[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 75 (Thursday, June 15, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4567-H4585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Request For Modification Offered by Mr. Horn to the Amendment Offered
by Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for that language to
be added, Mr. Chairman, out of order, out of rules, and out of
everything else, to get this thing solved.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from California suggesting an
amendment to the Nethercutt amendment?
Mr. HORN. That is one way, and we could vote on it.
The CHAIRMAN. If that is the gentleman's desire, then the gentleman
needs to have an amendment in writing to the Nethercutt amendment.
Mr. HORN. It is here if the Page is around.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that the unanimous consent
request is a modification to the Nethercutt amendment.
The Clerk will report the proposed modification to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification of amendment offered by Mr. Horn:
At the end of the Nethercutt amendment add:
Any amendment which has been adopted by a majority vote in
the House will be funded in conference.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. OBEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just
wanted the Clerk to re-read the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will reread the amendment.
The Clerk reread the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from California (Mr.
Horn) asking for unanimous consent, or is he amending the Nethercutt
amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. At this point, the gentleman from California is asking
unanimous consent.
Mr. KINGSTON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, the
concern I have is that there has been an insinuation that there was
some victory on the floor, and that victory has been snatched.
There was a victorious battle, but there was not a victorious war. We
can win one battle in legislative bodies and then lose it in the next
moment. I do not think there should be apologies or handwringing about
that.
If the Nethercutt amendment passes, then that is not the end of the
road. I am not a big NEA supporter, but I am going to vote for the bill
and I am going to get to the resolution in committee, in conference.
That is the way life is in the legislature.
Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
[[Page H4568]]
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to understand the status of the
suggestion that was just made by the gentleman from California. Is the
gentleman asking unanimous consent to offer an amendment? Is he
offering an amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair's understanding was that the gentleman from
California asked unanimous consent to make an amendment to the pending
Nethercutt amendment. There was objection heard to that request.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I would hope we would have a tradition of at
least letting debate occur on a parliamentary matter.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Horn). Although the objection came it my way, it did not come from
my lips.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I did not want something that will harm the
Nethercutt amendment. That was put on at the desk. I simply want that
language in the appropriations report at the end of where we have a lot
of these things, and it seems to me that is then an instruction to the
conferees, whether it be the amendment of the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Nethercutt) or whether it be the amendment of the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter), that as long as it had the majority of the
House it would be funded in conference.
In other words, we are asking to waive a lot of things that are
blocking decision-making in a rational way. We have had great passion
tonight, and everybody is right as far as I am concerned on that, but
we have the problem of getting into conference and solving this
problem, because we do not have the money at this point.
We will have when it is in conference, so that is why I would like
the unanimous consent to put that language in there. It does not affect
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) nor the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter). We assume both will have a majority.
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to my
friend, the gentleman from California, while I did object to the
language, I did not object to the gentleman's right to speak and offer
it. That is why I wanted to yield the gentleman time.
Frankly, from my standpoint, this is just what the legislative
process is about. The Slaughter amendment was debated and passed. The
money was laid on the table, as was the wording of the amendment. That
also opens up a new avenue of danger, if you will, in terms of people
coming up with ideas of how to spend that money.
I am going to support this. The gentleman can question my motives. I
think people are not questioning it, they are probably already tired of
my motives. If I was from New York City, I would support it. That is
where 70 percent of the money goes.
But to me, Mr. Chairman, in the study of choice, it is not a good
choice. I do not think the government needs to be in the NEA. We have
billion dollars in a tax write-off for arts, we have millions of
dollars in art purchasing, we spend millions on art education.
My dad is an artist. My daughter wants to be to be an artist. My wife
is on a theater board. You can say I am against the arts because I do
not support the NEA, but that is not true. I think it is a waste of
money. I am satisfied to vote no against it. I voted against it in
committee, I will vote against it in the conference committee.
It always gets bumped up in conference committee, it always survives.
That is just the nature of it. We just have to roll with the punches. I
am going to support the Nethercutt amendment.
That is only half the reason. I am also going to support it because
of what he is doing. He has bumped up Indian health care services $150
million over the time that he has been chairman of this committee. That
is very significant. This year we were only able to increase it $30
million, but this gives us an opportunity to put another $22 million in
it. It is a sound proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I think children on Indian reservations who need health
care are a higher priority than elitists who want to hang out at
certain art functions. I am not saying they are all artists, but I
would say if the people in the NEA are poor and starving as compared to
those on the Indian reservations, I do not understand what the
definition of the words are.
I sat in the committees, I heard the tribes, heard the testimonies. I
feel very solidly that that is where the money should go.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would make this statement. The Chair cannot
entertain a rules change order in the Committee of the Whole which is
offered as a freestanding special order and not as an amendment to the
pending bill.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have been asked by the leadership, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young) who I have the highest regard for, and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), to bring this to a close and to have
a vote on the amendment. I think we should do that.
I want to say that the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has
not been treated well here tonight on this process. I think it is very
unfair.
I will ask this. We are going to have a motion to recommit in which
the gentlewoman's amendment will be the central piece. I am urging the
25 Republicans who had the courage today to vote with us on this
amendment, to vote for the motion to recommit. That way we can
accomplish what the gentleman from California wanted. We can fund the
$22 million to help the Indians in this country who desperately need
the help, and also fund the arts.
I think this is a fair compromise. I would like to see that, and I
would hope that other Republicans would join with us tonight to make it
more than just the 25 that joined us earlier today.
I ask for a vote on the Nethercutt amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I was sitting in my office watching this
debate with a member of my staff who happens to be Native American. You
cannot imagine how he feels listening to this debate on this amendment
which once again sends a message to the Native American community that
they really are not one of our nation's priorities. I rise to oppose
this amendment because it is a slap in the face of American Indians.
My district has the largest concentration of American Indians. The 22
million dollars that is proposed for Native health care will never
reach them. Not only do we under fund services for services on Indian
Reservations, but we fund even less to urban Indian communities. Many
of these urban Indians are forced to travel long distances for hours at
a time just to access the most basic health care. Many of these
services they are not able to access in the inner cities or urban areas
because they cannot afford to. This is a disgrace. The amendment to
direct $22 million for Indian Health Care does not even scratch the
surface of the needs in Indian country.
If the Majority really wanted to do something positive for Native
Americans, this budget would have taken more consideration and care to
provide funding to address diabetes, to fund maternal health care, to
ensure that substance abuse and mental health services are sufficiently
funded to make a difference.
To think that we are going to support such measly funding when
compared to the needs of Native Americans and then try for more next
year? I say this! Next year, when we reconsider this funding, many
Native Americans will have died from diabetes, alcoholism, heart
disease and HIV/AIDS! They can't wait till next year.
Soon we will take under consideration the Ryan White Care Act. Did
you know that funding for HIV/AIDS care in many cases never reaches
Indian Country.
HIV/AIDS care, that is subsidized by the Federal Government is billed
to Tribes! That's right. Indians are not able to access ADAP with out
being billed. HRSA funded services are billed to IHS or to Tribal
Health Care programs. This is an outrage.
We all know how expensive HIV/AIDS therapies are. Yet, when it comes
to the tribes, we don't give them nearly enough for those services.
Those services have to come out of the IHS general budget! A budget
that is already, desperately underfunded!
Last week we moved out of this house a bill for National Missile
defense system that many
[[Page H4569]]
experts say won't even work. Billions of dollars! Yet we have the
audacity to cut substantially Indian Health Services, and then, try to
come back and make $22 million look like we are doing the Tribes a
favor?
Native Americans suffer disproportionately high rates of diabetes,
substance abuse, unemployment, and in many cases have inadequate access
to quality education. Why? Because we neglect to live up to treaties
between the Government and Tribes throughout the country.
If we the Members of this House had the needs of Native Americans in
mind, we would not have underfunded Native Americans by over $300
million. We would not pit Native American health care against the arts
and humanities. The best thing to do at this moment is to withdraw this
amendment and offer another amendment to fund Native American health
care, and not at the expense of programs that will also suffer the
outcomes of this budget.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is counting for a quorum.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The demand for a recorded vote is withdrawn and the
point of no quorum is withdrawn.
So, the amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
indian health facilities
For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and
equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities,
including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans,
specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase
and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers;
and for provision of domestic and community sanitation
facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act
of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and
titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with
respect to environmental health and facilities support
activities of the Indian Health Service, $336,423,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated for the planning, design, construction or
renovation of health facilities for the benefit of an Indian
tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land for sites to
construct, improve, or enlarge health or related facilities:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any provision of law
governing Federal construction, $240,000 of the funds
provided herein shall be provided to the Hopi Tribe to reduce
the debt incurred by the Tribe in providing staff quarters to
meet the housing needs associated with the new Hopi Health
Center: Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall
be used by the Indian Health Service to purchase TRANSAM
equipment from the Department of Defense for distribution to
the Indian Health Service and tribal facilities: Provided
further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be used by the
Indian Health Service to obtain ambulances for the Indian
Health Service and tribal facilities in conjunction with an
existing interagency agreement between the Indian Health
Service and the General Services Administration: Provided
further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be placed in a
Demolition Fund, available until expended, to be used by the
Indian Health Service for demolition of Federal buildings.
administrative provisions, indian health service
Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service
shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109 but at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent
to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under
5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft;
purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints;
purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and
renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone
service in private residences in the field, when authorized
under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms
or allowances therefore as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are
concerned with the functions or activities for which the
appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved
conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or
activities: Provided, That in accordance with the provisions
of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, non-Indian
patients may be extended health care at all tribally
administered or Indian Health Service facilities, subject to
charges, and the proceeds along with funds recovered under
the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651-2653)
shall be credited to the account of the facility providing
the service and shall be available without fiscal year
limitation: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
law or regulation, funds transferred from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service
shall be administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian
Sanitation Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended:
Provided further, That funds appropriated to the Indian
Health Service in this Act, except those used for
administrative and program direction purposes, shall not be
subject to limitations directed at curtailing Federal travel
and transportation: Provided further, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, funds previously or herein made
available to a tribe or tribal organization through a
contract, grant, or agreement authorized by title I or title
III of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450), may be deobligated and
reobligated to a self-determination contract under title I,
or a self-governance agreement under title III of such Act
and thereafter shall remain available to the tribe or tribal
organization without fiscal year limitation: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available to the Indian
Health Service in this Act shall be used to implement the
final rule published in the Federal Register on September 16,
1987, by the Department of Health and Human Services,
relating to the eligibility for the health care services of
the Indian Health Service until the Indian Health Service has
submitted a budget request reflecting the increased costs
associated with the proposed final rule, and such request has
been included in an appropriations Act and enacted into law:
Provided further, That funds made available in this Act are
to be apportioned to the Indian Health Service as
appropriated in this Act, and accounted for in the
appropriation structure set forth in this Act: Provided
further, That with respect to functions transferred by the
Indian Health Service to tribes or tribal organizations, the
Indian Health Service is authorized to provide goods and
services to those entities, on a reimbursable basis,
including payment in advance with subsequent adjustment, and
the reimbursements received therefrom, along with the funds
received from those entities pursuant to the Indian Self-
Determination Act, may be credited to the same or subsequent
appropriation account which provided the funding, said
amounts to remain available until expended: Provided further,
That reimbursements for training, technical assistance, or
services provided by the Indian Health Service will contain
total costs, including direct, administrative, and overhead
associated with the provision of goods, services, or
technical assistance: Provided further, That the
appropriation structure for the Indian Health Service may not
be altered without advance approval of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
OTHER RELATED AGENCIES
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531,
$8,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act
are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups
including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands
residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and
all others certified as eligible and not included in the
preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any
single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985,
was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi
Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such
household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be
provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided
further, That the Office shall relocate any certified
eligible relocatees who have selected and received an
approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a
replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the
land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.
