The
music and dance shows include Argentine tango, flamenco, and classic
Spanish Dance, and Mexican folklore.
I am especially pleased at the funding award for the Thalia Spanish
Theatre. I have worked very hard to make sure that the arts and
cultural organizations cater to non-traditional and new audiences.
That is why I am pleased that Chairman Regula and Congressman Dicks
for again including my language into this bill to include ``urban
minorities'' under the definition of an ``underserved population'' for
the purpose of awarding NEA grants.
My district, which is composed of a diverse swath of neighborhoods
throughout Queens and the Bronx, has a number of ethnic groups that add
to the tapestry of New York City.
My language will open NEA funding to more local ethnic arts groups
and more residents of Queens and the Bronx. It will also help fulfill
the mission of the NEA to guarantee that no person is left untouched by
the arts.
So I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of all of their
hard work.
I want to ensure that all Americans have equal access to cultural
programs. Projects targeted at urban youth will greatly help keep these
young people off the streets, and away from the lure of drugs and
crime. The arts also help to break down barriers, they bring
communities together, and they offer hope.
That is why Mrs. Slaughter's amendment today is so important.
Additionally, this amendment will increase the funding for both the
National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and
Library Services.
These two agencies both have strong reputations among both Democrats
and Republicans for their wonderful work in restoring the folk, oral
and written traditions of America.
The NEH has been very active in providing seed money throughout the
country, and particularly in New York City, to address the issue of
electronic media in the classroom. A specific grant was given last year
to assist in the training of teachers in new media techniques to
communicate the humanities to our children.
This type of project represents the best of the NEH and of our
government working directly with local communities to advance the
education of our young and train them for the future.
The NEH and IMLS have led the way in working to build and strengthen
relationships between our nation's libraries and museums and our
children's classrooms to ensure that the knowledge, creativity and
imagination of our great nation is at the fingertips of every young
Einstein, Rembrandt, or Twain.
This is an excellent amendment and I urge all of my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Slaughter/Horn/Johnson amendment to increase funding for the National
Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities and the Institute of Museum
and Library Services (IMLS). The arts and culture have a lasting,
positive impact on communities across the nation, yet for years these
agencies have been sorely underfunded. It is critical that we give them
the increases they richly deserve.
The arts are an essential part of our culture, and the new millennium
provides us with the opportunity to focus on the role that the NEA and
the NEH play in projects that preserve our cultural heritage and
promote our creative future.
The NEH preserves our cultural heritage through its work to preserve
the events and historical documents that shaped our nation. NEH
projects serve to define who we are as a nation and where we come from.
They allow us to pass along our ideals to the next generation.
The NEH promotes our creative future through teacher training in the
arts, arts in schools outreach, and after-school arts programs. The NEA
has proposed a new arts education collaboration to involve youth in the
arts. Research has proven that providing youths with access to the arts
leads to higher academic achievement and fewer incidences of drug abuse
and violence. Kids exposed to the arts and music earlier in life do
better in their core academic subjects. The arts improve both their
creativity and critical thinking skills and raise their self-esteem. We
are only just beginning to understand how our youths' lives are
impacted through the arts.
Clearly, the arts and humanities serve as an essential and forceful
vehicle to educate our citizens and help our struggling youth. They
touch and enrich each of our children's lives. Yet, the United States
spends the least among ten industrialized nations on the arts and
humanities. Federal leadership and funding play the essential role in
these efforts to make arts available in every community to every
citizen.
This debate is not a debate just about arts. It is a debate about
whether we are willing to be creative in America. There is not an
industry in the United States that does not depend on the arts, does
not depend on the imagination, does not depend on the ability to look
at things, as they say, ``outside the box.''
I'd like to leave you with a quote from the National Foundation on
the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, which established the National
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
A high civilization must not limit its efforts to science
and technology alone but must give full value and support to
the other great branches of scholarly and cultural activity
in order to achieve a better understanding of the past, a
better analysis of the present, and a better view of the
future.
We must ensure that these agencies have the resources they need to
fulfill this mission. I encourage you to support the Slaugher/Horn/
Johnson amendment and increase funding for the NEA, the NEH and the
IMLS.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak once again about the
importance of the arts in my district, and to show my support for an
increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
We are simply not doing enough to recognize the value and importance
of the NEA to our national vitality. The network of financial support
for the arts in our communities is very closely linked, and weakening
any link is not in our public interest. Arts organizations rely on
funding from a diverse pool of resources, and the NEA is often a
linchpin in helping build and preserve a strong sense of community.
As many of you are aware, Minnesota's Fourth District has one of the
highest concentrations of Lao-Hmong immigrants in the nation. The Hmong
have worked very hard to adjust to a new language and culture, and the
arts have done an amazing job of reaching out to the Hmong community.
The NEA in particular has played an important role in helping the Hmong
find ways to strengthen their cultural identity and creative
expression.
Recently, the Center for Hmong Arts and Talent (CHAT) in St. Paul
received a grant from the NEA to run a new, multidisciplinary youth
arts program. This initiative was designed to allow professional
artists to engage Hmong youth in typically American arts media through
visual arts, video production and literary programs. These programs,
which reach
[[Page H4538]]
kids aged 10-18 years, successfully work to increase understanding
between different cultures.
Another example of the importance of NEA funding is a project by the
Women's Association of Hmong and Lao (WAHL). In an effort to educate an
increasingly U.S.-born Hmong population. WAHL capitalized on NEA funds
to help preserve Hmong traditions such as PajNtaub story cloths. These
beautiful story cloths, which depict Hmong lifestyle changes and
cultural evolution, are a unique testament to the Hmong-American
experience.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support an increase in funding for the
NEA. We must ensure that this program remains a viable component in
building valuable community arts projects nationwide.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Slaughter-Horn-Johnson amendment which increases funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts by $15 million, for the National
Endowment for the Humanities by $5 million, and for the Institute for
Museum and Library Services by $2 million.
Investments in our cultural institutions, like the NEA and NEH, are
investments in the livability of our communities. For just 38 cents per
year per American, NEA supported programs help enhance the quality of
life for Americans in every community in this country. For just 68
cents per year per American, NEH supported programs preserve our
heritage by keeping our historical records intact and building
citizenship by providing citizens to study and understand principles
and practices of American democracy. In fact, Congress established the
NEH because ``Democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens.''
Adequately funding the National Endowment for the Arts, in
particular, is absolutely critical to the state of Oregon, which has
suffered in recent years from cutbacks at the state and local levels.
Portland and other cities in Oregon have managed to make this work by
using public funds to leverage as much private investment as possible.
Portland arts groups manage to attain about 68% of their financial
resources from the box office, which is higher than the national
average of 50%. Portland companies have stepped up to the plate--
doubling their investment between 1990 and 1995. The public investment,
particularly the investment from the NEA, is absolutely critical to
preserving these opportunities.
A commitment to culture pays many dividends--dividends that promote
our economic development and our understanding of the world around us.
Economically, an investment in culture helps promote tourism. People
flock to cities that support the arts and humanities, benefiting
hotels, convention centers, restaurants, and countless other businesses
related to entertainment and tourism. In fact, the nonprofit arts
industry generates $36.8 billion annually in economic activity,
supports 1.3 million jobs, and returns $3.4 billion to the federal
government in income taxes and an additional $1.2 billion in state and
local tax revenue.
An investment in culture also helps previously disenfranchised groups
gain access to new cultural experiences. The NEA, for example, provides
fun and educational arts programs that help students and teachers
develop arts, environment, and urban planning curricula. Public funds,
like those from the NEA, are also critical to keeping ticket prices
low, giving lower income individuals and seniors the opportunity to
attend cultural events. If ticket prices reflected the entire cost of
the event, cultural events would by necessity be denied many of our
citizens, especially the young and elderly.
We won't be able to meet these unrealistic budget caps by limiting
spending on our Nation's cultural heritage. This approach is
shortsighted and doesn't recognize the long-term economic and social
benefits an investment in culture conveys to our communities and the
Nation as a whole.
We have the tools, infrastructure and innovative spirit in place to
make communities across the nation more livable through cultural
opportunities. What we need to promote is a National commitment to
improving the livability of our communities by investing in culture. We
can develop and promote that national commitment through the NEA and
the NEH.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
My state of Minnesota benefits greatly from the NEA. Federal- and
state-supported arts events in Minnesota stimulate growth in business,
tourism and a healthy economy.
Most importantly, though, the arts help our children perform better
in all subjects at school. A Minnesota Center for Survey Research poll
at the University of Minnesota found that 95% of Minnesotans believe
that arts education is an essential or important component of the
overall education of Minnesota's children.
I would like to share with you some of the many exciting arts
activities that take place in my district. NEA funding supports arts
programming and artists-in-residence programs in schools throughout my
district, including Hopkins High School, Orchard Lake Elementary School
in Lakeville, Zachary Lane Elementary School in Plymouth, Wayzata High
School, Excelsior Elementary School and the North Hennepin Community
College in Brooklyn Park.
Several other organizations in my district provide additional
educational opportunities for both adults and children. Stages Theatre,
Inc. in Hopkins is a theater company dedicated to giving young people a
professional setting in which to develop their theater performing
skills, as well as an outstanding venue for young audiences. The
Bloomington Art Center, an art school and gallery, offers classes,
exhibition spaces and theatrical experiences to both vocational and
professional artists of all skill levels and ages. The Minnetonka
Center for the Arts is a community arts education facility that employs
professional artists and educators to teach the arts to people from
ages three to 90. Without these and many other NEA-sponsored
facilities, my constituents would have far less access to the arts.
We in Minnesota are fortunate to have a healthy and vibrant
community, both artistically and economically. For the third year in a
row, Minnesota was named the ``Most Livable State'' by Morgan Quitno
Press, in large part due to our citizens' access to the arts.
Again, I ask my colleagues to support an increase in NEA funding to
continue this trend of excellence in education, community development
and quality of living.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. 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 gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
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: The amendment, as modified, offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Stearns
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Stearns) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment, as modified.
The Clerk designated the amendment, as modified.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
This will be a 15-minute vote, followed by a 5-minute vote on the
Slaughter amendment.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152,
noes 256, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 282]
AYES--152
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Fletcher
Fossella
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
King (NY)
Kingston
Largent
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
[[Page H4539]]
McInnis
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Radanovich
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)
NOES--256
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Cook
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weygand
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--26
Becerra
Blumenauer
Boucher
Campbell
Cooksey
Costello
Danner
Engel
Greenwood
Hinojosa
Hooley
Jefferson
Klink
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
McCollum
McIntosh
Oxley
Rangel
Serrano
Shows
Toomey
Velazquez
Vento
Wexler
Young (FL)
{time} 1705
Ms. DeLAURO, Mr. MENENDEZ, and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Ms. DeGETTE, Messrs. WELDON of Florida,
SHUSTER, UDALL of Colorado, BACHUS, PACKARD and BISHOP changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the additional
amendment on which the chair has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207,
noes 204, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 283]
AYES--207
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Cook
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--204
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
[[Page H4540]]
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--24
Becerra
Blumenauer
Boucher
Campbell
Cooksey
Costello
Danner
Engel
Greenwood
Hinojosa
Hooley
Jefferson
Klink
Lofgren
McCollum
McIntosh
Oxley
Rangel
Serrano
Shows
Toomey
Velazquez
Vento
Young (FL)
{time} 1721
Messrs. BERRY, TURNER, POMEROY and BISHOP changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
Mrs. BIGGERT and Mr. BASS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to ask a question because I know the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and a number of others are being
asked a lot of questions by Members on both sides of the aisle.
As I understand it, the intention announced earlier by the leadership
was for the Committee rise at 6 o'clock so that Members might catch
their airplanes.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going anywhere. My plane has been canceled a
long time ago.
I rise to ask a civil question, and I would like a civil response if
possible. If I could just ask. My understanding is that the Chicago
airport has canceled a number of planes, that Detroit is closed, that
the New England area is having rapid cancellations. And so Members are
simply trying to figure out what their plans are.
I would simply inquire of the gentleman, either the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Regula) or the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the
distinguished majority leader, I would simply like to ask if the
leadership intends to keep the commitment which was announced to the
House or whether the rumors are true that we hear that they now intend
to be in until 9 o'clock.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do
appreciate your inquiry.
You know, we talk about this every year, it is appropriations season.
All the Members are anxious about continued progress on appropriations
bills.
We had ended the week last week with a colloquy in which we
encouraged every Member to understand we would be working and working
late each night this week, including this evening.
The floor managers of the bill have worked very hard. We worked out
an agreement last night that we thought would give us good progress. We
had high hopes of continuing this work and completing it by 6 o'clock
today. But as we can see, we are approaching that hour; and we are not
near completion.
It is the consensus of opinion that in order to maintain our schedule
so that we can fulfill all of our work requirements in a timely fashion
as the year proceeds that we must complete this bill before we leave
this evening. That, of course, always is difficult under the 5-minute
rule.
Wherever possible, the floor managers do work out time agreements. I
would encourage all the Members with amendments to continue to be
cooperative, as they have been, with the floor managers. And as we work
our way through these, I am confident we will complete this bill this
evening. And tomorrow morning when we get up early and enjoy the
sunshine and look forward to the rest of our weekend back home and
flights that are not bedeviled by bad conditions across the country, we
all are going to feel so good that we finished this up tonight, as we
will do.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for
his comments.
Let me simply say that the problem, as has been brought to my
attention by a number of Members, is that the schedule published by the
leadership indicates legislative business, no votes after 6 p.m.
As I have said, my plane has long been canceled. I will be here
today. I will be here tomorrow. I will be here Sunday. But I regret
that the leadership has seen fit to upset the ability of each
individual Member to get back to their district, planes allowing.
And so if it is the intention of the leadership to go back on the
understanding that was reached last night, then I very reluctantly move
that the committee do now rise.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would hold that motion and
if the gentleman would continue to yield, our agreement that we made
last night was in full understanding of the need and the commitment to
complete this, where the floor managers said, and I think in good faith
and with all good intention, that they would do everything they could
to finish by 6 o'clock.
{time} 1730
Unfortunately, given their best efforts, they have not been able to
achieve that. We have not been able to achieve that. We still have a
clear understanding of the need to complete the work.
Mr. Chairman, I should say to the Members that as we proceed this
evening, we will as we do on all other evenings try once we get past
this section of the bill to work through a series of holding votes and
rolling them so that they can have a pleasant hour or two for their
evening meal as we continue on the work with our commitment to complete
the bill as soon as possible.
Mr. OBEY. If I could simply respond to the gentleman, I was in the
meeting when the commitment was made. The gentleman was not in the
meeting where we discussed the times.
I know that last night, I asked the staff of the distinguished
majority leader whether they were indeed certain that they wanted to
have the vote on the rule on HUD today, because I told them that it was
my reading of the interior bill that with all of the amendments
pending, they would not be able to finish by 6 if they followed through
on that rule. We were told that the intention of the leadership was
that we were leaving at 6, that the committee should do its best to be
done by 6, but there was a clear understanding that the Members would
be allowed to leave as scheduled at 6 o'clock.
Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 218, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 284]
AYES--183
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
[[Page H4541]]
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Sherman
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--218
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--34
Becerra
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boucher
Campbell
Cooksey
Costello
Danner
Engel
Greenwood
Hinojosa
Hooley
Horn
Istook
Jefferson
Kasich
Klink
Lofgren
Martinez
McCollum
McDermott
McIntosh
Nadler
Oxley
Rangel
Scott
Serrano
Shows
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Toomey
Velazquez
Vento
Young (FL)
{time} 1749
Messrs. TERRY, HOEKSTRA and CRANE changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. TOWNS and Mr. HILLIARD and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Royce
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Royce:
Page 66, line 21, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by 237,000,000)''.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that
the time be equally divided.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, in 1996, the President and the Congress
agreed to provide no new money to the Clean Coal Technology Program.
Taxpayers are footing the bill for technology to be used by private
companies.
In my view, government has no business favoring certain companies
with tax breaks and subsidies. The free market is there to allocate
resources in the most efficient way possible. Federal involvement only
serves to distort the marketplace by giving selected businesses special
advantages, corporate subsidies, put other businesses that are less
politically well connected at a disadvantage.
Corporate welfare has lead to the creation of what some have termed
the statist businessman who has been converted from capitalist to
capital lobbyist. Companies should invest their own money in research
and development activities on what they believe are promising
technologies, rather than look to the Government for funding.
And private industry is much better suited to identify and target
technologies that are commercially viable. The best thing government
can do to promote economic growth is to get out of the way, get out of
the way and let entrepreneurs and the mechanisms of the marketplace
determine how the economy's resources will be directed.
Private industry can flourish without this corporate welfare. Clean
Coal Technology, as it is called, is supposed to help the electric
industry, but it is not even interested in the technology. According to
the Congressional Research Service, based on current trends, the
technology of choice for new construction will be natural gas fired
plants.
In 1994, the General Accounting Office found that a number of Clean
Coal Technology demonstration projects were experiencing problems and
difficulties, and in a report released this March, the GAO found that
the problems they identified then still continue today. Only worse,
eight of the 13 remaining projects had serious delays or financial
problems; six of eight are behind the schedule of completion date by 2
to 7 years; two of the eight projects are bankrupt and will never be
completed.
Instead of just deferring money, we should be investigating how we
can get the obligated funds back from these bankrupt projects. Congress
has had a history of rescinding money from this program due to the
failure of projects being completed. In fact, for the past 3 years,
over $400 million has been rescinded.
At the very least, I think we should defer the amount that President
Clinton has requested to be deferred; and on top of that, we should
also defer what the President wanted to rescind. And that would be the
total amount of $326 million, which is what this amendment would do.
I believe, frankly, that it should not be spent on bankrupt and
mismanaged programs, and I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the point was made that the industry should make their
own expenditures, and I want to point out to the Members that for every
dollar of Federal money in the Clean Coal Technology program, there are
two dollars of private money. This has been a partnership, but it has
been a partnership where industry has carried the heavy end of it, and
we have had some real successes.
I wish I could take every Member to Tampa, Florida, to visit the
plant that was built under this Clean Coal Technology program. It is a
greenfield plant. The efficiency is probably almost double that of the
normal plant, and the emissions are very negligible. They capture every
part of a lump of coal, the sulfur, the various other components.
As I said, I was there. They are getting everything but the squeal
out of that lump of coal, and they are doing it under a very efficient
system. So it does work. It is an important program, because as we talk
about the continued effort to clean up our air, to clean up
[[Page H4542]]
our water, we need to have a clean coal program on stream.
Let me point out that whatever else we may think about it, we are
going to be using coal for the foreseeable future as a major source of
power generation. Our committees invested a lot of money in boiler
technology, in addition, to the clean coal technology, because we have
a plentiful supply of coal. Perhaps in actual BTUs, the coal supply of
the United States is the equivalent of most of the known oil in the
world today.
If we are to have energy independence, if we are to have electricity
to fuel a growing economy, we need to use coal and to use coal in a
clean, environmentally safe way. It requires clean coal technology.
