[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 121 (Tuesday, October 3, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8641-H8649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER ON CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4578, DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 603 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 603
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of
order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 603 is a rule
waiving all points of order against the conference report to accompany
H.R. 4578, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 2001, and against its consideration. The rule
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
The Interior conference report appropriates $18.8 billion in new
fiscal year 2001 budget authority, which is $3.9 billion more than the
House passed and $2.5 billion above the President's request.
Approximately half of this funding, $8.4 billion finances Interior
Department programs to manage and study the Nation's animal, plant and
mineral resources and to support Indian programs.
Among the Interior agencies receiving increases in this conference
report are the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service,
the Bureau of Land Management, the Minerals Management Service and the
U.S. Geological Survey.
The balance of the measure's funds support other non-Interior
agencies that carry out related functions. These include the Forest
Service in the Department of Agriculture, conservation and fossil
programs run by the Department of Energy as well as the Smithsonian
Institution and similar cultural organizations.
Notably, the bill includes increased funding $300 million above the
President's request, for wildfire readiness, wildfire suppression and
the rehabilitation of areas damaged by wildfires this summer.
Finally, I am particularly pleased that the bill appropriates $5
million to be used solely for the reduction of the national debt. Mr.
Speaker, although many Members, myself included, have concerns about
certain sections of the bill, overall this is a responsible and
balanced conference agreement. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to
support both the rule and the Interior conference report itself.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such as time as I may
consume and I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report has come after extensive
negotiations to produce a bill that the President can sign. The
underlying bill will provide $18.8 billion for fiscal year 2001, $3.9
billion more than the current fiscal year.
The measure will establish a new land legacy trust program which will
provide $12 billion over 6 years for land conservation, preservation
and maintenance and provides $1.8 billion for efforts to fight forest
fires. Moreover, $8 million is slated for the Northeast for the heating
oil reserve, a program of critical importance to the Northeast.
I am especially pleased that the conferees provided $105 million for
the National Endowment for the Arts, a $7 million increase over fiscal
year 2000 and the first increase since fiscal year 1992. We still lack
the funding levels that truly reflect the importance of arts to the
American people. My colleagues may recall, Mr. Speaker, our earlier
efforts to secure the funding increase. I was proud to lead the fight
on the House floor and hope that this modest increase sparks a trend
for increased funding in the years ahead.
Mr. Speaker, the arts enhance so many facets of our lives from the
educational development of our children to the economic growth of our
towns and cities. We learn more every day about the ways in which the
arts contribute to our children's learning. One recent study showed
that children with 4 years of instruction in the arts scored 59 points
higher on the verbal portion and 44 points higher on the math portion
of the SATs than did students with no art classes.
New research in the area of human brain development shows a strong
link between the arts and early childhood development. Obviously, arts
education pays great dividends in a wide range of fields, and no other
Federal program yields such great rewards on such a small investment.
The investment that we make contributes to a return of $3.4 billion
to the Federal Treasury. The arts support 1.3 million jobs all over the
country and has revitalized small cities such as Providence, Rhode
Island; Rock Hill, South Carolina; and Peekskill, New York.
The conference report also funds the new Women's Progress
Commemoration Commission, the provision that I strongly endorse. I
sponsored the legislation, established a commission, and was recently
elected commission chair. The funding will allow us to fulfill our
mandate to identify national sites significant to women's history that
we may be in danger of losing due to lack of privatization or other
factors.
We will make recommendations to the Secretary of Interior for action
to preserve endangered sites. The long-term goal is to further educate
the public regarding significant contributions of women in America.
Mr. Speaker, there are still other things that are important in this
bill, but I was disappointed to see that the conference report contains
language that will undermine the passage of the CARA act, a measure I
long supported. The CARA would provide more than $3 billion each year
for important conservation and recommend recreation projects. But the
conference report contemplates less than half of the funding and at
levels similar to recent years. Moreover, CARA would dedicate funds for
specific programs each year while the conference report provides no
such guarantees.
For more than 30 years, the Committee on Appropriations has failed to
provide funds and live up to the promise of existing conservation and
recreation programs. Unfortunately, this report provides more of the
same.
With those reservations, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues
on the conference committee for their hard work, particularly for their
efforts in regards to the NEA.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), 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. Speaker, of course, I rise to oppose the
rule, not because the rule is structured incorrectly, because it did
not include CARA, as the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter)
mentioned. Most of my colleagues are aware that this House passed my
Conservation Reinvestment Act 315 to 100 some odd votes. That is what
the public wants, 5,285 organizations support that legislation.
Unfortunately, the Committee on Interior tried to have ``CARA-lite''
passed, but I again stressed the point that for those that are
listening to this program and those on the floor understand this is not
CARA. It is, in fact, a
[[Page H8642]]
system set forth that for each part of our CARA bill, historical
preservation, urban parks, fish and wildlife restoration, native lands
reclamation, land purchasing, all of it has to come back to the
appropriating committee.
For those listening to this, this is not CARA. I will say this to the
Committee on Appropriations, I think that my biggest concern is, my
colleagues have asked us to authorize, and when we authorize,
unfortunately, my colleagues have decided our authorization is not
correct, and my colleagues are going to do the authorization. So the
rule recognizes my colleagues' role to authorize legislation and that
is inappropriate and I think it is against the House rules. That is one
reason why I am voting against this rule.
