Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 87 (Thursday, June 21, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 87 (Thursday, June 21, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3363-H3437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2002

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 174 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2217.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) as
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Isakson) to assume the chair temporarily.

{time} 1021

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2217) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and
for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is
considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Interior bill that was reported out of the
committee provides a total of $18.9 billion, $86 million above fiscal
year 2001. The increase is less than one-half of 1 percent above 2001.
I want to say a few things about this bill. This is a good,
bipartisan bill. The committee members worked to put together a good
bill for this Congress, and this is a good bill for our States and
counties and our programs, with money that will help States, counties,
and cities to solve their problems.
This is a good bill for our parks. The bill fulfills President Bush's
commitment to our parks, and continues efforts of my good friend and
former chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Regula,
to the parks.
This is a good bill for wildlife stock and endangered species. There
is money for President Bush's landowner incentive program, there is
money for critters in this bill. This is a good bill for Indian schools
and Indian medical facilities. New hospitals, new clinics, and new
schools are funded in this bill.

[[Page H3364]]

This is a good bill for weatherization programs across the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good and responsible bill in responding to
our Nation's wildfire needs. This is a great bill for those who want to
save and bring back the Everglades. This is a good bill for needed
energy research.
This bill is also a good bill for those who want to limit the riders
on appropriation bills, and this is a good bill for Members who want to
pass a noncontroversial bill. Yes, this is basically an Interior bill
free from the normal controversies.
I just want to add a few more things. This bill is $791 million above
the President's request, but only $86 million above this year's budget.
This increase is easy to explain. We have put back $164 million for
critical wildfire needs. We put back $87 million in cuts for the U.S.
Geological Survey. We put back $15 million for the payment in lieu of
taxes, known as PILT, the PILT program that goes to our counties. We
have put back $294 million to restore energy research programs
requested by over 200 Members in the House.
We put in $64 million in the conservation category to fulfill the
promises we made in last year's appropriation bill. We put in a $50
million increase for Indian hospitals and clinics, and construction and
maintenance needs.
I want to take a minute to express my sincere and lasting thanks to
the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), for his help on this bill, and the help of the ranking
subcommittee member, my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks). They have all worked with me boldly and in the spirit of
bipartisan cooperation.
I thank their staff also, especially Mike Stephens and Leslie Turner,
who spent countless hours with the majority's staff working out
problems.
I thank, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for
his support in the first year of my chairmanship of this committee.
I also want to thank the majority staff, who have stepped up to help
me during this transition period as a new chairman. Deborah Weatherly,
Loretta Beaumont, Joel Kaplan, Chris Topik, Casey Stealer, and Andria
Oliver have all chipped in to help me through this first year. Also to
Jim Hughes, from my personal staff, a special thanks. Their knowledge
and ability to work with both sides of the aisle and their
professionalism is a credit to the House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a table detailing the various
accounts in the bill.
The table referred to is as follows:

[[Page H3365]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JN01.001

[[Page H3366]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JN01.002

[[Page H3367]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JN01.003

[[Page H3368]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JN01.004

[[Page H3369]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JN01.005

[[Page H3370]]

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to congratulate our new chairman,
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), on his first bill. He has
done an outstanding job. As he has suggested, there has been real
collaboration between the majority and minority, both the Members and
the staff.
I want to applaud the staff members of the Committee, both the
majority and minority, particularly Debbie Weatherly and Mike Stephens
and Lesley Turner on my staff. They have worked very hard on this bill,
and I think it is an extraordinary bill.
I rise in support of the FY 02 Interior appropriations act. I
congratulate again the staff for producing a bill that I think we all
can support. The subcommittee bill represents a significant improvement
over the President's budget request. Most of the cuts have been
restored, and a few very important programs received small increases.
I want to also compliment our majority on the cooperative way the
bill was crafted. The minority, as I suggested, was consulted
extensively, and the majority went to great lengths to see that most of
our concerns were addressed throughout the process.
The most important thing to me in this bill, and to many of my
colleagues, is the commitment to the Conservation Trust Fund which was
negotiated last year. Under the agreement, conservation spending was
nearly doubled in fiscal year 2001 and would gradually increase to
fiscal year 2006. This year contains the full $1.32 billion called for
under the agreement, but is not a new entitlement. This funding
structure enables the committee to prioritize specific conservation
programs, such as land acquisition, endangered species recovery,
historic preservation, as well as provide grants to States for
conservation activities and urban recreation.
This agreement was a careful compromise last year during the final
negotiation on this bill when it became apparent that the CARA
legislation, which created mandatory spending, was not going to pass
the Congress. The conservation spending category is a victory for the
country.
I am extremely pleased that this bill fully honors our commitment on
a bipartisan basis. While I plan to support the bill today, I do plan
to support an amendment that would increase funding to both the
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the
Humanities, and would also give a small increase of funding for the
Institute for Museum and Library Services.
The chairman should be commended for his efforts to restore nearly
all the cuts to energy research and conservation programs that were
proposed by the President. These cuts were unwise, especially given the
current energy situation we are facing out West. My State of Washington
has seen the impacts of this energy crisis firsthand, and many more
States are next.
If the President is as concerned as his public statements suggest, he
would welcome this committee's increase in these critical areas.
Aside from some specific program levels, this is a very good bill.
The total in the chairman's mark is $18.941 million. This is $814
million over the President's request, and essentially the same level as
2001.

{time} 1030

After adjusting for one-time fire money in 2001, however, the bill
provides an increase over the current year of $803 million or 5
percent. This is on top of a 15 percent increase last year for nonfire
programs.
There is a $60 million increase for Stateside Land and Water
Conservation Fund grants as well as $60 million included for the
President's two new private landowner incentive programs, taking that
up to about $150 million. This is one of the President's important
programs.
We also funded two new private landowner incentive programs proposed
by the administration.
Both of the President's two highest priorities in the Department of
Energy, the weatherization program, an increase of $120 million, and
the Clean Coal Initiative, an increase of $150 million, were provided.
This bill also rightly continues the National Park's Services' Save
America's Treasures program. This program, started by Mrs. Clinton
during the last administration, has been a success, and has helped
restore many historic structures.
I am also pleased that the bill does not contain any objectionable
riders like the ones that have threatened the bill in past years.
Again, I compliment the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) on his
first Interior bill. It is a pleasure to work with him and his staff,
and I look forward to passing this bill today which I think we can all
support.
Mr. Chairman, I see that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, is here, and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and I want to thank them for their help in
helping us move this bill forward.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a couple of
minutes, and I do not want to delay the consideration of this bill, but
I want to advise the Members of the good work that was done by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the
subcommittee.
This was a new assignment for the gentleman because of our term limit
situation in the House. He did a really outstanding job, and he had a
great partner in the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking
member of the subcommittee. They worked closely together. They shared
information all of the way through the process.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) can speak for himself, but I
think we were both pleased when we attended the subcommittee markup and
saw what a good bipartisan bill this was.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to help us expedite the
consideration of this bill today. It is a good bill. There will be some
debate and discussion on a few issues that might stir up some
controversy but, all in all, it is a good bill. It is a very good
bipartisan bill, and the gentleman from New Mexico and the gentleman
from Washington are to be congratulated for the work that they have
done.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I still am experiencing some laryngitis, but
I want to take a moment to comment on this bill.
It is certainly not a perfect bill. And I believe it needs more
funding for both arts and energy research and several other programs,
but I intend to vote for it.
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Skeen) and his staff for handling this bill in the way in which
every appropriation bill ought to be handled. Information was made
fully available to the minority, and strong efforts were made to work
out virtually all differences on the bill. In contrast to nominal
bipartisanship, this was a truly bipartisan approach. I think it needs
to be recognized in this House when that happens because it does not
happen nearly enough, as evidenced by the many bills which come to the
floor in a state of high controversy.
Let me also congratulate the committee for adhering to an agreement
made last year when the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) was chairman.
As Members will recall, a number of groups wanted us to pass a new
entitlement for land acquisition called CARA. I strongly favor added
funding for land acquisition, but I could see no reason why we should
create an additional entitlement which made land acquisition a higher
priority than education or health care, for instance. Those are my top
priorities.
So the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and I worked out with
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and with the other body on a new
agreement under which we essentially doubled conservation funding for a
6-year period, raising what would have been a spending level of about
$6 billion over that period to about $12 billion as part of that
agreement. We agreed that

[[Page H3371]]

there would be a $120 million annual ratcheting up of the total amount
in the portion of the bill under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
That was our way of demonstrating that we could make land acquisition
a very high priority, make these conservation items a very high
priority without abusing the budget process by creating another
entitlement.
Mr. Chairman, I think the committee was extremely wise in rejecting
the White House's efforts to change that agreement. We have found the
middle ground. We have found common ground on this issue; and if we
stick together, we can accomplish a good and noble public purpose
without abusing the processes of this Congress. I would hope that as
this bill moves through the process, it retains the spirit of this
agreement.
I appreciate very much the fact that the committee rejected some of
the funding reductions that the White House proposed in parts of these
programs and returned to the agreement that was reached last year
because that can be sustained, in my view, over a long period of time.
I would also like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), if I could.
As the gentleman knows, there was confusion regarding the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge when this matter came up in committee last
week, and I believe that confusion has been cleared up.
As I understand it, both the majority and the minority agree that
this bill provides no funding to facilitate seismic studies or other
predevelopment activities within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
and that there is no authority in law for those purposes.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. That is correct.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. That is my understanding also.
As the gentleman knows, concern has also been expressed regarding
language on page 2 of the bill which authorizes $2.250 million for the
assessment of the mineral potential of public lands in Alaska pursuant
to section 1010 of Public Law 96-487, the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act. Is it the gentleman's understanding that
section 1010 provides no authority to undertake the activities in the
Arctic Refuge that we all agree are not intended to be funded by this
bill?
Mr. SKEEN. That is correct.
Mr. OBEY. That is my interpretation as well, but the language of
section 1010 and its cross-reference to section 1001 are sufficiently
convoluted, that it has been helpful to make this clarification at this
time. I appreciate the gentleman making the clarification. I think it
makes quite clear that there is no such authority, and I appreciate the
gentleman's comments.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to stand in support of this bill. It is a
balanced bill. A bill which has been worked through with the chairman
and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), who has done a marvelous
job, and my dear friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) on
the minority side, to try to reach a balanced and commonsense approach
to the management of our public lands. This bill speaks to the needs of
our national treasures in the public lands area and certainly speaks to
the needs of Indian peoples. It has an Indian health care measure in
it, and Indian education assistance.
It funds appropriately institutions like the Smithsonian and our
museums and arts and humanities and other interests in our country.
By and large it is a very good bill, spending adequate amounts of
money for adequate resources within the various agencies that are
funded by this appropriations measure.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the staff which has worked very hard on both
sides of the aisle to present a balanced bill. This bill went through
our subcommittee in record time because it was balanced and bipartisan.
It went through the full committee in adequate and fair time because it
was balanced and bipartisan.
There will be amendments today that will be presented, as is our
process, but I would urge Members to reject many of those amendments
because they would upset the delicate balance that is in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who worked so
hard to make this a balanced and sensible bill. I urge that the
leadership's example be followed and that my colleagues in the House
will support this measure, pass it through the House, and move it on
through the legislative process so it can be enacted and it can meet
the natural resources needs of our country.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Interior
Appropriations Committee bringing their bill for fiscal year 2002
appropriations to the floor for consideration today. H.R. 2217 has
programs which address many of the health, education, lands, law
enforcement, conservation and roads needs of American Indians and
Alaska Natives.
I appreciate the Interior Appropriations Committee's increase of the
Indian Health Service (IHS) budget of $3,000,000 over the budget
request and $124,351,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level. This
increase is justified and will provide much needed additional program
services to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
However, I am concerned with language that is in both the House bill
and Committee Report regarding Contract Support Costs (CSC) for Indian
Health Service (IHS) programs. While I appreciate the Interior
Appropriations Committee's increases in the last few years for CSC
shortfalls, the current bill contains some provisions harmful to the
tribal health delivery system. The bill would limit IHS' authority to
enter into new and expanded contracts which is directly contrary to the
federal policy of Indian self-determination. It would also limit
payment of the direct costs portion of CSC; further, the Committee
Report appears to advocate for their eventual elimination.
In 1999, the House Committee on Resources held several hearings to
address the shortfalls of CSC and received several recommendations from
the General Accounting Office (GAO) to correct and meet the true need
of CSC. One of GAO's recommendations stated that the IHS and the BIA
should remain consistent with their payment of CSC for tribally
contracted and compacted run programs. I agreed with the GAO
recommendation that both programs should be consistent with their CSC
payments. However, while the IHS pays both indirect and direct contract
support costs, the BIA does not pay for any direct costs, a policy it
(the BIA) now, according to its February 24, 1999, testimony before the
House Committee on Resources, has under review. Given the fact that the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEA) and its
regulations provide that CSC include direct costs, it is appropriate
that the BIA review its policy. In fact, the GAO report (Indian Self-
Determination Act: Shortfalls on Indian Contract Support Costs Needs To
Be Addressed (GAO/RCED-99-150, June 30, 1999) criticized the BIA for
not paying direct costs as part of CSC.
The FY 2002 Interior Appropriations bill states: ``no existing self-
determination contract, grant, self-governance compact or annual
funding agreement shall receive direct contract support costs in excess
of the amount received in fiscal year 2001 for such costs. . . .'' This
language would unfairly prohibit tribes from negotiating an increase in
their direct costs.
The Committee Report language appears to question the propriety of
paying direct CSC, indicating that capping direct CSC at the FY 2001
level would be the beginning of a process to eliminate direct CSC
payments. Further, the report instructs IHS to seek Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval on the payment of direct CSC for
any new and expanded contracts in FY 2002. This violates the ISDEA by
capping the portion of the direct costs portion of CSC payments. The
Committee Report goes even further, suggesting that IHS should not pay
the direct costs portion of CSC, an amount which is close to 20% of CSC
and requiring OMB approval of direct costs for new and expanded
contracts. The ISDEA clearly includes direct costs as a part of CSC
payments. Elimination of the direct costs portion of CSC payments would
be devastating to tribal health care providers. We need to address this
important Interior Appropriations issue in the Senate and in
conference. Tribal health care providers should not be penalized
because the IHS and BIA have inconsistent CSC payment systems. I look
forward to working with my colleagues to find a reasonable and just
resolution to the CSC issue for our American Indian and Alaska Native
constituency.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2217, the
Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. In this bill, we
make clear our historic commitment to protecting and maintaining our
nation's parks and