Many of these projects are under way. I do not think it is an
appropriate time to take out the money or to make it difficult for the
Energy Department to continue on the Clean Coal Program.
A few weeks ago or a few days ago, we voted to bring China into the
WTO. One of the compelling reasons was that China could grow the
economy and become a market for United States products. China alone
plans to build eight to 10 power plants a year, a year, eight to 10 a
year for the next 20 years. That is 160 power plants. 75 percent of
those will burn coal, because this is the fuel that they have.
If my colleagues are concerned about the environment, I think it is
essential that we develop this technology. We will have a market for it
in China, and not only will we have a market in the process of cleaning
up the air in China, this, of course, adds to the cleaning of air in
our global environment.
For those who talk about Kyoto and the Kyoto Protocol, the premise is
that any impact on the environment of air emissions, wherever it occurs
in the world, has a deleterious impact on all of us.
{time} 1800
If we can use this technology, sell it to China, persuade them to use
it in the generation of power as they expand their economy, we will be
doing ourselves a favor, not only economically, but in terms of the
environment.
For all of these reasons, I urge Members to vote no on this
amendment. I do not think it is an appropriate time to give up on the
technology that has such an enormously bright future.
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. There has been
an awful lot of talk on this floor the last few days about our
dependence on foreign energy, particularly upon foreign oil. Well, this
amendment and similar amendments have come up every year since I
entered the Congress in 1993, and every year Members of the
Pennsylvania and West Virginia delegations take this opportunity to
remind our colleagues of some very important facts.
Number one is that we have more recoverable coal in this country than
the whole world has in recoverable oil. Yes, that is true. There is
more recoverable coal in this country than recoverable oil in the whole
world. We should be reinvesting in alternative sources to use that fuel
that we have available, not disinvesting.
I am honored to represent the anthracite coal fields of Pennsylvania,
along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), and we have anthracite coal
that is high in Btu and low in sulfur and meets every EPA standard of
the Clean Air Act.
Technology has been around for decades where we can turn waste coal
and raw coal into diesel fuel and gasoline. The Germans did it during
World War II, the South Africans did it during the embargo. I am sure
many of my colleagues have been receiving the same complaints I have
been receiving about high gas prices here in the United States. We
should take this opportunity to be reinvesting in alternative ways so
that we can perfect that technology so we can use our own natural
resources.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Let us
take advantage of our own natural resources and not disinvest. Let us
reinvest in clean coal technology.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee
on Appropriations, there is nothing new being developed under the Clean
Coal Technology Program except for new ways to squander taxpayers'
money.
The clean coal program idles environmental innovation. It duplicates
initiatives already under the 1990 Clean Air Act. It has been
consistently found time and time again, GAO report after GAO report, to
manage inefficiently.
Mr. Chairman, the demand for clean coal is also falling in the energy
market place. The Clean Coal Technology Program under the Department of
Labor has spent nearly $2.5 billion since 1986 in grants to help
private industry develop commercial technologies to burn coal in less
polluting ways. What that essentially means is that we have given $2.5
billion already to private companies for commercial technologies to
make a profit on it to sell it. In other words, it is industrial
policy. We are picking winners and losers in the marketplace with
Federal subsidies, subsidizing the research and development end of
their budget, thereby engaging in what many people call corporate
welfare.
Mr. Chairman, this is also a very redundant program. We already have
an innovative system for cleaning up our air in the 1990 version of the
Clean Air Act. We have emissions trading. Which is a situation in which
private companies already have an incentive to reduce pollution through
emissions trading under this act.
This program is, plain and simple, a boondoggle. In the last 3 years,
Congress has rescinded $400 million in funding as the clean coal
technology projects have proven that they cannot be completed in a
timely and efficient manner, if completed at all.
In the most recent GAO report, released this March of the year 2000,
the GAO found that problems identified in the mid-1990s found that a
number of clean coal demonstration projects have experienced
difficulties meeting costs, schedule, and performance goals. As the
2000 report finds, these problems continue today and have become worse.
Two of the eight projects studied out of the 13 are in bankruptcy.
Eight more are heading to bankruptcy. This program is wasting
taxpayers' money, they do not work, they are not on schedule, it is
industrial policy, it is corporate welfare, it is antienvironmental, it
duplicates the Clean Air Act, and, more importantly, according to the
Congressional Research Service, conventional wisdom within the
electricity industry based on current trends is that generating
technology and fuel costs, that the technology of choice for new
construction will be natural gas-fired plants.
This is a thing of the past. Why we should continue to subsidize
these corporate budgets is beyond me. I urge passage of this amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would invite the gentleman to go to the
Tampa Power Company and visit their plant if the gentleman thinks it
does not work. It is remarkable what they have accomplished in that
program. It is a greenfield plant, so they had the advantage of
starting from scratch, but they are taking what is normally about a 30
percent efficiency in the use of the BTUs in a lump of coal and getting
about 60. That illustrates the value of the program, plus the fact that
they can use any kind of coal because they do a pressure cooker process
which extracts the sulfur and the other things that have value and it
reduces emissions to almost a negligible point. So I think it
illustrates it does work. I do think there is a lot of opportunity to
sell this technology.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I
clearly respect the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the leadership
he has given on this issue and many others, I simply think it comes
down to the point where we have the mechanism in place under the 1990
Clean Air Act to reduce emissions. Emission trading is a market-based
initiative that is actually serving this public good, without having to
obligate taxpayer money, without having to have the Department of
Energy pick this company to
[[Page H4543]]
give money to over that company to give money to, thereby engaging in
industrial policy.
I think that there can be merits pointed out, but the point is the
demand is losing, many of these projects are inefficiently managed, the
GAO report is consistently telling us these things are not well
managed.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I
think this is a useful debate, and that is, of course, as the projects
go on stream and succeed, they do pay back the investment of the United
States government. So it becomes a kind of seed money type that will
allow them to sell the bonds to make these projects work. My concern is
that we are going to have an enormous demand for power as the economy
of this country expands, and I think coal is going to be the fuel of
choice simply because there is so much of it. We ought to figure out
how to get it done in an energy-friendly way.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Regula, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Ryan of
Wisconsin was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I think one can clearly contest
the point whether coal is going to be the fuel of choice or not. I
think natural gas has a good case for it. I think that around the
country, according to the Department of Energy itself, natural gas
usage will increase 44 percent between the year 2000 and 2020, with
electricity utilities expecting to represent 60 percent of this total
increase. So it comes down to a philosophy. I do not think the Federal
Government should be doing this.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not have a dog in this fight. The most agriculture
I have in my district is at the swap meet. I do not have any coal
fields, I do not have any natural gas, but I will tell you what my
concern is. In my heart I understand the gentleman's amendment, any
waste fraud and abuse we want to eliminate. But I take a look at our
dependence on foreign oil, and my colleague, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks), looks at our military constraints and the
problems that we have with oil reserves and those things. He does a
very good job of that.
In Utah, one of the reasons we lost the fight, but in the fight with
the Antiquities Act, the President made a monument of the cleanest coal
in the world. And, guess what? Mr. James Riady was the recipient of
that because it gave him a collective position on coal to sell to
China. The President then gave China $50 million to put a coal plant
in. Where does Riady crack his coal? In China. Now we have to buy that
coal back. Look at the workers that have been put out of work in Utah.
I look at the Antiquities Act also and my concern for renewable
resources, or at least resources that we could use, instead of
dependence on foreign resources. If they take, for example, ANWR, which
is a postage stamp in a large area, but I think the President will
probably under this go and try and make a national monument in ANWR,
one of our largest reserves of oil in the world.
I look at another thing that we did in this House, some conservatives
along with the others, the fusion-fission program, which was showing
promise, we canceled that research. Natural gas is another area in
which I think we ought to invest. I do not know how beneficial the
clean coal is. I do know I have been to some of my colleagues'
districts that have coal miners and workers, and I know how much they
are hurting, and that bothers me. But do we have jobs? Corporate
welfare? No.
So I would reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment, just because
we may have some bad research in coal, but we may have some good. My
concern, I think like the gentleman from Washington, is where do we get
our resources when we run short in natural emergencies? We are going to
have to rely on those.
I am part of the problem myself. My bill stopped offshore oil
drilling off of the coast of California, because I do not want to be
like Long Beach and have our beaches all polluted. So I would say to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), I am part of the problem as well.
I understand that. But, on the other hand, we also need to be able to
have resources so that this country can work.
Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I support the fossil energy program because, contrary
to some of the arguments made on this floor, it has produced meaningful
results that have benefited all Americans. Let me give the Members some
examples.
Let us talk about cleaner air. Fifteen years ago the old technology
that could effectively remove smog-causing nitrogen oxide pollutants
from a power plant cost $3,000 per ton of NOX reduced. But
DOE's clean coal research helped develop better lower-cost combustion
technologies. Today that research has reduced pollution control costs
to less than $200 a ton, and 75 percent of the coal-burning plant
capacity in this country uses these new low-polluting burners.
Let us talk about sulfur emissions, one of the pollutants associated
with acid rain. Today sulfur emissions from power plants are down 70
percent since 1975, even though the use of coal has increased by more
than 250 percent. Many utilities installed scrubbers to reduce sulfur
pollutants, and more will likely be installed in the future. But in the
1970s, scrubbers were expensive and unreliable. Today, largely because
of DOE's research, scrubbers are much more affordable and reliable, and
they cost only one-fourth as much as they did in the 1970s. That alone
has saved the United States ratepayers more than $40 million a year,
and more than $40 billion since 1975.
Let us talk about the future. Until the 1990s, the only way to use
coal to generate electricity was to burn it, but then came the Clean
Coal Technology Program. Today, because of this program, residents can
get their electricity from power plants that turn coal into a super
clean gas, much like natural gas, and it burns it in a turbine. It is
the forerunner of a new generation of high efficiency, virtually
pollution-free power plants. It would not have been possible without
the DOE research program.
The track record for fossil energy research is a good one, and when
you realize that 85 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuels, it
is important we have this research, because it benefits every American
who turns on his light switch, or, for that matter, breathes the air.
Let us remember one thing: Coal is our most abundant source of
energy. It is an energy source which no foreign nation can hold us
hostage with. We should vote to keep these results coming in in the
future. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Royce amendment.
{time} 1815
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the House will reject the amendment offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce). I am sure it is meant in
good will, but the fact is that it defers too much money to next year.
His amendment would defer $237 million.
I come from a district where we have two of the largest coal
operations in the United States. The Port of Los Angeles has a major
coal facility. So does the Port of Long Beach. Most of that coal moves
to Asia. That coal could be a lot cleaner than it is, as many residents
could tell us. As the coal train comes from Colorado and Utah and
travels through little towns and large towns.
So I think it is just overreach to wipe out all of the funding in
this section. I agree with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) on
this issue, and I would hope all Members of the House would also vote
No on the Royce amendment. Vote down this particular amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. I
want to tell the chairman that I think he is absolutely right. The
administration suggested a higher level of deferral. We gave 67. The
House in its good judgment added 22, or 89; something a little higher
than that if necessary might be appropriate.
[[Page H4544]]
But to do the whole thing, to defer the entire program I think would
be a mistake. I think we have to continue this important research and
work towards a cleaner coal technology. Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote on
the amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment. I think the purpose of it is quite clear. They are trying to
kill a fly with dynamite. I think they believe if they take away all of
the money, there will not be any for the National Endowment for the
Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the museums.
Frankly, the clean coal portion of this legislation is very
important. I just want to urge that everybody look or search their
minds here and really understand what is happening with this amendment.
I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for saying this
should not be voted for, and I join him in that. I hope that everyone
will vote no.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce)
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
energy resource, supply and efficiency
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation
activities and for fossil energy research and development
activities, under the authority of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), including the
acquisition of interest, including defeasible and equitable
interests in any real property or any facility or for plant
or facility acquisition or expansion, and for conducting
inquiries, technological investigations and research
concerning the extraction, processing, use, and disposal of
mineral substances without objectionable social and
environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), performed
under the minerals and materials science programs at the
Albany Research Center in Oregon, $1,139,611,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $2,000,000 shall be
derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the Biomass
Energy Development account: Provided, That $153,500,000 shall
be for use in energy conservation programs as defined in
section 3008(3) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507):
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of
Public Law 99-509, such sums shall be allocated to the
eligible programs as follows: $120,000,000 for weatherization
assistance grants and $33,500,000 for State energy
conservation grants: Provided further, That no part of the
sum herein made available shall be used for the field testing
of nuclear explosives in the recovery of oil and gas.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 67, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $45,000,000) (increased by
$20,000,000) (increased by $3,500,000) (increased by
$9,500,000) (increased by $5,000,000) (increased by
$7,000,000)''.
Page 67, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $23,500,000)''.
Page 67, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
Page 67, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $3,500,000)''.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to particularly thank the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind),
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), Mr. Udall, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Lazio), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Rush) for their support of this bipartisan amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is also supported by a very broad
coalition of environmental and public interest organizations, including
the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, and U.S. Public Interest
Research Group.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses, among other things, the very
serious national problem of millions of lower-income Americans being
unable to properly weatherize their homes for the winter or for the
summer. The result is that their limited incomes literally go drifting
out the window of their underinsulated homes.
In addition, from an environmental point of view, this Nation wastes
billions of dollars in higher than needed energy costs. That is money
that is just going through the windows, through the doors, and through
the roofs.
For those of us who are concerned about protecting the financial
well-being of lower-income Americans and for those of us who are
concerned about the environment, this is a very important amendment.
This amendment increases funding for energy efficiency investments by
$45 million, including $20 million for the highly successful
weatherization assistance program.
The $45 million offset for this amendment is the fossil fuel energy
research and development program, otherwise known as power generation
and large-scale technologies. This amendment would bring that program
down from $410 million, that is a lot of money, $410 million to $365
million.
Mr. Chairman, last year 248 Members voted in favor of an amendment to
cut the fossil fuel energy research and development program by $50
million. Unfortunately, despite our vote to cut this program that is
widely regarded as corporate welfare, the conference committee not only
ignored our vote, but added more than $50 million to this controversial
program.
Some of us are determined, and when it comes to corporate welfare
versus the needs of millions of low-income Americans all over this
country, we are going to stand up against corporate welfare.
Mr. Chairman, the energy efficient programs that this amendment
supports have been enormously successful and have saved Americans some
$80 billion over the last 20 years. Yet, funding for these programs has
been consistently shortchanged.
According to the Alliance to Save Energy, funding for Federal energy-
efficient programs have been reduced by almost 30 percent since 1996.
In other words, we are increasing funding for weatherization efforts
which have been cut in recent years, which is what this amendment is
about, in order to cut a dubious program which has seen significant
increases in recent years; more money for low-income people to
weatherize their homes, less money for a program that has gone up in
recent years, which many regard as corporate welfare.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would also increase funding for the
State energy program by $3.5 million. That program helps homeowners,
schools, hospitals, and farmers reduce energy costs.
Mr. Chairman, regarding the fossil fuel energy research and
development program, let me quote from the report of the fiscal year
1997 Republican, I say it again, Republican budget resolution. I would
hope my Republican friends would hear this.
``The Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars on research
and development since the oil crisis of 1973 triggered this activity.
Returns on this investment have not been cost-effective, particularly
for applied research and development, which industry has ample
incentive to undertake.
``Some of this activity is simply corporate welfare 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 the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), that is the
1997 Republican budget resolution.
Let me quote from the 1999 Congressional Budget Office report, which
says, ``The appropriateness of Federal government funding for such
research and development is questionable. Federal programs in the
fossil fuel area have a long history of funding technologies that,
while interesting technically, had little chance of commercial
feasibility even after years of Federal investment. As a result, much
of the Federal spending has been irrelevant to solving the Nation's
energy problems.''
[[Page H4545]]
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, that is the CBO, 1999.
Mr. Chairman, I can well understand why some of my friends from
various States are here to defend this program. I can understand that.
The reality is that unlike the weatherization program, which is well
distributed to all 50 States, the lion's share of fossil fuel research
money goes to relatively few States. In fact, over 50 percent of the
designated funds goes to four States, while 38 percent of that money
goes to two States. This amendment is good environmental policy, it is
good public policy, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this
amendment.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sanders amendment. Let me
say that we have tried to strike a carefully balanced allocation of
funds in the fossil fuel account. We have recognized that fossil fuels
cover a lot of areas.
What the gentleman is attempting to do is just rearrange the chairs
on the deck in what he would consider to be a more efficient way. But I
would point out, and we have this experience, we only need to drive
down the street and look at gasoline prices to recognize that we need
to have research into making automobiles more fuel efficient, into
burning our fuel in a more efficient way also.
We are now up to importing 52 percent of our oil, and predictions are
that it will rise to 64 percent by 2020. Members can imagine how
subjected we will be to OPEC pricing and to the price of fuel. Of
course, that reflects then in the price of consumer goods.
This country is so dependent on energy, and every dimension of our
industrial economy is tied to energy use. Our lifestyle is tied to
energy. What we have tried to do in this bill, in the allocation of the
fossil research money, is to ensure we get the best possible use of the
resources.
This is an interesting statistic: One-third of the world's
population, 2 billion people, do not even have access to electricity.
Of course, that again is going to cause a tripling of consumption over
the next 50 years as the lesser developed nations try to expand their
economy. It is a market for our clean coal technology, and it will be a
market for other technologies that will be developed under the fossil
program.
As has been pointed out by a speaker earlier, we have more coal in
this country than the rest of the world has of recoverable oil in terms
of Btus. We need to conserve our natural gas, but we also need to have
the development of technology that will cause the production of natural
gas to be more efficient.
That is part of the fossil research. We can get gas from deeper and
more complex formations. We can get a better extraction, because we
need all these energy sources. We need coal, we need gas, we need
petroleum simply because, as a Nation, if we just look at the
statistics and project our energy needs over the next say 40 or 50
years, they are going to be enormous.
We are the people who are laying the foundation for an adequate and
efficiently produced source of energy. Whether our children and
grandchildren will enjoy the same quality of life that we have, which
is tied to energy consumption, clearly is being determined by the way
we use these resources.
What we have tried to do on the committee, because it is our
responsibility, working with the minority Member and myself and the
other members of the Committee, is to say, this is the best we can do
to allocate the resources in terms of energy production.
In weatherization, as the gentleman knows, we have increased it from
$135 million to $139 million. That is a commitment on our part because
most of our funding was level, but we felt that the weatherization
program deserved some additional funding.
All these programs are important. I think that tonight to just simply
rearrange all of these ways in which we have tried to address energy
need is not the way to go.
The committee, working with the Department of Energy, has exercised
what we consider to be our best judgment of the use of our Nation's
resources to provide the energy needs of tomorrow and tomorrow and
tomorrow, and to ensure that future generations will have the same
opportunities that we have had, because they are tied very dramatically
to energy.
I think that the result of this amendment will be to decrease the
domestic energy supply availability. I hope that the committee, the
Members of the full committee and the House will support the judgment
of the Committee on the Interior.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made the point that the
committee had increased funding from $135 to $139 million. What the
gentleman is talking about is the money that was included in the
supplemental.