And for the leadership of this House on my side of the aisle, I have
never voted against a rule before that my colleagues asked me to vote
for, and it is unfortunate my colleagues have not asked me to vote for
this rule, in fact, my colleagues have not communicated with me on this
issue.
This issue is not going to go away I say to the appropriating
committee, I will be here long after my colleagues are gone. I will win
this battle to preserve our wildlife, because my colleagues do not do
it in this bill. My colleagues have given a great authority to fish and
wildlife but do not say how it shall be spent. My colleagues do not
recognize the importance of fish and wildlife; and for those sportsmen,
I hope they understand what the appropriating committee has done.
This is a battle that is not over. We have a long ways to go, and I
will win this battle for the people of America. My colleagues owe us
$13 billion dollars and have not spent it. We will not spend it in the
future. My colleagues will spend it for land acquisition with no
property rights. Oh, my colleagues will do that, but will not protect
the people of this Nation and provide them for the spaces that they
need, because my colleagues did not do it in the past and will not do
it in the future.
My colleagues can say all they want about how great you have done in
this bill, I say this out of friendship, my colleagues have actually
put forth something that is hollow, something to appease the voters.
When they do not read this bill, they will say what a great job. But
when they find out, I will be back. I will be able to prevail.
I am going to make sure that the space is there for our young people,
to have the hunting and fishing and recreation is required and the
urbans parts are put in place and the past is preserved for us. My
colleagues do not do it in this bill. It is a hollow promise.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
{time} 1200
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, it is very true, this is not CARA. This is not an
entitlement. In my view, we should add no new entitlements to the
Federal budget until we first declare that every American has an
entitlement to basic health care. That is the first new entitlement
that I want to see added. After that happens, I will be happy to look
at adding others, but not before.
But this bill is an amazing victory for those who care about
preserving our precious natural resources, who care about preserving
our outdoor resources, who care about setting aside crucial pieces of
land for enjoyment by future generations.
This bill, for the programs included in it, takes what would
otherwise be a $4 billion appropriation level over the next 6 years and
expands it to $12 billion. That is a huge advance forward, and has been
described so by a variety of environmental organizations, and by, for
instance, the Council on Environmental Quality at the White House and
others.
This bill essentially says that, for this year, we will set aside
$1.6 billion for these activities, and those funds will rise each year
for the next 5 years until we hit $2.4 billion. That money is fenced.
It is not an entitlement, but if it is not spent on these programs, it
cannot be spent on any others.
It is modeled precisely after the violent crime trust account which
we established a number of years ago, the same duration, 6 years, and
the same principle. That virtually guarantees, for anybody who wants to
look at legislative reality, that these funds will go for the purposes
that they are supposed to go for; namely, these conservation and
environment programs.
I would say to our friends from coastal States who feel that they
have not been given a big enough break in this bill, we take the
appropriation for their States from a little over $100 million a year
to about $400 million. That is not bad. That is not hay. That is
taxpayers' dollars put to a good and worthy purpose. For people to make
or to claim that that is a defeat requires a new definition of that
word for Webster's dictionary.
I would also say to those conservation groups who are not happy that
this is not CARA, there are lots of times in life when we have to
settle for a little bit less than what we regard as perfect. But I am
reminded of old Ben Reihle, the fellow who used to represent rural
Marathon County, my home county, in the legislature.
He was talking to education groups one night who were unhappy because
he had not voted for exactly the amount of money that they wanted in
the State budget that year for education. He had voted for an increase,
but it was not a big enough increase.
Old Ben looked at them and said, ``Folks, I ask you to remember one
thing. I may not have voted for every dime you ever asked for, but I
voted for every dime you ever got.''
If we think about it, there is a lesson in that for every single
person interested in preserving wildlife, in preserving land, in
preserving pristine coastal areas. This is a terrific bill for all of
the purposes laid out in this legislation.
Members will hear from the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and
others what the bill contains in more detail, but I want to
congratulate him. I want to congratulate everyone who had anything to
do with putting this package together. I certainly want to congratulate
the White House for recognizing a good deal when they saw one. I want
to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the staff.
No, this is not CARA, but CARA was dead as a dodo bird in the Senate,
and this bill resurrected the effort to put aside important pieces of
land for future generations. It creates new State programs for their
protection, and this rule should be supported, and so should the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the subcommittee
chairman for the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
This is a bipartisan bill. It is a good bill. It is fair. As the
gentleman from Wisconsin said, it does not give everybody everything
they want, but I think it does a remarkable job of balancing the
challenges to those of us wanting to preserve the good things in our
natural heritage, along with meeting the needs immediately of the
American public.
I would urge all of the Members to vote for this rule. If they look
at the facts, I am sure they will be convinced that this is a bill that
meets the needs of the Nation in a good way. I think that is evident by
the fact that every member of the conference, both parties, both
Houses, every member, signed the conference report. This is the first
time that I can remember that happening, and certainly since I have
been chairman. I think it is evidence of the fact that there is strong
bipartisan support for the bill.
The White House has indicated the President will sign the bill. I
think all of America will be benefited by that set of circumstances.
I want to specifically address the wildlife conservation issue. There
have been some facts bandied around about wildlife conservation which
perhaps do not give the full picture. I just want to give Members the
accurate facts on it.
This bill contains $540 million for Federal and State programs under
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This number represents an
increase of $93 million over fiscal year 2000, 21 percent. Keep in mind
that the fiscal year 2000 bill had the Baca Ranch land acquisition in
it, which increased that number considerably. Without that purchase, it
would have been much greater in terms of an increase this year.