Smithsonian Institution
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as
authorized by law, including research in the fields of art,
science, and history; development, preservation, and
documentation of the National Collections; presentation of
public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation,
dissemination, and exchange of information and publications;
conduct of education, training, and museum assistance
programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for
terms not to exceed 30 years), and protection of buildings,
facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 for
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to five
replacement passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for employees, $375,230,000, of which
not to exceed $47,126,000 for the instrumentation program,
collections acquisition, Museum Support Center equipment and
move, exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum of the
American Indian, the repatriation of skeletal remains
program, research equipment, information management, and
Latino programming shall remain available until expended,
including such funds as may be necessary to support American
overseas research centers and of which $125,000 is for the
Council of American Overseas Research
[[Page H4570]]
Centers: Provided, That funds appropriated herein are
available for advance payments to independent contractors
performing research services or participating in official
Smithsonian presentations: Provided further, That the
Smithsonian Institution may expend Federal appropriations
designated in this Act for lease or rent payments for long
term and swing space, as rent payable to the Smithsonian
Institution, and such rent payments may be deposited into the
general trust funds of the Institution to the extent that
federally supported activities are housed in the 900 H
Street, N.W. building in the District of Columbia: Provided
further, That this use of Federal appropriations shall not be
construed as debt service, a Federal guarantee of, a transfer
of risk to, or an obligation of, the Federal Government:
Provided further, That no appropriated funds may be used to
service debt which is incurred to finance the costs of
acquiring the 900 H Street building or of planning,
designing, and constructing improvements to such building.
repair, restoration and alteration of facilities
For necessary expenses of repair, restoration, and
alteration of facilities owned or occupied by the Smithsonian
Institution, by contract or otherwise, as authorized by
section 2 of the Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623),
including not to exceed $10,000 for services as authorized by
5 U.S.C. 3109, $47,900,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for environmental
systems, protection systems, and repair or restoration of
facilities of the Smithsonian Institution may be negotiated
with selected contractors and awarded on the basis of
contractor qualifications as well as price: Provided further,
That funds previously appropriated to the ``Construction and
Improvements, National Zoological Park'' account, the
``Repair and Restoration of Buildings'' account, and the
``Repair, Rehabilitation and Alteration of Facilities''
account may be transferred to and merged with this account.
administrative provisions, smithsonian institution
None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to
initiate the design for any proposed expansion of current
space or new facility without consultation with the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees.
The Smithsonian Institution shall not use Federal funds in
excess of the amount specified in Public Law 101-185 for the
construction of the National Museum of the American Indian.
None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used for
the Holt House located at the National Zoological Park in
Washington, D.C., unless identified as repairs to minimize
water damage, monitor structure movement, or provide interim
structural support.
National Gallery of Art
salaries and expenses
For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of
Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and
administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by
the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the
public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9,
Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by
5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the
treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum,
and art associations or societies whose publications or
services are available to members only, or to members at a
price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and
cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances
therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C.
5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for
protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance,
alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches,
and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and
repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by
contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms,
or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms
and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $61,279,000,
of which not to exceed $3,026,000 for the special exhibition
program shall remain available until expended.
repair, restoration and renovation of buildings
For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and
renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or
occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or
otherwise, as authorized, $8,903,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for
environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior
repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of
Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded
on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
operations and maintenance
For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and
security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts, $13,947,000.
construction
For necessary expenses for capital repair and restoration
of the existing features of the building and site of the John
F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $19,924,000, to
remain available until expended.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of
the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356)
including hire of passenger vehicles and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $6,763,000.
Mr. REGULA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 84, line 20, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
{time} 2230
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
National Endowment for the Arts
grants and administration
For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$98,000,000, shall be available to the National Endowment for
the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the
arts through assistance to organizations and individuals
pursuant to sections 5(c) and 5(g) of the Act, for program
support, and for administering the functions of the Act, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That funds
previously appropriated to the National Endowment for the
Arts ``Matching Grants'' account may be transferred to and
merged with this account.
National Endowment for the Humanities
grants and administration
For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,
$100,604,000, shall be available to the National Endowment
for the Humanities for support of activities in the
humanities, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for
administering the functions of the Act, to remain available
until expended.
matching grants
To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of
1965, as amended, $14,656,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $10,259,000 shall be available to the
National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of
section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be
available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal
to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of
money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by
grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections
11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding
fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been
appropriated.
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Office of Museum Services
grants and administration
For carrying out subtitle C of the Museum and Library
Services Act of 1996, as amended, $24,307,000, to remain
available until expended.
Administrative Provisions
None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation
on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any
grant or contract documents which do not include the text of
18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may
be used for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided further, That funds from nonappropriated sources may
be used as necessary for official reception and
representation expenses.
Commission of Fine Arts
salaries and expenses
For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a
Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $1,021,000:
Provided, That the Commission is authorized to charge fees to
cover the full costs of its publications, and such fees shall
be credited to this account as an offsetting collection, to
remain available until expended without further
appropriation.
national capital arts and cultural affairs
For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190
(20 U.S.C. 956(a)), as amended, $6,973,000.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $2,989,000:
Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for
compensation of level V of the Executive Schedule or higher
positions.
National Capital Planning Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National
Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C. 71-71i), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $6,288,000:
Provided,
[[Page H4571]]
That all appointed members of the Commission will be
compensated at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of
the annual rate for positions at level IV of the Executive
Schedule, for each day such member is engaged in the actual
performance of duties.
United States Holocaust Memorial Council
holocaust memorial council
For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Council, as
authorized by Public Law 96-388 (36 U.S.C. 1401), as amended,
$33,161,000, of which $1,575,000 for the museum's repair and
rehabilitation program and $1,264,000 for the museum's
exhibitions program shall remain available until expended.
Presidio Trust
presidio trust fund
For necessary expenses to carry out title I of the Omnibus
Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, $23,400,000
shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available
until expended, of which up to $1,040,000 may be for the cost
of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section 104(d) of the
Act: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of
modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That
these funds are available to subsidize total loan principal,
any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed
$200,000,000. The Trust is authorized to issue obligations to
the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 104(d)(3)
of the Act, in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 302. No part of any appropriation under this Act shall
be available to the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Agriculture for the leasing of oil and natural
gas by noncompetitive bidding on publicly owned lands within
the boundaries of the Shawnee National Forest, Illinois:
Provided, That nothing herein is intended to inhibit or
otherwise affect the sale, lease, or right to access to
minerals owned by private individuals.
Sec. 303. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or
distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote
public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on
which congressional action is not complete.
Sec. 304. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 305. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency shall be obligated or expended to
provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal
servants to any officer or employee of such department or
agency except as otherwise provided by law.
Sec. 306. No assessments may be levied against any program,
budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by this Act
unless advance notice of such assessments and the basis
therefor are presented to the Committees on Appropriations
and are approved by such committees.
Sec. 307. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of
the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an
entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds
the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act
of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the
``Buy American Act'').
(b) Sense of the Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
(1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In
the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided using
funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the
Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in
expending the assistance, purchase only American-made
equipment and products.
(2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing
financial assistance using funds made available in this Act,
the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each
recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement
made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
(d) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section are
applicable in fiscal year 2000 and thereafter.
Sec. 308. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified
as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located
on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands
in a manner different than such sales were conducted in
fiscal year 2000.
Sec. 309. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated or expended by the National Park Service to
enter into or implement a concession contract which permits
or requires the removal of the underground lunchroom at the
Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
Sec. 310. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for the AmeriCorps program,
unless the relevant agencies of the Department of the
Interior and/or Agriculture follow appropriate reprogramming
guidelines: Provided, That if no funds are provided for the
AmeriCorps program by the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001, then none of the funds appropriated
or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for the
AmeriCorps programs.
Sec. 311. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used: (1) to demolish the bridge between Jersey City, New
Jersey, and Ellis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian use of
such bridge, when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such
pedestrian use is consistent with generally accepted safety
standards.
Sec. 312. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act
shall be obligated or expended to accept or process
applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim
located under the general mining laws.
(b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not
apply if the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for
the claim concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with
the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all
requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the
Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode
claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised
Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and
section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill
site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by
the applicant by that date.
(c) Report.--On September 30, 2001, the Secretary of the
Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a report on actions taken by the
Department under the plan submitted pursuant to section
314(c) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
(d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent
applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the
request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior
shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party
contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to
conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill
sites contained in a patent application as set forth in
subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the
sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party
contractor in accordance with the standard procedures
employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of
third-party contractors.
Sec. 313. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
amounts appropriated to or earmarked in committee reports for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service by
Public Laws 103-138, 103-332, 104-134, 104-208, 105-83, 105-
277, and 106-113 for payments to tribes and tribal
organizations for contract support costs associated with
self-determination or self-governance contracts, grants,
compacts, or annual funding agreements with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs or the Indian Health Service as funded by such
Acts, are the total amounts available for fiscal years 1994
through 2000 for such purposes, except that, for the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, tribes and tribal organizations may use
their tribal priority allocations for unmet indirect costs of
ongoing contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or annual
funding agreements.
Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
fiscal year 2001 the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior are authorized to limit competition for watershed
restoration project contracts as part of the ``Jobs in the
Woods'' component of the President's Forest Plan for the
Pacific Northwest, or the Jobs in the Woods Program
established in Region 10 of the Forest Service to individuals
and entities in historically timber-dependent areas in the
States of Washington, Oregon, northern California and Alaska
that have been affected by reduced timber harvesting on
Federal lands.
Sec. 315. None of the funds collected under the
Recreational Fee Demonstration program may be used to plan,
design, or construct a visitor center or any other permanent
structure without prior approval of the House and the Senate
Committees on Appropriations if the estimated total cost of
the facility exceeds $500,000.
Sec. 316. All interests created under leases, concessions,
permits and other agreements associated with the properties
administered by the Presidio Trust, hereafter shall be exempt
from all taxes and special assessments of every kind by the
State of California and its political subdivisions.
[[Page H4572]]
Sec. 317. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act for any fiscal year may be used to designate, or to
post any sign designating, any portion of Canaveral National
Seashore in Brevard County, Florida, as a clothing-optional
area or as an area in which public nudity is permitted, if
such designation would be contrary to county ordinance.
Sec. 318. Of the funds provided to the National Endowment
for the Arts--
(1) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an
individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a
literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or
American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
(2) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure
that no funding provided through a grant, except a grant made
to a State or local arts agency, or regional group, may be
used to make a grant to any other organization or individual
to conduct activity independent of the direct grant
recipient. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit payments
made in exchange for goods and services.
(3) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group,
unless the application is specific to the contents of the
season, including identified programs and/or projects.
Sec. 319. The National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities are authorized to
solicit, accept, receive, and invest in the name of the
United States, gifts, bequests, or devises of money and other
property or services and to use such in furtherance of the
functions of the National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities. Any proceeds from such
gifts, bequests, or devises, after acceptance by the National
Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the
Humanities, shall be paid by the donor or the representative
of the donor to the Chairman. The Chairman shall enter the
proceeds in a special interest-bearing account to the credit
of the appropriate endowment for the purposes specified in
each case.
Sec. 320. (a) In providing services or awarding financial
assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities Act of 1965 from funds appropriated under this
Act, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts
shall ensure that priority is given to providing services or
awarding financial assistance for projects, productions,
workshops, or programs that serve underserved populations.
(b) In this section:
(1) The term ``underserved population'' means a population
of individuals, including urban minorities, who have
historically been outside the purview of arts and humanities
programs due to factors such as a high incidence of income
below the poverty line or to geographic isolation.
(2) The term ``poverty line'' means the poverty line (as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised
annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community
Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) applicable to a
family of the size involved.
(c) In providing services and awarding financial assistance
under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act
of 1965 with funds appropriated by this Act, the Chairperson
of the National Endowment for the Arts shall ensure that
priority is given to providing services or awarding financial
assistance for projects, productions, workshops, or programs
that will encourage public knowledge, education,
understanding, and appreciation of the arts.
(d) With funds appropriated by this Act to carry out
section 5 of the National Foundation on the Arts and
Humanities Act of 1965--
(1) the Chairperson shall establish a grant category for
projects, productions, workshops, or programs that are of
national impact or availability or are able to tour several
States;
(2) the Chairperson shall not make grants exceeding 15
percent, in the aggregate, of such funds to any single State,
excluding grants made under the authority of paragraph (1);
(3) the Chairperson shall report to the Congress annually
and by State, on grants awarded by the Chairperson in each
grant category under section 5 of such Act; and
(4) the Chairperson shall encourage the use of grants to
improve and support community-based music performance and
education.
Sec. 321. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be expended or obligated to fund new revisions of
national forest land management plans until new final or
interim final rules for forest land management planning are
published in the Federal Register. Those national forests
which are currently in a revision process, having formally
published a Notice of Intent to revise prior to October 1,
1997; those national forests having been court-ordered to
revise; those national forests where plans reach the 15 year
legally mandated date to revise before or during calendar
year 2001; national forests within the Interior Columbia
Basin Ecosystem study area; and the White Mountain National
Forest are exempt from this section and may use funds in this
Act and proceed to complete the forest plan revision in
accordance with current forest planning regulations.
Sec. 322. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be expended or obligated to complete and issue the
5-year program under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act.
Sec. 323. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
support Government-wide administrative functions unless such
functions are justified in the budget process and funding is
approved by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 324. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds in this Act may be used for GSA
Telecommunication Centers or the President's Council on
Sustainable Development.
Sec. 325. None of the funds in this Act may be used for
planning, design or construction of improvements to
Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House without the
advance approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 326. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 2000 in the
roads and trails fund provided for in the fourteenth
paragraph under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' of the Act of
March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 843; 16 U.S.C. 501), shall be used by
the Secretary of Agriculture, without regard to the State in
which the amounts were derived, to repair or reconstruct
roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands or
to carry out and administer projects to improve forest health
conditions, which may include the repair or reconstruction of
roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands in
the wildland-community interface where there is an abnormally
high risk of fire. The projects shall emphasize reducing
risks to human safety and public health and property and
enhancing ecological functions, long-term forest
productivity, and biological integrity. The Secretary shall
commence the projects during fiscal year 2001, but the
projects may be completed in a subsequent fiscal year. Funds
shall not be expended under this section to replace funds
which would otherwise appropriately be expended from the
timber salvage sale fund. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to exempt any project from any environmental law.
Mr. REGULA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 102 line 9 be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 327. None of the funds provided in this or previous
appropriations Acts for the agencies funded by this Act or
provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United
States derived by the collection of fees available to the
agencies funded by this Act, shall be transferred to or used
to fund personnel, training, or other administrative
activities at the Council on Environmental Quality or other
offices in the Executive Office of the President for purposes
related to the American Heritage Rivers program.
Sec. 328. Other than in emergency situations, none of the
funds in this Act may be used to operate telephone answering
machines during core business hours unless such answering
machines include an option that enables callers to reach
promptly an individual on-duty with the agency being
contacted.
Sec. 329. No timber sale in Region 10 shall be advertised
if the indicated rate is deficit when appraised under the
transaction evidence appraisal system using domestic Alaska
values for western red cedar: Provided, That sales which are
deficit when appraised under the transaction evidence
appraisal system using domestic Alaska values for western red
cedar may be advertised upon receipt of a written request by
a prospective, informed bidder, who has the opportunity to
review the Forest Service's cruise and harvest cost estimate
for that timber. Program accomplishments shall be based on
volume sold. Should Region 10 sell, in fiscal year 2001, the
annual average portion of the decadal allowable sale quantity
called for in the current Tongass Land Management Plan in
sales which are not deficit when appraised under the
transaction evidence appraisal system using domestic Alaska
values for western red cedar, all of the western red cedar
timber from those sales which is surplus to the needs of
domestic processors in Alaska, shall be made available to
domestic processors in the contiguous 48 United States at
prevailing domestic prices. Should Region 10 sell, in fiscal
year 2001, less than the annual average portion of the
decadal allowable sale quantity called for in the current
Tongass Land Management Plan in sales which are not deficit
when appraised under the transaction evidence appraisal
system using domestic Alaska values for western red cedar,
the volume of western red cedar timber available to domestic
processors at prevailing domestic prices in the contiguous 48
United States shall be that volume: (i) which is surplus to
the needs of domestic processors in Alaska; and (ii) is that
percent of the surplus western red cedar volume determined by
calculating the ratio of the total timber volume which has
been sold on the Tongass to the annual average portion of the
decadal allowable sale quantity called for in the current
Tongass Land Management Plan. The percentage shall be
calculated by Region 10 on a rolling basis as each sale is
sold (for
[[Page H4573]]
purposes of this amendment, a ``rolling basis'' shall mean
that the determination of how much western red cedar is
eligible for sale to various markets shall be made at the
time each sale is awarded). Western red cedar shall be deemed
``surplus to the needs of domestic processors in Alaska''
when the timber sale holder has presented to the Forest
Service documentation of the inability to sell western red
cedar logs from a given sale to domestic Alaska processors at
price equal to or greater than the log selling value stated
in the contract. All additional western red cedar volume not
sold to Alaska or contiguous 48 United States domestic
processors may be exported to foreign markets at the election
of the timber sale holder. All Alaska yellow cedar may be
sold at prevailing export prices at the election of the
timber sale holder.
Sec. 330. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or
orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation
for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted
on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan at the Third Conference
of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate
for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article
II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution,
and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25
of the Protocol.
Sec. 331. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds in this Act may be used to enter into any new or
expanded self-determination contract or grant or self-
governance compact pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination
Act of 1975, as amended, for any activities not previously
covered by such contracts, compacts or grants. Nothing in
this section precludes the continuation of those specific
activities for which self-determination and self-governance
contracts, compacts and grants currently exist or the renewal
of contracts, compacts and grants for those activities or
compliance with 25 U.S.C. 2005.
Sec. 332. In fiscal years 2001 through 2005, the
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture may pilot test
joint permitting and leasing programs, subject to annual
review of Congress, and promulgate special rules as needed to
test the feasibility of issuing unified permits,
applications, and leases. The Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture may make reciprocal delegations of their
respective authorities, duties and responsibilities in
support of the ``Service First'' initiative to promote
customer service and efficiency. Nothing herein shall alter,
expand or limit the applicability of any public law or
regulation to lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management or the Forest Service.
Sec. 333. Federal and State Cooperative Watershed
Restoration and Protection in Colorado. (a) Use of Colorado
State Forest Service.--Until September 30, 2004, the
Secretary of Agriculture, via cooperative agreement or
contract (including sole source contract) as appropriate, may
permit the Colorado State Forest Service to perform watershed
restoration and protection services on National Forest System
lands in the State of Colorado when similar and complementary
watershed restoration and protection services are being
performed by the State Forest Service on adjacent State or
private lands. The types of services that may be extended to
National Forest System lands include treatment of insect
infected trees, reduction of hazardous fuels, and other
activities to restore or improve watersheds or fish and
wildlife habitat across ownership boundaries.
(b) State as Agent.--Except as provided in subsection (c),
a cooperative agreement or contract under subsection (a) may
authorize the State Forester of Colorado to serve as the
agent for the Forest Service in providing all services
necessary to facilitate the performance of watershed
restoration and protection services under subsection (a). The
services to be performed by the Colorado State Forest Service
may be conducted with subcontracts utilizing State contract
procedures. Subsections (d) and (g) of section 14 of the
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a) shall
not apply to services performed under a cooperative agreement
or contract under subsection (a).
(c) Retention of NEPA Responsibilities.--With respect to
any watershed restoration and protection services on National
Forest System lands proposed for performance by the Colorado
State Forest Service under subsection (a), any decision
required to be made under the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) may not be delegated to
the State Forester of Colorado or any other officer or
employee of the Colorado State Forest Service.