Mr. REGULA. For weatherization, yes.
Mr. SANDERS. But the gentleman knows that Senator Lott has declared
that supplemental dead on arrival, and what we are looking at is $15
million less.
Mr. REGULA. There is a conference on the supplemental next week, and
I think it will be addressed. But again, this is important to this
Nation's future.
{time} 1830
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). As many of my colleagues are
aware, the amendment before us is the latest incarnation of the
gentleman's perennial crusade to hamper important energy research and
development efforts.
At a time when all of our constituents have been rightfully concerned
with our Nation's energy security, an area of great importance to our
overall national security, I believe that a move to indiscriminately
slash $45 million from energy R&D will produce unwarranted and
detrimental effects that will only exacerbate the current situation and
fester throughout the summer driving season.
Let us keep in mind that the United States currently imports 54
percent of its crude oil from other countries, more than at any time in
our history. If we do not take aggressive actions to alter this trend,
by 2020 we could be importing 64 percent.
In a recent ``dear colleague'' sent out by the proponents of the
Sanders amendment, the claim is made that the intention of the
amendment is to reduce our dependence on overseas oil. Now, how can
this be achieved if $45 million is being moved away from research into
areas such as fuel cells and methane hydrates, both of which represent
abundant energy supplies, and transferring the funds to support the
purchase of caulking, weather stripping, and storm windows?
Now, this is not to say that we should not pay attention to improving
energy efficiency of low-income households. We should, but not at the
disproportionate expense of critical R&D efforts that will reduce our
dependence on overseas oil as well as produce a whole host of other
beneficial outcomes.
Let me be clear. I have been a strong supporter of efforts such as
the weatherization program and LIHEAP. So my concern about this
amendment does not rise out of opposition to weatherization but out of
an interest to achieve appropriate funding proportionality.
Whenever one program of merit is pitted against another, it is
critical for Members to move beyond the wordsmithing, smoke screens,
and surface sentiment and to look to the facts of the matter. If
Members take time to do a brief cost benefit analysis, they will find
that supporting energy R&D efforts is the most efficient and effective
investment we can make.
Consider the following: Despite the fact that the weatherization
program has not been authorized since 1990, its funding level has
continued to receive increases. $128 million in fiscal year 1997; $124
million in fiscal year 1998; $133 million in fiscal year 1999; and $139
million in fiscal year 2000.
While so many important and authorized programs are underfunded in
[[Page H4546]]
this year's Interior bill, the weatherization program is slated for a
$4 million increase. On average, the program weatherizes 70,000
dwellings a year, yet it requires just 40 percent of the funds be spent
on weatherization, materials and labor.
Fossil energy research and development, on the other hand, continues
to do more and more with tighter budgets. Fossil energy has been
essentially flat funded since fiscal year 1997 and this bill's funding
levels represent a 2 percent decrease from last year's level.
In response to this trend, FE has sharpened its focus and, as a
result, has heightened its efforts with regard to high efficiency
projects, including efforts to develop new and more effective
technologies that will help U.S. producers recover more oil from
domestic fields and to develop cleaner fuels to meet future vehicle
emission standards.
Without question, fossil energy is about a lot more than coal. In
addition, FE R&D significantly contributes to your State, both in terms
of funding and jobs. In fiscal year 2000 alone, FE projects supported a
total of 248,575 jobs, something worth considering when Members cast
their vote.
Finally, I want to recognize the good work done by the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks), given the current budgetary constraints. Their leadership
can always be counted on and is much appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge the defeat of this amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders-Boehlert-Kind
amendment to increase our funding and in support for critical Federal
programs to promote energy efficiency, but I take somewhat of a
different approach from the lead sponsor of this amendment. I want to
make it clear that I support this amendment not because of the programs
that it cuts, because there are some very good fossil energy research
and development programs this bill funds, and if more money is found
later perhaps these cuts can be restored. I support this amendment
because I believe that we must make a more serious commitment to energy
efficiency.
Energy efficiency, energy efficiency, energy efficiency, that should
be our mantra. That must be our commitment.
The United States is the world's largest consumer of oil, and this
week the price of oil surged past $31 a barrel for the second time this
year. The last time that happened many of my constituents were faced
with enormous costs for home heating oil, costs that they could not
meet with some tragic consequences. This time, they are faced with
rapidly escalating gasoline prices, gasoline prices that have exceeded
$2.50 a gallon in some sections of the country. That is having a
devastating negative impact on families.
Meanwhile, the oil-producing nations are deadlocked as to whether or
not to raise their production of oil. If they do not raise production,
then rising demand will quickly outstrip supply and prices will further
escalate. If they do raise production, then several weeks or months
down the road the American consumer will feel a little relief, but we
are dependent on the OPEC nations, overly dependent, I believe, because
we are one of the world's largest importers of foreign oil.
I think this amendment will provide some help where help is needed.
The energy efficiency programs we fund will help us develop cleaner,
more efficient technologies that allow us to do more with the same
amount of energy. We add $9.5 million to make buildings more efficient
so that homeowners and businesses can heat their homes in the winter
and cool them in the summer without having heart arrest when opening
their energy bills. We add $7 million more to make transportation more
efficient so Americans can go further down the road with fewer visits
to the fuel pump, not to mention the fewer pollutants emitted along the
way, and that is a major issue.
We add $5 million more for efficient industrial technologies so that
our businesses get the competitive edge they need in the global
marketplace.
This amendment also boosts funding for the crucial weatherization
program to insulate and weatherize the homes of low-income families;
$20 million will go to weatherization programs to help an additional
10,000 families, each of which could save up to $200 worth of energy
costs every year.
Now for us in Washington, $200 a year for a family budget to save
does not sound like much, but let me say to so many families that means
everything. We have to be aware of that.
The amendment also boosts funding for the State energy program by
$2.5 million to help schools and hospitals and farmers and small
businesses reduce their costs by becoming more energy efficient, and
let me add if we can do that we provide some much needed relief on the
property tax burden.
Do not forget, the money we would have sent overseas to pay for all
of that oil is kept right here in the domestic economy.
Mr. Chairman, I feel this amendment is a wise investment in energy
efficiency, and a wise investment in a more energy secure future. I
urge my colleagues to support the Sanders-Boehlert-Kind energy
efficiency amendment.
Let me close by saying, energy efficiency, energy efficiency, energy
efficiency. That should be our mantra. It must be our commitment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Just to set the record straight, my good friend, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) a moment ago talked about the
energy efficiency programs going up. That is true in recent years, but
in 1995 it was budgeted at $215 million. Today it is at $120 million; a
huge decline in funding.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be an original sponsor of
this amendment that will expand funding for the low-income
weatherization program, the State energy program, and other critical
energy conservation and research measures.
I commend my colleagues from both Vermont and New York, and others
who have been supporting this amendment this year and in previous
fiscal years, in trying to work in a bipartisan fashion to advance the
cause of energy efficiency.
I think my friend from New York stated it so well and so eloquently,
that we as a country, especially with the bad weather conditions we
experienced last winter and the terribly high gas prices that are
sweeping the Nation but especially in the upper Midwest today, need to
start developing a long-term energy efficiency program that makes sense
for the consumers in this country and lessens our dependence on fossil
fuel energy consumption and foreign oil production.
Just to respond to my friend from Pennsylvania, I understand his
concern in regards to a system of the offsets in the program that
affects his local area, but this is, I believe, the right policy
direction that we should be moving in, because these energy programs
are not a luxury but a necessity to many, many families across the
country who cannot afford their own weatherization preparations.
I do have a parochial interest in this as well, Mr. Chairman, because
the first weatherization assistance program that was set up in the
Nation was established right in my congressional district in western
Wisconsin back in 1974. Since that time, over half the States have
developed their own weatherization or energy efficient programs, and
what a marvelous result we are seeing coming from these programs.
The average family who has been able to weatherize their home under
this program is realizing a 23 percent efficiency upgrade with their
energy consumption needs. What that means in a nutshell is more money
for these low-income families for other purposes rather than for
escalating energy costs, money that could be spent on food, for
instance.
In fact, just recently there was a constituent back in my hometown of
La Crosse that wrote a letter in regards to the weatherization program.
It was a single mother who was trying to make it on her own and trying
to make ends meet and she was informed by some friends about the
existence of this program. She applied and was qualified. In
[[Page H4547]]
the letter that she wrote and I quote ``I had no insulation, drafty
windows, a poor chimney lining and a list of real energy zappers, much
of which I was unaware. My bedroom wall had frost on the interior and
my blanket would stick. Not any more. I am so fortunate to live in an
area with these kinds of resources. Thank you so much for helping me
and my family enjoy the American dream.''
I am also pleased that this program is fiscally responsible and
environmentally advanced. By diverting money from the fossil fuel
energy research and development program, we are looking to the future
in developing new technologies. These programs will make us less
dependent on fossil fuels and foreign oil supplies at exactly the time
when we need to be less dependent on them. If erratic temperature
variations that we have recently seen were not enough, we are now
seeing what comes from our reliance on overseas oil, with gas prices
reaching the upper Midwest beyond $2.00 a gallon. Currently, 70 percent
of our energy supply comes from fossil fuels which are nonrenewable and
environmentally detrimental. With cleaner, more efficient energy
supplies we boost the economy and become a leader in cleaner energy.
Our Nation continues to thrive in an era of economic growth but not
every American family is fortunate enough to participate in this
prosperity. The weatherization program, LIHEAP, Energy Star and State
energy programs are ideal tools to help our Nation's citizens who are
most in need. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which
would expand funding these vital programs.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Sanders-
Boehlert-Kind amendment. This amendment purports to benefit energy
efficient programs by cutting $45 million from the Department of
Energy's fossil energy research activities. In reality, this amendment
will cut energy efficiency research.
{time} 1845
Today, 70 percent of the electricity generated from 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
emission 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 fire power plants use pollution
boilers developed through private sector collaboration with the
Department of Energy.
Future research efforts promise to reduce the release of greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere by sequestering carbon. Other research could
lead to the capture and use of by-products from fossil energy
generation for other commercial purposes.
Scientists are attempting to construct better filters that can screen
out pollutant-forming impurities from the hot gases of power plants.
Let us not halt this kind of progress by cutting important fossil
energy research.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Sanders-Boehlert-Kind
amendment.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Sanders-
Boehlert-Kind amendment to H.R. 4578, the Interior Appropriations Act
for fiscal year 2001.
The Sanders-Boehlert-Kind amendment would cut funding for the Fossil
Fuel Energy Research and Development program by $45 million and
increase funding for energy efficiency programs by the same amount.
Included in this increase would be an increase of $20 million in the
Weatherization Assistance Program.
The Weatherization Assistance Program provides assistance to low-
income American families to improve their energy efficiency and lower
their energy cost. Two-thirds of those served by this program have
incomes under $8,000 per year, and almost all of them have incomes
under $15,000 per year. Many of the beneficiaries were elderly or
disabled and many are families with young children. Weatherization
assistance enables those families to heat their homes in the winter and
cool them in the summer.
Mr. Chairman, I recall it was just 2 years ago, I believe, that we
witnessed seniors dying in Chicago. Many of them were trapped in high-
rise buildings, and we could not even get assistance to them. They
literally suffocated in their homes because of the heat, and they had
no air conditioning. I do not think that we want to see the
reoccurrence of the kinds of deaths that we saw as a result of the
weather and the heat at that time.
Low-income families spend an average of $1,100 per year on energy
expenses for their homes. These expenditures comprise 14.5 percent of
their annual incomes. By contrast, other families spend a mere 3.5
percent of their annual incomes on home energy expenses.
The Weatherization Assistance Program enables low-income families to
save an average of $200 per year in heating costs. These savings can be
used for other basic human necessities such as food, clothing, housing,
and health care.
The Fossil Fuel Energy Research and Development program funds
government research on fossil fuel technologies that benefit, for the
most part, the oil, gas and utility industries. This program was funded
at $34 million above and beyond the amount requested by the President,
although, the Interior Appropriations Act as a whole was funded at $1.7
billion below the President's request.
Why are the Republicans increasing funds for this corporate welfare
program? The oil, gas, and utility industries do not need this program.
They sincerely can afford to do their own research.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Sanders-Boehlert-Kind
amendment. Cut the corporate welfare and support funding for energy
assistance for low-income Americans.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues in support of this legislation.
There is a tragedy here that we are choosing between important issues
that are before the country. There is no question that we have to
address alternative energy and finding ways to make coal burn cleaner.
But the choice today is one that is presented to us that puts
thousands and thousands of senior citizens and other Americans in
harm's way, really. It puts them in a situation where, this winter, as
we see high gas prices will soon be changing once again to high oil
prices, in a position where they may not be able to make it through the
winter.
Additionally, of all the things this Congress does, weatherization
creates more energy for less money than almost every other expenditure,
because when one weatherizes a house, the benefits of that
weatherization do not just occur in that heating season or that cooling
season, the benefits of that weatherization last for the life of the
house. If that house lasts for 100 years, those benefits last for 100
years.
When we look at what we ought to be doing and what we do in this
Congress, when there was a crisis in the Farm Belt, the Congress
responded. First, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose
Freedom to Farm. When that program failed, we came in with additional
revenues for farmers. Our friends in California that do not have enough
water, the Federal Government subsidized bringing water to those
farmers. We in New England do not get a lot of those kinds of benefits.
But other senior citizens and working people, many of them very poor,
do face some of the harsher winters in this country. Across this
country, many citizens need the help of this weatherization program.
But this not only
[[Page H4548]]
helps the individuals, it helps our national dependence on foreign
energy. Because every time one weatherizes a home, for every barrel of
oil that family does not use, it is a barrel of oil we do not have to
import. It helps our trade balance. It helps the families. It helps the
country.
Pass this amendment. It is the right thing to do.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders-Boehlert-Kind
amendment, which cuts corporate welfare and boosts energy efficiency
programs that benefit consumers and the environment. This amendment
restores $45 million to programs that help low-income families reduce
energy costs, that help States implement efficiency programs, and that
foster investments in new efficiency technologies. All of these
programs have been cut in recent years just as America's energy needs
have been rising.
This amendment renews our commitment to energy efficiency as a
cornerstone of our energy policy. The offset is the fossil fuel R&D
account which has been identified as corporate welfare by consumer and
taxpayer watchdogs, including the National Taxpayers Union and Citizens
Against Government Waste.
On top of direct appropriations, we also subsidize the fossil fuel
industry through exemption from environmental laws. For instance,
America's oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants are still exempt
from Clean Air Act emissions standards that were enacted 30 years ago.
These grandfathered power plants continue to spew tons of pollution
into our air, adding to smog, acid rain, mercury poisoning, and global
warming. While industry profits from this exemption, the public suffers
increased respiratory problems and expensive environmental cleanups.
If America is to create a sustainable and cost-effective energy
policy, we must reduce our dependence on highly polluting fossil fuels.
Improving energy efficiency is an important first step toward that
goal.
Mr. Chairman, as we begin the summer months with the threat of
brownouts and rising fuel costs, now is the time to make a commitment
to energy efficiency. This amendment is a small but significant step
toward a 21st century energy policy that lowers consumer costs and
protects public health and the environment.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders-Boehlert-Kind
amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for offering this.
Those of us from the Northeast, and particularly those of us in all
of the colder States of this country, realize this past winter the real
problems that can beset low-income and fixed-income senior citizens and
people throughout our district when we saw rocketing prices when it
came to home heating oil.
When it came to energy efficiency, we looked at the high cost of
renovations. We realized that the people back in our districts,
regardless of all the Beltway talk that we may hear here today, clearly
understand that it is often beyond their means to be able to afford the
energy efficiency and weatherization that they need to have to be able
to heat their homes.
This problem we incurred this winter was attributed to four different
issues: one they said was the production of crude oil; the second was
the storage capacity in many of the communities around the country;
third was the lack of alternative fuels; fourth, which is what we are
discussing here tonight, the lack of energy-efficiency programs,
weatherization programs to stop consumption as we have presently going
of the high, high cost of energy and fuels.
Today and tonight we are offering an amendment particularly for those
communities that have older architecture, older problems with regard to
weatherization and alternative fuels.
Let us put back some of the money into the weatherization program
that we have stripped out over the last 10 to 15 years. Let us put back
the kinds of rhetoric that we have been fusing into actual dollars in
terms of not only words, but deeds. Let us put back into those programs
to help those seniors, those people on fixed income, the real
alternatives for more energy efficiency.
Let us put back into the real problems of this government money to
make sure that our senior citizens and our low-income people have
weatherization programs. But I would also point out there goes more
than just that.
If one takes a look at the old architecture that besets many of our
older homes and our older communities, one will also find another
problem. It is called lead paint. Many of the same problems with lead
paint are the same problems with weatherization, the high cost of
renovation.
When we talk about weatherization programs, we often couple in our
communities the opportunity for renovation for lead paint as well. If
we put more money into weatherization programs, we can double our
effort in lead paint reduction as well.
I ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment. It does wonders
in a very small way but a very efficient way to make sure that our
seniors of low income have an opportunity for energy efficiency.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to stand here in
support of the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Not only is it sensible at this moment, but it gives us a rare
opportunity, I think, also to highlight what has happened over the
course of the last year when we have been, indeed, slow to react.
This initiative that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
offering really is part of a great legacy in this House of
Representatives. The legacy was established by Silvio Conte, a
Republican Member of this House. He began the low-income heating oil
program that so many Americans have benefited from who live below
poverty guidelines.
Now, we ask ourselves tonight, why is this amendment necessary? Last
Friday, the average price for a gallon of gasoline rose to $1.67 per
gallon. Some people across this Nation are paying more than $2 per
gallon. These high prices are caused by low stocks, the results of the
high prices experienced this past winter when oil dealers did not
replenish their stocks.
The summer driving season is in front of us, and the price of gas is
unlikely to drop while demand remains so high. As the price of oil
remains high as well, stocks are unlikely to be replenished. This will
result in low stocks for the winter again.
This is a dangerous cycle for all across the Nation who live below
poverty guidelines. Many people in the Northeast last winter had to
make the horrible choice between heating and eating. Anybody who has
stood in a grocery checkout line, that is on the minds particularly of
senior citizens.
{time} 1900
Now, we do not want that to happen again. We can act this evening to
avoid another catastrophe from occurring this winter.
The Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve would protect low-income
homeowners in the Northeast from having to choose once again between
food and fuel. The Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve is an
environmentally conscious way to ensure enough fuel is on hand to
combat another harsh winter.
I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for calling
attention in this timely manner to an issue that is going to be in
front of us once fall sets upon us. But we have a chance to act
tonight, to take the initiative, to grab the high ground and to proceed
with a sensible plan. I hope all the Members of this House will stand
in support of the Sanders amendment.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders-Boehlert-Kind
amendment perhaps from a slightly different perspective than my good
friend from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
I really have no problem with the Energy Department's fossil energy
research and development program. I do
[[Page H4549]]
not consider it welfare. I think we need to continue to do research
into fossil energies, into alternative fuels, into the whole range of
possibilities that will make our country less dependent on foreign oil
and energy. But one of the components, perhaps the most important
component, of our energy policy in this country should be reducing the
use of energy and saving resources, and the low-income weatherization
program is a demonstrated effective method of doing that.