[[Page H8643]]
The conference report provides $300 million for State and other
conservation programs. That is an increase of $232 million over the
fiscal year 2000 bill. Particularly, it has a new $50 million State
wildlife grant program, $50 million to the States. All of this is a 293
percent increase. That is not bad, 293 percent to the States for their
programs.
We have heard from a few States that said, well, you may submit a
plan. For shame. Submit a plan? We have a responsibility for
accountability.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman saying, there have
to be competitive bids for wildlife. Who makes the decision what it
will be, the Federal government or the States?
Mr. REGULA. Is the gentleman saying as to the allocation between
Federal and State?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The Federal government makes the decision,
whether it is correct or not, is that correct?
Mr. REGULA. The people who administer the funds make the decision.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. So the States do not have the say-so? If the
Federal Government does not agree, they do not get the money?
Mr. REGULA. That is not necessarily true. They have to submit a plan.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If they do not agree, they do not get the money?
Mr. REGULA. States have to be accountable.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the States submit a plan for rehabilitation
of wildlife in a certain area and if the Federal government does not
want to do that, they do not get the money, under the gentleman's
program?
Mr. REGULA. There has to be accountability.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. But the gentleman is letting the Federal
government do it and not the States. That was the whole idea of CARA.
CARA had an an idea how to spend the money on the ground. The gentleman
likes big government.
Mr. REGULA. This is not CARA. The gentleman makes his point very
clearly. This is not CARA. It requires accountability on the part of
the States.
I think if we are disbursing Federal dollars that we collect from the
taxpayers throughout the Nation, then we have a right to ask for
accountability for that money. That is what we have said.
Nevertheless, there is a 293 percent increase for the State Wildlife
Grant programs, $50 million for the new program, and an additional
amount for the existing programs.
It provides $66 million for urban parks and forests, an increase of
$33 million, a 100 percent increase over last year, recognizing that it
is important in the urban areas to have the development of parks,
because this is where the compression of people exists, in our urban
areas, and they need open spaces. For that reason we expand that
program by 100 percent.
Of course, it has been pointed out that there will be 12 billion
additional dollars over the next 6 years to be spent on land programs
and the acquisition of open spaces in the jurisdictions under this
Nation. Certainly, this I think is a remarkable step forward in
providing all of these funds.
On the more practical side, we have $2.9 billion to deal with fires.
We all recognize what has happened in the west, so we have a large
amount of money, a very substantial increase.
We have increased PILT by $65 million. There is a lot of concern on
the part of Westerners that there be additional money spent on PILT. We
have increased that very substantially.
In the Northeast, we have doubled the funding for home heating oil
from $4 million to $8 million. We have a substantial amount for
backlogged maintenance. We have had testimony in our committee that
there is over $12 billion in backlogged maintenance. We are addressing
that problem.
We have increased many of the other areas. In the energy field, we
are providing for new technology, to recognize the need to meet our
energy challenges: fuel cells, weatherization, the development of an
80-mile per gallon automobile. So again, these are important things to
the people of America.
One that I think reflects the compassion of this bill is Indian
health care. We have increased Indian health care $214 million. I am
pleased that the committee has supported this funding, because there is
a great need. We had some testimony from the American Dental
Association that only 25 percent of Native Americans have dental care.
That should be 100 percent; if Members can imagine, going without
dental care. So we put a large increase in the Indian health care.
Parks funding is up. We took care of the south Florida area. As it
was mentioned earlier on coastal funding, we have put in $400 million,
an increase from $100 million, to deal with the challenges of our
coastal States. This will be managed by NOAA. Obviously, NOAA is a
Federal agency, but these are Federal dollars. Therefore, we want to
give this responsibility to an agency that has experience in dealing
with coastal areas.
I just think on balance this is a very bipartisan bill. It is very
well balanced in meeting all of the needs. I certainly urge my
colleagues to support this rule and support the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I do so not because
this is a bad bill, I do so not because this bill has failed to
dramatically increase the monies for the various environmental
accounts. In many ways, this is the most environmentally friendly bill
we have had out of this subcommittee in a number of years.
I do so because I have strongly believed there was another way to
redeem the promise that was made to the American people about the use
of offshore oil royalties. I believed that the method by which that
should have been done was in CARA, H.R. 701.
It has been said several times that this appropriations bill is not
CARA. Nobody is more aware of that than the gentleman from Alaska and
myself. This approach is not CARA. This was devised within the
Committee on Appropriations in responding to CARA and the grass roots
support that was lobbying on behalf of CARA. They chose to do it in a
Washington fashion.
CARA was the outgrowth of grass roots organizations, over 5,000
organizations from across the country, that looked at what the Congress
had done over the last 20 years and decided there had to be another
way. There had to be certainty for communities to be able to plan for
the protection of their environmental assets, whether that was open
space or whether that was trails or whether that was trying to solve
endangered species problems.
There clearly had to be a way to help those States that have suffered
the impacts of offshore oil.
Also, there had to be a commitment established so we could go out and
try to secure private financing, fundraising from foundations, from
corporations, and from individuals over the long term to help pay for
land acquisitions. That is why the certainty of funding was a key
feature of CARA occurs, so it is not a start-again, stop-again
operation.
We believed that was important, and 315 Members of this House
believed that was important, the biggest bipartisan vote I think we
have had on any controversial legislation in this Congress.