Sec. 334. 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 5, United States Code.
Sec. 335. None of the funds provided in this Act, for the
agencies funded by this Act, shall be expended for the
purposes of design, planning or management of Federal Lands
as National Monuments that are designated as National
Monuments under the 1906 Antiquities Act, since 1999.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE IV--FISCAL YEAR 2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
wildland fire management
For an additional amount in fiscal year 2000 for ``Wildland
Fire Management'', $200,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for emergency rehabilitation and wildfire
suppression activities: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further,
That this amount shall be available only to the extent that
an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that
includes designation of the entire amount as an emergency
requirement as defined by such Act, is transmitted by the
President to the Congress.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
wildland fire management
For an additional amount in fiscal year 2000 for ``Wildland
Fire Management'', $150,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for emergency rehabilitation, presuppression, and
wildfire suppression: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further,
That this amount shall be available only to the extent that
an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that
includes designation of the entire amount as an emergency
requirement as defined by such Act, is transmitted by the
President to the Congress.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Nethercutt:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
None of the fund made available in this Act shall be used
to implement section of this Act [as added by the
amendment of Representative Dicks] except for activities
related to planning and management of national monuments.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is offered as an
opportunity to have the House take a second look at the debate that
occurred earlier with respect to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project. We have had a chance for the House to be fully
informed, Members on both sides of the aisle, with respect to the
particular amendment that was debated earlier.
I have had a chance to emphasize the importance of this issue to us
in the northwest and the western States; and after deliberation, I felt
it was appropriate that with that additional understanding that the
House would have a chance to reconsider its prior judgment with respect
to my amendment, and I believe again it is an important amendment to us
in the West. I think it is appropriate that it be considered by the
House and I would urge the adoption of the amendment so that this bill
can move forward and proceed to conference and then we can have a
complete discussion of all the issues in the bill at that time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the
Nethercutt amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we had a vote on this today. We had, I thought, a very
vigorous discussion. There was an hour set aside by the House. The
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) had 30 minutes. I had 30
minutes. We had a number of speakers in the House voted on this issue,
and we defeated the amendment by a very substantial majority.
Now, I am somewhat surprised that this late at night we would go back
to this amendment again, but apparently we are going to do that. So let
me say again why what the gentleman is trying to do, I think, is wrong.
First of all, the gentleman has had an amendment every single year to
either block or slow down the administration's policy for developing a
scientific program to protect the aquatic habitat, to protect the
watersheds of the Western Pacific Northwest on the east side of the
Cascade Mountains.
This affects 7 States. This has been going on, this process has been
going on, 5 years. The purpose of it is that we have in the Northwest a
number of seriously endangered species on the Snake River, which is in
the heart of this area. We have four or five different species of
salmon that were listed under the Endangered Species Act.
[[Page H4574]]
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), from eastern
Washington, from the fifth district, has been a strong opponent of
taking out the Snake River dams. I have joined in that effort, along
with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), and others in our
delegation, but I also believe that if one is not going to take out the
dams then they have to do some things to protect the habitat of these
areas in order to try to bring back these important endangered species.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has offered an
amendment that would block, after 5 years, the draft environmental
impact statement from being implemented. That means we are not going to
make any of the protections necessary. It is an environmental rider
that has been used repeatedly in this particular bill. The
administration is opposed to it. They have promised that this bill will
be vetoed if this was in it, and we had a vote today. The vote was 221
to 206 on this issue.
So I feel that we are wasting the time of the House here, especially
at 20 minutes to 11:00, and I would urge the House to again reject this
amendment.
I think we had a good, fair fight earlier today. I think this
amendment is unwarranted and unjustified, and I would urge the House to
stay with its previous position.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The question
is on the amendment of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore 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 197,
noes 180, not voting 58, as follows:
[Roll No. 288]
AYES--197
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
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
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
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
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
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
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
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--180
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
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
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
John
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--58
Barton
Becerra
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boucher
Campbell
Capuano
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Danner
Deal
Engel
Filner
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hooley
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Klink
LaFalce
Lazio
Linder
Lofgren
Martinez
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Nadler
Owens
Oxley
Payne
Rangel
Serrano
Shows
Shuster
Skelton
Stark
Thompson (MS)
Toomey
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Watt (NC)
{time} 2303
Mr. DOGGETT and Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BILBRAY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Kelly
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return to title
III, page 102 of the bill to offer a quick, noncontroversial amendment
we have an agreement on.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Kelly:
Page 102, line 15, strike the first ``or'' and insert in
lieu there of the world ``and''.
Page 102, line 16, strike the word ``at'' and insert in
lieu there of the world ``of''.
Mrs. KELLY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York?
There was no objection.
(Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I have a very simple amendment before us
that clarifies a provision in the bill that pertains to the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative and the Council on Environmental Quality. I
have worked with all parties concerned on both sides of the aisle to
ensure that this language clarifies the intent of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. I
think it has been agreed to by both sides.
Mr. DICKS. We agree to the amendment on this side.
Mrs. KELLY. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlemen from Ohio and
Washington for their support.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
[[Page H4575]]
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Insert before the short title the following:
TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to enter into any new
commercial agricultural lease on the Lower Klamath and Tule
Lake National Wildlife Refuges in the States of Oregon and
California.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year the House voted by an
extraordinary vote of 407-1 on the National Wildlife System Improvement
Act. We made it clear that wildlife conservation is the singular
mission of wildlife refuges. Unfortunately, I believe that the case at
the Klamath and Tule Lake wildlife refuge is otherwise. Numerous
agricultural leases have been let and will continue to be let and the
wildlife refuge has recently renewed the capability of farmers within
the basin to use pesticides and herbicides which are considered
problematic for salmon and other species.
I brought this amendment to the attention of the House in order to
highlight this problem. What I would like to do is not take this
amendment to a vote this evening if we could agree to go forward with a
GAO report on the costs and benefits of the leasing arrangements in
that basin and the impacts of the pesticide and herbicide application
used by the farmers within the basin.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I told the gentleman that I would be glad to
join him for this GAO investigation. I think it is a good idea.
{time} 2310
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly join my colleague in
requesting a GAO report.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Doolittle
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Doolittle:
Insert before the short title the following:
TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act to the Forest Service may be used--
(1) to purchase a motor vehicle for the use of Forest
Service personnel that is painted in the base color
identified as Federal Standard 595, color chip no. 14260, or
painted in any other base color, except the color white as
made available by the manufacturer; or
(2) to paint any Forest Service motor vehicle in any base
color other than white.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the U.S.
Forest Service from using any funds, appropriate or otherwise, to be
used to paint their vehicles the green color described as Federal
Standard 595, Color Chip Number 14,260.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment. We
are fully familiar with it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Insert before the short title the following:
TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to assess a fine or take
any other law enforcement action against a person for failure
to pay a fee for a vehicle pass imposed under the
recreational fee demonstration program authorized by section
315 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained in section 101(c) of
Public Law 104-134; 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note), regarding
parking at trailheads and dispersed recreation sites in the
National Forest System.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to recognize that the
ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), have been helpful in
rectifying some of the problems with the recreation fee demonstration
program. Last year, the gentleman from Oregon and I and others brought
to the floor the fact that people were required to purchase a
multiplicity of passes, up to six or eight different forest passes,
just to recreate within their own State at a cost of $25 each.
And after a meeting convened by the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks), with the chief of the forest service and the assistant
Secretary and other assorted bureaucrats, they did make the program
better and simplify it; and I thank the two gentlemen for that.
But this amendment goes to another issue. There are certainly sites
where fees are appropriately charged, developed, recreation sites,
campgrounds, special use sites for Park Service and all of those other
sorts of developed sites with high costs.
But the question that this amendment raises before this House is
whether or not we should charge people to drive their car on a logging
road or an old forest service road, active or abandoned or even
obsolete, and park by the side of the road and go for a hike in the
woods, whether there is a trail there or not.
I think there is a real question of equity, but there is an even
greater question of enforcement. The Forest Service is going driving 10
miles, 15 miles, 20 miles outside some of these roads to find that
someone has not paid a $5 fee and giving them a citation.
I had a woman in my district who parked where she had customarily
parked just outside of an area being told that was all right. A new
ranger came on, and they gave her a citation. She said okay, it is a
warning. That is fine, I will leave. And the guy says she will have to
pay the fee; she did not.
She went home, 2 days later, two Forest Service law enforcement
officials showed up at her house to cite her. They threatened to
handcuff her and take her away. This is the citation. This is absurd,
what a waste of Federal resources. There are real crimes going on in
the Federal lands.
Is this what our law enforcement officers should be doing? Should we
be charging people to go out into dispersed areas just to park their
car on a logging road? I believe not. In fact, an evaluation that was
done by the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture at
the requests of this body finds substantial problems with this program
of enforcing dispersed recreation.
They cite the extraordinary costs, the loss of law enforcement
personnel from other activities, the loss of revenue because the funds,
if they collect any, in terms of penalties are forfeited and go not
back to the agencies and not into this program.
The courts are refusing to hear these cases. The Federal judges and
magistrates are saying, we are hauling people into my court for what?
For failure to may a $5 fee to park their car on a gravel road out in
the forest? This is absurd.
So I really would suggest that this amendment has great merit, to say
that the extraordinary costs and the penalties that are being imposed
are not merited for dispersed recreation, this is targeted, would not
affect the parks, would not affect developed recreation sites, would
not affect campgrounds but would merely say we are not going to charge
people $25, $30 I guess now for the annual fee, or $5 a day, to park
their car somewhere in a remote area of the forest, where there are no
recreation facilities.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H4576]]
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I have had a discussion
on this, and I think the gentleman has a good point. And what I would
like to suggest is that we meet with the Forest Service and try to
achieve a solution that is workable that respects the rights of your
constituents.
The program is the demonstration program. As my colleagues know, the
President has requested that it be made permanent. It would cost the
Forest Service something like $25 million a year, that goes in to
trails and signage and a lot of very positive things that are
important.
If the gentleman would be willing to withdraw, I will commit to
working with him and the Forest Service to try to find a reasonable
solution to the problem.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for that. I do note that before I would consider that, the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps) is particularly concerned. I would like to
give her opportunity to speak on the amendment and then we can consider
further conversation.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and
everyone, I beg your indulgence. I know the hour is late. But, again,
this year I also come to the floor to discuss the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program in our national forests.
First, I do want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula);
the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks); and
their subcommittee. I deeply appreciate maintaining and preserving our
Nation's public lands.