We are faced as Members of this Congress with budget constraints. And
as the chair of the subcommittee has indicated, sometimes that means we
do have to rearrange the chairs on the deck and make some choices. When
I make those choices, I have to keep in mind the things that my mother
used to tell me. And one of those things is that a bird in hand is
worth more than a lot of birds in the bush. The research may well yield
some fascinating results in the future, but what we do know is that
home weatherization will yield immediate results in the present and
that the low-income energy weatherization program has been a vital and
important success story as a means of saving energy.
So I do not have any particular beef with doing research in the long
run. We need to do that. And, of course, there is going to be plenty of
money in this bill to do that. But in the meantime people are freezing
to death and people are without the weatherization program that would
reduce the heat in their apartments, and that is a choice that I have
no problem making in favor of the amendment, even though I have no
particular beef with the longer-term research.
So in that context I want to encourage my colleagues to do what makes
sense in the immediate future and do something that we know works. This
amendment will allow us to support and finance and put our money, at
least in part, in something that has been a proven success story, the
weatherization program. I encourage my colleagues to support the
amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Nearly 70 percent of the electricity generated in the United States
today is fueled by a combination of coal, oil and natural gas. These
traditional fuels are abundant, particularly coal, which accounts for
90 percent of our Nation's energy reserves.
At current rates of consumption, the United States has enough coal to
last throughout the next 2 centuries, and that is just here in the
United States. Coal generates nearly 40 percent of all electricity
worldwide, a number that is growing as we stand here and debate this
issue.
Here are the facts, Mr. Chairman. We have an abundant supply of coal.
It is responsible for over half of the energy generated in this
country, and its use is going to increase here in this country and
worldwide. The only question that remains is are we or are we not going
to make it cleaner? Now, let me just emphasize that. We are going to
use more coal in this country and worldwide. The only question that
remains is are we going to make it cleaner and cleaner, which I support
and every Member that represents a coal region in this Nation supports.
That is why we support the Clean Coal Technology Program, because we
want it to become cleaner and cleaner.
I have to say that I am surprised at how cuts to the fossil energy
research budget have been framed in this debate, as if cutting these
funds is some sort of a good environmental vote. Mr. Chairman, nothing
could be further from the truth. In fact, as a result of Federal
funding, since 1970 overall U.S. emissions of pollutants from coal-
based electricity generation have been cut by a third, even as coal use
has tripled. What a success story.
For those of my colleagues who have stood up and argued for the
environment and argued for efficiency, I am pleased to tell them that
technologies now being researched, coming out of the Clean Coal
Technology Program, will produce a near zero emissions power plant with
double the efficiency of today's utilities. This technology will also
be exportable to developing countries as they build new power plants to
meet their ever-growing needs and as we become increasingly concerned
about global warming and global greenhouse issues.
Mr. Chairman, that is good for the environment and it is also very
good for our economy. Do not be fooled, my colleagues. Cutting fossil
energy research and development is an antienvironmental vote. I urge
defeat of the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding to me.
In terms of the environment, I would point out to my colleagues that
my amendment is supported by the League of Conservation Voters, the
Sierra Club, the Natural Resources----
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask the
gentleman if he can make the argument substantively that cutting the
Clean Coal Technology Program is good for the environment rather than
just citing a number of organizations? Can he make it with me, please,
right here and now?
Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I certainly
can. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) indicated earlier,
when we conserve energy we are doing something extraordinarily
important for the environment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, reclaiming my time, the Clean Coal Technology
Program, one of its real strengths is the conservation of the use of
energy to generate electricity. As a matter of fact, the Clean Coal
Technology Program has increased efficiency, as I said in my comments,
while it reduces emissions.
It is good for the environment, it is good for the economy, it is an
environmentally good program while it affects efficiencies.
Mr. SANDERS. I would just point out that all the environmental groups
support the amendment.
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of
programs that work to increase energy efficiency and affordability. I
know all too well how important it is to have an energy efficient home.
During the home heating crisis this past winter in my home State of
Connecticut, my constituents were faced with exorbitant home heating
costs.
While the amendment offered by Mr. Sanders may make home
weatherization more affordable, I must reluctantly oppose it. By using
the Department of Energy's fossil energy research and development
program as an offset, this amendment will take money from one energy
efficiency program and give it to another. That is not good policy.
Both the Low Income Weatherization Program and the fossil energy
research program work toward the goal of energy efficiency and
affordability. Energy efficiency starts with the fuels we use. We must
ensure that these fuels are as efficient as possible, while at the same
time we must ensure that we are using efficient energy practices. This
includes building energy efficient homes, driving fuel efficient cars
and using clean, dependable, and efficient electricity generation
technologies.
I fully support increasing resources for both programs, just not at
the expense of one another. The allocation for the Department of the
Interior, as reflected in this bill, is simply inadequate. I therefore
must oppose Mr. Sanders' amendment.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, during the upcoming debate on H.R.
4578, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act for fiscal year 2001, we will be asked to consider the need to
reduce funding for fossil fuel research to increase funding for
weatherization, state energy programs and energy efficiency research
and development. I am a strong advocate of energy efficiency
technologies because this research offers us the potential to minimize
our dependence on foreign oil. It also holds the key for a cleaner
environment in the future by encouraging technologies that reduce
emissions. It is an area that is poised to become accepted by the
market, with a small investment by the federal government, and is
certainly an area in which business and environmental proponents can
find much common ground. I also support providing assistance to low-
income individuals to meet their energy needs.
Despite my unwavering support for energy efficiencies, I find that I
cannot support this amendment. In short, the benefits to be achieved
are more illusory than real and the costs incurred if this amendment
passes substantial. It is worth noting that the line items funding
fossil fuel research and energy conservation research have been
combined. This
[[Page H4550]]
amendment cuts the total funding for both programs, resulting in a
reduction to our energy conservation efforts. At the very time we are
desperately searching for ways to use energy more efficiently, we are
cutting the one conservation research program that may actually bear
fruit.
Second, the major premise of this amendment is that there is nothing
valuable to be gained from fossil fuel research. It is this premise
with which I disagree. The fact is that fossil fuels--oil, coal,
natural gas--are critical to this country's energy mix, and will
continue to be far into the future. The U.S. Energy Information
Administration projects that demand for oil and natural gas will grow
during the next two decades by 35 percent, to 24.6 million barrels
today. We have made it difficult to invest in market-ready alternatives
to coal, oil and gas to supply our energy needs and renewable
alternatives cannot yet substitute for these resources on a broad
scale. Until we do have marketable, viable alternatives, our only real
solution is to invest in research and development efforts to explore,
extract, and utilize fossil fuels cleanly and efficiently. This is the
goal of the fossil fuel research and development program--a goal that
supports environmental objectives to reduce environmental consequences
and national security objectives to reduce the need for foreign oil.
Recently, the Department of Energy released a report noting the
accomplishments resulting from investment in fossil fuel research. The
report, titled ``Environmental Benefits of Advanced Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production Technology,'' lists 36 specific improvements
resulting from fossil fuel research. These improvements have resulted
in fewer dry holes, more productive wells, smaller environmental
footprints, and less harmful waste to manage. Additionally, private-
public efforts like the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council (funded
principally through the fossil fuel program), have provided the
technological means for independent producers to reduce the
environmental impact of their efforts, largely by supplying
technological answers to current problems. This has been critical to
help these small producers (who account for 25 percent of our domestic
oil and gas supply) to comply with environmental regulations and to
implement best management and industry practices.
In short, faced with a budget that has been reduced by $300 million
from fiscal year 2000, the subcommittee has had to make difficult
decisions about program funding; many important programs were reduced
and others flat funded. In my view, the better solution is not to
starve one energy program in favor of another as this amendment seeks
to do. A better use of our time is to figure out how we might
reallocate our financial resources and research efforts to support and
develop all of these promising technologies.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
alternative fuels production
(rescission)
Of the unobligated balances under this head, $1,000,000 are
rescinded.
naval petroleum and oil shale reserves
The requirements of 10 U.S.C. 7430(b)(2)(B) shall not apply
to fiscal year 2001 and any fiscal year thereafter: Provided,
That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, unobligated
funds remaining from prior years shall be available for all
naval petroleum and oil shale reserve activities.
elk hills school lands fund
For necessary expenses in fulfilling the third installment
payment under the Settlement Agreement entered into by the
United States and the State of California on October 11,
1996, as authorized by section 3415 of Public Law 104-106,
$36,000,000, to become available on October 1, 2001 for
payment to the State of California for the State Teachers'
Retirement Fund from the Elk Hills School Lands Fund.
economic regulation
For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Office of Hearings and Appeals, $1,992,000, to remain
available until expended.
strategic petroleum reserve
For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve
facility development and operations and program management
activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $157,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 69, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000) (increased by
$10,000,000)''.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is being
supported by, among others, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays),
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from New
York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thompson), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn). It has strong bipartisan support.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide $10 million for the
establishment of a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. Stand-alone
legislation that I introduced back in February, calling for a 6.7
million barrel home heating oil reserve, garnered 98 cosponsors,
including 24 Republicans and 27 Members who are not from the Northeast.
In addition, and importantly, authorizing legislation that passed the
House by an overwhelming vote of 416 to 8 included language to
establish a home heating oil reserve in the Northeast.
Not only does this amendment enjoy strong bipartisan support, it also
has the backing of the Clinton administration. Let me just quote from a
letter that I received yesterday from Secretary of Energy Bill
Richardson.
``The floor amendment you intend to offer to the Interior, Related
Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 would appropriate $10
million for the home heating oil reserve. As you are aware, the House
recently passed H.R. 2884, reauthorizing the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act with the added provision to create such a reserve.
Your amendment, therefore, is consistent with both the President's
proposal and the views expressed previously by the House and I support
your amendment.'' That is from Bill Richardson.
Mr. Chairman, it is obvious to everyone that we are experiencing an
energy crisis in this country. The price of gasoline is skyrocketing.
We are feeling that all over the country. This can only mean one thing.
If we do not act forcefully now, next winter we are going to have a
disaster on our hands that was worse than last winter, which was a real
tragedy for millions of people.
Mr. Chairman, we must make certain that the huge increases in home
heating oil prices that we experienced last winter does not happen
again. Not this winter, not any winter. Mr. Chairman, let me be clear
that this is not just an issue that affects the northeast. A home
heating oil reserve would also provide positive benefits to the entire
country. Since diesel and jet fuel can be used as a substitute for
heating oil, industry experts believe that if a heating oil reserve
were in place, not only would the price of heating oil be reduced, but
diesel and jet fuel prices would also be reduced all over the country.
Mr. Chairman, winter is not a natural disaster. We in Vermont know,
and I think the rest of the country knows, that it takes place every
year. Yet we continue to be unprepared for a severely cold winter. In
fact, fuel oil shortages have taken place in the Northeast about once
every 3 years. Most recently these shortages have occurred during the
winters of 1983, 1984, 1988, 1989, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000. Enough
is enough.
{time} 1915
Mr. Chairman, the offset for this amendment is a pretty conservative
one, and it is a simple one. It should not meet much controversy. If
this amendment passes, $10 million of the $157 million already in the
bill for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be used for the
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
So this is more of an accounting transfer than a real significant
offset. We are taking money out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
There is $157 million in it. We are moving $10 million over for the
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
Mr. Chairman, this is a sensible approach to protect millions of
people
[[Page H4551]]
who really were hurt last winter and in the past by skyrocketing home
heating oil costs, and I would hope that we can win strong bipartisan
support for it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I can understand the concern that the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has. We have the same concerns in the Midwest. We
have the same concerns as a lot of places. Should build reserves for
diesel fuel, for jet fuel, for ethanol, for all forms of energy?
We have the SPR. This amendment proposes to take $10 million out of
SPR. We cannot just do that arbitrarily. It has to be made up some way.
The money is to operate SPR, and we cannot cripple it or that reserve
will not be available if needed in the period of critical defense
needs, which is the main objective. We had requests to do all kinds of
programs similar to this.
Now, I would point out that heating oil has a very short shelf life.
So to maintain a reserve would mean it has to be turned over in a short
time, something like every 3 months. That is a very expensive
proposition. It means frequent government sales or exchanges. It will
take a couple million barrels to set up the reserve, which will, of
course, create a heating shortfall immediately.
These things ought to go to the authorizing committee to begin with
and hold some hearings. I think what we are reflecting here is the fact
that we do not have a national energy policy.
I was here in the 1970s when we had critical shortages. Everybody
said we have got to set up a policy. Then the shortage went away, and
there is no policy. I think what the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) is addressing is the absence of a national energy strategy. I
would suggest that he take his case to the administration because we
need leadership from them on an overall policy. We cannot pick one area
of the country.
It is interesting to note that in the six New England States there is
not one refinery because they will not let them build a refinery. Now,
it is hard to produce heating oil without a refinery. And one of the
problems is that their area is impacted by the environmentalists who
have made it impossible to build a refinery in New England.
How many refineries does the gentleman have in New England? They are
shaking their heads. I do not think they have any. And they have had
some difficulty getting gas pipelines up there, too.
All I am saying is that they ought to have a policy in New England or
other parts of the country that need help. Therefore, we need a
national energy policy. But to try to address one instance is not going
to be a long-term solution.
I understand it is proposed that this heating oil reserve be put in
New York Harbor. Why not put it in New England? I think we ought to
build the facilities where the need is.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, because the capacity already exists in New
York Harbor and it does not make sense to build new capacity when we
already have existing capacity.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it may be that as the
home heating oil shortage continues New York State will use that
capacity for themselves. And there may be other States, Pennsylvania.
But I think if we are going to create these kind of facilities, we
ought to put them where the people are. But I daresay that they will
not get any cooperation from their area in building facilities in
Vermont or New Hampshire or Connecticut.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would mention that New York State and Pennsylvania are also eligible to
use the oil from the reserve in New York Harbor.
Mr. REGULA. Well, that is probably true. But I suspect, knowing the
size of these States, that they can use the entire, what is it, 10
million-barrel capacity in New York Harbor. That would probably be used
up by those States.
All we are focusing on here is that we need a long-term energy
policy. And my concern is that the minute the shortage eases, and we
hope it will, we will go back and nothing more will happen. This will
not be a long term solution.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
do not argue with him that we need a long-term energy process.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The time of the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Regula) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would simply argue, and I make no pretense that this is going to solve
all the energy problems in New England, but I think what the experts
tell us is that it will help reduce sharp increases in home heating oil
prices, which will save a lot of money for senior citizens who need
those savings.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I question this capacity for 10 million
barrels. Is it empty at the present time?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it is not 10 million barrels, as a matter
of fact.
Mr. REGULA. Two million barrels? Is that what New York Harbor has is
2 million barrels?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, yes.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, is it empty now?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it is not empty now, as I understand it,
but they do have the capacity.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the oil is there, if it is already in
place, why are they not using it?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asked me why we did not
build a new facility; and the answer is that there is excess capacity
available in New York Harbor.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, so that facility in New York Harbor is not
being used to its fullest capacity?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman proposing that we purchase
the home heating oil and put it in there?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, what we are proposing is that 2 million
barrels be available to be released at the discretion of any President,
the President, when heating oil prices zoom up. And what experts tell
us and what we know to be the fact is that that will have an impact on
those prices and in fact lower them.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will respond, I think it
is important we get these facts out. What is the daily consumption in a
normal winter period of home heating oil in New England, the six States
that comprise New England?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not have those facts in my pocket.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, what I am getting at is this. Is 2 million
barrels going to solve the problem?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, no, it is not. But
this is what it will do. What it will do is send a message that the
Government is prepared to act.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, in fact, my friend will remember that the
one time, to the best of my knowledge, that SPR oil was threatened to
be released by President Bush had a very significant impact around the
time of the Gulf War in terms of lowering oil prices.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, well, given that as a solution, why have we
not, then, threatened to use SPR oil this time?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, many of us thought that we should, and I
am one of those who thought that we should. There is wild ovation from
all over the Northeast.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, has the gentleman talked to the President?
He can do it by his own action.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I sat down with the President, along with
many other Members of the Northeast; and that is almost a unanimous
request that came out of the Northeast, release the SPR. That was our
opinion, and it is my opinion today.
[[Page H4552]]
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am sure the people in Ohio would like it
because gasoline has now spiked at $2 a gallon.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, then I ask the gentleman to work with us,
not against us.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to work with the gentleman with SPR.
But I just think we need to have a coordinated plan as we do this. And
I think what we are talking about here is temporary. Let us get a long-
term energy policy. Let us determine if not only how to address
problems with home heating oil but diesel fuel, because our industry is
so dependent on that.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me rephrase. My view is let us move
short term and long term, but let us move short term, as well.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think I am reluctant to take $10 million
out of SPR because we need the money to operate it unless they can get
the $10 million somewhere else that will not impact on the ability to
manage SPR oil, because that too is an emergency source for the entire
country, I would resist the amendment.
I think if they could develop another source of financing, since
apparently the facility is up and running. Do I understand it
correctly, that it can handle the 2 million barrels?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, yes.
Mr. REGULA. And is that the full capacity of this, what is it, a tank
farm?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, yes, it is.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, it is our understanding that there is far
more capacity than the 2 million barrels of home heating oil capacity
we are asking for.
This, as the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) said, will really
give us a beginning to what we hope, as the chairman has said, would be
a long-term national energy policy. But we recognize that, with the
winter only about 5 months away, that if we do not get this in place
now, we could encounter the same kind of problems with lack of supply.
In the Northeast, and when I say ``Northeast,'' it is not just New
England; we are talking about the Hudson River, we are talking about
Bridgeport, Connecticut. What we had was a problem with getting the oil
from the Gulf Coast States, the home heating oil, up to our States fast
enough.
This would provide us a closer capacity in closer proximity to where
the demand is, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, in a quicker way. It is a short-term response to a long-term
problem, without a doubt.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask the
gentleman, how do we address the problem that if we go in the
marketplace at this point, and, of course, this bill would not take
effect until next year, for all practical purposes, or on October 1,
and buy 2 million barrels, is that not going to in itself push the
price up considerably?
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, not based upon the consumption that we
have nationally. But certainly, what we saw this past winter in the
Northeast, the consumption of 2 million barrels would go very, very
quickly.
Remember, the SPR is not home heating oil. The SPR is crude. And so,
for us to be able to not only trade or to move that product to
refineries and then finally get it to the marketplace would take a long
time.
This would be to make available almost immediately in the time of
need, which is triggered only by the President, that we could get that
into the market very quickly.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
what the chairman has discussed with us this evening is the exact same
conversation we had with Secretary Richardson, the President, the
Secretary of Commerce, and a host of other people.
We came up with the only solution that would help us right now. We
concur 150 percent that we need to have a national energy policy that
includes not only production; it requires conservation, and it requires
capacity in various parts of this country for diesel, for home heating
oil, for a host of others.