We sent it to the Senate. Unfortunately, there it started to stall
out. We ask our colleagues to oppose this rule so we can have a chance
to pass CARA and not undermine it with the actions of the Committee on
Appropriations. We hoped that the same kind of bipartisan support could
be resurrected in the Senate to see this bill through to the desk of
the President, who has promised to sign it.
{time} 1215
I have to admit that I am a little disappointed in the signals from
the Senate leadership about the improbability of scheduling the CARA
legislation this year. But I believe the underlying proposition of CARA
is the correct way for the Congress to deal with these issues, because
local governments and park agencies and fish and wildlife agencies are
struggling every day where the
[[Page H8644]]
people and the species and the open space and the lands and the assets
meet on a daily basis.
What they need is a diversity of funding, and a certainty of funding;
and they need a level of funding that will let them attack those
problems in a manner that they understand best.
I believe that that is what the CARA legislation did. It is
unfortunate, that we will not be able to complete acton on that
legislation in the Congress if the current indications from the Senate
continue to hold true, because we believe that legislation, supported
by a bipartisan coalition would have truly redeemed the promise that
this Congress made to the American people about taking the monies from
exploitation of nonrenewable resources and putting them into a
permanent fund to protect renewable resources.
While it is very clear to anybody who reads this legislation that
this is clearly the most dramatic increase in the environmental
accounts that we have seen in 25 years, I would have hoped that we
would have been able to include the CARA program that would have
guaranteed to local communities the kind of certainty they need to
support private and public partnerships at the local level for the
protection of these assets.
It is for that reason that I will ask Members to vote against this
rule.
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all
Members it is inappropriate to cast reflections on the actions or
inactions of the United States Senate, collectively or individually.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that, as I looked at this
and finally got the inspired version of what was in it, I would have to
say there are awfully good things in it. People have worked very hard
on this bill. I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and
others who have worked on it. I know they had to probably tear their
hair out a lot to come up with this.
Just last Friday or Thursday, I got a lecture from the appropriators
saying there are certain things they could not put in the bill. Well,
why cannot we put it in the bill? Well, it has not gone through the
procedure of this House. We cannot do it that way, because on the House
floor we do different things. We look at the rules, and the rules do
not let us do that.
So I pick this up now; and as one of the authorizers with the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) over here, I can count maybe 20
things in here that were never authorized. Now, how come last Thursday
I get a lecture and say we cannot do these things like San Rafael Swell
and other areas, but we can put these 20 in it when we are behind
closed doors somewhere? That kind of bothers me a little bit, Mr.
Speaker. I thought if it was good for one deal, it was good for all of
us.
So I know there is some good things in here. I compliment the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula), two very, very fine legislators. However, in good conscience,
I really feel, as chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and
Public Lands, there are things in here, in this list and this list,
that just blow my mind. I do not know where we can come up with these
things.
There is $12 billion over the next 6 years; $12 billion is an awful
lot of money. My little State of Utah, the entire budget is only $6
billion. They are going to spend $12 billion here.
There is no protection for property rights. Who is going to be the
wise all-knowing guru who is going to say this is right and wrong with
some of this stuff? I wish somebody would tell me this. So a blank
check goes to somebody.
Even though there are some awfully good things in this bill, I very
reluctantly have to vote against the bill and the rule. I say that
feeling bad in a way because it has got the genesis of being a fine
piece of legislation. But where we are now I think we are taking the
American people down the primrose path.
I honestly urge my colleagues to vote against this and hope we can
come up with something a little better and hope we can authorize from
now on.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I rise in very strong support
of this rule. I think it is a very good rule, a very fair rule. I want
to compliment the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who worked
with me on the floor of the House and has been one of the advocates for
increasing the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
We were able to add $7 million in this bill for the endowment. Also a
program that is very important to the gentlewoman from New York is the
home heating oil provision, $8 million, which will help every
Northeasterner in this country.
I am here today to talk to my colleagues a little bit about this
superior appropriations bill and the land conservation preservation and
infrastructure improvement program. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) and I worked on this. We offered it in the conference. The
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Byrd, they all
agreed to this.
I think it is a day we should be here celebrating. I would say to my
friends who worked so hard on CARA, and I realize 4 years of effort on
CARA, but I want my colleagues to understand something. I believe that
that work was translated into this legislation. This is a blend between
the President's Land Legacy Program and CARA.
We have the most dramatic increase in conservation spending in the
history of this country. Last year, we spent about $782 million. This
year, for the same programs, it goes up to $1.6 billion. Then in
increments of $160 million a year, it goes up to $2.4 billion in the
year 2006. These are some of the most popular programs in our country
for protecting precious lands in both the Federal and State categories,
for urban parks, for historic preservation, for restoring our salmon
runs. There is also $400 million that goes through the State, Justice
and Commerce appropriations for coastal programs, including the Pacific
salmon recovery program. This is the most dramatic increase in
conservation spending in the history of the country.
Let me just read to my colleagues a few quotations from people who
have looked at this program. A good friend of mine, a fellow University
of Washington graduate, Roger Schlickeisen, president of the nonprofit
Defenders of Wildlife Society called it ``probably the best
conservation funding bill in our lifetime.'' Then George Frampton,
chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. ``This
represents a historic breakthrough in conservation funding,'' said
Frampton. ``It is a fantastic step forward.''
