[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.

                          ____________________