[[Page H3372]]

wildlife refuges, and to preserving more open space.
Let me start by offering my thanks to Chairman Skeen, ranking member
Dicks and the Interior Subcommittee staff, specifically Debbie
Weatherly and Chris Topik, for their hard work in putting this
important piece of legislation together and working to satisfy so many
demands!
Overall, this bill provides $1.32 billion for the Title VIII
Conservation Trust Fund that was established in last year's Interior
Appropriations bill. As some may remember, last year's agreement
created a separate budget category to support these efforts. This
funding will help our states and the Federal government to protect and
preserve our nation's forests, fields and wetlands--green spaces that,
especially those of us from the Northeast know only too well, are
disappearing much too quickly.
I want to particularly congratulate President Bush for fully funding
the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million in his Fiscal Year
2002 Budget Request, a critical component of the conservation trust
fund.
This bill maintains and improves our stewardship of America's
greatest natural resources, our national parks and wildlife refuges.
Each year, 285 million of our constituents will visit and enjoy our
national parks and experience the beauty of over 83 million acres of
preserved open lands. And it just two years, we will celebrate the
centennial of our wildlife refuges--535 national treasures that exist
in communities across the country.
Mr. Chairman, in my home state of New Jersey, the most densely
populated state in the nation, the preservation of open space is a top
priority. That is why I am especially grateful for the support of my
colleagues for a number of key New Jersey priorities.
At my request, H.R. 2217 contains continued funding for the
preservation of New Jersey's Highlands, one of our state's most
threatened, and most important watersheds. This bill provides critical
funding for land purchases within the Highlands; in fact, it is the
most significant Federal commitments ever to preserving this area.
Equally as important, the bill directs the Department of Interior and
Agriculture to work in partnership with state and local resources,
already in place, to protect the Highlands. The Federal government
should be a major partner in this preservation effort, as we were when
Congress successfully preserved Sterling Forest in the same region.
This bill also builds on our past successes in Congress to expand New
Jersey's national parks and wildlife refuges.
In my own Congressional District, there is funding to further expand
our nation's oldest historic park, the Morristown National Historical
Park, and to protect a huge collection of artifacts and Revolutionary
War material related to George Washington. There is also money to allow
for additional land purchases at the Great Swamp National Wildlife
Refuge. Our delegation also appreciates your support fo the Cape May,
E.B. Forsythe and Walkill National Wildlife Refuges and the Delaware
Water Gap National Recreation Park.
Finally, it is important to note that we meet these national
priorities, and do so within the confines of our budget agreement.
Mr. Chairman, let there be no doubt about it: with passage of this
bill, this House is fully committed to maintaining and improving our
nation's treasured national parks and wildlife refuges.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of some key amendments to
the Interior Appropriations bill.
I am pleased to join my colleague, Representative DeFazio, in our
continued efforts to stop the extension of the misguided Recreational
Fee Demonstration Program. Last year, I was successful in limiting an
extension to only one year. But the bill before us irresponsibly
extends the RFDP for four years. And it does it by circumventing the
normal process for extending Federal programs and just tacks the
extension on to a ``must-pass'' spending bill. This is irrresponsible
and a disservice to those of us who would like to find alternative and
more appropriate ways to support our National Forests.
In my district the RFDP is known as the Adventure Pass and it
requires my constituents to pay just to visit the Los Padres National
Forest. This is a form of double taxation. We already pay taxes to
maintain our National Parks, Forests and other publicly owned lands. We
should not have to pay again just to see a sunset or have a picnic in
our own backyard.
I agree that our parks and forests have a backlog of maintenance and
need more funding to address these needs. That's why I have introduced
legislation that would end the subsidies to timber companies that
reduce funding for our National Forests. My bill would end the
Adventure Pass but ensure that Forest Service have enough funding to
preserve and protect these precious lands.
I am also pleased to join my colleague, Representative Rahall, on an
amendment to ban new oil and gas drilling in National Monuments.
My district is home to the new Carrizo Plain National Monument,
located almost entirely in San Luis Obispo County. The Carrizo Plain
contains one of the last remnants of the California Central Valley's
wildflowers and is home to a host of wildlife, including the endangered
San Joaquin Kit Fox and the California Condor. Carrizo contains
significant Native American cultural sites, such as the Chumash
``Painted Rock,'' and geological phenomena, including the most visible
portion of the San Andreas Fault. In addition, Carrizo is the location
of an important study on livestock grazing and how it might be used as
an effective tool to benefit wildlife and sensitive species dependent
on indigenous habitats.
The protections afforded to this precious area by the Monument
designation--including no new mineral leasing within the Monument--have
been met with widespread support in San Luis Obispo County. My
constituents support protection of their environment and cultural
heritage, and understand it is a vital component of the local economy,
of which tourism is a major element. And new oil and gas drilling does
not play into that picture.
Mr. Chairman, I have received letters supporting the new designation
and its restriction on new oil and gas leasing from a broad swath of
the community, including the 1200 member San Luis Obispo Chamber of
Commerce, local environmental groups and ranchers, and the Chumash
Council. I have advised both Resources Committee Chairman Hansen and
Interior Secretary Norton of these sentiments and urged that they
support my community's wishes to protect its environment and economy by
allowing no new drilling in Carrizo Plain.
The Tribune, San Luis Obispo County's major newspapers, correctly
calls Carrizo ``a real treasure'' and notes approvingly that because of
the Monument designation ``it will stay as it is forever.'' Our
amendment would ensure that this prediction comes true.
I urge my colleagues to support both of these common sense measures.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the distinguished
Chairman, Mr. Skeen, and ranking member Mr. Dicks, for their excellent
work on this bill. It provides funding for many programs that will
benefit both the natural and urban environments in our country,
although I would support further increases in several critical areas,
including energy research and the arts.
Mr. Chairman, with California and the West in the midst of an energy
crisis, the last thing we should do is cut funding for energy research,
particularly research on clean energy sources and technologies. I am
proud that the state of California now leads the country for its
efficient use of energy. California and the country should press
forward to increase our energy efficiency and shift toward clean,
sustainable energy sources. Yet the President's budget proposed a 30%
cut in energy efficiency research and development. Although the
Committee wisely disregarded this proposal, we should be doing much
more in this area.
An important element in this bill is funding for the arts and
humanities. The arts and humanities enrich our culture, boost our
economy, and promote creativity and self-confidence in our youth. I
support the Slaughter-Dicks amendment on increase funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities,
and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
The Interior bill recognizes the need to reduce the backlog of
maintenance needs in our national parks. But it is also important to
ensure that our parks have the operating funds they need to provide
stewardship of wild lands and historic buildings and run informational
programs. The bill also takes a step in the right direction providing a
modest increase in operating funds, although the need is much greater.
The Interior bill contains a commendable increase in funding for
conservation programs. While the President's budget called for full
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million, that
increase would have been funded by cutting a number of other important
conservation programs. The Committee chose instead to provide $709
million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, while maintaining
valuable existing conservation programs, including the Urban Park and
Recreation Fund and ``Save America's Treasures.'' I applaud the
decision of the Committee to omit funding for studies concerning oil
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, but we could do so much more for
our natural and cultural heritage with additional resources.
Unfortunately, the tax cuts make it difficult to fund many of these
valuable programs. Hopefully the President and the Congress will place
a higher priority on the arts, recreation, and the environment in the
future.