Today, the New York Times in an editorial, lead editorial said
``Congressional Dos and Don'ts. Land conservation. The White House and
Congressional negotiators reached agreement last Friday on a plan to
set aside some $12 billion over 6 years for a range of Federal and
State land conservation programs. It is the most important land
conservation bill in many years and deserves prompt approval on the
House and Senate floors. Budget purists are annoyed that the money will
be fenced off in a special conservation account similar to the Highway
Trust Fund. But open space has been shortchanged for years, and this is
a way to make restitution.''
Then finally, the White House, the President supports this bill. He
also, in his statement of administration policy, it says, ``By doubling
our investment next year in land and water conservation, and
guaranteeing even more funding in the years ahead, this agreement is a
major step toward ensuring communities the resources they need to
protect the most precious lands, from neighborhood parks to threatened
farmland to pristine coastal areas.''
Mr. Speaker, this is, as the Washington Post said, landmark
legislation. This is legislation that this Congress can be proud of. I
am proud of the fact that this amendment was adopted in a
[[Page H8645]]
bipartisan spirit. It will be the most important step forward in
conservation spending probably in our lifetime.
I would urge my colleagues who support CARA to think about this. We
have moved dramatically in the direction that they laid out in their
legislation. No, it is not an entitlement. This money is in a special
account. The money must be spent for the purpose, or it remains in the
account.
If we look at the precedent of the Violent Crime trust fund, all of
that money is spent because these are important programs to the
American people.
As the ranking Democrat, I want to tell my colleagues that it is my
intent that this money gets spent for all the people. I would say to
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) this bill has so much money. This
bill has so much for the great State of Alaska. This is one of the
greatest funding bills in Alaska's history. I would hope that the
gentleman, after he has his vote on the rule, would think about all of
that money for all of those Alaskan programs and that he would be with
me on final passage on the bill.
I would say to the gentleman from Alaska, I want to correct one thing
that was in his letter. The money for the State games is not just for
nongame. It is for game and nongame.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, that shows my colleagues how deeply
I believe that CARA was the right way to go when I can take and
sacrifice the great work that has been done for the State of Alaska
that I worked on for the benefit of the Nation as a whole.
Mr. DICKS. Also, Mr. Speaker, I think it is because the gentleman
from Alaska knows that the chairman of the appropriations committee in
the other body is going to make sure that the money remains in there.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I
appreciate his hard work and his guidance and his effort on this
legislation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that some of the
environmental groups who think they are getting a bad deal remind me of
what some of the senior citizen groups did when Social Security was
passed in the 1930s. They opposed Social Security, which is a
compromise with the Townsend plan. Some of those senior citizen groups
opposed the creation of Social Security because they wanted the
Townsend plan to pass, which was a straight $100 a month check to
seniors with no contributions or anything else. So they savaged Members
who voted for the compromise.
This is a similar compromise. Five years from now they will be out to
ring the neck of anybody who tries to cut this program.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read, by the way, the names
of the conservation groups that are supporting this rule and the bill:
the American Oceans Campaign, Center for Marine Conservation, Defenders
of Wildlife, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, National
Audubon Society, National Parks Conservation Association, the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, the Natural Resource Defense Council,
Scenic America, the Wilderness Society, and the Worldwide Fund. I mean,
this is an amazing group of people supporting this. The President
supports it.
I want my colleagues to know, I believe that this is one of the most
important things on a bipartisan basis done in this Congress. So we
should be celebrating today. We should be happy with this work product.
Let us get on with it. Let us vote for the rule and pass this excellent
conference report.
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members it is not
in order during debate to characterize the legislative positions of the
Senate or individual Senators.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining
on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
has 16 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake about it, CARA is
not in this bill. CARA is not in this bill. Everybody should know that.
I want to speak especially to the 102 Members of this body who voted
against CARA. If my colleagues will examine their conscience, they will
have to admit with me that most of them voted against CARA because they
did not think there was enough property rights protection in a bill
that was going to authorize an enormous amount of land acquisition in
this country.
Some of my colleagues are from western States where the government
already owns 60, 70, 80 percent of the property in their State. They
were concerned about the government acquiring some more land without
real strong private property protections.
Well, guess what we are going to vote on today when we vote on this
Interior appropriations bill. We are going to vote on $540 million of
new land acquisitions in this country with no private property
protections. CARA had 21 separate provisions in it protecting private
property. That is not in this bill. There is no provision saying one
can only buy from a willing seller.
In other words, under this bill, one can spend $540 million of
acquiring property from people who do not want to sell their land. That
is called expropriation. When we vote for this bill without CARA, that
is what we will be getting. Keep in mind that CARA guaranteed for the
first time a distribution of funds to the coastal States of America.
What kind of distribution was that all about? It was simply to try to
give coastal States some contribution for the minerals produced
offshore in some kind of way commensurate with the money that America
automatically mandates is provided to interior States for minerals
produced on Federal lands in interior States.
The law currently mandates 50 percent of all Federal royalties on
interior States' federally owned property goes to the States. Committee
on Appropriations does not spend it. No yielding of appropriations. It
is a mandate to the interior States. This bill would have provided 27
percent to be shared among all coastal States. That is gone. There is
no guarantee for coastal money. There is just a lot of Federal land
acquisition with no private property rights. That is not the deal that
CARA would have offered us.
{time} 1230
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I express my thanks to the distinguished
gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I want to commend and
compliment my good friends from the Committee on Appropriations. They
have ``done good.'' The problem is, they have not done good enough.
I want to express my respect and affection for the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). They are
good Members, and I do not want them to take anything I say here today
as being hostile to them. However, they have chosen to legislate
without hearings; without opportunity to perfect.