I understand that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) do not completely agree with my
views or those of my constituents on this rec fee. However, I want to
commend them for responding to my concerns on this issue.
The Interior Appropriations bill does not extend or make permanent
this rec fee demo program, as was earlier rumored. I understand the
importance of fully funding our forests and my congressional district
hopes that we can work together to do just that without resorting to
what we believe to be onerous fees.
Our national parks, national forests, and other public lands are
unique treasures that should be enjoyed today and preserved for future
generations. We must provide full and adequate funding for the
protection of these priceless resources. But I must oppose the
inclusion of the national forests in a rec fee demo program.
I have heard from thousands of my constituents who are opposed to the
program which the Los Padres National Forest euphemistically calls the
Adventure Pass. These citizens strongly believe, as do I, that these
user fees represent double taxation. These are public lands, and we
should use public funds to support them.
{time} 2320
Many of my constituents have expressed fears of a trend toward the
privatization of our national forests. This is simply wrong. We need to
keep these forests open for all of our citizens to enjoy, to take a
hike in the woods, to enjoy a sunset, and experience the incredible
beauty of the natural world.
As public servants, we must remember that the people we serve are not
simply customers using our public lands, but are the owners of these
lands. We need to find a more equitable way to support our national
forests.
Some families in my district say the imposition of the so-called
adventure pass has stopped them from going to visit the Los Padres
National Forest, and I do not believe that is right, Mr. Chairman.
I urge the subcommittee to reject any attempts to make this program
permanent in conference. Any extension of the rec fee demo program or
change in its status should be made in regular order.
I want to work with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula), the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and the leaders of the
authorizing committees to review this program and identify alternative
ways to provide the necessary funding to maintain our forests. There
are many ways we can go about doing this.
Last night, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) offered an
amendment which I strongly support which would have ended the rec fee
program, while still maintaining full funding for our national forests.
Today he is offering another amendment, and I understand the gentleman
has agreed to work with him. I also support that effort.
I have introduced bipartisan legislation, the Forest Service
Immediate Relief Act, which would terminate the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program at our national forests and offset the lost
revenue by eliminating one timber subsidy.
Whatever the means, we must find alternative ways to fund our
national forests without unfairly taxing the very people, like those in
my district, who simply want to enjoy the beauty of their backyards.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, let me make the same offer. I hope we can
work out the problems, because the Forest Service is very happy with it
generally and a lot of good things have happened. They used to collect
fees and send them to the Treasury. At least now they keep them and the
people that pay them get the benefits of it. That is what we are trying
to do.
It is a demo program because we are trying to iron out the wrinkles.
I know in the case of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), we did
have some success where he had multiple forests. That part we have been
able to work out. Perhaps we can find some solution to the
gentlewoman's problems.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I look forward to
working with the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that last year we
worked with the gentleman and we were able to get a Northwest Forest
Pass enacted so that we could cut down on the duplicity, and I think it
has made some progress. But we are glad to work with the gentleman from
Oregon again this year and we would hope that we could have a quick
vote on this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 50 offered by Mr. Young of Alaska:
Insert before the short tile the following:
TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. . Notwithstanding 36 Code of Federal Regulations
223.80 and associated provisions of law, the Forest Service
shall implement the North Prince of Wales Island (POW)
Collaborative Stewardship Project (CSP) agreement pilot
project for negotiated salvage permits.
Point of Order
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his point of order.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2
of rule XXI. The rule states in part ``no amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law.''
Unfortunately, the amendment of the Chairman, who I have respect for,
does give affirmative direction. In effect it imposes additional duties
and it does modify existing powers and duties. I have concerns about
the substance of the bill in waiving competitive bidding, but, more
importantly I ask the chair to rule on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alaska wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. It is very unfortunate
that the gentleman, who serves on my committee, raises the point of
order.
[[Page H4577]]
But I would like to suggest one thing. The Forest Service asked me for
this amendment. It serves a point where the regulations do not allow
the small sales for those that they believe should take place,
especially blown down timber. The cost of putting up the sale and going
through the competitive process would preclude most of these small
operators, especially those in the environmental community that wanted
this timber.
For the gentleman who says he is an environmentalist, I wish he had
checked with the environmentalists. Apparently he did not. I think it
is very unfortunate, but this is something asked for.
I will move a bill through the committee next Tuesday. The gentleman
will have a chance to vote no on it, and I will beat him at that time
and bring it to the floor under suspension. When that occurs, we will
make this the law.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that the amendment explicitly supersedes existing
law. The provision therefore constitutes legislation, and the point of
order is sustained.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Wilson.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Wilson:
Insert before the short title the following:
TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used by the Bureau of Land
Management, the National Park Service, the Forest Service,
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Bureau of
Indian Affairs to conduct a prescribed burn on Federal land
for which the Federal agency has not implemented those
portions of the memorandum containing the Federal Wildland
Fire Policy accepted and endorsed by the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior in December
1995, issued pursuant to law, regarding notification and
cooperation with tribal, State, and local governments.
Mrs. WILSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment that
requires Federal land management policy to be followed in the
notification of State and local government for when they are going to
be conducting prescribed burns. All it does is direct these land
management agencies to follow the Federal policy that was signed in
1995, and they have not been doing so, and there are a lot of local
governments who find out that prescribed burns have been set outside of
their towns when members of the community call 911. We need to fix
that.
Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the chairman of the subcommittee.
As the chairman is aware, in 1995 the Secretaries of Interior and
Agriculture adopted an interagency policy on wildland fire management.
This policy included specific direction for their agencies to involve
and inform communities concerning fire risk and the use of prescribed
fire.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of this policy.
Mrs. WILSON. That policy has not been effectively implemented, as
exemplified by the Los Alamos fire. In order to protect communities
from wildland fires, it is essential that the agencies collaborate with
State and local officials in communities to identify where the areas of
high risk are and plan appropriate mitigation. These steps must be
taken before agencies use prescribed fire in these high risk areas so
that the State and local entities are informed of the risk and prepared
to take action if needed.
Does the chairman agree?
Mr. REGULA. Absolutely. Yes, I agree this policy must be implemented
and that the agencies have a direct responsibility to keep communities
informed and involved.
Mrs. WILSON. I am sure the chairman is also aware that the Forest
Service has just completed a comprehensive series of risk maps that
rate forest lands nationwide for their risk of wildfire.
Mr. REGULA. Yes, I am aware of this work.
Mrs. WILSON. These maps will greatly assist in efforts to advise
local communities of their proximity to high risk fire areas. I would
expect, as a result of this amendment, that the agencies would use
these maps to fulfill their responsibilities as laid out in the 1995
interagency policy.
Does the chairman agree that this is the purpose of the amendment?
Mr. REGULA. Absolutely, yes, I agree.
Mrs. WILSON. Communities must know if they are in high risk areas,
and the agencies have a direct obligation to let them know. I
appreciate the chairman's continued support and understanding on these
important issues and I thank the chairman for his time.
{time} 2330
Amendment Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico to the amendment offered
by Mrs. Wilson
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment
to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico to the
amendment offered by Mrs. Wilson:
Strike all after ``Sec. 501.'' And in lieu thereof insert
the following:
``None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used by the Bureau of Land
Management, the National Park Service, or the Forest Service
to conduct a prescribed burn of Federal land for which the
Federal agency has not implemented all provisions of the
memorandum containing the Federal Wildland Fire Policy
accepted and endorsed by the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior in December 1995.''
Mr. UDALL of Colorado (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment to the amendment be considered as
read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I have read the amendment
proposed by the gentlewoman from New Mexico. Her amendment prohibits
the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the
Forest Service from using these appropriations act funds for prescribed
burns on Federal lands without notifying and cooperating with tribal,
State and local governments. I believe this is an excellent idea.
In testimony before the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, it
was apparent this policy was not being followed, to the great detriment
of the counties affected and the State of New Mexico.
I believe that all of the requirements of the prescribed burn policy
should be followed, not just the notification requirement. There are
many obligations in that policy and they are important, such as
compliance with local and Federal air quality regulations governing
contingency plans for possible loss of control, a public fire safety
hazard analysis, or fire behavior analysis.
Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of cooperation, I would offer this
perfecting amendment at this time.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with this perfecting
amendment and I accept it.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend both of these Members
from New Mexico for their concern. This is a serious problem, and we
want to do as much as we can to address it in the bill.
We did put in $15 million in emergency firefighting money, and
recognize that this could be a continuing problem. We are prepared to
accept the amendment to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) to the amendment by the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
[[Page H4578]]
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 48.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 48 offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following:
TITLE --ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to publish Class III gaming procedures under part 291
of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
debate on this amendment be limited to 30 minutes, 15 minutes on each
side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mr. DICKS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, What is the
agreement again?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, the gentleman
has promulgated a request for unanimous consent at 30 minutes, 15 on
each side. I am not sure if that is acceptable.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we will agree to that, and I withdraw my
reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) will control 15
minutes, and an opponent will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It assures that the
integrity of a law that the U.S. Congress passed, the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act, or IGRA, is preserved and that States have the right to
ensure that their concerns are fully adjudicated in the courts.
My amendment ensures that the States of Florida and Alabama have the
right to have their cases fully adjudicated in the Federal courts
before the Secretary of the Interior allows tribes to set up casinos in
States that do not allow casino gambling.
Under IGRA, in order for Indian tribes to engage in casino gambling,
tribes must have an approved tribal-State compact. However, in April of
1999, the Department of the Interior set forth a process whereby Indian
tribes may bypass State governments and appeal to the Secretary of
Interior to allow them to set up a casino. This is the subject of a
court case.
My amendment simply states, let the case run its full course before
the Secretary approves a casino operation in a place like Florida or
Alabama, which do not allow casinos. Florida and Alabama have filed
suit against the Department arguing that the Department does not have
the authority to issue these regulations in the first place. These
regulations trample on the rights of States, and what could be worse,
deny the States their full day in court.
On three separate occasions the people of Florida have voted against
allowing casinos in their State. Now these regulations would establish
a way for the tribes to bypass the will of the people of Florida and
open casinos.
This is not a bipartisan issue. My amendment is supported by the
Republican governor of Florida and the Democrat attorney general. I
believe and the State of Florida believes the Department of the
Interior has exceeded its authority granted under IGRA by issuing a
regulatory remedy on a matter that both Congress and the Supreme Court
have stated should be determined by the States.
My amendment would simply ensure that the State of Florida has the
right to have its case fully adjudicated prior to the Department
publishing procedures which would allow Indian tribes to open casinos
in Florida.