[[Page H3373]]

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of the
Interior appropriations bill.
This Member is pleased that the funding requested by the Bush
Administration for construction of the Indian Health Service (IHS)
hospital located in Winnebago, Nebraska, is included in this measure.
It appears an amendment will be offered to increase funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the
Humanities. The National Endowment of the Humanities serves my
constituents and the state of Nebraska through the programs of the
Nebraska Humanities Council. The Nebraska Humanities Council
consistently provides high-quality humanities programming at very
little cost to citizens of all walks of life in my state.
The Nebraska Council has been quite active in promoting the
commemoration of the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Corps of
Discovery expedition. For example, the Nebraska Council has instituted
a six-year Lewis and Clark Educational Initiative. The Council held the
first of several Lewis and Clark Teacher Institutes earlier this month.
Each institute will be taught by a leading Lewis and Clark scholar.
There were almost 200 applicants for 25 available slots. The teachers
attending the first institute sincerely appreciated the opportunity and
are exited about sharing what they learned with their students,
schools, and communities. The Nebraska Council uses the Federal dollars
to leverage private grants and funds.
These efforts to promote the Lewis and Clark expedition will greatly
enrich the lives of Nebraskans and certainly go to the heart of the
mission of the state councils of the National Endowment of the
Humanities.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Pawnee Nation in Pawnee
Oklahoma, I respectfully request increased construction phase funding
for the Pawnee Replacement Health Center be included in the Indian
Health Service (IHS) Budget. This funding was initially included in the
IHS FY 2002 Budget Preparation, but was omitted from H.R. 2217 in its
current form.
The replacement facility has been on the IHS Health Facility priority
list for many years. The need for a replacement building was originally
assessed in 1981, but not until last year was the 73-year-old clinic,
the oldest in the nation, selected for funding. However, these funds
only covered the design phase of the replacement facility, leaving
construction funds to be appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
As this bill goes to conference with the Senate, I ask that Conferees
fulfill the promise Congress made to the Pawnee Nation in 1981 by
funding the remaining construction costs in the FY 2002 Department of
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Thank you for
considering this request.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend Chairman
Skeen, Ranking Member Dicks and the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee on their efforts to draft a difficult bill this year and
balance difficult priorities. I sincerely appreciate the subcommittee's
efforts in assisting the State of Florida's program for the development
of electrochromic technology. This program is an excellent example of
successful technology transfer from a national laboratory as well as an
example of a successful public/private partnership. Electrochromic
technology provides a flexible means of controlling the amount of heat
and light that pass through a glass surface providing significant
energy conservation opportunities in the building and automotive
markets.
The Department of Energy estimates that placing this technology on
all building windows in the United States would produce yearly energy
savings of up to $28 billion per year. The technology also has
application within the Vehicle Technology/Auxiliary Load Reduction R&D
accounts. In recognition of the importance of this technology, the
State of Florida has provided over $2.3 million toward the advancement
of this Program.
The Program is being undertaken in conjunction with the University of
South Florida and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in
Colorado through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement
(CRADA), and utilizes a patented technology developed at NREL. This is
a superb energy savings opportunity important to the Nation and is
consistent with the priorities of the industry within the U.S. and the
goals of the Department of Energy's windows program.
Electrochromic research is provide for within the building and
materials section of the energy conservation division of the Interior
Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2002. The researchers are now
working cooperatively with DOE on the program and we hope to expand
that cooperation in the future. This will require a recognition by the
Agency of the value of Florida's development of Plasma Enhanced
Chemical Vapor Deposition (PECVD) techniques for electrochromic
technology.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, as cochairman of the congressional Native
American Caucus, I rise to express my gratitude to the Interior
Subcommittee Chairman Joe Skeen and senior Democratic Member Norm Dicks
for their work on increasing the overall funding levels of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service in the fiscal year 2002
Interior appropriations bill.
I must, however, voice my concern about language in the Indian Health
Service portion of the bill and the accompanying report concerning
contract support costs. As you know, contract support costs are the
necessary administrative and overhead costs borne by Indian tribal
contractors when operating a Federal program.
The language in the bill would undermine tribal self-determination
rights by prohibiting tribes from including in renegotiations of
contract support costs any increase in the direct costs portion of
those payments, by imposing a partial moratorium on new and expanded
contracts, and by attempting to cap the portion of negotiated contract
support costs which can be paid in any one year. The bill also cuts the
President's budget request for contract support costs by half and
provides only $20 million for that category. The ongoing shortfall for
existing contracts far exceeds that amount.
The committee report questions the propriety of direct contract costs
and directs the Indian Health Service to secure the approval of OMB on
any direct contract support costs payments for new and expanded
contracts. Negotiation of contracts is a matter between the tribes and
the Federal agency--the committee's directive would put tribes in the
position of having to negotiate with OMB regarding their contract
support payments.
The Indian Self-Determination Act specifically provides that contract
support costs include both direct and indirect costs.
As this bill proceeds through the legislative process, I hope that we
can all work together on a better resolution for dealing with contract
support costs and increasing the funding for contract support costs.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my concern about the funding levels
of two elements of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) education
budget--student transportation and administrative cost grants.
The student transportation item supplies funding for the operation of
BIA school buses. This account has been underfunded for many years and
this bill will continue that trend by providing essentially no increase
in funding.
Elevated fuel costs have had a devastating impact on BIA school bus
programs. For the just completed school year, BIA schools received only
$2.30/mile for their student transportation needs. By contrast, the
average rate per-mile spent on student transportation by public school
systems throughout the country was $3.21/mile. BIA estimates show that
its school bus system is underfunded by $11 million.
We must fund the BIA school transportation programs so that the BIA
schools can continue to provide adequate transportation needs to their
students.
Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned that bill fails to increase funding
for administrative cost grants which is a vital program that supports
the administrative needs of tribally-operated schools.
Tribes and tribal school boards have taken on the responsibility for
direct operation of two-thirds of the 185 BIA-funded schools, but
Congress has not supplied them with the funding required to run their
fiscal and management affairs in a prudent manner.
The chronic shortfalls in administrative cost grants severely
compromise the ability of tribal school boards to maintain proper
internal management controls, to prepare for and pay for annual audits,
and to discharge the numerous policymaking, supervision, program
planning, procurement, personnel and management activities for which
these tribal school boards are responsible. No educational institution
can succeed if it is required to do more with less year after year.
Mr. Chairman, unlike children in the public school system, Indian
children in the BIA system depend 100% on funding from Congress. We
should fulfill our responsibility to properly support these Federal
schools and meet our obligations to the Indian students they educate.
It is my hope that we can work together as the bill proceeds to through
the legislative process so that we can increase the funding for these
two very important Indian education programs.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). All time for general debate
has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he or
she has

[[Page H3374]]

printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered as read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2217

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of
the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

management of lands and resources

For expenses necessary for protection, use, improvement,
development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification,
acquisition of easements and other interests in lands, and
performance of other functions, including maintenance of
facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of lands
and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management, including the general administration of the
Bureau, and assessment of mineral potential of public lands
pursuant to Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150(a)),
$768,711,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$1,000,000 is for high priority projects which shall be
carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps, defined in
section 250(c)(4)(E)(xii) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the
purposes of such Act; of which $2,225,000 shall be available
for assessment of the mineral potential of public lands in
Alaska pursuant to section 1010 of Public Law 96-487 (16
U.S.C. 3150); and of which not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be
derived from the special receipt account established by the
Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16
U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)); and of which $3,000,000 shall be
available in fiscal year 2002 subject to a match by at least
an equal amount by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
to such Foundation for cost-shared projects supporting
conservation of Bureau lands and such funds shall be advanced
to the Foundation as a lump sum grant without regard to when
expenses are incurred; in addition, $32,298,000 for Mining
Law Administration program operations, including the cost of
administering the mining claim fee program; to remain
available until expended, to be reduced by amounts collected
by the Bureau and credited to this appropriation from annual
mining claim fees so as to result in a final appropriation
estimated at not more than $768,711,000, and $2,000,000, to
remain available until expended, from communication site
rental fees established by the Bureau for the cost of
administering communication site activities: Provided, That
appropriations herein made shall not be available for the
destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in
the care of the Bureau or its contractors: Provided further,
That of the amount provided, $28,000,000 is for ``Federal
Infrastructure Improvement'', defined in section
250(c)(4)(E)(xiv) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of
such Act: Provided further, That fiscal year 2001 balances in
the Federal Infrastructure Improvement account for the Bureau
of Land Management shall be transferred to and merged with
this appropriation, and shall remain available until
expended.

Mr. SKEEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of title I is as follows:

wildland fire management

For necessary expenses for fire preparedness, suppression
operations, fire science and research, emergency
rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, and rural fire
assistance by the Department of the Interior, $700,806,000,
to remain available until expended, of which not to exceed
$19,774,000 shall be for the renovation or construction of
fire facilities: Provided, That such funds are also available
for repayment of advances to other appropriation accounts
from which funds were previously transferred for such
purposes: Provided further, That unobligated balances of
amounts previously appropriated to the ``Fire Protection''
and ``Emergency Department of the Interior Firefighting
Fund'' may be transferred and merged with this appropriation:
Provided further, That persons hired pursuant to 43 U.S.C.
1469 may be furnished subsistence and lodging without cost
from funds available from this appropriation: Provided
further, That notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 1856d, sums received
by a bureau or office of the Department of the Interior for
fire protection rendered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1856 et seq.,
protection of United States property, may be credited to the
appropriation from which funds were expended to provide that
protection, and are available without fiscal year limitation:
Provided further, That using the amounts designated under
this title of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior may
enter into procurement contracts, grants, or cooperative
agreements, for hazardous fuels reduction activities, and for
training and monitoring associated with such hazardous fuels
reduction activities, on Federal land, or on adjacent non-
Federal land for activities that benefit resources on Federal
land: Provided further, That the costs of implementing any
cooperative agreement between the Federal government and any
non-Federal entity may be shared, as mutually agreed on by
the affected parties: Provided further, That in entering into
such grants or cooperative agreements, the Secretary may
consider the enhancement of local and small business
employment opportunities for rural communities, and that in
entering into procurement contracts under this section on a
best value basis, the Secretary may take into account the
ability of an entity to enhance local and small business
employment opportunities in rural communities, and that the
Secretary may award procurement contracts, grants, or
cooperative agreements under this section to entities that
include local non-profit entities, Youth Conservation Corps
or related partnerships, or small or disadvantaged
businesses: Provided further, That funds appropriated under
this head may be used to reimburse the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service
for the costs of carrying out their responsibilities under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
to consult and conference, as required by section 7 of such
Act in connection with wildland fire management activities.

central hazardous materials fund

For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior
and any of its component offices and bureaus for the remedial
action, including associated activities, of hazardous waste
substances, pollutants, or contaminants pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.),
$9,978,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, sums recovered from or
paid by a party in advance of or as reimbursement for
remedial action or response activities conducted by the
Department pursuant to section 107 or 113(f) of such Act,
shall be credited to this account to be available until
expended without further appropriation: Provided further,
That such sums recovered from or paid by any party are not
limited to monetary payments and may include stocks, bonds or
other personal or real property, which may be retained,
liquidated, or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary and
which shall be credited to this account.

construction

For construction of buildings, recreation facilities,
roads, trails, and appurtenant facilities, $11,076,000, to
remain available until expended.

payments in lieu of taxes

For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20,
1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), $200,000,000, of
which not to exceed $400,000 shall be available for
administrative expenses and of which $50,000,000 is for the
conservation activities defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(xiii)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended, for the purposes of such Act: Provided,
That no payment shall be made to otherwise eligible units of
local government if the computed amount of the payment is
less than $100.

land acquisition

For expenses necessary to carry out sections 205, 206, and
318(d) of Public Law 94-579, including administrative
expenses and acquisition of lands or waters, or interests
therein, $47,686,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to
be for the conservation activities defined in section
250(c)(4)(E)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such
Act.

oregon and california grant lands

For expenses necessary for management, protection, and
development of resources and for construction, operation, and
maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other
improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad
grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and
California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent
rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein
including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such
grant lands; $105,165,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That 25 percent of the aggregate of all
receipts during the current fiscal year from the revested
Oregon and California Railroad grant lands is hereby made a
charge against the Oregon and California land-grant fund and
shall be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury in
accordance with the second paragraph of subsection (b) of
title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 876).

forest ecosystems health and recovery fund

(revolving fund, special account)

In addition to the purposes authorized in Public Law 102-
381, funds made available in the Forest Ecosystem Health and
Recovery Fund can be used for the purpose of planning,
preparing, and monitoring salvage timber sales and forest
ecosystem health and recovery activities such as release from
competing vegetation and density control treatments. The
Federal share of receipts (defined

[[Page H3375]]

as the portion of salvage timber receipts not paid to the
counties under 43 U.S.C. 1181f and 43 U.S.C. 1181-1 et seq.,
and Public Law 103-66) derived from treatments funded by this
account shall be deposited into the Forest Ecosystem Health
and Recovery Fund.

range improvements

For rehabilitation, protection, and acquisition of lands
and interests therein, and improvement of Federal rangelands
pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), notwithstanding any
other Act, sums equal to 50 percent of all moneys received
during the prior fiscal year under sections 3 and 15 of the
Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.) and the amount
designated for range improvements from grazing fees and
mineral leasing receipts from Bankhead-Jones lands
transferred to the Department of the Interior pursuant to
law, but not less than $10,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed $600,000 shall be
available for administrative expenses.