What those of us who oppose the rule want the House to do is to allow
us to vote the rule down so that we may come up with a better piece of
legislation, one which was approved by the House by an overwhelming
vote. I refer to CARA, H.R. 701. It passed the House by a very heavy
margin, 315 to 102. It is interesting to note that this was one of the
most bipartisan bills that I have ever seen, but also certainly the
single most bipartisan piece of legislation that has passed this
Congress.
Those of us who led that effort to pass CARA share a common passion,
providing a meaningful and dedicated and continuing source of
conservation funding for fish, for wildlife, for lands and waters, for
recreation and open spaces, and to meet the concerns that confront so
many of our States and our communities. Remember, we will not have many
opportunities to pass a
[[Page H8646]]
piece of legislation like this. This is an opportunity that will
probably come once in a lifetime. In all the years that I have served
in this body, never once have I seen an opportunity of this magnitude
to do good for Americans, for conservation, for fish and wildlife that
matched this. And never once have I seen anything which did so much to
realize the hopes and the ideals of those of us who love the out-of-
doors.
Now, I have no doubt that the language contained in the Interior
appropriation bill and this land conservation program was drafted with
the best of intentions. It is again, I note, an effort by my good
friends on the Committee on Appropriations to legislate well. And part
of that legislating well is preserving the jurisdiction of that
committee and part of it is in sidetracking CARA, something which that
committee found to be highly offensive, as we had this legislation on
the floor at an earlier time, because it did take away from the
Committee on Appropriations the ability to function by whim and
caprice, to deny new conservation money and, in effect, to supplant the
efforts of the legislative committees around here which are strongly
and deeply and sincerely conversed in this.
The premise of CARA was to take Federal resource revenues from the
Outer Continental Shelf to reinvest them for conservation purposes. And
it was originally intended, when the Congress passed the Land and Water
Conservation Fund in the 1960s, that this would be done. Since that
time, the Committee on Appropriations has had the opportunity to do the
kinds of things we are talking about today. Without the pressure of
CARA, they never would have done them.
So I say let us assist our good friends on the Committee on
Appropriations. Let us help them. Let us see to it that we have an
opportunity, if we are going to legislate, to legislate well. Vote the
rule down. A new rule can be brought back, and we can have a full
opportunity then to address all of the important questions that exist
with regard to conservation, and with regard to spending proper levels
of funds to save and protect open spaces and the conservation and
environmental values that are so important to this country.
The language of the conference report is quite clear. It says the
program is not mandatory and does not guarantee annual appropriations.
If Members need a reason to vote against this rule so that they can
vote for something which is of more lasting and permanent character,
this is the reason right here. This is what the Committee on
Appropriations is saying to us. This is not permanent. I am sure that
they have the best of intentions at this time, but within a year there
will be new pressures upon the Committee on Appropriations which will
tell the Committee on Appropriations that they should perhaps cavil
just a little bit on the commitment that they make today and come
forward with less money.
Now, they will tell us about the violent crime reduction trust fund.
That expired the other day, and it was never fully funded. They have
always told us what a great thing it was. And it was great, and I
commend them for it. But it did not come through a legislative
committee and it did not have the supervision and the care and the
attention that goes to it. And it also was not as fully honored as it
could have been and should have been. Certainly we are going to meet
the same situation, where the Committee on Appropriations will shave
conservation values just is a little here and just a little there,
because it is easy to do when the pressures are on to expend monies for
other purposes.
Again, I announce my respect for my good friends, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and my colleagues on the Committee on
Appropriations; but they are not meeting the real challenges of
greatness. They are passing aside an opportunity. They are urging this
body to reject something which is perhaps the greatest piece of
conservation legislation we can pass in this Congress or indeed in any
other.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Today, we have an opportunity to reward an agency which has
completely turned itself around. For the first time in over 8 years, we
have the chance to give the National Endowment for the Arts a small
increase. It should be noted that this increase is dedicated to grants
such as Challenge America.
Challenge America is an opportunity to serve smaller communities
around the United States. Sixty percent of Challenge America grants
will be distributed to communities under 200,000 in population in all
50 States. The intent of this program is to reach previously unserved
communities in the same way that ArtsREACH programs work.
My colleagues may recall that in the first 2 years of ArtsREACH
grants were made to the 123 mostly new communities, including places
like Ft. Washakie, Wyoming; Deadwood, South Dakota; and Hattiesburg,
Mississippi.
The remaining 40 percent of the Challenge America grants will be
passed through the 56 State and Territorial arts agencies in keeping
with the congressional practice of splitting NEA funds between State
and national programs.
These new grant initiatives are part of a new NEA which supports
projects in over 4,000 locations in the country. Today, NEA is doing
more for communities in need than ever before, and I urge my colleagues
to pass this bill which gives NEA a minimal but monumental increase.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. John).
Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. With all
due respect to the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from
Washington, my friends on this side of the aisle and the other side of
the aisle, who have done a pretty good job putting a piece of
legislation that is controversial year to year on the floor before us,
we have heard other speakers before me say that this is not CARA and I
can tell my colleagues that this is not CARA.
The energy behind the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 701, is
about one thing, it is about permanency. It is about making sure that
they can plan for the future. Coastal programs, ball parks,
conservation, wildlife management programs, they can all function if
they know that they are going to have a revenue stream that is certain
from year to year. That is the energy behind CARA and why 3,000 groups
supported this piece of legislation and 300 Members of the House voted
for it.
