[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.

                          ____________________