Until we have that, we cannot just put our head in the sand and say
to the people in the Northeast, well, we will wait for 3 or 4 years
before we have this. We need to do this now, otherwise we could be in
the same situation we were this past January and February, where prices
spiked up 78 cents in 3 weeks. We know that in the Midwest it is
happening right now with gasoline. It happens all the time.
We need to have the capacity to move in there quickly to level off
the marketplace so it does not spike in that way ever again.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, would this oil be
available to the Midwest, also?
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, we would hope so. But maybe we need a
little bit more capacity to do so.
Actually, in the Midwest this past year, past January and February,
their increases were about 10 to 25 cents a gallon, where we were
seeing 78 cents a gallon, simply because our rivers were iced up, as
well as we did not have the capacity. We need it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can find a long-term solution.
Because I have been through a couple of these in my time in Congress,
and we tend to go back and forget all about it whenever the price goes
down.
I hope all of my colleagues will join me and others in having a long-
term energy strategy because we are an energy-dependent Nation; and if
we fail to do that, we will be back with this same old problem at some
future time.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would agree wholeheartedly. It is not only with home heating oil. It is
also with regard to diesel, and it is also with regard to energy
conservation and weatherization, the program we talked about earlier.
We need to have it, but we need this amendment now; and I ask my
colleagues to support it.
{time} 1930
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I rise in support of this amendment. I agree absolutely with the
gentleman from Ohio that this Nation has no energy policy and that is
part of the reason we are in such a desperate situation. I would remind
the Members that we are almost twice as dependent on imported oil now
as we were during the Carter years. It is because we have been backward
looking in many of our policy areas, including the tax code. I join
with those who would like to see us work on a more comprehensive energy
policy. Frankly I think the coal research, to be able to burn clean
coal is part of that.
There are many facets to this. I would just like to put on the
record, and it has probably been put on the record before so I will
make it very brief, but to me it is an absolute outrage that in 1998
the Department of Energy completed and announced a 2-year study on
regional storage facilities. They then buried the study because it
indicated that it would be good for not only the Northeast but for the
entire country if a reserve was established in the Northeast. It would
be cost effective to keep a government stockpile of some heating oil in
the Northeast and it would benefit not only the Northeast but other
parts of the country, particularly the Midwest. I personally think that
had that stockpile been established and had the President acted
promptly to release some reserve, that OPEC would have been motivated
to reduce its cut in production far earlier and we would not have had
those months of shortage that helped send prices up.
While I am well aware that OPEC's decision was not the only factor in
that constraint of supplies and that increase of prices, nonetheless it
was a significant one and we were not in a position to be able to
rapidly deal with it. A
[[Page H4553]]
stockpile in the Northeast would be beneficial to the interests of the
Nation as well as to the Northeast, and therefore I support this
amendment and commend the gentleman from Vermont for bringing it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from
Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding. I would like to
point out that on April 13, the House passed the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act through fiscal year 2003. What we did in that act in
section 3 is the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. And then the act
under section 181, subsection A, notwithstanding any other provision of
this act, the Secretary may establish, maintain and operate in the
Northeast a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. A reserve established
under this part is not a component of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
established under part B of this title. The reserve established in this
part shall contain no more than 2 million barrels of petroleum
distilled.
The bottom line is we have already established this through, frankly,
the good work of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). It has been
authorized, and we are really trying to carry out the provisions. I
would like to point out to my colleagues that the Energy Department in
their study in 1998 made it very clear that a 2-million barrel reserve
would stabilize prices. That is the effort we are trying to do. It is
not perfect, we have got problems in a whole host of different areas,
but this makes sense to move forward. It will not solve all our
challenges, but it will, in fact, stabilize prices and carry out the
act.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with the gentleman from Ohio
that we need a long-term solution. But it is unlikely that this
Congress is going to pass any long-term solutions. Back in 1976 when we
were passing new fuel economy standards for automobiles, raising it up
to an average of 27\1/2\ miles a gallon per automobile, the average
automobile as of 1976 still only got 13 miles a gallon, which was the
same as it was in 1930.
Now, if we had passed a law 4 or 5 years ago or if we would pass a
law this year that says that the average automobile should get 40 miles
to the gallon, we are not going to have many problems with oil. That is
the crux of our problem. That is where we put most of the oil in our
society, right into gasoline tanks. SUVs, trucks, automobiles. They are
unbelievably inefficient. But we are not going to pass any fuel economy
standards. So as a result, what we are seeing in the Midwest right now
is another energy crisis. Prices have spiked up to $1.80, two bucks,
$2.20, $2.45. Why? Because there was a pipeline that went out from
Texas up to the Midwest. We had a similar kind of unanticipated problem
in the Northeast back during the winter. OPEC started raising prices.
What was the protection for our American citizens? Nothing. Or the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve which if it goes unused is nothing. And it
was not used. It should have been.
So we cut a deal in the classic Austin-Boston sense that made this
institution work so well for so many years. John McCormick and Sam
Rayburn; Tip O'Neill and Jim Wright. We cut a deal earlier this year.
For the Texans, what we said is we will give you a guarantee of $15 a
barrel for your oil, for your stripper wells, and we will have the oil
purchased by the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In return, the Texans
said to those of us up in the Northeast, all of those from the oil
States said to those of us up in the Northeast, ``We'll give you the
authorization for the construction of a regional home heating oil
reserve.'' Austin-Boston, what makes the whole place click.
It is still hung up over in the Senate but the gentleman from Vermont
is just asking quite sensibly for $10 million, so that the Department
of Energy can have the money to make it work. We have already passed it
through the House. So we know that there is plenty of oil in the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. There is nothing in a regional petroleum
reserve. We have already passed it through this place. So by working
together, we make sure that Texas and Oklahoma and Louisiana, the oil
patch, we make sure that the Northeast, and we would make sure if the
Midwest needed help that we helped them as well. Because this oil is
the blood that ensures that our economy is supplied with the energy
that it needs in order to function fully.
What we have seen over and over again is short-term disruptions
without adequate supply of the blood of our economy to supplant that
which was temporarily cut off. As a result, we have seen catastrophic
economic consequences. All that the gentleman from Vermont is asking
for is a very small amount of money coming out of an already large
Strategic Petroleum Reserve fund which will work to ensure that when,
and I am afraid this is going to happen, Mr. Chairman, when the
refineries of America in response to the problems in the Midwest that
are going on right now have to use more of their refining capacity to
produce more gasoline over the next several months to deal with their
problem now, they are not going to have enough capacity as a result
that they have dedicated to providing for the home heating oil to the
Northeast this coming winter.
So their problem today becomes our problem later on this year. We
need a regional petroleum reserve. If we do not get one, we will have a
mess on our hands in the Northeast. The Congress today has it within
its power to give us the money that we need to put in place something
that will protect our economy this coming winter because what is
happening today to them is happening to us this coming winter. We are
all part of one big economic artery system. If we do not take care of
each other, then all of us ultimately are going to be harmed.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The time of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Regula, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Markey was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Will the gentleman describe the New York facility? I am a
little confused. What is the capacity of this facility in New York
Harbor in total barrels? He is talking about buying 2 million barrels
and putting it in a reserve. But is that the maximum capacity, or is
that just part of it?
Mr. MARKEY. The capacity ultimately is unlimited. We are talking
about unused storage facilities all across the Northeast that could be
used for these purposes. I would defer to the gentleman from Vermont
for the specific figure.
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. To the best of my understanding, there is a 5.75 million
barrel capacity in New York Harbor.
Mr. REGULA. Is this a tank farm?
Mr. SANDERS. Amerada Hess.
Mr. MARKEY. Yes, it is a tank farm.
Mr. SANDERS. I am not all that familiar with tank farms. And in
Albany, New York, it is my understanding is another close to 3 million
barrel capacity, excess capacity.
Mr. REGULA. Am I correct, then, that these facilities are essentially
empty now, so they would be available to receive oil?
Mr. SANDERS. I do not know.
Mr. MARKEY. There is sufficient excess capacity in these facilities
in order to accommodate the oil. We would probably wind up with the
Federal Government leasing part of the facilities that are now
controlled by these oil companies in order to accommodate this purpose.
We would have to pay them a fee but the oil that was stored in there
would then be for the use of the region, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New
York, New England.
Mr. REGULA. The $10 million would be to have the Energy Department go
into the market and buy the $10 million worth of oil and put it into
storage; is this the objective of the amendment?
Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. Again I would appeal to my colleagues that when we look across
the
[[Page H4554]]
country, we find that in recent months, we have spent an enormous
amount of energy, the Congress, to provide funds to fight fires in the
West. We helped provide flood control for regions that are hit with
floods. We worked together to relieve disasters of earthquakes.
What is clear is that there is a pending disaster in the Northeast
and our colleagues in this House together can provide a very small
amount of resources to make sure that a crisis does not turn deadly.
This is not a complicated situation. Using resources made available by
the Federal Government, using existing storage capacity, leasing that
storage capacity, keeping number 2 heating oil available so that while
the free marketplace may be advantaged by a short supply that in a cold
snap drives up prices and profits, Government at that point is
responding to a crisis that is much more expensive and that may put
human lives in danger.
It is a small thing to ask for a region of the country that pays so
much in taxes and that has done so much for other regions of the
country. We have not turned our backs on the West with earthquakes and
fires and droughts. We have not abandoned the South, not just now but
for decades. It is our taxpayers that built the utilities that power
much of the South and the West. Now in this crisis we need to have some
help, not a great deal of help but enough to make sure that our people
are not put in danger this coming winter.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of what the gentleman from
Vermont and the other Members of the body from the northeastern States
are doing here today with this amendment. I want to commend the
gentleman from Vermont for his very strong leadership in dealing with
this and making certain that we do not let it pass by. The amendment is
simple. Without busting the caps, without taking money from other
programs, the amendment provides $10 million for a Northeast home
heating oil reserve. In the event of a sustained price hike, a healthy
reserve can be open then to the market to drive prices back down to
affordable and reasonable levels. It is something that we all should
support. In fact, this body already has voted to support it and has
voted for it overwhelmingly. When the reauthorization of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve legislation passed the House earlier this year, it
called for the establishment of a Northeast home heating oil reserve,
and that legislation passed by a vote of 416-8. This amendment deserves
the same measure of support.
Mr. Chairman, the residual effects of the crisis that we in the
Northeast endured last winter are being felt in ripples across the
country. The cold weather and the astronomical heating bills, of
course, are gone, for the moment but the ongoing shortage of crude oil
in this country has rippled into high gasoline prices, and those prices
are getting higher. I am hearing this week that in Chicago and other
places in the Midwest, we are running into gasoline prices at the tank
that are running somewhere in the $2.50 plus range and are expected to
go even higher.
{time} 1945
There are many steps that we can take to comprehensively address this
problem as a whole. Among other things, we should accelerate the
development of alternative energy sources and demand greater fuel
efficiency from every category and class of vehicles that is used in
transportation. Those kinds of long-term measures take a period of
time. Right now, we need a better emergency plan.
Winter will be back, and we will have done absolutely nothing,
because if we do not do at least this as a starter today, we will have
done absolutely nothing, because those long-term measures, which are so
obvious and obviously needed for, indeed, our long term and will take a
good deal of lead time to implement. So I support this amendment, and I
urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for his strong support, but just say while my
name is on the amendment, the truth of the matter is that all of the
Members throughout New England in a bipartisan way have come forward to
get the bill authorized in New York and elsewhere, in the Northeast and
elsewhere in the country.
So this really has been a joint bipartisan effort, and I thank the
gentleman, and I look forward to seeing this amendment pass.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, during debate on this bill, it had been my
fervent hope to offer an amendment to help America address her primary
strategic vulnerability, and that is our over dependence on imported
foreign oil. Nearly two-thirds of the energy that the U.S. uses is
imported, most from the Middle Eastern monarchies that comprise OPEC.
They yank a chain around our necks at whim.
Headlines in my local Ohio newspapers tell the story of gas prices
soaring; the New York Times this week reported on rising prices coast
to coast, some price hikes among the highest in U.S. history.
Yet this bill, which has within its authority the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, does absolutely nothing to remedy the current situation, nor
put America on a saner path to the future.
I have been urging the Clinton Administration and the leadership of
this Congress to release some of the Reserve to help dampen price hikes
here at home. At the same time, my amendment would place more emphasis
on promoting renewable biofuels by directing the Departments of
Interior and Energy to swap some of the current oil reserves and
purchase 300,000,000 gallons of ethanol and 100,000,000 million gallons
of biodiesel as a boost to a more self-sufficient future for America.
[Amendment]
Biofuels are competitively priced and hold significant promise as one
major solution to move America toward energy self sufficiency. Properly
administered, swaps of crude oil from the Reserve can yield funds that
can then be directed toward biofuels purchases. Further, with the
involvement of the Department of Agriculture the biofuels alternative
can be shaped to benefit on-farm storage of biofuel inputs and yield
income to rural America at a time when it is in deep recession.
Yet, I am being told I cannot offer this amendment Thurs. It has not
been made in order. The basic attitude here is more of the same; more
of the same. That inertia is not what made America great. Boldness made
America great.
Using biofuels to plot a path for cleaner and more renewable energy
sources is right for America's energy future. It is right for rural
America. It is right for the environment. And it is right for America's
national security.
Sadly, this amendment and others have been muzzled by the leadership
of this great institution. But the American people will not stand for
inertia. At some point, those who block progress will pay the price.
Rising gas prices here at home matter a great deal to the American
people. Our efforts to plot a more secure energy future will not be
diminished by this blocking tactic on this bill. For this primary
reason, it is my intention to oppose the legislation, and use every
opportunity on succeeding bills to draw the American people's attention
to the do-nothing decisions this bill represents.
Amendment Offered by Representative Marcy Kaptur to H.R. 4578, Making
Appropriations for the Department of Interior and Related Agencies for
the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2001
Page 69, Line 10: After ``until expended.'' Add ``Provided,
That the Secretary of Energy shall annually acquire and store
as part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 300,000,000
gallons of ethanol and 100,000,000 gallons of biodiesel fuel.
Such fuels shall be obtained in exchange for, or purchased
with funds realized from the sale of, crude oil from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.''
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Sanders to provide funding
for a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
Just last winter, our nation, and particularly the Northeast United
States suffered a period of extremely cold temperatures. Coupled with
the skyrocketing costs of oil, many Americans received a real sticker
shock when they had to pay their energy bills.
While only 12 percent of Americans heat their homes with oil, that
number rises to 40 percent in NYS and 46 percent in my congressional
district.
On average, my constituents who heat their homes with oil told me
they saw their fuel bills double overnight. These same people ended up
paying more than $1,000 extra just to heat their homes for the winter.
I refer my colleagues to one of my constituents from the Bronx. She
tends to her 93-year-old father in the Williamsbridge neighborhood. She
saw her bill jump from $246 to $346 in one month.
[[Page H4555]]
Or Thomas Donohue of Woodside who saw his monthly energy bill double
to $410.000 a month during this past January.
On average, my constituents who use home heating oil witnessed an
eye-popping increase of $1,000 to heat their home for just the 3-month
period of winter.
This is ludicrous.
While the wealthy could afford this increase and the poor had some of
the costs borne by assistance from such worthwhile programs as the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP); it was the working and
middle class, seniors on a fixed income and small businesses that
suffered most.
I had a small trucking company in my district tell me that they had
to lay off workers because it became to expensive to operate the
trucks--it was cheaper to not work at all.
And I heard from far too many seniors who informed me that they had
to wear a winter coat in their apartment because they could not afford
to keep their homes warm.
Due to this horrible reality, many here in Congress worked in a
bipartisan manner to address this crisis.
One solution was to call for the establishment of a home heating oil
reserve in the Northeast. Acting somewhat like the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, this home heating oil reserve would serve a storage place for
millions of gallons of home heating oil, that could be released to the
public in times of crippling high prices--as we saw this past winter.
This would ensure that small business don't have to lay off workers
in times of high gas costs; and that seniors do not have to wear their
winter coats indoors during the cold winter months.
The President supports the idea of this reserve, as does the
Secretary of Energy. The House of Representatives also overwhelmingly
supported this idea, included as part of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, on a vote of 416 to 8.
Unfortunately, the bill we debate today does not include any funding
for the creation of this reserve. If created this reserve would help
soften the blow of any future price swings and provide much needed
assistance to millions of Americans, including many of my constituents
by providing a readily available, local, low-cost energy source to make
it through the toughest parts of the winter.
Anyone who has ever visited New York City in January knows that heat
is not a luxury--it is a necessity. Unfortunately, I had a number of
constituents who were forced to view heat as a luxury this past winter
after seeing their bills double, and realizing they did not have the
money to pay their heating bills.
I had constituents who wore down jackets throughout the day in their
homes--this is wrong Mr. Chairman.
Today we have the opportunity to address their situation and I hope
that all Members will support the Sanders amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease.) The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 524,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce);
Amendment No. 28 offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders);
and
Amendment No. 29 offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Royce
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Royce) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the nos prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was refused.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will count for a quorum.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order that a quorum
is not present.
So the amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Sanders
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on Amendment No. 28 offered by the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was refused.
So the amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Sanders
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on Amendment No. 29 offered by the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was refused.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will count. A quorum is not
present.
Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair will reduce to a
minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by
electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the pending question
following the quorum call. Members will record their presence by
electronic device.
The call was taken by electronic device.
The following Members responded to their names:
[Roll No. 285]
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Chabot
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
[[Page H4556]]
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Spence
Stabenow
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
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 2010
The CHAIRMAN. Three-hundred-sixty-two Members have answered to their
names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its business.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for a recorded vote.
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 193,
noes 195, not voting 47, as follows:
[Roll No. 286]
AYES--193
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Morella
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--195
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fowler
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--47
Barton
Becerra
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boucher
Callahan
Campbell
Cooksey
Costello
Crane
Danner
Engel
Filner
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Hooley
Jefferson
Kasich
Klink
Lazio
Leach
Lofgren
Martinez
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nadler
Oxley
Rangel
Roemer
Roukema
Serrano
Shows
Shuster
Sisisky
Skelton
Spratt
Stark
Toomey
Velazquez
Vento
Wicker
{time} 2022
Mr. ENGLISH and Mr. GEKAS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. MOORE and Mr. CRAMER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. DOGGETT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, what remedy exists under the rules if six
or more Members of the House are standing in the well holding their
card asking to be recorded, and a rude and unprofessional Member
refuses them the right to vote, under our rules?
The CHAIRMAN. There is no remedy under the rules to reopen the quorum
call.
Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Doggett
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169,
noes 214, not voting 52, as follows:
[Roll No. 287]
AYES--169
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank (MA)
[[Page H4557]]
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--214
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Packard
Pascrell
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--52
Barr
Barton
Becerra
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Callahan
Campbell
Clement
Cooksey
Costello
Crowley
Danner
Engel
Filner
Forbes
Ganske
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Hinojosa
Hooley
Jefferson
Kilpatrick
Klink
Lazio
Lofgren
Martinez
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Norwood
Oxley
Radanovich
Rangel
Roemer
Rogan
Salmon
Serrano
Shows
Shuster
Sisisky
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Spratt
Stark
Toomey
Velazquez
Vento
Wicker
{time} 2042
Mr. BACA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SHAYS changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would apologize to Members for failing to
notice them in the Chamber attempting to record their presence until
after he had announced the result of quorum call No. 285. The Chair
mistakenly believed that he had embarked on a subsequent vote and that
it was too late to permit Members to record their presence.
The Chair specifically apologizes to the following Members: Mr.
Bishop, Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Doggett, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms.
McKinney, and Mr. Abercrombie, and if any other Member feels similarly
afflicted, if they would notify the Chair, the Chair would be happy to
include them in a subsequent announcement.
{time} 2045
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say the chairman has been
extraordinarily even-handed and polite with all Members and has done an
extraordinary job, and I regret that this happened.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) for unanimous consent request.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington
for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my thanks to the
chairman who has done a wonderful job today.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer
amendments that occur on page 85, line 7 and 21 and on page 86 line 19,
notwithstanding the fact that that portion of the bill has not yet been
read for amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to explain to the Members here that
we are going to have something happen that, in my 24 years here, is
unprecedented. We have had a good working comity with the other side. I
have throughout my career tried to work effectively with the Republican
side on every piece of legislation that I have ever been involved with.
But just a few hours ago, we won an amendment. The gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter) won an amendment to take $22 million out of
the clean coal deferral account. She wants to then have an amendment to
add this $15 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $5
million for the National Endowment for the Humanities, and $2 million
for the Institute of Museums and Library Services.
I am told, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has
confirmed, that he is going to offer an amendment to take the $22
million and give it to the Indian Health Service. I just wish that we
were not $507 million below the President's budget request. I think
this is very unfair.
We have offered offsets on all of our amendments here today. This
amendment that he is offering is not offset. We have tried to play the
game by the rules. But I really regret that we are going down this
road, and it is going to make it hard to cooperate on this bill.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, just to respond to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks), and I understand his concern and the frustration that he feels,
but let me just add if I might that there are differences on both sides
as to where the priorities should be in terms of the funding. I would
say that, if the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) wishes and the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) wishes, it is very easy to
ask for and have a rollcall and decide that they do not want to put
these dollars that have now been taken out, have been reserved, and not
put them into Indian Health Service and reserve them for the purpose
for which they would like. It is a matter of simply establishing
priorities.
Some people feel that if we have these dollars available now in the
bill that Indian Health Service should be the first priority.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we asked unanimous consent to present this
amendment en bloc so that the House would have a chance to work its
will, could have a vote up or down, a vote to
[[Page H4558]]
take $22 million of the Clean Coal deferral and give it to these other
programs.
Every time the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) stands up to
offer that amendment, the side of the gentleman from Arizona objects to
it. I just think we are trying to have a spirit of comity here to work
with my colleagues on getting these bills passed, and this is not the
way to do it.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again, the gentleman
from Washington is correct. But the rules of the House do permit
somebody to object from considering this en bloc, and that was done.
Now we are faced with the issue of trying to decide on the priority,
where do we want to place this money. The money has now been reserved,
and my colleagues have an option. It does not have to go to Indian
Health Service.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, why cannot we
have a vote, as we did earlier, to put the money into the National
Endowment for the Arts, Humanities and Museum Services, which clearly
was the intent of the House when we had this prior vote.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington can have that
vote.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it happens that the Indian Health Service
comes before the National Endowment.
Mr. KOLBE. That is correct.
Mr. DICKS. So the effort here by the majority, again, is to take the
money now in front of it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think I have got the time, do I not?
Mr. KOLBE. No. The gentleman from Washington yielded back the time. I
have got the time.
Mr. DICKS. We are having so much fun.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the
frustration of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). But the
gentleman may now have the opportunity to say that this is of such
priority, a highest priority, and ask the House to defeat the motion to
place this money in Indian Health Service, and then it would be
available.
If that does not occur, when the opportunity arises, when we get to
the section about the NEA and NEH in it, the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) or the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) can offer
another amendment and take the money from another place.
Mr. DICKS. But this was not so tactical, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
yielding to me. I appreciate that.
If the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) were serious about
the amendment, he would have an offset. Everybody here had to have an
offset today. We offered offsets. There is no offset here. He is taking
our offset, the money that we voted on, and using it for this
amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and this will be my
final comment on this, I would just say that the offset is available at
this point. It is now open, and it can be considered. This body can
work its will as to whether to place it here or to place it in another
location.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to put these numbers in perspective so that
what is happening here can become transparent.
The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) earlier asked a
unanimous consent request so that she could consider all four portions
of her amendment at the same time. The Committee on Rules has granted
that many times to other Members. They chose not to grant it to her.
She renewed her request here on the floor. She made her intention quite
known when she offered her original amendment. Her original amendment,
the first of four parts, was adopted by the House. Clearly the House
expressed an intention to follow through on the Slaughter amendment.
Now we are being asked to believe that the majority party is sincere
in offering an amendment to put $22 million from that source into
Indian Health.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin, is that
the exact amount of the Slaughter amendment?
Mr. OBEY. Yes.
Mr. Chairman, to put that in perspective, the majority party has
brought to this floor a bill which cuts the Indian Health Service by
$507 million, and we objected to that. We objected to that in our
minority views.
Now we are being asked to believe that their effort to put $22
million from a tiny minuscule portion of the amount that they have
already cut from the Indian Health Service, and we are asked to believe
that that is somehow going to make a wonderful difference in the lives
of Native Americans.
It is obvious from the size of the numbers that this is a transparent
attempt to block our ability to fund the arts as the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter) is trying to do.
We do not want to deny Native Americans every dollar that they need.
But when this amendment passes, it must be clearly understood why it is
here. It is here procedurally to block us from fulfilling the clearly
stated wishes of the House earlier this evening when they adopted the
Slaughter amendment.
So the offering of this amendment is simply an effort by the majority
party which will be successful in denying the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) the opportunity to complete her amendment. So it ought
to be seen for what it is.
After you have done this tonight, do not go home and brag to your
folks about how much you care about the arts because it is clearly
transparent that you would do anything possible to deny us the ability
to raise the amount of funds for that purpose.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
energy information administration
For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Energy Information Administration, $72,368,000, to remain
available until expended.
administrative provisions, department of energy
Appropriations under this Act for the current fiscal year
shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles;
hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase,
repair, and cleaning of uniforms; and reimbursement to the
General Services Administration for security guard services.
From appropriations under this Act, transfers of sums may
be made to other agencies of the Government for the
performance of work for which the appropriation is made.
None of the funds made available to the Department of
Energy under this Act shall be used to implement or finance
authorized price support or loan guarantee programs unless
specific provision is made for such programs in an
appropriations Act.
The Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings,
equipment, and other contributions from public and private
sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other
agencies, Federal, State, private or foreign: Provided, That
revenues and other moneys received by or for the account of
the Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of
products in connection with projects of the Department
appropriated under this Act may be retained by the Secretary
of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for
plant construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-
sharing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing
contracts or agreements: Provided further, That the remainder
of revenues after the making of such payments shall be
covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided
further, That any contract, agreement, or provision thereof
entered into by the Secretary pursuant to this authority
shall not be executed 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 comprehensive report on such project,
including the facts and circumstances relied upon in support
of the proposed project.
No funds provided in this Act may be expended by the
Department of Energy to prepare, issue, or process
procurement documents for programs or projects for which
appropriations have not been made.
In addition to other authorities set forth in this Act, the
Secretary may accept fees and contributions from public and
private sources, to be deposited in a contributed funds
account, and prosecute projects using such fees and
contributions in cooperation with other Federal, State or
private agencies or concerns.
[[Page H4559]]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Indian Health Service
indian health services
For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5,
1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of
the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian
Health Service, $2,084,178,000, together with payments
received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b)
for services furnished by the Indian Health Service:
Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal
organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any
other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the
grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available
to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year
limitation: Provided further, That $12,000,000 shall remain
available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic Health
Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $394,756,000 for
contract medical care shall remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2002: Provided further, That of the funds
provided, up to $17,000,000 shall be used to carry out the
loan repayment program under section 108 of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act: Provided further, That funds provided
in this Act may be used for 1-year contracts and grants which
are to be performed in two fiscal years, so long as the total
obligation is recorded in the year for which the funds are
appropriated: Provided further, That the amounts collected by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the
authority of title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act shall remain available until expended for the purpose of
achieving compliance with the applicable conditions and
requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security
Act (exclusive of planning, design, or construction of new
facilities): Provided further, That funding contained herein,
and in any earlier appropriations Acts for scholarship
programs under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25
U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2002: Provided further, That amounts received
by tribes and tribal organizations under title IV of the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act shall be reported and
accounted for and available to the receiving tribes and
tribal organizations until expended: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the amounts
provided herein, not to exceed $228,781,000 shall be for
payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract or
grant support costs associated with contracts, grants, self-
governance compacts or annual funding agreements between the
Indian Health Service and a tribe or tribal organization
pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as
amended, prior to or during fiscal year 2001: Provided
further, That funds available for the Indian Health Care
Improvement Fund may be used, as needed, to carry out
activities typically funded under the Indian Health
Facilities account.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Nethercutt:
On page 71, line 24 after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $22,000,000)''.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr Chairman, this amendment adds $22 million to the
Indian Health Service to provide urgently needed medical service to the
American Indians and Alaska Natives and to recruit and retain essential
medical personnel for the provision of these services.
As a Member who represents several Indian tribes, I have been on my
reservations repeatedly to see the decrepit facilities that are
currently in existence for Indian Health Services.
I happen to be very involved in the diabetes issue. Alaska Natives
and American Indians are 2.8 times as likely to have diagnosed diabetes
as non-Hispanic whites of similar age. Nine percent of all American
Indians and Alaska Natives 20 years or older have a diagnosis of
diabetes. Between 1991 and 1997, the prevalence of diabetes increased
to an all major high.
Indian tribes in every single State in which Indian populations
reside have terrible health problems, from dental problems to diabetes
problems, to heart disease. It is an epidemic in some cases around this
country. Diabetes is prevalent among Native Americans, in some cases at
a rate of 65 percent of a particular tribe. It is a disgrace.
Anybody who has been on an Indian reservation, whether it is in my
State or elsewhere, and looks at the Indian health care facilities is
stunned to see how bad they are. This is a good expenditure of $22
million. Goodness knows they need it. It can be used to the benefit of
the Indian population, American Indians and Alaskan natives.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues that this is a good expenditure of
money for an account in this bill that is woefully underfunded. The
President's budget has been previously terribly underfunded for the
Indian populations in this country. We owe them that. We owe them $22
million. Let us serve the needs for diabetes and dental health care and
other health care needs of our Indian population.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot sit in my seat and hear mendacious statements
made concerning American Indians. It is mendacity. It is mendacity
because the same gentleman that stood to issue this for American
Indians, and there is no one here who has supported them more than I
have, but it pains me to see unfairness being done. This is very
unfair, Mr. Chairman. The same gentleman who has so nobly stood here
tonight and spoke out for the American Indian voted for these cuts in
the report that he signed on and voted upon.
This is mendacity, Mr. Chairman. It does not come out right. It is
shameful. It is immoral that we should let this go. These Indians need
the health care, but did not someone know before now they needed it?
Why use the mental gymnastics my colleagues are using to hide the real
motive. If my colleagues want to vote down the motion for humanities
and the arts, do that.
{time} 2100
Be a man. Be a woman. Vote your conscience and vote it down. But
don't come back with some kind of gymnastic statement to hide the real
motives. This is shameful, and I will stand here and say that.
I have Indians in my district. I have fought hard for Indians, and
for all minorities, and for anyone who is underserved. So it does not
serve us well tonight, Mr. Chairman, and we should say shame on anybody
that votes for this amendment. I think each one of you should go
against it and restore what she won in a very honest way, and give the
Indians what they need. There is enough money to go around for every
Indian Nation.
What's wrong with that? What is wrong with my tax dollars going to
help the Indian Nation? Each one of you, even if you do not have
Indians in your district, you have a heart and a soul in you, I hope.
And some of us have some mental capacity. And if you have it, now is
the time to use it, and be sure that you give to the Indians what is
due to them.
I stood on this floor once before and I said ``White men speak with a
forked tongue.'' Why should you do this? There is no reason for you to
do this. I am very shamed by this, Mr. Chairman, and I love everyone on
this floor. This is wrong. Democrats, Republicans, Dixiecrats, I do not
care what party you are from, you have done the wrong thing here
tonight.
If you want to vote her amendment down, vote it down. But if she wins
it, give it to her, and then go back and give the Indians what they
deserve.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. No, don't clap; I have
some other things that aren't so nice to say, too.
I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. We won fair and
square a very tough vote to set aside money so we could provide some
increase in funding for the NEA and the NEH and the museum services. We
won by a small margin. But for the first time in a long time, this
House expressed its support for increasing funding. Now, that is very
significant, and we did it under very difficult circumstances, because
the amendment actually didn't provide the money to the NEA, it just set
money aside to be used later.
Now we find ourselves in the unfortunate situation of someone else
using that money for a worthy purpose. I am going to oppose that worthy
purpose because that could have been funded in the underlying bill.
And, in fact, this money is specifically available because Members on
both sides of the aisle thought that it would be used to fund an
increase in the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment
for the Humanities and the museum services.
[[Page H4560]]
However, one of the problems we are running into, and this is very
serious, is that I cannot count on the votes of my Democrat colleagues
for the bill if Republicans join you in a motion to recommit on the
arts. Now, if 40 of you will come forward and tell me that if the arts
money passes on the motion to recommit you'll vote for the bill, we can
have NEA funding. But because I can't count on that, and I don't know,
maybe by the time we get there we'll be able to do that, but for this
moment I am making this bill an issue for the arts.
And I will call for a recorded vote. It will put some people on both
sides of the aisle in an awkward position to choose between funding for
Indian health and funding for the arts. But on the motion to recommit,
I can certainly not urge my Members to vote for your motion to recommit
if your Members have not signed in blood that they will vote for the
bill if we get the money.
So that is just the reality, folks. Life's tough. We passed it once,
we need to pass it again. We need to win this vote again, to reject
this amendment, so that we can use this money for the arts as we
intended to. Then you're going to have to help pass the bill. Because
those who oppose the arts money won't vote for it. And if you don't, we
still won't have money for the arts. So you can't have it both ways.
I have voted for many bills on this House floor because I got some
key breakthrough in it. And if we get this arts money through this vote
and another vote, that will be a key breakthrough. But we cannot pass
the final bill without those arts supporters voting for it, warts and
all. A lot of warts will come off in conference. But in conference we
will gets arts money if we stick to our guns. But that means voting
this amendment down, voting the arts amendment up, and voting for the
bill, regardless of what is in it other than the arts money.
Life's tough. If you're for the arts, you'll do it. If you're not for
the arts, you'll vote for some of the amendments and not all.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I would like to bring a little reality back to the debate. If you
would follow the logic of the gentlewoman, then the only issue that we
should be concerned about in this bill is the arts. We care about the
arts, we care about the humanities, we also care about the Native
Americans, we care about America's national parks, we care about
America's national forests, we care about America's energy resources,
and we recognize, in contrast to you that we have an obligation on all
of those fronts to meet national needs and human needs.
To follow the course suggested by the gentlewoman would have us
acquiesce in the fact that only 1 month after this House posed for
political holy pictures and said that they wanted to spend $900 million
on public land acquisition, they bring forth a bill that has only $164
million to do that. Do you really believe that's sincere? Ha.
Look at the national parks and refuges; $100 billion below last year.
Take a look at the Forest Service; $96 million below. Do you really
believe we ought to go home and explain those cuts? You just had people
stand here and tell us we needed more lumber for housing; you had
people stand here and tell us how much you loved the land. Now you're
asking us to swallow a bill with these reductions?
If you want to provide a bill which meets our responsibilities,
instead of making us choose between saying no to the arts and no to
Native Americans, say no to your rich friends. Be willing to sweat a
little about your campaign contributions and instead say, no, we're not
going to give $200 billion in tax cuts to the 400 richest people in
this country.
And don't require, as a price for passing a minimum wage bill that
gives $11 billion in benefits to the poorest workers in this society,
don't require a legislative extortion which in return makes this
Congress also give $90 billion in tax relief to people who make over
$300,000 a year. If you want middle-class tax relief, yes! You want to
use middle-class tax relief as a Trojan horse to reward your rich
friends; sorry, count us out!
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I heard earlier from another Member that we were going
to attempt to inject a little reality into the debate. The preceding
attempt was in vain, so let me do it for us assembled here tonight.
My colleagues, there are differences of opinion honestly held. But I
would caution us all not to become so obsessed with process that we
fail to deal with the issue at hand. The reality is the gentleman from
Washington has offered an amendment that I think is all together proper
and one that we should all support because it adds greatly needed funds
in an area where the need is acute: $24 million for the--I am sorry, $2
million--$22 million, forgive me, I stand corrected, and I thank my
colleagues for that really unprecedented bipartisan cooperation to get
the numbers right here tonight, $22 million to help Americans who have
been ravaged by a horrible disease.
That is the question. Not the other process, not the alleged road map
of intrigue. This is the simple question, an up or down question on
helping these Americans.
Now, something else important to remember with reference to Indian
Health Service budgeting and what has been appropriated. We have, in
fact, added $30 million to that process. But this is a House where we
do take into account different priorities and differences of opinion
honestly held, so I will resist the temptation to go into a barn burner
and just point out the facts. Twenty-two million dollars to Indian
health services for the most vulnerable Americans, the most vulnerable
to diabetes, the first Americans, who are too often the forgotten
Americans, I think, is all together proper.
And those who want to impugn others with political intrigue can do
so. And some have said in this Chamber that life is tough. But I think
all of us, regardless of our party affiliation or political
dispensation can stand here in good conscience and cast an ``aye'' vote
because it is the right thing to do for the people who need the help.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that most of us would rather be home
right now, life isn't really very tough for us. Tough is not choosing
whether you're going to underfund one group or underfund another. Tough
is being in the groups that are underfunded.
We have it, after all, relatively easy. The people who have it tough
are the struggling artists who could use some extra funds so they can
make a creative contribution, or the Indian children who are being
underfunded. And what is striking about this debate is the implicit
acknowledgment that the Republican Party's budget is wholly inadequate
to the moral needs of a great Nation. What we have is a dispute,
including an intramural Republican dispute, about who among worthy
people are we going to hurt the worst.
Yes, it is a terrible situation, and people will decide differently
as to who they are going to stiff. But let's be very clear. We are in
this situation where we have to choose. And people have said Indian
health is woefully underfunded, and if we pass the gentleman's
amendment it will be woefully underfunded plus 1 percent or 2 percent.
People are admitting that the Republican budget gravely underfunds
Indian health. Many of us believe it underfunds a number of other
things.