Let me remind my colleagues that it is not CARA, if I take just an
excerpt of the conference report of the Interior bill that we are
voting on today in the rule, and see where it says this program is not
mandatory and does not guarantee annual appropriations. That is
obviously what they have meant because they put it in black and white.
Well, that undermines, I believe, and unravels the energy and the
excitement behind a piece of legislation that is, I believe, one of the
greatest pieces of legislation that we have had.
We have a wonderful opportunity here. The year is 2000. We have
surpluses that we are dealing with. We have the greatest opportunity, I
believe, in our lifetime to put in permanent funding for building ball
parks, to save our coastline in Louisiana. We talk about an energy
policy and the suspect of time that we are entering into with oil and
gas prices. Well, Louisiana, which produces 80 percent of that, is
eroding.
I firmly believe that we still have time for CARA. Let us not go
forward with the rule that halfway gets us to where we need to go. I
urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand in favor of this rule and stand in
favor of this Interior Conference Report. As a member of the
Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, I have
been proud to work with the Democrats and Republicans. Certainly my
chairman, the gentleman
[[Page H8647]]
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), has done a masterful job of being sensitive to
all sides of these issues of conservation and reinvestment and fire
protection and all the things that go into the Interior Appropriation
Bill.
One thing is certain about this business: Nobody is ever satisfied.
We cannot ever get perfection, but the conference committee, Democrats
and Republicans alike, struggled over this bill to try to make it
right, to get it the best we could for everybody concerned. People in
my part of the State of Washington are very concerned about CARA and
the mandatory spending requirement. Whether it is needed or not, it is
mandatory.
I think our system of appropriations and discretionary spending in
the years ahead is going to be better to have the Committee on
Appropriations and the Congress as a whole making these judgments about
conservation lands on an annual basis rather than forcing a mandatory
spending program whether it is needed or not.
So I have great respect for the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
But I think he has to have great respect for the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), as well as myself and others who
worked so hard to craft this compromise to make sure that it meets the
White House's needs and the Republicans and the Democrats needs, and
that is fair under the circumstances.
If we vote against this bill, we are voting against National Park
Service operations; against fire remedies that occurred this summer in
the West; we will be voting against Indian Health Service. That is
critically important in my part of the country and across this Nation,
as Indian populations have increased in their health needs. We will be
voting against the weatherization grants if we vote against this bill.
The bottom line for me is this is a fair compromise. It puts the
conservation decision-making right where it ought to be, on Congress,
making its best judgments on an annual basis, and I hope the membership
will approve it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
(Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of the rule and, indeed, the underlying
measure, the conference report on the fiscal year 2001 interior
appropriation bill.
Contained in this legislation is up to $94.5 million to bolster the
financially ailing, congressionally mandated program that provides
health care to certain retired coal miners and their dependents. If
this funding is not forthcoming, some 60,000 beneficiaries, whose
average age is 78 years old, will see their health care cut. So I ask
that my colleagues who represent coal field communities, whether they
be in Appalachia, in the Midwest or the western States, not turn their
backs on these retirees. They were made a promise, a promise endorsed
by the Federal Government, of lifetime health care. This legislation
keeps faith with that promise.
Mr. Speaker, we are currently dealing with a situation where what is
known as the Combined Benefit Fund (CBF) is facing financial
insolvency. In this regard, Senator Robert C. Byrd championed a
provision in the pending legislation that would transfer up to $94.5
million to the CBF to insure that health care benefits are not
curtailed or halted in the immediate future. This provision is modeled
after legislation I sponsored in the House, H.R. 4144, known as the
CARE 21 bill.
By way of background, the CBF was created in the Coal Act of 1992 to
provide health care benefits for retired United Mine Workers of America
coal miners who were eligible to receive benefits as of July 20, 1992,
under one of two prior multi-employer funds. Under the terms of the
Coal Act, companies which signed past National Coal Wage Agreements
with the union are responsible for paying premiums for retired miners
assigned as being their responsibility. For those retirees where there
is no responsible company can be identified, the Coal Act provides for
an annual transfer to the CBF of a portion of the interest which
accrues to the unspent balance of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
to pay premiums for these unassigned beneficiaries.
Today, however, the CBF is facing funding shortfalls primarily due to
a rash of litigation brought by companies on a variety of fronts.
First, under the Eastern case, the Supreme Court relieved what are
called the ``super reachback'' companies from responsibility to their
former employees thereby adding some 8,000 retirees to the unassigned
beneficiary roles. These companies had at one time been signatories to
the National Coal Wage Agreement, but were not parties to the 1978
Agreement which included what is known as the ``evergreen clause'' in
which companies committed to a continuing payment obligation.
Litigation has also been brought in what are called the Dixie Fuel
cases where companies challenge the validity of assignments made to
them. And a third round of major litigation is taking place challenging
beneficiary premium rates under what is known as the Chater decision.
This litigation is chipping away at the financial solvency of the CBF
and it should be noted these cases are being brought by companies that
are both current signatories to the National Coal Wage Agreement as
well as what are called ``reachback'' operators who were parties to the
1978 Agreement but not to the current agreement. In effect, and there
is no way to get around this fact, these companies are seeking to
reduce or walk away from their past collectively bargained obligations
to provide lifetime health care coverage for their former employees.
This creates a certain dilemma for the Congress as it is the Congress
which created the CBF and I believe we have a moral obligation to these
retirees despite the actions being taken by their former employers.