service charges, deposits, and forfeitures

For administrative expenses and other costs related to
processing application documents and other authorizations for
use and disposal of public lands and resources, for costs of
providing copies of official public land documents, for
monitoring construction, operation, and termination of
facilities in conjunction with use authorizations, and for
rehabilitation of damaged property, such amounts as may be
collected under Public Law 94-579, as amended, and Public Law
93-153, to remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any provision to the contrary of section
305(a) of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1735(a)), any moneys
that have been or will be received pursuant to that section,
whether as a result of forfeiture, compromise, or settlement,
if not appropriate for refund pursuant to section 305(c) of
that Act (43 U.S.C. 1735(c)), shall be available and may be
expended under the authority of this Act by the Secretary to
improve, protect, or rehabilitate any public lands
administered through the Bureau of Land Management which have
been damaged by the action of a resource developer,
purchaser, permittee, or any unauthorized person, without
regard to whether all moneys collected from each such action
are used on the exact lands damaged which led to the action:
Provided further, That any such moneys that are in excess of
amounts needed to repair damage to the exact land for which
funds were collected may be used to repair other damaged
public lands.

miscellaneous trust funds

In addition to amounts authorized to be expended under
existing laws, there is hereby appropriated such amounts as
may be contributed under section 307 of the Act of October
21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), and such amounts as may be
advanced for administrative costs, surveys, appraisals, and
costs of making conveyances of omitted lands under section
211(b) of that Act, to remain available until expended.

administrative provisions

Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management shall be
available for purchase, erection, and dismantlement of
temporary structures, and alteration and maintenance of
necessary buildings and appurtenant facilities to which the
United States has title; up to $100,000 for payments, at the
discretion of the Secretary, for information or evidence
concerning violations of laws administered by the Bureau;
miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement
activities authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be
accounted for solely on her certificate, not to exceed
$10,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the
Bureau may, under cooperative cost-sharing and partnership
arrangements authorized by law, procure printing services
from cooperators in connection with jointly produced
publications for which the cooperators share the cost of
printing either in cash or in services, and the Bureau
determines the cooperator is capable of meeting accepted
quality standards, Provided further, That sections 28f and
28g of title 30, United States Code, are amended:
(1) In section 28f(a), by striking the first sentence and
inserting, ``The holder of each unpatented mining claim,
mill, or tunnel site, located pursuant to the mining laws of
the United States, whether located before, on or after the
enactment of this Act, shall pay to the Secretary of the
Interior, on or before September 1, 2002, a claim maintenance
fee of $100 per claim or site.''; and
(2) In section 28g, by striking ``and before September 30,
2001'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``and before September
30, 2002''.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

resource management

For necessary expenses of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, for scientific and economic studies,
conservation, management, investigations, protection, and
utilization of fishery and wildlife resources, except whales,
seals, and sea lions, maintenance of the herd of long-horned
cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, general
administration, and for the performance of other authorized
functions related to such resources by direct expenditure,
contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable
agreements with public and private entities, $839,852,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2003, except as
otherwise provided herein, of which $28,000,000 is for
``Federal Infrastructure Improvement'', defined in section
250(c)(4)(E)(xiv) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of
such Act: Provided, That fiscal year 2001 balances in the
Federal Infrastructure Improvement account for the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service shall be transferred to and
merged with this appropriation, and shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That not less than
$2,000,000 shall be provided to local governments in southern
California for planning associated with the Natural
Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program and shall
remain available until expended: Provided further, That
$2,000,000 is for high priority projects which shall be
carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps defined in
section 250(c)(4)(E) (xii) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the
purposes of such Act: Provided further, That not to exceed
$8,476,000 shall be used for implementing subsections (a),
(b), (c), and (e) of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act,
as amended, for species that are indigenous to the United
States (except for processing petitions, developing and
issuing proposed and final regulations, and taking any other
steps to implement actions described in subsection (c)(2)(A),
(c)(2)(B)(i), or (c)(2)(B)(ii)), of which not to exceed
$6,000,000 shall be used for any activity regarding the
designation of critical habitat, pursuant to subsection
(a)(3), for species already listed pursuant to subsection
(a)(1) as of the date of enactment this Act: Provided
further, That of the amount available for law enforcement, up
to $400,000 to remain available until expended, may at the
discretion of the Secretary, be used for payment for
information, rewards, or evidence concerning violations of
laws administered by the Service, and miscellaneous and
emergency expenses of enforcement activity, authorized or
approved by the Secretary and to be accounted for solely on
her certificate: Provided further, That of the amount
provided for environmental contaminants, up to $1,000,000 may
remain available until expended for contaminant sample
analyses.

construction

For construction, improvement, acquisition, or removal of
buildings and other facilities required in the conservation,
management, investigation, protection, and utilization of
fishery and wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands
and interests therein; $48,849,000, to remain available until
expended.

land acquisition

For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4
through 11), including administrative expenses, and for
acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in
accordance with statutory authority applicable to the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, $104,401,000, to be derived
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain
available until expended, and to be for the conservation
activities defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, for the purposes of such Act: Provided, That none of
the funds appropriated for specific land acquisition projects
can be used to pay for any administrative overhead, planning
or other management costs.

landowner incentive program

For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4
through 11), including administrative expenses, and for
private conservation efforts to be carried out on private
lands, $50,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to
be for conservation spending category activities pursuant to
section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of
discretionary spending limits: Provided, That, hereafter,
``Fish and Wildlife Service Landowner Incentive Program''
shall be considered to be within the ``State and Other
Conservation sub-category'' in section 250(c)(4)(G) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended: Provided further, That the amount provided herein is
for a Landowner Incentive Program established by the
Secretary that provides matching, competitively awarded
grants to States, the District of Columbia, Tribes, Puerto
Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana
Islands, and American Samoa, to establish, or supplement
existing, landowner incentive programs that provide technical
and financial assistance, including habitat protection and
restoration, to private landowners for the protection and
management of habitat to benefit federally listed, proposed,
or candidate species, or other at-risk species on private
lands.

stewardship grants

[[Page H3376]]

Service Stewardship Grants'' shall be considered to be within
the ``State and Other Conservation sub-category'' in section
250(c)(4)(G) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the
amount provided herein is for the Secretary to establish a
Private Stewardship Grants Program to provide grants and
other assistance to individuals and groups engaged in private
conservation efforts that benefit federally listed, proposed,
or candidate species, or other at-risk species.

cooperative endangered species conservation fund

For expenses necessary to carry out section 6 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), as
amended, $107,000,000, to be derived from the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund, to remain available
until expended, and to be for the conservation activities
defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(v) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the
purposes of such Act.

national wildlife refuge fund

For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 17,
1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $16,414,000, of which $5,000,000 is
for conservation spending category activities pursuant to
section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of
discretionary spending limits: Provided, That, hereafter,
``Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge Fund''
shall be considered to be within the ``Payments in Lieu of
Taxes sub-category'' in section 250(c)(4)(I) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

north american wetlands conservation fund

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233,
as amended, $45,000,000, to remain available until expended,
and to be for the conservation activities defined in section
250(c)(4)(E)(vi) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such
Act: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, amounts in excess of funds provided in fiscal year 2001
shall be used only for projects in the United States.

neotropical migratory bird conservation

For financial assistance for projects to promote the
conservation of neotropical migratory birds in accordance
with the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Public
Law 106-247 (16 U.S.C. 6101-6109), $5,000,000, to remain
available until expended, and to be for conservation spending
category activities pursuant to section 251(c) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, for the purposes of discretionary spending limits:
Provided, That, hereafter, ``Fish and Wildlife Service
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation'' shall be considered
to be within the ``State and Other Conservation sub-
category'' in section 250(c)(4)(G) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

multinational species conservation fund

For expenses necessary to carry out the African Elephant
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4203, 4211-4213, 4221-4225,
4241-4245, and 1538), the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of
1997 (Public Law 105-96; 16 U.S.C. 4261-4266), the Rhinoceros
and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5301-5306), and
the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6301),
$4,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds made available under this Act, Public Law 106-291,
and Public Law 106-554 and hereafter in annual approprations
acts for rhinoceros, tiger, Asian elephant, and great ape
conservation programs are exempt from any sanctions imposed
against any country under section 102 of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2799aa-1).

state wildlife grants

For wildlife conservation grants to States and to the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa,
under the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, for the development
and implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife
and their habitat, including species that are not hunted or
fished, $100,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to
be for the conservation activities defined in section
250(c)(4)(E)(vii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of
such Act: Provided, That the Secretary shall, after deducting
administrative expenses, apportion the amount provided herein
in the following manner: (A) to the District of Columbia and
to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, each a sum equal to not
more than one-half of 1 percent thereof: and (B) to Guam,
American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, each a sum equal to not more
than one-fourth of 1 percent thereof: Provided further, That
the Secretary shall apportion the remaining amount in the
following manner: 30 percent based on the ratio to which the
land area of such State bears to the total land area of all
such States; and 70 percent based on the ratio to which the
population of such State bears to the total population of the
United States, based on the 2000 U.S. Census; and the amounts
so apportioned shall be adjusted equitably so that no State
shall be apportioned a sum which is less than one percent of
the total amount available for apportionment or more than 10
percent: Provided further, That the Federal share of planning
grants shall not exceed 75 percent of the total costs of such
projects and the Federal share of implementation grants shall
not exceed 50 percent of the total costs of such projects:
Provided further, That the non-Federal share of such projects
may not be derived from Federal grant programs: Provided
further, That no State, territory, or other jurisdiction
shall receive a grant unless it has developed, or committed
to develop by October 1, 2005, a comprehensive wildlife
conservation plan, consistent with criteria established by
the Secretary of the Interior, that considers the broad range
of the State, territory, or other jurisdiction's wildlife and
associated habitats, with appropriate priority placed on
those species with the greatest conservation need and taking
into consideration the relative level of funding available
for the conservation of those species: Provided further, That
any amount apportioned in 2002 to any State, territory, or
other jurisdiction that remains unobligated as of September
30, 2003, shall be reapportioned, together with funds
appropriated in 2004, in the manner provided herein.

tribal wildlife grants

For wildlife conservation grants to tribes under the
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, for the development and
implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife and
their habitat, including species that are not hunted or
fished, $5,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and to remain available until expended, and
to be for conservation spending category activities pursuant
to section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of
discretionary spending limits: Provided, That, hereafter,
``Fish and Wildlife Service Tribal Wildlife Grants'' shall be
considered to be within the ``State and Other Conservation
sub-category'' in section 250(c)(4)(G) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

administrative provisions

Appropriations and funds available to the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for purchase of
not to exceed 74 passenger motor vehicles, of which 69 are
for replacement only (including 32 for police-type use);
repair of damage to public roads within and adjacent to
reservation areas caused by operations of the Service;
options for the purchase of land at not to exceed $1 for each
option; facilities incident to such public recreational uses
on conservation areas as are consistent with their primary
purpose; and the maintenance and improvement of aquaria,
buildings, and other facilities under the jurisdiction of the
Service and to which the United States has title, and which
are used pursuant to law in connection with management and
investigation of fish and wildlife resources: Provided, That
notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the Service may, under
cooperative cost sharing and partnership arrangements
authorized by law, procure printing services from cooperators
in connection with jointly produced publications for which
the cooperators share at least one-half the cost of printing
either in cash or services and the Service determines the
cooperator is capable of meeting accepted quality standards:
Provided further, That the Service may accept donated
aircraft as replacements for existing aircraft: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of the Interior may not spend any of the funds
appropriated in this Act for the purchase of lands or
interests in lands to be used in the establishment of any new
unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System unless the
purchase is approved in advance by the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the
reprogramming procedures contained in Senate Report 105-56.