There's virtual unanimity in this place that we don't have enough
money to go around. Why? The economy is doing well. Revenues are coming
in at a greater than expected pace. The problem is we have this
philosophical commitment that holds amongst some Republicans that says
government is bad. The problem is that while government is bad,
virtually all of the components that make up government are pretty
good. And that's why you're in this bind. Everybody wants to take
credits for supporting the individual components.
Clean coal research. A lot of people want to do that, and they are
upset it is getting cut back.
The arts. Indian health. There are virtually no programs in this
entire budget, in this entire appropriation, that anyone denounces.
We have this terrible paradox. You know what your problem is? You
have
[[Page H4561]]
a whole that is smaller than the sum of your parts. You have the entity
that you despise, government; but it's made up of a lot of components
that you like. So you do two things, you pass a budget that puts too
little money into the pot and then we fight about trying to get these
inadequate things out of the pot.
What this debate confirms is the inadequacy of the budget. And the
gentlewoman from Connecticut, and I admire her courage in getting up as
she did, but I have two differences with her. First of all, she says,
well, a lot of warts will come out in conference.
{time} 2115
Let me translate that. In the conference, thanks to the intervention
of the President of the United States, pretending that the budget they
are trying to operate under makes any sense at all will stop, the
pretense of that grave mistake we made in 1997. And let me not be that
generous. I did not make it. I voted against that budget in 1997. We
have been lying about it and cheating on it and avoiding it and evading
it and denouncing it ever since. But it is still there.
So what we are being told is vote for an appropriations bill which is
admittedly inadequate, vote for an appropriations bill that has too
little money for all of these important purposes, but vote for it if we
can get a couple more nickels in the arts because in conference it will
be made better.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I just want to get the
record on the 1997 deal.
This administration has cut Medicare more than the 1997 budget
required.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
agree. The gentlewoman has said that the President has also cut
Medicare. And I will say for this purpose, a plague on both the Houses.
Yes, the President was wrong and they were wrong. And if they take
some comfort that the President was in this regard wronger than them,
they are entitled to it. But they were both wrong, and some of us told
them so at the time.
They collaborated in cutting Medicare to an unreasonable level, and
they also collaborated in putting caps on the budget.
The gentlewoman is the one who got up and said, vote for this budget,
warts and all, i.e., vote for this inadequate, underfunded budget.
Because in conference we will not be bound by the pretense of what we
did in 1997 made any sense. But they are still hobbled by this
philosophical commitment to hating government in general, even though
on program after program after program they want to improve government
in the particular.
It does not work, and that is why we are in this terrible bind.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Ladies and gentlemen, time is drawing late tonight. I think we have
heard a great deal of debate about the role of government and how much
money we should spend and whether we are going to balance the budget or
we should not balance the budget. But, quite frankly, that is what the
process is.
If you look at the history of this immediate amendment, some folks on
this side of the aisle voted for that amendment to cut because they
really believed it should not have more money going in to coal
research. And some people voted for it because they believe there
should be money in coal research. That was the issue. And that issue
cut a certain amount of money. And that is open for debate on whether
we should add it to other things.
Now, we have had a lot of debate. We can stand here tonight and
pontificate, and we can posture and we can go well into the wee hours
of the morning. There are no flights out of here. It is raining
outside. And we can have a great old time, just a donnybrook.
But if we want to get the job done that the American people send us
here to do, we can carry on a civil debate, we can discuss the merits
of it, we can vote on these issues. I think everybody knows where they
are, whether they are for it or against it. I am not sure how many
people are getting their minds changed in this great debate. But let us
go forward, and let us get our work done. Let us carry through on what
you feel strongly about and what these folks feel strongly about. Let
us do our work, and I ask that we move forward.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words, and I rise against the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in most of my public life, I have been involved in the
health care of Indians both in the Congress and before I came here. And
it is rather sad to stand here tonight and tell my colleagues the
status of health care of Indians in this country.
When we compare them to all the races in the United States, the
Indian people suffer a death rate that is 627 times higher from
alcoholism, 533 times higher from tuberculosis, 249 percent higher from
diabetes, 71 percent higher from pneumonia and influenza. It is the
saddest state of health care that we have in the United States. There
is no other population that compares to this.
But do my colleagues know what they should not do to people who
suffer from these health care problems, to people who have a death rate
that is 627 percent higher from alcoholism, 533 percent higher from
tuberculosis, 249 percent higher from diabetes, and 71 percent higher
from pneumonia and influenza? They should not take those people and use
them as a political pawn. They should not do it. They simply should not
do it.
They did not have the courage of their newfound convictions to put
full funding for them in the budget or to even put this $22 million in
the budget. But here tonight, in their crusade against the arts and the
humanities, they are prepared to enlist the Native Americans of this
country, the grand tribes of the grand nations, and to use them for
cannon fodder in their crusade against the arts.
I ask my colleagues to think about a community they might come from
where they have a 627 percent higher death rate from alcoholism than
everywhere else in the Nation and think about if what they would do to
those people is to use them.
In a terribly cynical, cynical approach to deny the arts their money,
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) her amendment, and the
due process in this House, I do not think we should do this.
It is tempting; it is exciting to put one over on the Democrats. We
get one up. We get back to where we were. But in the end, we have used
these people.
I sit on the Committee on Resources. I sat there my entire time in
Congress. And when we built the great water projects of the western
United States, they always had an Indian component in it, water was
going to go to the Indians, Central Arizona project. Up there in the
Dakotas, water is going to go to the Indians.
Do my colleagues know what? Thirty, 40, 50 years later, the Indians
are still waiting for the water, folks, but the white folks all got
their water. They are still waiting for the water in Arizona. They are
in court. Of course, they have to go to court to get their water, they
cannot get it in Congress.
Quinten Burdick, the last thing he did was come to me and said, can
we strike a deal to finally give the water to the Indians? We flooded
their lands 30 years ago.
Time and again we have marched out the Indians of this country from
the Indian nations and used them for political purposes. Tonight we
march out the most unfortunate, those who suffer from these kinds of
health care problems. And my colleagues have not found it in their
heart in the last 6 years to deal with them. Budgets below the
President.
The President has not done a great job, either. But let us not
suggest that this is the answer. Put the politics aside. Recognize that
they lost an amendment earlier today. Recognize that there may be, the
bill has got a long way to go, there may be in fact money for the arts.
I do not know whether there will be or not. But let us not do this to
the Indian nations of this country.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that last year we
put $150 million for Indian health, more
[[Page H4562]]
than the President requested. Now this year he got some religion. But
in the 6 years that we have been funding the Interior bill, the amount
of money committed to Indian health has been substantially more than
the previous 6 years under the Democrat control.
So let us not denigrate our efforts on behalf of the Indians.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. Let
me say to the gentleman that that debate between him and the President,
this President, or any President, between the Committee on
Appropriations, and any administration is an honest debate. That is
about priorities.
This is not about a priority. This is about a political trick.
Fortunately, the chairman is not engaged in it. And we appreciate that.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we have heard very sincere remarks on
both sides of the aisle. I would like to suggest something that might
solve this problem. And there is no reason there cannot be a new rule
of the House.
One thing is that any amendment that gets a majority vote in the
House and needs to be funded, I would suggest that we have a section at
the end of the bill and that we permit in conference, because we know
the Senate will come in with a higher mark generally on this bill, and
we would work that out with them, with us and our own conferees; and
they would have a mandate of the House of the majority on whether it be
Indian health, arts, whatever.
It seems to me, and I have checked it with the parliamentarian and
they have said, well, that could be seen as violating the rule of
legislating on an appropriations bill. We do it all the time. We go
through the Committee on Rules. There is no reason, by unanimous
consent, that we could not do that tonight to solve this problem.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Chair rule on that and see if
we could solve that. That would solve a lot of problems, get away from
the partisan diatribes, and get to the people's feelings, which have
been well expressed on both sides of the aisle.
Would the chairman rule on that if that is possible?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is not going to rule in anticipation of an
amendment that has not been offered.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, if we write it out, will the Chair be
inclined to accept it?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair, being neither clairvoyant nor anything
close, cannot rule in anticipation of something that has not happened
yet.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will first try a unanimous consent request to deliver
on the previous gentleman's intent.
I would make a unanimous consent request that we fund the arts, the
additional amount which was passed in the previous vote, and that we
increase funding for Indian health by the amount proposed by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt). I make that as a unanimous
consent request in the spirit of the gentleman who just rose.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is not able to entertain that unanimous
consent request because it is not in the form of an amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would hope it would be offered as an
amendment and hope that, if there is sincerity on both sides, that that
is where we will end up.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman could ask the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) if he would, by unanimous consent, amend
his amendment to cover both these issues, which would cover the intent
of that; and the gentleman from Washington could amend his amendment.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I cannot do that. Because there is $22
million dollars to deal with; and I made an amendment, and I want a
ruling on this amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, then, we would hope
that wiser heads can prevail and the ranking member and the chairman
can work on this as I speak and as others speak, because I think there
will be a number of speeches.
There are few Members in this House who represent more tribes than I
do. And we have heard a great deal, wonderfully, in the last few
moments for the first time, I think, in my career on the floor of the
House about concern for the condition of the Indian people and their
health and their well-being. And that is wonderful.
And I will admit that the Clinton administration has not been a
tremendous advocate in these areas. And the gentleman has done a good
job. But there is a different situation before us tonight.
For whatever reason, the administration is now advocating significant
increases, perhaps seeing the past problems and understanding better
the problems of the Indian people. I have not seen that concern
reflected in either the Republican budget, which passed the House, the
subcommittee budget, which passed in the Committee on Appropriations,
the full committee budget, or the consideration before us here tonight.
We are talking now about 4 percent, 4 percent, I would say to the
gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Nethercutt) of the increase
proposed by the President.
How many additional doctors, doctors' visits, nurses, nurse
practitioners, treatments for persistent TB, treatments for alcoholism,
very expensive, how much can we pay for with a 4 percent increase? A
pathetic amount. Yes, we might help a few. But the needs are greater.
The needs are much greater. And I have not seen that concern before
here. I am pleased to see it tonight.
{time} 2130
But I am discouraged to see it being used in an attempt to thwart
money for the arts, that won fair and square in a tough vote that was
held for 25 minutes on the floor of the House while the whip and others
on that side attempted to twist arms because a very strong political
base on that side opposes the National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities. You lost the vote fair and
square. It is not a lot of money in the context of this bill. We could
do better than $22 million, I believe, for the American Indian people.
And we can do at least as well as the vote which prevailed by the
gentlewoman from New York with great persistence.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I just want to assure the gentleman that I am one who
increased NEH in conference last year, and perhaps the way to handle
this is to deal with it in conference when we have a chance to analyze
how much money there is and is not and have a chance to work through
it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. That is the same stale song we have heard from that side on
every bill. What they are saying is, ``This is only the second step. We
know these bills are inadequate, but somebody else will make them
responsible down the line.'' That is, in my view, a very poor
recommendation to go to the public with and ask to be returned to this
body.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. In reclaiming my time, this is
truly a serious issue. Again, I would hope that perhaps cooler heads
can prevail, and they can find other offsets in the bill. I hope we
could find $100 million for Indian health and that we could find the
minimum amount that the gentlewoman already gained for the arts and
humanities.
The arts and humanities are important. They are important to us as a
culture, as a Nation. They are important to kids who drop out of
school. They are important to people to enrich their lives.
And health is vitally important for people to be able to enjoy some
of those cultural privileges of their own culture, of the culture that
might be provided in the amendment by the gentlewoman from New York.
[[Page H4563]]
I am just bemused. I am saddened, and I am hopeful that we can
somehow come to an accommodation of both needs in this bill. I think
the money is there.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the amendments that were offered today were offered on
behalf of the Arts Caucus of the House of Representatives, a bipartisan
group. One of the things that helped us win this afternoon were the 25
votes of the Republican Members for which I am extraordinarily
grateful. I thank my cochair, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn),
for the hard work that he has done and the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Johnson) for her tenacious fight to try to do something here. I
am certainly grateful to all the people over here on my side who saw to
it that we got that victory this afternoon and I thank them.
I cannot tell my colleagues how sad this makes me. I am used to not
doing very well on this subject. I appreciate that there are lots of
things I could come up with every year that might please the crowd. I
have always tried, the 14 years I have been here, to deal with you as
honestly and frankly as I can. I have been persuaded over the years of
the great benefit that these three programs do to the people of the
United States.
We are asking not for us. We get to go see To Kill a Mockingbird. We
get invited to all the good things. I am talking about all the other
people out there, the people we represent, who will line up to get to a
performance when a play comes to town, and who will struggle to make
sure that their children are associated with the arts in school.
I appreciate again what everybody does. This is the first year,
frankly, that we have been able not to just try to keep it alive.
People were elected here, I understand that, to kill the NEA for some
reason. It was like the Holy Grail. This little agency, when I came
here I think it had $178 million worth of budget. It is down to $98
million. It will probably never rise again. Who knows? But it seems to
loom so large in people's minds and in a way that I think is totally
wrong.
The agency has transformed itself in every way the Congress has
asked. Its leadership has been extraordinary. Members of the House sit
on the advisory committee. There is not a single soul in this House
that could not go back to their district and point with great pride
what little bits of seed money that came to them from the National
Endowment for the Arts made them be able to build things in their own
communities of which they could be proud.
This amount of money that we have here would have done a lot for
them. I do not know how many little regional theaters may go dark now
because we cannot fund the arts in this country. We should understand
that we fund it cheaper than any other country on the face of the
Earth. I do not know how many children may not ever be able to see an
artist perform.
I remember an artist who told me one day that her father and mother
had scrounged up enough money to take her to see the Music Man, and
that she had never seen anything like it in her life. She said to
herself, ``That's exactly what I want to do.'' She did it. She grew up,
and she remembered what that meant to her as a very young person. And
now Mary Steenburgen tells us that every time before she goes on stage,
she reaches down to take that imaginary little girl by the hand and
says, ``Let's go out and do our best tonight, Mary. There may be
children here.''
In my own district, a young man who won the Arts Caucus program here
so that he could hang some art down in the tunnel, he was 17 or so, and
was severely troubled. We could not find him to tell him that he had
won. He had left home. He had dropped out of school. But my staff in
Rochester persisted. They finally found him. They said, ``Look. You've
got to go to Washington. You've got to go for this celebration and see
how they hang this picture and how it says something in the State of
New York that you have been chosen.'' He did. We gave him an enormous
good time.
The next time I saw that young man was at a meeting again trying to
keep the foundation of the arts alive. He said to me, ``I am now a
student at Pratt. There was something about that validation of hanging
in the Capitol of the United States of America that made me think, by
George, I may be worth something.'' It completely turned him around.
I saw little children in Harlem learning to dance at the age of 3.
They were so cute you could hardly believe it. You wanted to hug and
squeeze them, but they were not there for that. They were there to
learn discipline and to learn dance. We know what this does to the
human spirit. The National Endowment for the Humanities explains to us
all the time and to everybody else who we are, who we were, where we
are going, where we have been, and that is important, because we do not
want to be the only society, do we, that only leaves behind their
Styrofoam?
I know that we are not going to win this battle here tonight. So, Mr.
Nethercutt and Mr. Regula, take your $22 million, because, as I said,
it has been said here before and much better than I, I do not believe
this amendment was intended to help the Indians. I believe this
amendment was intended to use them. So take it. I hope that it will be
of some help to them. And these little agencies will limp along, and we
will try again next year.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I will be the first to commend the gentlewoman for her
wonderful speech and her wonderful remarks and her heartfelt feelings
about the arts in this country. I have many of the same feelings
despite what this amendment may mean to her. And I know all of us feel
passionately about how to spend the taxpayer dollars. It is tough. We
are in the majority. We have to make this budget fit together.
There was a comment earlier about how much money we spend on Indian
health care. We are $30 million of an increase from last year. It could
be $500 million that we need to spend. I would spend it gladly. This
House has been energized by the idea that Indian health is a problem in
this country.
I will respect the gentlewoman's feelings about having kids see the
arts. I am a dad. I know. But I also feel passionately that as I see
little Indian kids suffering, and I mean this, I have spoken at
diabetes health care conferences for Indian health in San Diego and
elsewhere in this country. It is a dramatic problem. If we were all
king and queens, we could wish more money everywhere. But we cannot.
So my sense is this: There is $22 million I think that Indian health
care kids and families would benefit from. That is a priority of mine.
I voted for the National Endowment for the Arts allocation in this
country. We are dealt the hand we are dealt. We have to make this
budget fall together. We want to pay down this national debt. We want
to save Social Security. Our defense condition is in trouble right now.
So we cannot do it all.
This, I believe, is a better expenditure of money. When you look at
the relative value, I think this is a better expenditure. That is my
view. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has a different view. The
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has a different view. The
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) feels differently. So does the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). God bless us. That is the way we
are able to be in this House. We make judgments, and we make our best
judgments. But I hate to have you all ascribe bad motives to us or
trickery or fooling with the system. I really feel this is the best
expenditure. That is why I offered the amendment. I reject anybody who
says that there is any other motive. This is my best judgment based on
the people that I represent and the needs that I see out in this
country.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I would just ask this of the gentleman from Washington. If
it is true that his heart is so concerned about the plight of our
Native Americans, then why did he not offer his amendment in committee
when it would not be used as an effort to cut
[[Page H4564]]
off the effort of the gentlewoman? And why did he then vote for a bill
which cut Indian health services by over $500 million?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) greatly. He is a good person, but he does not need to do
this with respect to impugning my motives. When we did not have $22
million in this account when we were voting on it in the committee. And
my friend knows it. There is $22 million sitting here. I have made my
best judgment as to how it can be spent. If we would have been sitting
in the committee, I probably would have put it with diabetes research.
That is one of my great things. Or defense spending. Or education
spending.
Mr. OBEY. Why did you vote for the cut?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Again, I voted for a $30 million increase from last
year. I did not vote for a cut. The President's budget has been lower
for years. He comes up higher this year, and you say it is a cut.
Mr. OBEY. You voted to cut the President's budget by $500 million.
You voted for that.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just reiterate
something that I said this afternoon on the floor, and I have been, and
I think some in this body know and certainly those that I have talked
to in my State know that I have been a strong supporter of the arts for
a number of years and I believe very passionately in it. And I believe
that there is a Federal role.
I regret that we are finding ourselves in the position where we are
pitting one priority against another. But the Federal budget is not
limitless. There are limits. We must establish priorities. That is
really what we are about doing here this evening. I believe that there
will be additional dollars in the conference for the arts, but I
believe that at this moment that it is not the appropriate time to do
it because it will not help us pass this bill.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a debate on this floor this evening that
should make us all question why we are in this place and what we care
about. I cannot help but ask myself, are we to take the gentleman from
Washington seriously? This is the same man who supported term limits
and has now reversed himself. We are asked to believe that this is
about good public policy.
Well, it is not. This is about politics. This is not about an attempt
to help the Indians. This is simply to provide political cover. This
amendment adds a mere $20 million to an account that the Republicans
already cut by $200 million. Native Americans are among the most
impoverished people in the United States. Thirty percent of Native
Americans are living below the poverty line.