What specifically does my amendment do? My amendment says that the
Department may not publish procedures prescribed under the April, 1999
regulations. Publications of these procedures would permit the tribes
to open casinos. My amendment allows the Secretary to go right up to
that line, but may not cross it unless the courts have ruled in its
favor.
Why is this amendment needed? Some correspondence from the Department
indicates that the Secretary will not issue these procedures until the
case has been decided. I am pleased to have in my possession a letter
from the Secretary dated June 14 in which the Secretary says he will
not publish those procedures until the courts have decided whether or
not he has the right to do that.
I appreciate the Secretary's letter, which I believe is an
endorsement of the language in my amendment. They say the same thing. I
am nonetheless compelled to offer this amendment, however, because we
will have a new administration in 6 months, and we will have most
likely a new Secretary of the Interior.
The next Secretary is not bound by Secretary Babbitt's letter. The
new Secretary will be bound by the legislation passed by this Congress.
That is why the adoption of this amendment is needed. It will ensure
that the policy I am advocating and that the Secretary supports will be
followed.
I am very appreciative of the Secretary's support, and I certainly
support him in this position.
To reiterate, my amendment maintains the status quo of IGRA. It
ensures that tribes can still use the current Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act process to engage in class 3 gaming. It preserves the right of
Congress to pass laws and major policy changes. It continues incentives
for tribes and States to pursue legislation to remedy differences over
IGRA. It prevents the Secretary from bypassing or short-circuiting
States' rights, and it protects States' rights without harming the
tribes. It does exactly what the Secretary is calling to be done.
My amendment does not do the following: this amendment does not amend
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The Weldon amendment does not affect
existing tribal-State compacts. The amendment does not limit the
ability of tribes to obtain class 3 gaming as long as valid compacts
are entered into by the tribes with the States pursuant to existing
law.
I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is recognized
for 15 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 6 minutes
to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and I will control 9
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who is an expert on these matters.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Weldon
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, last year Members of this body defeated this amendment
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Barr) that would have prohibited the Secretary of the
Interior from issuing alternative gaming procedures that would help
tribes attain gaming compacts when States refuse to negotiate with
tribes in good faith.
This amendment would keep the Secretary of Interior from fulfilling a
congressionally mandated obligation that requires him to develop
alternative class 3 gaming procedures.
Mr. Chairman, on April 12, 1999, the Secretary published a final
regulation providing for class 3 gaming procedures that allows the
Secretary to mediate differences between States and Indian tribes on
Indian gaming activities. The Secretary developed the regulation
because of a United States Supreme
[[Page H4579]]
Court ruling in Seminole Tribe versus Florida, which found that States
could avoid compliance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by
asserting immunity from suit.
{time} 2340
By enacting IGRA, Congress did not intend to give States the ability
to forever block the compacting process by asserting immunity from
suit. In fact, IGRA enables the Secretary to issue alternative
procedures when the States refuse to negotiate in good faith.
The Weldon amendment would prohibit the Secretary from fulfilling his
obligation under IGRA on grounds that it bypasses State authority.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The regulation gives great deference to the State's roles under IGRA.
Only after the State asserts immunity from suit and refuses to
negotiate would the regulation apply.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is particularly important to note that the
regulation does not give tribes a right to conduct gaming, but only
creates a forum where all interests, State, Federal and tribal, can be
determined.
The Secretary's role would be subject to several safeguards,
including oversight by the Federal courts.
In April of last year, one day after the regulation was published,
the States of Florida and Alabama sued in the Federal District Court in
Florida claiming the regulation was beyond the scope of the Secretary's
authority under IGRA.
In May 1999, the Secretary wrote to the House and Senate Committee on
Appropriations saying that he would refrain from implementing the
regulations until the Federal Court resolved the authority question.
Just yesterday, the Secretary wrote to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) stating that the Department would defer from publishing the
procedures until a final judgment is issued in the Florida case whether
by district court or on appeal.
The Secretary's letter should have alleviated the concerns of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) since he intended to offer an
amendment that would have kept the Secretary from publishing procedures
until a final judgment was issued. Despite the Secretary's letter, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) chose to offer this amendment which
would keep the Secretary from moving forward with publishing gaming
procedures during the 2001 fiscal year.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young), the very 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 thank the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to my good friend, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). I happen to be one of the last
remaining sponsors of IGRA, and believe, in fact, that the bill has
worked very well; the act has worked very well.
As we know, the States have to enter into compacts with the tribes
that apply for gambling activity within that State. It has worked well
in almost all States of the Union and, in fact, has given the American
Indian tribes an opportunity to be economically advanced and has done a
very good job in doing so.
Unfortunately, some of those States that have existing gambling have
gotten involved in denying the tribal entities to have the right to
enter into these compacts, in fact stonewalled them. As the Secretary
has informed the chairman, that he is not going to issue any more
regulatory actions or suggestions until the court makes that decision.
So this amendment is unnecessary.
I believe, in fact, it impugns upon the sovereignty of the American
Indians, which we granted them. I, for one, as an author of the
original bill with Mr. Mo Udall, do take homage to the fact that we are
trying to undo that act and unfortunately I understand the gentleman's
desires but I think it does a disservice to the American Indians and to
the act itself.
Now I will say that I am willing to go through the court process. I
hope it does go through the process, and I think we will be found in
favor of IGRA and the results will be the continuation where the
Secretary can, in fact, force a State to do it, if they do not
negotiate in good faith.
So I do rise in strong opposition to this amendment, suggesting it is
unnecessary and unwarranted at this time.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Weldon) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Weldon amendment. This
common sense measure would instruct the Secretary of Interior not to
publish any new onerous gaming regulations until our Federal courts
have finished adjudicating cases presently pending. It is simply
ludicrous to waste time and taxpayers' money on intrusive new
regulations until we know the outcome of these cases. To myself and
others concerned with States' rights, this premature rush to regulate
is deeply troubling. I believe profoundly in the capacity of our
Federal Government to do good, but it is imperative that we resist the
pressure of over zealous Federal bureaucrats intent on regulating
States' rights.
Additionally, at a time when we seek to maximize the efficiency and
cost effectiveness of our Federal Government, why in the world do we
allow the wasteful spending of taxpayers' dollars? Why would we
encourage work that may ultimately be rendered moot or duplicative?
Mr. Chairman, let us leave the Federal Government out of it. States
and Indian tribal governments can resolve gambling issues within State
borders. They certainly do not need the help of any cabinet secretary
and they should not be forced to take it.
I encourage my colleagues, please support the Weldon amendment. It is
the right thing to do for States, for taxpayers, for common sense.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Weldon). It would undermine our responsibility as Members of Congress,
our trust responsibility to the first Americans of this Nation.
For many tribes, the resources that are provided by tribal gaming are
their lifeblood. It has allowed them to begin to rebuild their homes,
giving their children a quality education, treating their elders with
adequate health care. Yet this Congress continues to shirk the
responsibility towards Native Americans, turning a deaf ear to their
pleas. It is a travesty that has resulted in the crumbling of
overcrowded schools that no Member in this Congress would dare send
their own children to. It has resulted in deteriorating unsafe homes
that no one in this Chamber would allow their families to live in, and
it has resulted in abysmal health care that would shock and outrage
every single Member of this House if it was one of them or one of their
constituents.
The thing that has allowed these tribal governments to provide for
the things that this Congress has failed to do is tribal gaming. Two
hundred years of Indian law jurisprudence have told us that this
Congress and every single Member of this House has a responsibility to
our first Americans, our Native Americans. This amendment is not so
much about tribal gaming as it is about the trust responsibility that
each of us has been sworn to uphold when we swore by the Constitution
of the United States to uphold our responsibility, our trust
responsibility, to our first Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage all my colleagues to vote against this
amendment, just as we did last year, and stand up for the first
Americans of this country of ours.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague and friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise as part of this bipartisan opposition to the
amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Weldon).
[[Page H4580]]
Mr. Chairman, here we go again. It would be especially appropriate to
remember the words written in this document, in article I, section 8,
where the Constitution states as follows, ``the Congress shall have the
power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several
States and with the Indian tribes.''
Mr. Chairman, that articulation, that enumeration, gives tribes
sovereignty and sovereign immunity.
What is disturbing to hear from my good friend from Nevada earlier is
the notion that somehow we should short-circuit or circumvent the
process that involves the Federal Government, quite rightly, not only a
body of subsequent case law but also in what this Congress has passed
through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. And when it comes to Class
III gaming IGRA was never intended to give the States absolute
authority in this.
My friend from Florida admits it is before the courts right now. The
process is working. I need not lecture my friends in elementary civics.
We understand the separation of powers. Tonight we can reaffirm that
separation, the sanctity of the judicial process and the promise
already given by the appropriate authority vis-a-vis IGRA when we
reject the Weldon amendment.
{time} 2350
Stand for sovereignty. Stand for economic opportunity. Stand for the
separation of powers to let the courts do their work and work their
will. Reject the Weldon amendment.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. I rise in support of his amendment.
As my friend from Arizona just pointed out, this is a bipartisan
debate with some serious questions. There are some real questions about
how the voters of the State fit into this process. There are real
questions about how State governments fit into that process. There are
real questions that really go beyond this amendment. But the amendment
is narrow. It is not complex.
Our friend from Florida just gave a long list of what the amendment
does not do, and we should not get confused about what the amendment
does not do. We should only talk about what the amendment does do. And
before I go there, I might say, of course, the amendment does not
prohibit the Secretary from doing anything in these two States if the
Federal Government, if the Department wins its case.
Both the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) have pointed to a letter that the Secretary
sent yesterday that said he did not intend to do anything until the
case was over.
Well, if the amendment is not needed because the goal has already
been agreed to, at least by this Secretary and at least for the next 6
months, if the amendment is not needed, surely it does no harm. If the
amendment serves no purpose because the goal of the amendment has
already been achieved, surely it does no harm to let the authorities in
Florida and Alabama know that their cases will proceed.
And it also sends a message to the Department of the Interior if this
case is not over at the time this Secretary happens to leave, that his
desire in this case would continue to be what would determine what the
Department can do, that these two States would be allowed to have their
day in court, that these serious issues would be fully adjudicated, and
that this would be determined before we moved further.
The Secretary says that the Department will defer from publishing the
procedures in the Federal Register. We have this letter that does say
that, and I think it probably is only binding for the Department during
the tenure of this Secretary; but again, if it is not necessary, it is
certainly not harmful. It would give these States the assurance they
need. There are many questions in this area that go well beyond this
amendment. But this amendment deals with an important question.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment today.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from South
Florida yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The proposed
gaming regulations will not force communities to accept casino-style
gambling, as some of my colleagues assert.