National Park Service

operation of the national park system

For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and
maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the
National Park Service (including special road maintenance
service to trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), and
for the general administration of the National Park Service,
$1,480,336,000, of which $10,869,000 for research, planning
and interagency coordination in support of land acquisition
for Everglades restoration shall remain available until
expended, and of which $75,349,000, to remain available until
expended, is for maintenance repair or rehabilitation
projects for constructed assets, operation of the National
Park Service automated facility management software system,
and comprehensive facility condition assessments; and of
which $2,000,000 is for the Youth Conservation Corps, defined
in section 250(c)(4)(E)(xii) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the
purposes of such Act, for high priority projects: Provided,
That the only funds in this account which may be made
available to support United States Park Police are those
funds approved for emergency law and order incidents pursuant
to established National Park Service procedures and those
funds needed to

[[Page H3377]]

maintain and repair United States Park Police administrative
facilities: Provided further, That park areas may reimburse
the United States Park Police account for the unbudgeted
overtime and travel costs associated with special events for
an amount not to exceed $10,000 per event subject to the
review and concurrence of the Washington headquarters office:
Provided further, That none of the funds in this or any other
Act may be used to fund a new Associate Director position for
Partnerships.

United States Park Police

For expenses necessary to carry out the programs of the
United States Park Police, $65,260,000.

contribution for annuity benefits

For reimbursement pursuant to provisions of Public Law 85-
157, to the District of Columbia on a monthly basis, for
benefit payments by the District of Columbia to United States
Park Police annuitants under the provisions of the Policeman
and Fireman's Retirement and Disability Act, to the extent
those payments exceed contributions made by active Park
Police members covered under the Act, such amounts as
hereafter may be necessary: Provided, That hereafter,
appropriations made to the National Park Service shall not be
available for this purpose.

national recreation and preservation

For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs,
natural programs, cultural programs, heritage partnership
programs, environmental compliance and review, international
park affairs, statutory or contractual aid for other
activities, and grant administration, not otherwise provided
for, $51,804,000.

Urban Park and Recreation Fund

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.
2501 et seq.), $30,000,000, to remain available until
expended, and to be for the conservation activities defined
in section 250(c)(4)(E)(x) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the
purposes of such Act.

historic preservation fund

For expenses necessary in carrying out the Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), and the
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-333), $77,000,000, to be derived from the Historic
Preservation Fund, to remain available until September 30,
2003, and to be for the conservation activities defined in
section 250(c)(4)(E)(xi) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the
purposes of such Act: Provided, That, of the amount provided
herein, $5,000,000, to remain available until expended, is
for a grant for the perpetual care and maintenance of
National Trust Historic Sites, as authorized under 16 U.S.C.
470a(e)(2), to be made available in full upon signing of a
grant agreement: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, these funds shall be available for
investment with the proceeds to be used for the same purpose
as set out herein: Provided further, That of the total amount
provided, $30,000,000 shall be for Save America's Treasures
for priority preservation projects, including preservation of
intellectual and cultural artifacts, preservation of historic
structures and sites, and buildings to house cultural and
historic resources and to provide educational opportunities:
Provided further, That any individual Save America's
Treasures grant shall be matched by non-Federal funds:
Provided further, That individual projects shall only be
eligible for one grant, and all projects to be funded shall
be approved by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations prior to the commitment of grant funds:
Provided further, That Save America's Treasures funds
allocated for Federal projects shall be available by transfer
to appropriate accounts of individual agencies, after
approval of such projects by the Secretary of the Interior:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided for Save
America's Treasures may be used for administrative expenses,
and staffing for the program shall be available from the
existing staffing levels in the National Park Service 2003.

construction

For construction, improvements, repair or replacement of
physical facilities, including the modifications authorized
by section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and
Expansion Act of 1989, $349,249,000, of which $50,000,000 is
for ``Federal Infrastructure Improvement'', defined in
section 250(c)(4)(E)(xiv) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the
purposes of such Act.

land and water conservation fund

(rescission)

The contract authority provided for fiscal year 2002 by 16
U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.

land acquisition and state assistance

For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4
through 11), including administrative expenses, and for
acquisition of lands or waters, or interest therein, in
accordance with the statutory authority applicable to the
National Park Service, $261,036,000, to be derived from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until
expended, and to be for the conservation activities defined
in section 250(c)(4)(E)(iii) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control of 1985, as amended, for the
purposes of such Act, of which $154,000,000 is for the State
assistance program including $4,000,000 to administer the
State assistance program: Provided, That of the amounts
provided under this heading, $16,000,000 may be for Federal
grants to the State of Florida for the acquisition of lands
or waters, or interests therein, within the Everglades
watershed (consisting of lands and waters within the
boundaries of the South Florida Water Management District,
Florida Bay and the Florida Keys, including the areas known
as the Frog Pond, the Rocky Glades and the Eight and One-Half
Square Mile Area) under terms and conditions deemed necessary
by the Secretary to improve and restore the hydrological
function of the Everglades watershed; and $20,000,000 may be
for project modifications authorized by section 104 of the
Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act:
Provided further, That funds provided under this heading for
assistance to the State of Florida to acquire lands within
the Everglades watershed are contingent upon new matching
non-Federal funds by the State and shall be subject to an
agreement that the lands to be acquired will be managed in
perpetuity for the restoration of the Everglades: Provided
further, That none of the funds provided for the State
Assistance program may be used to establish a contingency
fund.

administrative provisions

Appropriations for the National Park Service shall be
available for the purchase of not to exceed 315 passenger
motor vehicles, of which 256 shall be for replacement only,
including not to exceed 237 for police-type use, 11 buses,
and 8 ambulances: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated to the National Park Service may be used to
process any grant or contract documents which do not include
the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided further, That none of
the funds appropriated to the National Park Service may be
used to implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the
southern end of Ellis Island until such agreement has been
submitted to the Congress and shall not be implemented prior
to the expiration of 30 calendar days (not including any day
in which either House of Congress is not in session because
of adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day
certain) from the receipt by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate of a full and
comprehensive report on the development of the southern end
of Ellis Island, including the facts and circumstances relied
upon in support of the proposed project.
None of the funds in this Act may be spent by the National
Park Service for activities taken in direct response to the
United Nations Biodiversity Convention.
The National Park Service may distribute to operating units
based on the safety record of each unit the costs of programs
designed to improve workplace and employee safety, and to
encourage employees receiving workers' compensation benefits
pursuant to chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to
return to appropriate positions for which they are medically
able.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the National
Park Service may convey a leasehold or freehold interest in
Cuyahoga NP to allow for the development of utilities and
parking needed to support the historic Everett Church in the
village of Everett, Ohio.

United States Geological Survey

surveys, investigations, and research

For expenses necessary for the United States Geological
Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research
covering topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the
mineral and water resources of the United States, its
territories and possessions, and other areas as authorized by
43 U.S.C. 31, 1332, and 1340; classify lands as to their
mineral and water resources; give engineering supervision to
power permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
licensees; administer the minerals exploration program (30
U.S.C. 641); and publish and disseminate data relative to the
foregoing activities; and to conduct inquiries into the
economic conditions affecting mining and materials processing
industries (30 U.S.C. 3, 21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and
related purposes as authorized by law and to publish and
disseminate data; $900,489,000, of which $64,318,000 shall be
available only for cooperation with States or municipalities
for water resources investigations; and of which $16,400,000
shall remain available until expended for conducting
inquiries into the economic conditions affecting mining and
materials processing industries; and of which $18,942,000
shall be available until September 30, 2003 for the operation
and maintenance of facilities and deferred maintenance; and
of which $163,461,000 shall be available until September 30,
2003 for the biological research activity and the operation
of the Cooperative Research Units: Provided, That none of
these funds provided for the biological research activity
shall be used to conduct new surveys on private property,
unless specifically authorized in writing by the property
owner: Provided further, That of the amount provided herein,
$25,000,000 is for the conservation activities defined in
section 250(c)(4)(viii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of
such Act: Provided further, That no part of this
appropriation shall be used to pay more than one-half

[[Page H3378]]

the cost of topographic mapping or water resources data
collection and investigations carried on in cooperation with
States and municipalities.

administrative provisions

The amount appropriated for the United States Geological
Survey shall be available for the purchase of not to exceed
53 passenger motor vehicles, of which 48 are for replacement
only; reimbursement to the General Services Administration
for security guard services; contracting for the furnishing
of topographic maps and for the making of geophysical or
other specialized surveys when it is administratively
determined that such procedures are in the public interest;
construction and maintenance of necessary buildings and
appurtenant facilities; acquisition of lands for gauging
stations and observation wells; expenses of the United States
National Committee on Geology; and payment of compensation
and expenses of persons on the rolls of the Survey duly
appointed to represent the United States in the negotiation
and administration of interstate compacts: Provided, That
activities funded by appropriations herein made may be
accomplished through the use of contracts, grants, or
cooperative agreements as defined in 31 U.S.C. 6302 et seq.

Minerals Management Service

royalty and offshore minerals management

For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and
environmental studies, regulation of industry operations, and
collection of royalties, as authorized by law; for enforcing
laws and regulations applicable to oil, gas, and other
minerals leases, permits, licenses and operating contracts;
and for matching grants or cooperative agreements; including
the purchase of not to exceed eight passenger motor vehicles
for replacement only, $149,867,000, of which $83,344,000,
shall be available for royalty management activities; and an
amount not to exceed $102,730,000, to be credited to this
appropriation and to remain available until expended, from
additions to receipts resulting from increases to rates in
effect on August 5, 1993, from rate increases to fee
collections for Outer Continental Shelf administrative
activities performed by the Minerals Management Service over
and above the rates in effect on September 30, 1993, and from
additional fees for Outer Continental Shelf administrative
activities established after September 30, 1993: Provided,
That to the extent $102,730,000 in additions to receipts are
not realized from the sources of receipts stated above, the
amount needed to reach $102,730,000 shall be credited to this
appropriation from receipts resulting from rental rates for
Outer Continental Shelf leases in effect before August 5,
1993: Provided further, That $3,000,000 for computer
acquisitions shall remain available until September 30, 2003:
Provided further, That funds appropriated under this Act
shall be available for the payment of interest in accordance
with 30 U.S.C. 1721(b) and (d): Provided further, That not to
exceed $3,000 shall be available for reasonable expenses
related to promoting volunteer beach and marine cleanup
activities: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, $15,000 under this heading shall be
available for refunds of overpayments in connection with
certain Indian leases in which the Director of the Minerals
Management Service (MMS) concurred with the claimed refund
due, to pay amounts owed to Indian allottees or tribes, or to
correct prior unrecoverable erroneous payments: Provided
further, That MMS may under the royalty-in-kind pilot program
use a portion of the revenues from royalty-in-kind sales,
without regard to fiscal year limitation, to pay for
transportation to wholesale market centers or upstream
pooling points, and to process or otherwise dispose of
royalty production taken in kind: Provided further, That MMS
shall analyze and document the expected return in advance of
any royalty-in-kind sales to assure to the maximum extent
practicable that royalty income under the pilot program is
equal to or greater than royalty income recognized under a
comparable royalty-in-value program.

oil spill research

For necessary expenses to carry out title I, section 1016,
title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, and title VIII,
section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $6,105,000,
which shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund, to remain available until expended.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

regulation and technology

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public
Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not to
exceed 10 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only;
$102,900,000: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior,
pursuant to regulations, may use directly or through grants
to States, moneys collected in fiscal year 2002 for civil
penalties assessed under section 518 of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1268), to
reclaim lands adversely affected by coal mining practices
after August 3, 1977, to remain available until expended:
Provided further, That appropriations for the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement may provide for
the travel and per diem expenses of State and tribal
personnel attending Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement sponsored training.