However, at the same time, I do not believe it is prudent to use
General Fund revenues for this purpose. Instead, the provision in the
pending legislation would tap additional amounts of interest in the
reclamation fund to provide for the cash infusion into the CBF. This is
an important consideration because it is the coal industry itself which
pays a fee that finances the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. It is, as
such, the coal industry which is still paying for the health care
benefits of these retirees under the provision contained in this
legislation.
There is no doubt in anyone's mind involved with this issue that a
long term solution must be devised. My CARE 21 legislation would have
done just that. Unfortunately, it has not been brought to the House
floor and its counterpart has not been considered in the other body.
Indeed, there is still a level of greed among certain entities involved
in this issue as reflected in the litigation they are bringing against
the CBF that is stymieing legislative efforts in this matter. This is
going to have to change because the current impasse on devising a long
term solution has in my view no benefit. It certainly does not benefit
the many thousands of elderly retired coal miners and their widows who
are being held hostage to this situation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, and I commend the ranking
minority member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks); the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula); and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for their help in
including this provision in the legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I certainly sympathize with the
appropriators, and I sympathize with the authorizers as well.
{time} 1245
We are always faced as to whether or not we are going to be able to
come along with a rider, whether or not this time it is okay, or this
time it is not okay. But in this particular case I think the House's
will is not being taken into consideration.
When we passed the CARA legislation through the House with 315 votes,
I think that is a pretty good expression of what this House of
Representatives wants us to do. When the chairmen of the authorizing
committees come to the chairmen of the appropriation committees and say
we want you to put this rider on here, then we are faced with a
different situation, Mr. Speaker. We are in a dilemma.
I am going to vote for the rule today, but I disagree with the fact
that we are not given the opportunity to bring forth the will of the
House somewhere during this process. If it were possible to recommit
this to the Committee on Rules, then I would recommit it and ask the
Committee on Rules to give us an opportunity to amend the rule so we
[[Page H8648]]
could bring forth an amendment which could be set back. Maybe there
will be an opportunity of recommittal, maybe we will have a voice, but
I think that those of us that are interested in CARA have been
shortchanged.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues, this is an
indication of where the money will go under the amendment that I and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered. First of all there
would be $550 million for the Federal and State Land and Water
Conservation Fund. State and other conservation programs would get $300
million. Urban parks and historic preservation, $150 million; $150
million for the maintenance backlog; and $50 million for PILT.
This is not guaranteed, but this money is prioritized in the budget
allocation and Congress is going to spend this money as we have spent
the money on the Violent Crimes trust fund. So it is not a guarantee,
but it is about as close as we are going to get to one and still let
the Congress have some oversight over these programs. This is a
tremendous increase. The President supports it. Most of the outside
conservation groups support it. It is a chance for us to triple the
amount of funding spent on these programs.
Now, it is not CARA; but I actually think it is better than CARA
because it is a blend between the President's land legacy and the CARA
program.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said about
George Frampton supporting it. That is probably the biggest reason to
vote against the rule.
The second thing is that every governor in the country now has
blasted this agreement. Every governor. The mayors, the legislative
bodies have blasted this so-called Interior appropriations.
So do not give everybody how much they support it. In reality, the
governors know right now we are back to square one. We have got to go
back to the appropriators and grovel, hold our hand out and beg at the
end of the session.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, this has happened to us now for 6 years, 8
years, 10 years. Wait until the last moment, the Senate does not do
anything, they hold it; and then the appropriators get together in the
back room, and the cardinals decide what legislation is going to pass
and not pass. The natives are getting restless, buddy. I am going to
suggest respectfully, that is not the way this Congress was set up. It
is not good legislation; it is wrong and against the House rules, but
we are ready to go home, so everybody wants to vote for this thing.
I am voting no and I am going to ask for a vote on the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what we hear today is that there are four oil-
producing coastal States who this year get $100 million and who under
CARA want to get $1 billion, and they are unhappy because we only gave
them $400 million. That is the truth. We spread the money around more
fairly among all the States, and we make no apology for it.
The fact is this is a historic bill. It is the best conservation
funding bill that we have seen in a generation. This raises
conservation funding from $4 billion to $12 billion over a 6-year
period, and that money if it is not spent on these conservation
programs cannot be spent on any other item. That is as close to a
guarantee as we can get. It is a phenomenal victory for the
environmental movement and a phenomenal victory for those who want to
protect our outdoor resources.
The rule should be supported. The bill should be supported. This is
something we can all go home and be proud of.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
support this rule so we can get on with this process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 354,
nays 65, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 506]
YEAS--354
Aderholt
Allen
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
[[Page H8649]]
NAYS--65
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Blagojevich
Bono
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Cardin
Carson
Chambliss
Clay
Conyers
Crane
Danner
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Deutsch
Dingell
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Hansen
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Holt
Isakson
Jefferson
John
Jones (NC)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Luther
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McKinney
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Norwood
Oberstar
Ortiz
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Rivers
Roemer
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Shuster
Souder
Stark
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--15
Dunn
Eshoo
Franks (NJ)
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
King (NY)
Klink
Lazio
McCollum
McIntosh
Napolitano
Paul
Riley
Vento
Wexler
{time} 1310
Mr. VITTER and Mr. HINOJOSA changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 506, the Rule for
Interior Appropriations Conference Report, I was unavoidably detained
in a business meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________