{time} 2145
Native Americans suffer disproportionately high rates of diabetes,
cancer, heart disease, and substance abuse. Half of the roads and
bridges on Indian reservations are in a serious state of disrepair. The
unemployment rate among Native Americans is over 50 percent, and one-
third of Native American children do not graduate from high school.
Despite the pressing needs of our Nation's first people, the funding
in this bill for the Bureau of Indian Affairs is $320 million below the
budget request submitted by the President. This bill cut funding for
the housing improvement program by $7 million below the fiscal year
2000 level and provided no funds whatsoever for new housing
construction.
The bill also cut funding for school construction, $13 million below
the fiscal year 2000 level and $180 million below the President's
request. Funding for the Indian Health Service is an appalling $200
million below the President's request.
The American economy is extraordinarily healthy today. However, the
people who live on Indian reservations are some of the poorest people
in our Nation. They desperately need funding for health care,
education, school construction, housing and economic development.
This amendment that we are confronted with, in light of what has
already taken place in H.R. 4478 the Interior Appropriations Act, is
appalling. I do not believe that any Member of this House could
comfortably support this amendment and comfortably even support this
bill knowing how this can be viewed by our voting public.
The results of this can only be thought of as cynical. I would ask us
all to oppose the amendment.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is to inquire of
the Chair whether the remarks of the previous speaker in ascribing
motives to another Member are appropriate.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not rule on that specific instance in
the context of a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chair would announce, however, and remind Members that by
directing remarks in debate to the Chair, and not one another in the
second person, Members may better avoid personal tensions during the
debate.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to talk about, I guess, the issue that
has plugged up the House with a great deal of rhetoric; to give my
perspective on the issue of the arts and the issue of health care for
Native Americans and the issue that the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) won earlier in the day; also to say that the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) is one of the finest Americans and Members
of Congress I have ever met. And he will always have my undying
respect, as do most Members on both sides of the aisle. We all
represent the finest that America has to offer.
The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) offered an amendment
earlier today in anticipation of raising, putting aside $22 million for
the arts, for the humanities, for the museums, of which most of us
agree with.
I have voted in favor of those kinds of amendments in the past. I am
fundamentally in support of that type of culture, because I think it
brings to the human being the kind of thought process, creativity,
sensitivity, intellectual understanding that is necessary and can only
come from the arts.
Now, I voted earlier today against the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), and I did not vote against the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) because I was against the arts. I voted against the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) because I also truly believe
in certain environmental issues, and one of those is to understand the
nature of coal or how we can improve the burning of coal through clean
coal technology. That is the reason I voted against the Slaughter
amendment, not because I am against the arts.
Now, we are in a democratic process where there are all kinds of
things going on. We basically, though, fundamentally have an exchange
of information on this House floor and somewhat a sense of tolerance
for a different opinion by somebody else, and then we vote. And Oliver
Wendell Holmes said about 100 years ago, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, that the Constitution was made for people with
fundamentally differing views. And so that is what we have here.
Now, when this comes up for a vote, and if it does come up for a
vote, I truly believe in the arts; I bring those kids here every year
with their painting. And we have a marvelous time, and they are hung in
the Capitol.
My daughter, and I am very proud, won the art purchase award for our
home county, which is the highest award you can get. And she is going
to college this year to major in art and music. And the joy she brings
in our family and the other people in the county is marvelous.
But I also truly believe in my heart whenever there is an opportunity
out there that I grab ahold of an opportunity and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) wants $22 million in Indian health care
that was not there before, I am going to vote for that, not because I
am against the arts.
The arts are beautiful. Just listen to William Blake, to see a world
in the
[[Page H4565]]
grain of sand, heaven in a wild flower, holding infinity in the palm of
your hand and eternity in an hour. That was the theme for the arts
caucus from the first congressional district of Maryland. And we gotten
marvelous entries.
But there is desperate need in Indian health care; and so I am
personally voting for that, because it just happens I have an
opportunity to increase that money for health care.
There are many people on both sides of the aisle that are struggling
with this vote, not for political advantage, but for a real heart-felt
sincere understanding about what is best to do at any one given moment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I doubt seriously if there are very many people in this
House who do not recognize the insincerity and the cynicism that
underlies this amendment. If it had been true that there was a genuine
concern----
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the insinuation of
this. What is the direction of the Chair in terms of words being
appropriate? I am trying, Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge me, and the
House will, I am trying not to go to have the gentleman's words taken
down, but I would like my friend from New York (Mr. Hinchey) maybe to
rethink what he says.
Mr. Chairman, is it not true there have been three opportunities to
have words struck down tonight, and is it true that if I was looking
for an opportunity, this might be one; but is it not also true that the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) may want to rethink what he just
said to avoid us from going there?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not rule on that. The Chair would ask
the gentleman to proceed in order, and the time is now controlled by
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey), who I served with on the committee and have great respect
for, I would ask in terms of just a good relationship here tonight that
you may rethink what you had just said, because I am not sure that you
meant it the way we may have heard it.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in a good
relationship. Reclaiming my time, I am very interested in maintaining
good relationships. I am very interested in maintaining comity. I am
very interested in maintaining respect. I am also very interested in
maintaining respect for the work of our Members of the House.
And I mean no personal attack in any way on the gentleman who offered
the amendment. However, I believe that there is an insincere result
that comes about as a result of it. If there had been a sincere
interest in addressing the obvious needs, health care needs of Native
Americans, then that attempt could have been made during the full
committee. The gentleman is a member of the subcommittee. It could have
been made during the subcommittee; it was not.
If there had been a sincere interest in addressing the needs of
Native Americans in terms of their health care, that could have been
done during the full committee by the gentleman who offered this
amendment; it was not. If there had been a sincere concern for the
legitimate health care needs of Native Americans, this amendment that
we have now could have come before us in the context of this debate
which has been going on for some time, and a great many others who have
offered amendments have found offsets for those amendments.
In fact, every single amendment that came from this side of the House
had an offset to it. It does not take a great deal of ingenuity to find
offsets for your amendments if you sincerely wish to find them outside
of attacking the work that others have done before you.
We had here earlier today an honest, sincere, heartfelt debate on an
important issue. As a result of that debate, this House decided to
provide 22 million additional dollars for the National Endowment for
the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and for Museums
around the country.
I believe that the Members of this House did so sincerely because
they recognized the value of NEA, NEH, and museums. They recognized
their value particularly as educational vehicles and as the harbors of
culture within our society.
And I believe the Members of this House, the majority of them wanted
to do everything they could within the confines of a very restricted
budget, artificially so, I might add, but, nevertheless, restricted
budget, to do whatever they could to enhance the arts, the humanities,
and museums.
That issue was debated sincerely, aggressively, intelligently,
enthusiastically; and in the final result $22 million went for the
arts, humanities, and museums.
Now, at this late hour, we have an attempt to take that victory, not
only from the Members of the House who voted for it, but from all the
millions of Americans who will benefit as a result of that additional
funding for these worthy subjects, and to do it in a way that I believe
does dishonor to this House.
It is one thing to stand here and fight for the things that you
believe in. We all do that. It is another thing to do it in a way that
undercuts and undermines the success of others in the context of what
goes on here in these debates, and I believe that is what we are
witnessing.
Yes, I think that there is an element of cynicism that comes about as
a result of this action that is proposed for us to take at this moment.
I think that there is an element of insincerity that reeks in this
House as a result of the effort that has been placed before us which we
are being asked to embrace.
And I think it would be a serious mistake for the comity that we all
seek, for the good judgment that we reach for, that the good relations
that we hope to maintain, and the good results above all that we hope
to achieve as a result of these debates. I would hope that the
gentleman would recognize some of this and that he would withdraw the
amendment.
Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. I seldom, rise on the floor. It bothers me tonight that I see on
both sides that we are questioning the motive of our members and hear
words that are being used about our Native Americans. Yes, I am from
Oklahoma, basically meaning the home of the red man; Oklahoma, the
State that has 22 percent of all Native Americans in this country.
{time} 2200
I grew up with the Choctaw Indians in dirt-poor poverty. I was the
only non-Indian on the baseball team. I was the minority but did not
know it. All the rest of them were Native Americans. I gave eulogies at
several of my Native American classmates' funerals, so please do not
question the motive of people.
I have witnessed alcoholism among my Native Americans and their
families. I was raised with them. Do not judge the motives of people.
Yes, this budget is probably short in total dollars. There could be a
lot more done. But right now as we stand before you we must make a
decision on this amendment. I was not in appropriations. The amendment
before us basically is whether we use $22 million for Indian health
service. As my colleague the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent)
said, in Oklahoma we have the smallest percentage of Indian health
service funds for our Native American families.
I cannot undo the things of the past, but as I stand in front of you,
I have got an adopted Native American daughter. I have three Native
American grandchildren whom I would rather have in my arms tonight than
being here listening to this kind of debate.
Let us not question others' integrity or whether we are sincere or
not sincere. We have an amendment before us. Let us address that
amendment and move forward.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, for 36 years now as a lawmaker, 12 years in the
Michigan legislature, 24 years here, and for 6 years in the Roman
Catholic seminary where I worked with Indians, I have been working for
all those years for justice for Indians.
[[Page H4566]]
My father, who was raised among Indians near Traverse City, Michigan,
always told me that the Indians have been treated unfairly, and they
were the people with the poorest health around Traverse City. Their
land had been stolen from them, all their land. I was determined when I
entered the State legislature in 1964 in Michigan to do something for
the Indians, and I have worked very closely with people on both sides
of the aisle to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I have worked with people on both sides of the aisle to
bring justice for Indians, and I have always hoped that before I
shuffle off from this mortal coil to meet my judge, that I will have
moved somewhere towards that justice, and I have taken some tough votes
through the years to do that.
There are some people who would take money from the arts to give to
the Indian Health Service, but some of those same people, and this is
what troubles me, have voted for over $200 billion worth of tax cuts. I
voted against those tax cuts, and I got criticized back home for doing
that, but I did it because I want to make sure we take care of the
needs of those who are the most needy. I voted against those tax cuts,
and I pay a political price for that. I voted for a tax raise in 1993,
and almost lost my election because I voted for that tax raise, but I
did because I felt there were needy people in this country.
I have made the real tough votes. Those are the tough votes. Those
are the ones that you do not put in your campaign literature, ``I voted
for a tax increase and voted against a tax cut.'' Your opponent puts it
in his or hers.
But those are the tough votes. That is really where you determine
whether you are going to do something to help alleviate the immorality
here in America, and the way we treat our Indians is immoral. If we
really want to help them, we cannot be giving money to the wealthiest
people and not give what is due to the neediest, the people whose land
we have stolen, changed their way of life, destroyed their language in
many instances. We want to give money to the super wealthy and withhold
money from the poorest. That is the real moral issue here. That is the
tough vote.
I voted those tough votes. When I voted in 1993, I thought I was
looking at my political grave, but I was willing to do that. Those are
the tough votes. These votes here really emanate from how we are
willing to take care and balance the justice with the injustice in this
country.
So it is really puzzling. When you find people who are giving to the
super wealthy and take from the America's poorest, you find that at
least puzzling. It is very puzzling to me.
I will always support justice for the Indians, in any instance and
any chance I can, but I find tonight, in my 36 years in public office,
one of the saddest days. When we came here in January, this was all
part of a process. We raise so much money, we spend so much money. We
find our priorities. We find our priorities in tax cuts; we find our
priorities in expenditures.
This is a paradox. This is contradictory, what we are doing here
tonight. If you can look into your heart and say, okay, I voted against
the tax cut, therefore I can without contradiction go along cutting the
President's budget for IHS by $200 million as was done. And I don't
blame the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). The gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula) is one of the most decent guys in this House, and when I
go to his committee to testify, the gentleman, within the limitations
he has, does a great job for the Indians.
But I find this really sad. We have to look at ourselves and say how
do we balance how we raise the money, how do we balance how we spend
the money? The two go together, and you cannot give a $200 billion-plus
tax cut to the very wealthy, the most wealthy, and deny what is needed,
the basic needs, of America's poor.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, some people are having a difficult decision
here, and, you know, we are often asked to establish priorities.
Sometimes we are asked to decide whether we should fund an after-school
program or special education. For some, that is a difficult decision.
But tonight I do not think we are facing a difficult decision. We have
$22 million that we could add to Native American health care, or we
could subsidize the arts, humanities and museums.
Now, this industry of the arts is a very wealthy industry. The
gentleman from Michigan made a good point about how we are trying to
make decisions between subsidizing the wealthy versus subsidizing a
very needy cause. Well, Hollywood is full of millionaires; New York and
Broadway are full of millionaires. Each year $9 billion is spent on the
arts; jobs in the arts community are growing 3.6 times faster than the
regular economy; there are more Americans that attend an artistic event
every year than attend sporting events; and yet we are willing to make
a choice to subsidize wealthy producers, actors, artists and all of
those who contribute to the arts another $22 million.
Some do not care if we turn our backs on the Native Americans,
because they want to subsidize and support some of these wealthy
Americans through the arts. Somewhere, some day in America, some child
may see an artistic expression if we just add another $22 million to
the industry, the $9 billion industry, and we will do it at the expense
of Native Americans' health care? For me this is not a tough decision.
For the downtrodden Native Americans, because I have seen their
troubles, I have been to the reservations, I grew up with Native
Americans, I played with them, I have worked with them. Four of my
fraternity brothers were Native Americans. I watched three of the four
pass away because of some reason that I hope would be taken care of by
additional health care. I do not know if that would meet the need, but
it would be a long step towards a greater awareness in health care for
the Indians.
So I think this is an easy decision tonight. I think we should
support the Nethercutt amendment because it is a much higher priority
than subsidizing a $9 billion industry. Let us vote to add the $22
million to Native American health care.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my opposition to the amendment that is
before us. The real tragedy in the House is that a couple of months ago
our Committee on the Budget gave us, and this House approved in a
partisan manner, unrealistic, not carefully thought out, 302(b)
allocations, which are the bottom line numbers that each of the budget
bills must now work within. Those numbers were not fair 2 or 3 months
ago, and they are not fair today as we debate this most important
issue, Native American health care, arts and humanities for Americans
who deserve it.
I think we do this House a disservice when we are not realistic. This
country is doing better than it has done in a decade, in a generation.
The budget projections that were made 2 months ago are now today
further off than ever. When this fiscal year closes on September 30,
our Treasury will have over $100 billion more than we thought we would
have this time last year.
Why then are we going through these tasks over the last couple of
weeks now, debating legislation with good priorities for American
citizens, and yet we are not able to fund them? I say to Members of the
House, the reason is because the allocations initially approved in a
bipartisan manner a few months ago were not realistic, they were not
fair, and they leave a lot of money out that will be put in at the end
of this process by 10 to 12 people in both Houses, cutting out over 500
people who have been elected by people across this country to represent
them and to serve in this House and to make the kinds of decisions we
are making tonight.
It is unfortunate that we cannot fund properly Native American health
care. They deserve it. As a minority myself, I would love to have my
tax dollars go to them. The President was not right, this House is
certainly not right, and we can do better by health care for Native
Americans. It is unfortunate that we are not able to do that.
If we are a body elected by the people in the freest country in the
world, and we are, then we have a responsibility to do what is right,
and the amendment before us does not do that. Yes, we should fund
Native American health
[[Page H4567]]
care, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) is a fine
gentleman. The gentleman has offered amendments in the committee, and I
have supported him a number of times.
This one is not the right thing to do. All great civilizations are
known by their arts, their culture, their humanities, for hundreds of
years after all of us leave. This country has not funded properly the
arts and humanities in our country, so that our children can be
beneficiaries of this great culture that we live in.
So do we now use a process to take away an amendment that was passed
lawfully on this floor juxtapose it against an amendment we really do
need, but not in this manner? I say to you, Mr. Chairman, it is the
wrong way to do it and it is not proper; that as we go through the rest
of the 5 or 6 months, or less than that, 3 or 4 months of this fiscal
year, we will find that the budget receipts in our Treasury are larger
than we thought they would be 3 months ago.
The country is doing well. Why should we have to choose between
education and health care? Why should we have to choose between the
arts and funding Native American health care? It is because the
Republican Party wants to save hundreds of millions of dollars, nearly
$1 billion, I might add, for tax cuts that the American people have
already said they do not want. They want you to fund education and
housing and health care; they want you to fund the environment, roads
and bridges and the like.
{time} 2215
So Mr. Chairman, the amendment, though it means good, is not the
right thing to do. Let us fund Native American health care. They
deserve it, for all the reasons that have already been mentioned.
But at the same time, let us adequately fund the arts and humanities,
so that our children and grandchildren can attest to the fact that this
is a great country, and that 100 years from now they will look at this
106th Congress and say that we stood up for what was right for our
country and for our children.
Vote against the Nethercutt amendment, and let us continue with the
work of this Congress.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think we all are talking at each other, not with each
other. I think we are about ready to vote on this issue.
Let me just say sincerely, I voted with the gentlewoman from New
York, and it is not because the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) is my cousin. I think we ought to remember, as we talk
across the aisle, that we are all Americans, and sometimes we are even
family.
I am ready to vote with her again, not because she is my cousin, but
because it represents my district. I am representing my part of the
world in this body as I swore to do under the Constitution.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) is representing his
district. I respect him for that. I respect him now as a representative
under his constitutional powers. I have a little problem with the
ridiculing and the attacking of us doing what we are supposed to do
under our constitutional obligations.
I do not care who the gentleman from Washington defeated to get this
seat. That is not the point. He does represent his district, and I
expect him to do the best he can. He has found an opportunity to
aggressively represent his district. The gentlewoman from New York has
aggressively represented her district. We should not be attacking them
for doing that. We should be celebrating the system working.
I just ask us to remember, this is what it is all about, representing
our districts, and the cumulative impact of doing that. I would be
remiss without bringing up one fact, we would all rather be somewhere
tonight. I would have rather been at the graduation, of my children,
Patrick and Briana, this week, but we are working on an education bill,
we are working on an Interior bill. We are doing what we need to do.
I apologized to my children for not being there. I need that on the
Record, and I apologize to the Members for sneaking this in. But I need
to say sincerely, we have some opportunities to work together rather
than sniping. Let us accept the fact that we do what we can, we
represent our districts, and let us go together, out of the fact that
all of us are doing what the public in our districts mandate and what
the public wants us to do.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I
believe basically that the will of the House is supreme, and what can
be done by some of its committees certainly can be done by the whole
body of the House.
We all know there is a rule that we cannot legislate on an
appropriations bill. We get that through the Committee on Rules and it
comes in here regularly when we vote the rule.
There are three traditional things we can do to get out of this
situation. One is recommittal now. One is instruct the conferees. One
is recommittal if the conference report comes back from the conference
and does not satisfy anybody in here.
Again, I would suggest that by unanimous consent we add to the
legislation, the Interior appropriations bill, that any amendment which
has been adopted by a majority vote in the House will be funded in
conference. I think that would solve it, because we know the Senate is
bringing in a much higher figure than we are.
____________________