abandoned mine reclamation fund

For necessary expenses to carry out title IV of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87,
as amended, including the purchase of not more than 10
passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, $203,554,000,
to be derived from receipts of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Fund and to remain available until expended; of which up to
$10,000,000, to be derived from the Federal Expenses Share of
the Fund, shall be for supplemental grants to States for the
reclamation of abandoned sites with acid mine rock drainage
from coal mines, and for associated activities, through the
Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative: Provided, That grants
to minimum program States will be $1,500,000 per State in
fiscal year 2002: Provided further, That of the funds herein
provided up to $18,000,000 may be used for the emergency
program authorized by section 410 of Public Law 95-87, as
amended, of which no more than 25 percent shall be used for
emergency reclamation projects in any one State and funds for
federally administered emergency reclamation projects under
this proviso shall not exceed $11,000,000: Provided further,
That prior year unobligated funds appropriated for the
emergency reclamation program shall not be subject to the 25
percent limitation per State and may be used without fiscal
year limitation for emergency projects: Provided further,
That pursuant to Public Law 97-365, the Department of the
Interior is authorized to use up to 20 percent from the
recovery of the delinquent debt owed to the United States
Government to pay for contracts to collect these debts:
Provided further, That funds made available under title IV of
Public Law 95-87 may be used for any required non-Federal
share of the cost of projects funded by the Federal
Government for the purpose of environmental restoration
related to treatment or abatement of acid mine drainage from
abandoned mines: Provided further, That such projects must be
consistent with the purposes and priorities of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act: Provided further, That,
in addition to the amount granted to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania under sections 402 (g)(1) and 402(g)(5) of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (Act), an
additional $500,000 will be specifically used for the purpose
of conducting a demonstration project in accordance with
section 401(c)(6) of the Act to determine the efficacy of
improving water quality by removing metals from eligible
waters polluted by acid mine drainage.

Bureau of Indian Affairs

operation of indian programs

For expenses necessary for the operation of Indian
programs, as authorized by law, including the Snyder Act of
November 2, 1921 (25 U.S.C. 13), the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450 et seq.), as amended, the Education Amendments of 1978
(25 U.S.C. 2001-2019), and the Tribally Controlled Schools
Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), as amended,
$1,790,781,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003
except as otherwise provided herein, of which not to exceed
$89,864,000 shall be for welfare assistance payments and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, including but not
limited to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as
amended, not to exceed $130,209,000 shall be available for
payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract
support costs associated with ongoing contracts, grants,
compacts, or annual funding agreements entered into with the
Bureau prior to or during fiscal year 2002, as authorized by
such Act, except that tribes and tribal organizations may use
their tribal priority allocations for unmet indirect costs of
ongoing contracts, grants, or compacts, or annual funding
agreements and for unmet welfare assistance costs; and up to
$3,000,000 shall be for the Indian Self-Determination Fund
which shall be available for the transitional cost of initial
or expanded tribal contracts, grants, compacts or cooperative
agreements with the Bureau under such Act; and of which not
to exceed $436,427,000 for school operations costs of Bureau-
funded schools and other education programs shall become
available on July 1, 2002, and shall remain available until
September 30, 2003; and of which not to exceed $58,394,000
shall remain available until expended for housing
improvement, road maintenance, attorney fees, litigation
support, the Indian Self-Determination Fund, land records
improvement, and the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Program:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
including but not limited to the Indian Self-Determination
Act of 1975, as amended, and 25 U.S.C. 2008, not to exceed
$43,065,000 within and only from such amounts made available
for school operations shall be available to tribes and tribal
organizations for administrative cost grants associated with
the operation of Bureau-funded schools: Provided further,
That any forestry funds allocated to a tribe which remain
unobligated as of September 30, 2003, may be transferred
during fiscal year 2004 to an Indian forest land assistance
account established for the benefit of such tribe within the
tribe's trust fund account: Provided further, That any such
unobligated balances not so transferred shall expire on
September 30, 2004.

construction

For construction, repair, improvement, and maintenance of
irrigation and power systems, buildings, utilities, and other
facilities, including architectural and engineering

[[Page H3379]]

services by contract; acquisition of lands, and interests in
lands; and preparation of lands for farming, and for
construction of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project pursuant
to Public Law 87-483, $357,132,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That such amounts as may be available for
the construction of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project may
be transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation: Provided
further, That not to exceed 6 percent of contract authority
available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Federal
Highway Trust Fund may be used to cover the road program
management costs of the Bureau: Provided further, That any
funds provided for the Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25
U.S.C. 13 shall be made available on a nonreimbursable basis:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2002, in implementing
new construction or facilities improvement and repair project
grants in excess of $100,000 that are provided to tribally
controlled grant schools under Public Law 100-297, as
amended, the Secretary of the Interior shall use the
Administrative and Audit Requirements and Cost Principles for
Assistance Programs contained in 43 CFR part 12 as the
regulatory requirements: Provided further, That such grants
shall not be subject to section 12.61 of 43 CFR; the
Secretary and the grantee shall negotiate and determine a
schedule of payments for the work to be performed: Provided
further, That in considering applications, the Secretary
shall consider whether the Indian tribe or tribal
organization would be deficient in assuring that the
construction projects conform to applicable building
standards and codes and Federal, tribal, or State health and
safety standards as required by 25 U.S.C. 2005(a), with
respect to organizational and financial management
capabilities: Provided further, That if the Secretary
declines an application, the Secretary shall follow the
requirements contained in 25 U.S.C. 2505(f): Provided
further, That any disputes between the Secretary and any
grantee concerning a grant shall be subject to the disputes
provision in 25 U.S.C. 2508(e): Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$450,000 in collections from settlements between the United
States and contractors concerning the Dunseith Day School are
to be made available for school construction in fiscal year
2002 and thereafter.

indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to
indians

For miscellaneous payments to Indian tribes and individuals
and for necessary administrative expenses, $60,949,000, to
remain available until expended; of which $24,870,000 shall
be available for implementation of enacted Indian land and
water claim settlements pursuant to Public Laws 101-618 and
102-575, and for implementation of other enacted water rights
settlements; of which $7,950,000 shall be available for
future water supplies facilities under Public Law 106-163; of
which $21,875,000 shall be available pursuant to Public Laws
99-264, 100-580, 106-263, 106-425, 106-554, and 106-568; and
of which $6,254,000 shall be available for the consent decree
entered by the U.S. District Court, Western District of
Michigan in United States v. Michigan, Case No. 2:73 CV 26.

indian guaranteed loan program account

For the cost of guaranteed loans, $4,500,000, as authorized
by the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as amended: 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 $75,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
guaranteed loan programs, $486,000.

administrative provisions

The Bureau of Indian Affairs may carry out the operation of
Indian programs by direct expenditure, contracts, cooperative
agreements, compacts and grants, either directly or in
cooperation with States and other organizations.
Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (except the
revolving fund for loans, the Indian loan guarantee and
insurance fund, and the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program
account) shall be available for expenses of exhibits, and
purchase of not to exceed 229 passenger motor vehicles, of
which not to exceed 187 shall be for replacement only.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds
available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for central office
operations, pooled overhead general administration (except
facilities operations and maintenance), or provided to
implement the recommendations of the National Academy of
Public Administration's August 1999 report shall be available
for tribal contracts, grants, compacts, or cooperative
agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the
provisions of the Indian Self-Determination Act or the Tribal
Self-Governance Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-413).
In the event any tribe returns appropriations made
available by this Act to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for
distribution to other tribes, this action shall not diminish
the Federal Government's trust responsibility to that tribe,
or the government-to-government relationship between the
United States and that tribe, or that tribe's ability to
access future appropriations.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds
available to the Bureau, other than the amounts provided
herein for assistance to public schools under 25 U.S.C. 452
et seq., shall be available to support the operation of any
elementary or secondary school in the State of Alaska.
Appropriations made available in this or any other Act for
schools funded by the Bureau shall be available only to the
schools in the Bureau school system as of September 1, 1996.
No funds available to the Bureau shall be used to support
expanded grades for any school or dormitory beyond the grade
structure in place or approved by the Secretary of the
Interior at each school in the Bureau school system as of
October 1, 1995. Funds made available under this Act may not
be used to establish a charter school at a Bureau-funded
school (as that term is defined in section 1146 of the
Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2026)), except that a
charter school that is in existence on the date of the
enactment of this Act and that has operated at a Bureau-
funded school before September 1, 1999, may continue to
operate during that period, but only if the charter school
pays to the Bureau a pro rata share of funds to reimburse the
Bureau for the use of the real and personal property
(including buses and vans), the funds of the charter school
are kept separate and apart from Bureau funds, and the Bureau
does not assume any obligation for charter school programs of
the State in which the school is located if the charter
school loses such funding. Employees of Bureau-funded schools
sharing a campus with a charter school and performing
functions related to the charter school's operation and
employees of a charter school shall not be treated as Federal
employees for purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, United
States Code (commonly known as the ``Federal Tort Claims
Act'').

Departmental Offices

Insular Affairs

assistance to territories

For expenses necessary for assistance to territories under
the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior,
$72,289,000, of which: (1) $67,761,000 shall be available
until expended for technical assistance, including
maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, insular
management controls, coral reef initiative activities, and
brown tree snake control and research; grants to the
judiciary in American Samoa for compensation and expenses, as
authorized by law (48 U.S.C. 1661(c)); grants to the
Government of American Samoa, in addition to current local
revenues, for construction and support of governmental
functions; grants to the Government of the Virgin Islands as
authorized by law; grants to the Government of Guam, as
authorized by law; and grants to the Government of the
Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by law (Public Law 94-
241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $4,528,000 shall be available for
salaries and expenses of the Office of Insular Affairs:
Provided, That all financial transactions of the territorial
and local governments herein provided for, including such
transactions of all agencies or instrumentalities established
or used by such governments, may be audited by the General
Accounting Office, at its discretion, in accordance with
chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code: Provided further,
That Northern Mariana Islands Covenant grant funding shall be
provided according to those terms of the Agreement of the
Special Representatives on Future United States Financial
Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands approved by
Public Law 104-134: Provided further, That of the funds
provided herein for American Samoa government operations, the
Secretary is directed to use up to $20,000 to increase
compensation of the American Samoa High Court Justices:
Provided further, That of the amounts provided for technical
assistance, not to exceed $1,339,000 shall be made available
for transfer to the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Financing
Account of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the
purpose of covering the cost of forgiving the repayment
obligation of the Government of the Virgin Islands on
Community Disaster Loan 841, as required by section 504 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended (2 U.S.C.
661c): Provided further, That to the extent that the cost of
forgiving the repayment obligation exceeds the $1,339,000
provided in this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
transfer up to $2,161,000 of unexpended appropriations for
U.S. Virgin Islands construction grants provided pursuant to
Public Law 102-154 to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
to meet the full costs associated with forgiveness of the
Hurricane Hugo Community Disaster Loan: Provided further,
That of the amounts provided for technical assistance,
sufficient funding shall be made available for a grant to the
Close Up Foundation: Provided further, That the funds for the
program of operations and maintenance improvement are
appropriated to institutionalize routine operations and
maintenance improvement of capital infrastructure (with
territorial participation and cost sharing to be determined
by the Secretary based on the grantees commitment to timely
maintenance of its capital assets): Provided further, That
any appropriation for disaster assistance under this heading
in this Act or previous appropriations Acts may be used as
non-Federal matching funds for the purpose of hazard
mitigation grants provided pursuant to section 404 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c).

[[Page H3380]]

compact of free association

For economic assistance and necessary expenses for the
Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the
Marshall Islands as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223,
232, and 233 of the Compact of Free Association, and for
economic assistance and necessary expenses for the Republic
of Palau as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 232, and
233 of the Compact of Free Association, $23,245,000, to
remain available until expended, as authorized by Public Law
99-239 and Public Law 99-658.