Instead, the regulations will protect States' rights while affirming
those rights which Congress clarified more than 11 years ago in the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Mr. Chairman, the proposed gaming regulations will help resolve long-
standing constitution disputes over Indian gaming and will only
complicate the process. I urge its defeat.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Weldon amendment.
To those who say that it upholds the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, I
urge them to read the act. The act does not give States the ability to
unilaterally deny tribes access to class 3 gaming by refusing to
negotiate.
In fact, it requires States to negotiate with tribes for class 3
gaming that is otherwise available in the State. If the State fails to
do so, the act provides a mechanism through the Secretary of the
Interior for the tribe to have access to the kind of games that others
in the State enjoy.
This matter arose in the district that I am privileged to serve, and
yet the State of Florida has refused to negotiate with Florida tribes
compacts for class 3 gaming. And it has done so with impunity.
It is time to give Florida tribes and those in other States a way to
enforce the rights Congress affirmed more than 11 years ago in enacting
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
When the State of Florida asserted its sovereign immunity to a
lawsuit that could have triggered secretarial procedures under the
IGRA, it upset the balance Congress deliberately struck between the
tribes' rights and the States' rights in the negotiating process. It
also calls the constitutionality of the act to come into serious
question.
I would remind my colleagues that if the IGRA is rendered
unconstitutional, we go back to the Cabazon standard. If that happens,
States will have absolutely no role in determining what kind of games
tribes can have.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the Weldon amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Weldon amendment,
which would have a devastating impact on many Indian tribes throughout
our nation.
The Weldon amendment would prohibit the Department of the Interior
from implementing important regulations for mediating differences
between states and Indian tribes on Indian gaming activities.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requires Indian tribes to negotiate
compacts with state governments for the operation of certain types of
gaming facilities. In the event that states and tribes are unable to
negotiate a compact, the Act gives the Department of the Interior the
authority to mediate between the states and the tribes. The Department
of the Interior's regulations are essential to ensure that tribes can
operate gaming facilities when states refuse to negotiate compacts in
good faith.
The supporters of this amendment claim that the Department of the
Interior's regulations would ``bypass'' state authority. Nothing could
be further from the truth. The regulations come into play only after a
state has refused to negotiate a compact with a tribe. Furthermore,
during the mediation process, the state has several opportunities to
join the process and participate as a full party to the negotiations.
This amendment would encourage states to ignore their obligation to
negotiate with tribes that seek to operate gaming facilities. It would
permit states to refuse to negotiate gaming compacts and thereby
prevent tribes from operating gaming even when other citizens and
businesses in the state are permitted to do so. This unfairly
discriminates against Indian tribes.
[[Page H4581]]
Gaming is to Indian tribes what lotteries are to state governments.
Indian gaming revenues are used to fund essential government services
including health care, education, law enforcement, tribal courts,
economic development and infrastructure improvement. These revenues
serve to promote the general welfare of the tribes and their members.
Through gaming, tribal governments have been able to bring hope and
opportunity to some of the country's most impoverished people.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition
to this amendment.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has this exactly right. The
Indians had this right to unilaterally engage in gaming as a result of
the Cabazon tribe. This Congress came and stepped in and created a
process which would involve the States to try to develop compacts for
class 3 gaming and, therefore, restricted the rights of the Indian
tribes.
What we have now seen is that in those States and in my own State for
several years where the Indians have had that right, they have worked
on that right, the States have simply refused to negotiate in good
faith with those tribes.
We recognize that the States have sovereignty, and that is exactly
what IGRA was designed to do, as the gentleman from Arizona said. It
was designed to create a basis in which we could deal with the impasse
between those tribes. That is what was attempted in this case. The
States sued. We developed a sovereignty. And that is the point in which
the Secretary is supposed to do it.
The States have now come along and sued as to whether or not the
Secretary has any authority to do this. And this is again tampering
restriction with the rights of the tribes under IGRA and under the
basic rights in the Cabazon case.
I would urge that we oppose this amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) to give us some perspective on
the importance of this issue.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I could have sworn about an
hour ago Members were knocking each other down in a race to the
microphone to talk about how much they love the Indians. And now we
have a bill, which is, as we know, despite the technicalities, aimed at
retarding the Indians' ability to have gambling.
People watching C-SPAN could be forgiven if they thought they had
turned to the American Movie Classics and were watching one of those
bad old movies where the Indians win in the first reel and then they
get ambushed by all the white guys in the second reel. We are into the
second reel of a bad movie here.
Whatever happened to all this pro-Indian stuff? And it is not only a
bad movie, it is a bad movie if this amendment passes with a surprise
ending. Because we have a concern for Indian health which some people
want to beat by giving them more Federal money.
We are saying, let us help Indian health by letting the Indians get
into business and support themselves and make some money. And I think
gambling has probably done more to help Indian health than the
underfunded health service. So let us not have a surprise ending where
the Republican House says, hey, enough of this self-sufficiency, enough
of this making money on your own, let us give you a little more Federal
funding.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it very, very clear that this
Member supports the States having a say in this. And to imply that
anybody in this Chamber is anti-gaming I think is to me inaccurate, to
say the least.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Shadegg).
{time} 0000
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, I suppose I should begin by pointing out that some of
us believe that Indian economic development is in fact very important,
but we are concerned that Indian gambling is not the best form of
Indian economic development. I personally feel we ought to be doing a
great deal more toward Indian economic development, and I have
introduced three different pieces of legislation to do that. But I
think causing the Indian reservations to be solely dependent on
gambling is not necessarily prudent economic development for the Indian
people nor do I believe the only thing we should be doing to assist
them in economic development is to promote gambling.
I want to raise a technical point. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee) some time ago rose and said that in writing IGRA, this Congress
clearly contemplated this situation and that in writing IGRA, this
Congress specifically wrote that we would in fact allow the United
States Secretary of Interior and the administration to authorize Class
III gaming if a State chose not to negotiate with the tribe.
That may well be true although I think it is not in fact true, but I
want to make the point that in enacting IGRA, this Congress acted
unconstitutionally and indeed in this very case, in Seminole Tribe v.
Florida, the United States Supreme Court ruled specifically that way,
because in enacting IGRA, this Congress, in its attempt to advance
gaming, waived the States' rights to assert their 11th amendment
immunity. Under the 11th amendment to the United States constitution,
States are immune from being sued. They may not be sued under the U.S.
Constitution.
Notwithstanding that, the Constitution says that, this Congress tried
to waive the immunity. The United States Supreme Court has already said
that our attempt to do so was unconstitutional. If they said that was
unconstitutional, then why would we have at the same time, having said
that we waived the State's right and allowed them to be sued, we are
going to create a separate procedure?
The reality is the litigation that the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Weldon) is referring to would not be going forward if the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) were correct. The reality is that this issue
is in dispute and that the gentleman from Florida's amendment simply
preserves the status quo.
I urge my colleagues to support the Weldon amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) has 3 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 2 minutes
remaining and the right to close.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I want to explain to my colleagues here how I got into this issue. As
most of them know, it is not common for me to come to the floor at
midnight with what seems to be an obscure issue. I have a little town
in my district, Kissimmee, Florida. It is right outside of Disney
World. One of the tribes is looking at putting a casino there.
Now, it has been said by one of my colleagues from Florida that the
State of Florida has not been negotiating in good faith with the tribe.
The fact is we have had three Statewide ballot referendums in the State
of Florida, and this issue has gone down in smoke three times. We all
say the will of the people should be sovereign. The height of this
building is the highest in the city because the founders believed the
power of the people was supreme. The people of the State of Florida
have spoken very, very clearly.
Now, we all talk about special interests and how we do not like
special interests. As far as I am concerned, if a group of people who
are interested, be they, I agree, an unfortunate and discriminated
against group like the Indians somehow nonetheless want to go around
the will of the people of the State of Florida and put Class III gaming
in a very, very family friendly environment, I do not think that is
right.
Now, if the gentleman from Michigan's comments that IGRA somehow
provided for this regulatory remedy were correct, then there would be
no case in court. The judge would have thrown the case out. He would
have said the Secretary can proceed with this. But no, this case is
being disputed because IGRA, I believe, is not sufficiently clear. My
interpretation of IGRA is that the Secretary cannot do this.
[[Page H4582]]
All I am asking is that we as a Congress say, let this case work its
way toward the courts. Let us not have a Secretary of the Interior
issuing a procedure that would allow the Secretary to go around the law
as intended in IGRA and let the will of the people of the State of
Florida prevail. Might I also add that our previous Democratic
governor, Lawton Chiles, a man whom I respect, took the same position
that I am taking here today. So this is not a Democrat versus
Republican issue. I believe this is an issue of letting the court work
its will. This is an issue of letting the will of the Congress speak.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I think the bipartisan nature of this debate
has been shown just by the speakers from my State of Arizona with three
of us in the same party on opposite sides of this issue. There is
clearly a lot of debate about this and fair debate, I think. I think we
have heard some good discussion here tonight.
I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) laid out the very
technical and kind of legalistic arguments about this. I want to answer
a couple of the things that were said here tonight, but I also want to
say very clearly that the effect of this legislation is to say to the
Indian tribes, ``There will be no gaming until this issue is settled,
no gaming whatever, you won't proceed anywhere in the country.''
I am going to come back to that in a second. I think it is important
to understand that while many of us may have concerns about the way
some of the Indian gaming has proceeded, we need to also understand
that it has brought about some wonderful economic development and
wonderful improvements in the lives of people on Indian reservations.
I have one small tribe in my community that has used the money that
they have had from Indian gaming to improve the lives of their
citizens, to improve the health care of children, the education of
children. They have used some of the money to jump start economic
development by allowing for the creation of a high-tech company, to
fund a high-tech company to move onto the reservation to provide very
skilled kinds of jobs on the Indian reservation. This is a company that
would not have been able to get financing, venture capital financing if
it had not been for the Indian gaming money that that tribe had. It has
made a difference. It is making a difference for that tribe.
Now, there were a couple of things that have been said here I think
that need to be corrected. My friend from Missouri spoke about the fact
that this is a narrow and not a broad piece of legislation. He also
said if the Secretary has said he will not issue the regulations, why
worry about it, then? Why not just go ahead?
The answer is very clear to that, Mr. Chairman. The reason is because
this legislation would preclude even States where the tribe and the
governor want to go ahead, where there is no question, they would not
be able to move ahead.
In answer to the last question of my friend from Arizona who spoke
about the fact that the courts struck this down, they did not strike
down the right of the Secretary to promulgate regulations.