Departmental Management

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for management of the Department of
the Interior, $64,177,000, of which not to exceed $8,500 may
be for official reception and representation expenses, of
which up to $1,000,000 shall be available for workers
compensation payments and unemployment compensation payments
associated with the orderly closure of the United States
Bureau of Mines.

Office of the Solicitor

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor,
$45,000,000.

Office of Inspector General

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
$30,490,000.

Office of Special Trustee for American Indians

federal trust programs

For operation of trust programs for Indians by direct
expenditure, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and
grants, $99,224,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That funds for trust management improvements may be
transferred, as needed, to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
``Operation of Indian Programs'' account and to the
Departmental Management ``Salaries and Expenses'' account:
Provided further, That funds made available to Tribes and
Tribal organizations through contracts or grants obligated
during fiscal year 2002, as authorized by the Indian Self-
Determination Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), shall
remain available until expended by the contractor or grantee:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the statute of limitations shall not commence to run on
any claim, including any claim in litigation pending on the
date of the enactment of this Act, concerning losses to or
mismanagement of trust funds, until the affected tribe or
individual Indian has been furnished with an accounting of
such funds from which the beneficiary can determine whether
there has been a loss: Provided further, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary shall not be
required to provide a quarterly statement of performance for
any Indian trust account that has not had activity for at
least 18 months and has a balance of $1.00 or less: Provided
further, That the Secretary shall issue an annual account
statement and maintain a record of any such accounts and
shall permit the balance in each such account to be withdrawn
upon the express written request of the account holder.

Indian Land Consolidation

For consolidation of fractional interests in Indian lands
and expenses associated with redetermining and redistributing
escheated interests in allotted lands, and for necessary
expenses to carry out the Indian Land Consolidation Act of
1983, as amended, by direct expenditure or cooperative
agreement, $10,980,000, to remain available until expended
and which may be transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and Departmental Management.

Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration

natural resource damage assessment fund

To conduct natural resource damage assessment activities by
the Department of the Interior necessary to carry out the
provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601
et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public
Law 101-380) (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Public Law 101-
337, as amended (16 U.S.C. 19jj et seq.), $5,497,000, to
remain available until expended.

administrative provisions

There is hereby authorized for acquisition from available
resources within the Working Capital Fund, 15 aircraft, 10 of
which shall be for replacement and which may be obtained by
donation, purchase or through available excess surplus
property: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, existing aircraft being replaced may be sold, with
proceeds derived or trade-in value used to offset the
purchase price for the replacement aircraft: Provided
further, That no programs funded with appropriated funds in
the ``Departmental Management'', ``Office of the Solicitor'',
and ``Office of Inspector General'' may be augmented through
the Working Capital Fund or the Consolidated Working Fund.

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be
available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or
office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the
emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft,
buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment
damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other
unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made
available under this authority until funds specifically made
available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies
shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds
used pursuant to this section are hereby designated by
Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, and must be replenished by a
supplemental appropriation which must be requested as
promptly as possible.
Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or
transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in
addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of
the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency
prevention of wildland fires on or threatening lands under
the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for the
emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its
jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or
actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other
unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to
actual oil spills; for response and natural resource damage
assessment activities related to actual oil spills; for the
prevention, suppression, and control of actual or potential
grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the authority in
section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 Stat. 1658); for
emergency reclamation projects under section 410 of Public
Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year funds
available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit
assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy
State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the
Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in
this title for wildland fire operations shall be available
for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding
fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies
for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in
connection with their use for wildland fire operations, such
reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently
available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further,
That for wildland fire operations, no funds shall be made
available under this authority until the Secretary determines
that funds appropriated for ``wildland fire operations''
shall be exhausted within thirty days: Provided further, That
all funds used pursuant to this section are hereby designated
by Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to
section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, and must be replenished by a
supplemental appropriation which must be requested as
promptly as possible: Provided further, That such
replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro rata
basis, accounts from which emergency funds were transferred.
Sec. 103. Appropriations made in this title shall be
available for operation of warehouses, garages, shops, and
similar facilities, wherever consolidation of activities will
contribute to efficiency or economy, and said appropriations
shall be reimbursed for services rendered to any other
activity in the same manner as authorized by sections 1535
and 1536 of title 31, United States Code: Provided, That
reimbursements for costs and supplies, materials, equipment,
and for services rendered may be credited to the
appropriation current at the time such reimbursements are
received.
Sec. 104. Appropriations made to the Department of the
Interior in this title shall be available for services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the
Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone
service in private residences in the field, when authorized
under regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment
of dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library
membership in societies or associations which issue
publications to members only or at a price to members lower
than to subscribers who are not members.
Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of the
Interior for salaries and expenses shall be available for
uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5
U.S.C. 5901-5902 and D.C. Code 4-204).
Sec. 106. Annual appropriations made in this title shall be
available for obligation in connection with contracts issued
for services or rentals for periods not in excess of 12
months beginning at any time during the fiscal year.
Sec. 107. No funds provided in this title may be expended
by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore
leasing and related activities placed under restriction in
the President's moratorium statement of June 12, 1998, in the
areas of northern, central, and southern California; the
North Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; the eastern Gulf of
Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude and east of 86
degrees west longitude.
Sec. 108. No funds provided in this title may be expended
by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore
oil and natural gas preleasing, leasing, and related
activities, on lands within the North Aleutian Basin planning
area.
Sec. 109. No funds provided in this title may be expended
by the Department of the

[[Page H3381]]

Interior to conduct offshore oil and natural gas preleasing,
leasing and related activities in the eastern Gulf of Mexico
planning area for any lands located outside Sale 181, as
identified in the final Outer Continental Shelf 5-Year Oil
and Gas Leasing Program, 1997-2002.
Sec. 110. No funds provided in this title may be expended
by the Department of the Interior to conduct oil and natural
gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the Mid-
Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas.
Sec. 111. Advance payments made under this title to Indian
tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia pursuant
to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) or the Tribally Controlled Schools
Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) may be invested by the
Indian tribe, tribal organization, or consortium before such
funds are expended for the purposes of the grant, compact, or
annual funding agreement so long as such funds are--
(1) invested by the Indian tribe, tribal organization, or
consortium only in obligations of the United States, or in
obligations or securities that are guaranteed or insured by
the United States, or mutual (or other) funds registered with
the Securities and Exchange Commission and which only invest
in obligations of the United States or securities that are
guaranteed or insured by the United States; or
(2) deposited only into accounts that are insured by an
agency or instrumentality of the United States, or are fully
collateralized to ensure protection of the funds, even in the
event of a bank failure.
Sec. 112. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the
National Park Service shall not develop or implement a
reduced entrance fee program to accommodate non-local travel
through a unit. The Secretary may provide for and regulate
local non-recreational passage through units of the National
Park System, allowing each unit to develop guidelines and
permits for such activity appropriate to that unit.
Sec. 113. Appropriations made in this Act under the
headings Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special
Trustee for American Indians and any available unobligated
balances from prior appropriations Acts made under the same
headings, shall be available for expenditure or transfer for
Indian trust management activities pursuant to the Trust
Management Improvement Project High Level Implementation
Plan.
Sec. 114. A grazing permit or lease that expires (or is
transferred) during fiscal year 2002 shall be renewed under
section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1752) or if applicable, section
510 of the California Desert Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
410aaa-50). The terms and conditions contained in the
expiring permit or lease shall continue in effect under the
new permit or lease until such time as the Secretary of the
Interior completes processing of such permit or lease in
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, at which
time such permit or lease may be canceled, suspended or
modified, in whole or in part, to meet the requirements of
such applicable laws and regulations. Nothing in this section
shall be deemed to alter the Secretary's statutory authority.
Sec. 115. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
the purpose of reducing the backlog of Indian probate cases
in the Department of the Interior, the hearing requirements
of chapter 10 of title 25, United States Code, are deemed
satisfied by a proceeding conducted by an Indian probate
judge, appointed by the Secretary without regard to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing the
appointments in the competitive service, for such period of
time as the Secretary determines necessary: Provided, That
the basic pay of an Indian probate judge so appointed may be
fixed by the Secretary without regard to the provisions of
chapter 51, and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5,
United States Code, governing the classification and pay of
General Schedule employees, except that no such Indian
probate judge may be paid at a level which exceeds the
maximum rate payable for the highest grade of the General
Schedule, including locality pay.
Sec. 116. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to redistribute any
Tribal Priority Allocation funds, including tribal base
funds, to alleviate tribal funding inequities by transferring
funds to address identified, unmet needs, dual enrollment,
overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution
methodologies. No tribe shall receive a reduction in Tribal
Priority Allocation funds of more than 10 percent in fiscal
year 2002. Under circumstances of dual enrollment,
overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution
methodologies, the 10 percent limitation does not apply.
Sec. 117. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
establish a new National Wildlife Refuge in the Kankakee
River basin that is inconsistent with the United States Army
Corps of Engineers' efforts to control flooding and siltation
in that area. Written certification of consistency shall be
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations prior to refuge establishment.
Sec. 118. Funds appropriated for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs for postsecondary schools for fiscal year 2002 shall
be allocated among the schools proportionate to the unmet
need of the schools as determined by the Postsecondary
Funding Formula adopted by the Office of Indian Education
Programs.
Sec. 119. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall take such
action as may be necessary to ensure that the lands
comprising the Huron Cemetery in Kansas City, Kansas (as
described in section 123 of Public Law 106-291) are used only
in accordance with this section.
(b) The lands of the Huron Cemetery shall be used only (1)
for religious and cultural uses that are compatible with the
use of the lands as a cemetery, and (2) as a burial ground.
Sec. 120. No funds appropriated for the Department of the
Interior by this Act or any other Act shall be used to study
or implement any plan to drain Lake Powell or to reduce the
water level of the lake below the range of water levels
required for the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam.
Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
conveying the Twin Cities Research Center under the authority
provided by Public Law 104-134, as amended by Public Law 104-
208, the Secretary may accept and retain land and other forms
of reimbursement: Provided, That the Secretary may retain and
use any such reimbursement until expended and without further
appropriation: (1) for the benefit of the National Wildlife
Refuge System within the State of Minnesota; and (2) for all
activities authorized by Public Law 100-696; 16 U.S.C. 460zz.
Sec. 122. Section 412(b) of the National Parks Omnibus
Management Act of 1998, as amended (16 U.S.C. 5961) is
amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2002''.
Sec. 123. Notwithstanding other provisions of law, the
National Park Service may authorize, through cooperative
agreement, the Golden Gate National Parks Association to
provide fee-based education, interpretive and visitor service
functions within the Crissy Field and Fort Point areas of the
Presidio.
Sec. 124. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302(b), sums received
by the Bureau of Land Management for the sale of seeds or
seedlings including those collected in fiscal year 2001, may
be credited to the appropriation from which funds were
expended to acquire or grow the seeds or seedlings and are
available without fiscal year limitation.
Sec. 125. Tribal School Construction Demonstration Program.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Construction.--The term ``construction'', with respect
to a tribally controlled school, includes the construction or
renovation of that school.
(2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given that term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(e)).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) Tribally controlled school.--The term ``tribally
controlled school'' has the meaning given that term in
section 5212 of the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988
(25 U.S.C. 2511).
(5) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of the Interior.
(6) Demonstration program.--The term ``demonstration
program'' means the Tribal School Construction Demonstration
Program.
(b) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a
demonstration program to provide grants to Indian tribes for
the construction of tribally controlled schools.
(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, in carrying out the demonstration program
under subsection (b), the Secretary shall award a grant to
each Indian tribe that submits an application that is
approved by the Secretary under paragraph (2). The Secretary
shall ensure that an eligible Indian tribe currently on the
Department's priority list for construction of replacement
educational facilities receives the highest priority for a
grant under this section.
(2) Grant applications.--An application for a grant under
the section shall--
(A) include a proposal for the construction of a tribally
controlled school of the Indian tribe that submits the
application; and
(B) be in such form as the Secretary determines
appropriate.
(3) Grant agreement.--As a condition to receiving a grant
under this section, the Indian tribe shall enter into an
agreement with the Secretary that specifies--
(A) the costs of construction under the grant;
(B) that the Indian tribe shall be required to contribute
towards the cost of the construction a tribal share equal to
50 percent of the costs; and
(C) any other term or condition that the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
(4) Eligibility.--Grants awarded under the demonstration
program shall only be for construction of replacement
tribally controlled schools.
(c) Effect of Grant.--A grant received under this section
shall be in addition to any other funds received by an Indian
tribe under any other provision of law. The receipt of a
grant under this section shall not affect the eligibility of
an Indian tribe receiving funding, or the amount of funding
received by the Indian tribe, under the Tribally Controlled
Schools Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) or the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450 et seq.).
Sec. 126. White River Oil Shale Mine, Utah. (a) Sale.--The
Administrator of General Services (referred to in this
section as the ``Administrator'') shall sell all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to the
improvements and equipment described in subsection (b) that
are situated on