Mr. Chairman, we should defeat this amendment. We should allow the
process to move forward. I urge a no vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167,
noes 205, not voting 62, as follows:
[Roll No. 289]
AYES--167
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Bonilla
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
DeLay
DeMint
Dickey
Doolittle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Fletcher
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kingston
LaHood
Largent
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Northup
Norwood
Obey
Ose
Packard
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Sisisky
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--205
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clement
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Ehrlich
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hill (IN)
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
John
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sherman
Sherwood
Simpson
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Walden
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--62
Barton
Becerra
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boucher
Campbell
Capuano
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coburn
Cooksey
Costello
Danner
Deal
Engel
Etheridge
Ewing
Filner
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hooley
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Klink
LaFalce
Lazio
Linder
Lofgren
Martinez
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Moore
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Oxley
Payne
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shows
Shuster
Skelton
Thompson (MS)
Toomey
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Watt (NC)
[[Page H4583]]
{time} 0028
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mrs. THURMAN, and Mr. SWEENEY changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SALMON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, before we vote, I simply want to rise to remind people
why so many of us will vote against this bill on final passage.
The bill is $1.7 billion below the President's request, and $302
million below fiscal 2000. That applause says an awful lot about those
folks and their values.
Mr. Chairman, it is $485 million below the request for Indian
affairs. It will cause major reductions in personnel for both Indian
schools, hospitals, and clinics. Are the Members not clapping now? Why
do they not clap at that, too?
Mr. Chairman, this bill cuts land acquisition $736 million below the
level which this House voted just a month ago and sent out their press
releases about.
It includes anti-environmental riders on the Columbia Basin plan
deleted earlier by the Dicks amendment, it fails to include increases
for the arts approved earlier today in the Slaughter amendment, and
even if it did, even if it did, $22 million worth of good news cannot
overcome $2 billion of ignored responsibilities.
For the Forest Service, it is $96 million below last year; it is $100
million below last year for maintenance for parks or refuges or
forests.
I have to say, I know the gentleman from Ohio. I know if he had his
druthers, this bill would not look like this. But the problem is that
the way this House is operating under the instructions that it is
operating, good people have to bring bad legislation to this floor. We
have the responsibility when that happens to vote against it until it
becomes good legislation, and that is what we intend to do tonight.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I would just restate to
my colleagues, this is a fiscally responsible appropriations bill. I
would hope we could get to the vote and pass the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the final lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001''.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in opposition to H.R. 4578,
the fiscal year (FY) 2001 Interior Appropriations bill. I believe this
legislation falls short in protecting our natural resources and meeting
the health care and education needs in Indian Country.
This legislation, which funds $14.6 billion for our nation's natural
resources, national parks, and programs for Native Americans, is 10
percent less than President Clinton's FY 2001 Budget request.
Specifically, this legislation provides $340 million less than the
Administration's request for our National Park Service system. With our
national parks already facing serious budget cuts and much needed
infrastructure repairs, I believe it is wrong for us to shortcut this
important component of our nation's aesthetic beauty.
I also believe that improving the living conditions of Native
Americans must be one of our top priorities. Unfortunately, the bill
before us contains a significant shortfall in funding to meet the
critical health care and school construction needs in Indian Country.
The bill today is $186 million below the President's request for the
Indian Health Service and $180 million below the President's request
for school construction. With populations of Native Americans growing,
and a general movement back to the reservation, Tribal governments are
feeling growing pressure to meet the basic needs of their people, and
are trying to stretch too few resources too far. In order to meet the
current health care needs of tribes an IHS budget of $8 billion is
needed. Further, over the decades, the BIA school system have been the
victim of neglect, and the price is now steep to make these schools
safe and adequately equipped for today's students. Of the 185 BIA
schools, most are in need of either major repairs or new construction
at an estimated cost of over $2.4 billion. Unfortunately, the bill
fails to address either of these critical needs in Indian Country and
we simply cannot continue down this path any longer.
Mr. Chairman, in these times of a booming economy, I believe we can
do better by providing more funding for our nation's national resources
and meeting the needs of Indian Country. I urge my colleagues to vote
no ``on'' this legislation.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, on May 17, 2000 the Field Museum
of Chicago unveiled the largest and most complete T-Rex skeleton ever
found, Sue. Sue as she is named was found by the renowned fossil hunter
Sue Henderson, who discovered the 67 million year old Tyrannosaurus Rex
in 1990, where it lay buried within Cheyenne River Sioux backlands in
the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Field Museum purchased Sue for
$8.1 million at auction with assistance from McDonald's Corporation,
Walt Disney World Resort, the University of California System and other
private donors.
Sue is an unprecedented scientific find that opened in Chicago on May
17th. It has rested in Union Station here in Washington, D.C. and is
scheduled for a nationwide tour which includes Boston, Honolulu, St.
Paul, Columbus, Los Angeles, Toledo, Louisville, Dallas, Seattle,
Milwaukee, and other cities during the next three years. Sponsored by
McDonald's Corporation as its millennium gift to the nation, the
traveling exhibition will ensure that the entire nation has the
opportunity to experience and to learn from this fossil.
With the fourth most important fossil collection in the world, the
Field Museum is seeking federal funds to help construct a new Hall of
Paleontology and Earth Science in which to install Sue and to support
related exhibits, research and educational programming. The Illinois
Delegation has joined in signing a letter urging support for federal
funds for Sue.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my enthusiastic support
for the Federal-State Partnership of the National Endowment for the
Humanities. The Federal-State Partnership is a collaborative endeavor
of the NEH and fifty-six state humanities councils. Its mission is to
ensure that all of the nation's citizens, wherever they may live,
benefit from locally designed humanities programs that are crafted with
the concerns and needs of each state's citizens in mind. This
partnership channels federal funds directly to the states so they can
grant money to local areas where they will have the greatest benefits.
The results that I have seen are quite impressive. The federal funds
that go to the Arkansas Humanities Council are channeled to all parts
of our state, inpacting both large and small communities. A grant given
to Deer, Arkansas illustrates this very well. Deer is a very small
rural town in the hills of Newton County that received money for a
program to purchase books that encourages parents and students to read
together. They will also have a week-long event that celebrates the
area's cultural heritage.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of the Interior Appropriations
subcommittee for sustaining the funding for the Federal-State
Partnership. It is my hope that in the future we can increase our
commitment to programs like the Federal-State Partnership which direct
funds to successful programs, like the Arkansas Humanities Council, at
the state level to support community based programs and services.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4578, the FY
2001 Interior Appropriations Bill. This bill is seriously flawed. It
shortchanges critically needed natural resource conservation programs
and contains a number of anti-environmental legislative riders that
will undermine our nation's land management and environmental
protection programs.
H.R. 4578 cuts more than $300 million from current levels in
important programs which protect endangered species and preserve and
maintain our national wildlife refuges, national forests, and national
parks. The bill also attacks the protection of national monuments and
prevents the establishment of new national wildlife refuges.
As the stewards of America's lands and environment, Congress must
fulfill its obligation to future generations and ensure that our parks,
wildlife refuges, forests and range lands are protected, preserved and
maintained. This legislation does not do this. It does not adequately
provide for the maintenance of our federal lands and historic
treasures, and it cuts funding for new federal land acquisition of
important natural resource lands threatened by development.
I am particularly concerned about the anti-environmental riders which
have been attached to this bill. The riders affect the full range of
environmental issues--from protecting our public lands to undermining
our clean water laws to exposing our children to toxic chemicals. Mr.
Speaker, we must oppose these backdoor riders which weaken our
environmental laws which are critically important to our children and
communities. We must not allow the narrow interest of those who seek
special exemptions, subsidies or funding limitations to erode the
quality of our public lands and our quality of life.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation also funds for our nation's critically
important arts and humanities education programs to historically low
[[Page H4584]]
levels. H.R. 4578 would fund the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
at a level 40 percent below 1995 levels and the National Endowment for
the Humanities (NEH) at a level 33 percent below 1995 levels.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4578 funds our critically needed
natural resource conservation programs at insufficiently low levels. It
contains legislative riders that will undermine our nation's land
management and environmental protection programs. I strongly urge a NO
vote against final passage of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4578)
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 524, he reported the bill back
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit offered by Mr. Dicks
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. DICKS. In its present, I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dicks moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4578 to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
On page 66, line 21, after the amount insert ``(increased
by $22,000,00)''.
On page 85, line 7, strike ``$98,000,000'' and insert
``113,000,000''.
On page 85, line 21, strike ``$100,604,000'' and insert
``105,604,000''.
On page 86, line 19, strike ``$24,307,000'' and insert
``26,307,000''.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I was proud to be a
cosponsor of this amendment.
What this would do would be to take the Slaughter amendment, $15
million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $5 million for the
National Endowment for the Humanities, and $2 million for museum
services.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, since the Arts Caucus could not present its amendment
this evening, we will give Members one chance this evening to vote for
or against art and humanities. This is the very same proposal that
passed today. It is a vote on art. It passed today by 207 to 204 with
bipartisan support. If Members supported it today, they should support
it this morning.
Mr. Speaker, these funds do not support a $9 billion industry, as
stated earlier this evening, but exist to bring beauty, truth, history,
and hope to those who might have no other exposure to them. This
includes the NEA programs that are presently on Indian reservations.
It is also money in the bank. The $98 million spent last year will
bring back to the Federal Treasury $4 billion to $5 billion this year.
An investment with a return like that deserves to be increased.
I urge a yes vote on the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula)
opposed to the motion to recommit?
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is
recognized.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, let us get on with the vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 188, not voting 63, as follows:
[Roll No. 290]
AYES--184
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clement
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
John
Johnson (CT)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--188
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
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
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
[[Page H4585]]
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--63
Ballenger
Barton
Becerra
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boucher
Campbell
Capuano
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Cooksey
Costello
Danner
Deal
Engel
Ewing
Filner
Ganske
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hooley
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Klink
LaFalce
LaHood
Lazio
Linder
Lofgren
Martinez
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Oxley
Payne
Rangel
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shows
Shuster
Skelton
Thompson (MS)
Toomey
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
{time} 1253
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on passage of
the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 204,
nays 172, not voting 59, as follows:
[Roll No. 291]
YEAS--204
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Davis (VA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ose
Packard
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--172
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
John
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Napolitano
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sherman
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--59
Barton
Becerra
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boucher
Campbell
Capuano
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Cooksey
Costello
Danner
Deal
Engel
Ewing
Filner
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hooley
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Klink
LaFalce
Lazio
Linder
Lofgren
Martinez
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Oxley
Payne
Rangel
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shows
Shuster
Skelton
Thompson (MS)
Toomey
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Watt (NC)
{time} 0109
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________