[[Page H3382]]

the land described in subsection (c) (referred to in this
section as the ``Mine'').
(b) Description of Improvements and Equipment.--The
improvements and equipment referred to in subsection (a) are
the following improvements and equipment associated with the
Mine:
(1) Mine Service Building.
(2) Sewage Treatment Building.
(3) Electrical Switchgear Building.
(4) Water Treatment Building/Plant.
(5) Ventilation/Fan Building.
(6) Water Storage Tanks.
(7) Mine Hoist Cage and Headframe.
(8) Miscellaneous Mine-related equipment.
(c) Description of Land.--The land referred to in
subsection (a) is the land located in Uintah County, Utah,
known as the ``White River Oil Shale Mine'' and described as
follows:
(1) T. 10 S., R. 24 E., Salt Lake Meridian, sections 12
through 14, 19 through 30, 33, and 34.
(2) T. 10 S., R. 25 E., Salt Lake Meridian, sections 18 and
19.
(d) Use of Proceeds.--The proceeds of the sale under
subsection (a)--
(1) shall be deposited in a special account in the Treasury
of the United States; and
(2) shall be available until expended, without further Act
of appropriation--
(A) first, to reimburse the Administrator for the direct
costs of the sale; and
(B) second, to reimburse the Bureau of Land Management Utah
State Office for the costs of closing and rehabilitating the
Mine.
(e) Mine Closure and Rehabilitation.--The closing and
rehabilitation of the Mine (including closing of the mine
shafts, site grading, and surface revegetation) shall be
conducted in accordance with--
(1) the regulatory requirements of the State of Utah, the
Mine Safety and Health Administration, and the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration; and
(2) other applicable law.

{time} 1045

Amendment Offered by Mr. Pombo

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Pombo:
Page 17, line 24, insert before the period the following:
: Provided, That, of such funds, $1,000,000 shall be for
the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District Fish Screen Project in
Tracy, California.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman reserves a
point of order.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment after which I
plan to withdraw it.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would redirect $1 million from the
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund to the Banta-Carbona
Irrigation District in Tracy, California, for a fish screen project
located at the entrance to the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District intake
channel on the San Joaquin River.
This is a very simple amendment which would provide much needed
financial assistance to help defray the construction, operating and
maintenance costs of this fish screen.
Let me point out that the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District is
required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to put in a fish screen
facility on the San Joaquin River to protect the delta smelt, the
steelhead, the fall run chinook salmon and the splittail. All of these
fish are either endangered or threatened species and fall under the
authority of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine
Fisheries Service. Without the fish screen project, the Banta-Carbona
Irrigation District's agricultural water diversions could be shut down
by these Federal agencies.
Mr. Chairman, the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District is facing a
reduced allocation of water from the Central Valley Project. To make
matters worse, high energy costs in California coupled with low
agricultural commodity prices have made it nearly impossible for the
water users to pay for the capital, operating and maintenance costs of
a fish screen facility.
The bottom line is, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has required
the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District to facilitate the funding,
design, and construction of this fish barrier screen facility with
little or no assistance.
Under the ESA, the Federal Government continues to require farmers,
ranchers, landowners, irrigation districts, and local government and
communities to spend millions of dollars to protect endangered species.
In fact, let me point out to my colleagues the millions of dollars that
the county hospital in Riverside, California, had to spend to protect a
fly. And how about the millions of dollars homebuilders and ranchers in
my district are spending to protect the fairy shrimp, a quarter-inch
crustacean that lives in pools of water which we normally call mud
puddles.
Mr. Chairman, this is real money that could be used to help
individuals offset the costs of their high utility bills. Further, this
is real money that is being diverted away from the State and local
government's education, infrastructure, and health care budgets. I am
convinced that the only species that is benefiting from this process is
the cash cow, being milked by the agencies and environmental lawyers.
The truth is, contrary to claims made by the green conflict industry,
people who own property do care about the survival of valued species
and the health of our environment.
Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is another example of why the
Endangered Species Act is not working. The act has failed to save
species; it has caused acrimony and gridlock, generated endless
litigation; it has cost the American taxpayer and private-property
owner hundreds of billions of dollars in wasted effort; and it has
misappropriated property and lost production.
All of these problems, Mr. Chairman, and the act has not even been
authorized for nearly a decade. I simply cannot stand by quietly as
farmers and ranchers, families and businesses, especially those in the
West who depend on natural resources for a living, suffer for no
constructive purpose. The time has come to make human species as
important as the Endangered Species Act equation.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to take back our economic and constitutional
rights. Ensuring that the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District receives
Federal assistance for the fish screen project will do such a thing by
holding the Federal Government accountable for its actions. I urge my
colleagues to do the right thing to correct this injustice.
I have worked with the gentleman from New Mexico in the past several
years on these issues. I intend to continue working with him. I know
that if it were up to him totally that we would take care of these
problems posthaste; but in light of the situation we are in right now,
I respectfully withdraw my amendment at this point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, pursuant to clause
2(f) of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter:
On page 49, line 22 after the number ``$64,177,000'' insert
``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.
On page 69, line 12 after the number ``$1,326,445,000''
insert ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.
On page 109, line 21 strike ``$104,882,000'' and insert
``$107,882,000''.
On page 110, line 19 strike ``$24,899,000'' and insert
``$26,899,000''.
On page 110, line 24 strike ``$7,000,000'' and insert
``$17,000,000''.

Ms. SLAUGHTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, these amendments would provide a funding
increase to three agencies that most certainly deserve it: the National
Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and
the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
In fiscal year 1996, the arts and humanities sustained massive
funding cuts. The budgets of NEA and NEH were slashed by 40 percent.
The Congressional Arts Caucus waged a successful battle to save both of
them from annihilation, but neither one has fully recovered from the
cuts. Last year, we won the first budget increase for the agencies in
nearly a decade. The

[[Page H3383]]

fiscal year 2001 budget contained an additional $7 million for the
NEA's Challenge America initiative, as well as increases of $5 million
and $2 million for NEH and IMLS respectively. It is time to reaffirm
our Nation's commitment to the arts by providing another modest funding
increase for NEA, NEH, and IMLS.
Supporting the arts is not merely a matter of being high-minded. The
arts produce very real benefits for individuals, for communities and
for the Nation as a whole, with the greatest positive impact on our
children. For example, data from the college entrance exam board shows
that students who took 4 years or more of art and music classes
outscored their peers on the SAT by more than 80 points in 1995, 1996
and 1997. The arts are an economic boon to communities. More tickets
are sold for art performances than all sports events put together and
no community is ever required for an art project to build and sustain
and subsidize an expensive stadium.
Some of our Members in this House have expressed concern that the
arts and humanities programs are not funded in their districts. In
fact, even though the budget has been depleted, I should state again
that NEA regularly reaches between 290 and 300 congressional districts
and is providing a wider range of grants thanks to programs like
ArtsREACH. Last year, Congress targeted $7 million to the NEA's
Challenge America initiative which strengthens NEA activity in the 20
States with the fewest NEA grants. That is very important that we
continue.
I would like to pay a tribute here to the present chairman of the
NEA, Mr. Bill Ivey, who has instituted these and many other programs
and is staying on at the NEA to make sure that his successor can have
an increase in budget so that he can increase these important program.
I also want to recognize the President of the United States, George
Bush, who said recently at Ford's Theater that the arts are extremely
important to the United States and deserve government support. I thank
him for that.
Similarly, the National Endowment for the Humanities is playing a
crucial role in collecting, preserving, and sharing the Nation's
history. Just last year, NEH grants went to projects like restoration
of Federal War Department records which had been partially destroyed by
fire covering 1784 to 1800; the collection of papers of suffragists
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony; an analysis of artifacts
from Chickasaw archaeological sites; and many, many more. An increase
in their funding would permit this agency to expand its already
tremendous impact on the Nation's K to 12 humanities curriculum by
offering more seminars for teachers and exploring greater possibilities
to use technology in the classroom sorely needed.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services oversees America's 8,000
museums and connects schools, libraries, and other institutions with
the many wonderful resources within those museums. In its April round
of conservation project support grants, they funded proposals ranging
from the preservation of sculptures by African American folk artist
Felix ``Fox'' Harris in Beaumont, Texas, to a survey of objects
important to the local history of Valdez, Alaska. With additional
funding, they could expand that reach to many worthy grant
applications.
The amendments, as I said, would add $10 million to the NEA, $3
million to the NEH, and $2 million to IMLS. It does so by making a
minor corresponding reduction in the administrative budgets of the
Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service. My colleagues may
not be aware that the underlying bill includes more than $4 billion for
salaries and many billions more for other administrative costs such as
travel, contracting and so on. The offset would reduce that budget by
less than three-tenths of 1 percent. It is expected that this reduction
will be absorbed through savings in travel, in printing, and normal
vacancy rates in staffing levels. We have worked extremely hard to find
an offset that would be reasonable and responsible. It is my firm
belief that this offset should be acceptable to every Member of
Congress.
When we think about the great civilizations of the past, what comes
to mind? The pyramids of Egypt, a spectacular architectural
achievement; the sculptures of ancient Rome; the epic poetry of ancient
Greece; the cliff art and cave paintings of Native Americans. As opera
singer Beverly Sills noted, ``Art is the signature of civilizations.''
Let us reaffirm Congress' commitment to our Nation's artistic and
cultural legacy by passing these amendments.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the position of the Member on
this amendment, but I oppose this amendment.
The committee-approved bill includes the President's request for the
NEA and NEH. This is a fair amount of funding. This level sustains the
increases the endowments received last year, and there is a small
increase for fixed costs.
We should not cut the Interior Department and Forest Service
operations accounts. We have held these operations accounts down and
not even fully funded them for inflation. Further cuts would be very
harmful to the administration of the national parks, forests, refuges,
and other programs.
The Interior bill has many responsibilities. We have a documented
backlog in repairs of over $12 billion. We have tried to make prudent
investments in our land management agencies, in Indian programs, and in
energy research. I ask my colleagues to join me and oppose this
amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment would provide an additional $10 million
for the National Endowment for the Arts, bringing their funding up to
$115 million. I might point out that in 1995 we funded the arts at
approximately $170 million, so there has been a dramatic reduction in
funding for the arts. I would say that the National Endowment has done
a great job, but it certainly needs this modest increase. We would also
increase the National Endowment for the Humanities by $3 million,
taking it up to $123 million. It was funded at about $170 million in
1995 as well, so this is another one that needs help. And, of course,
the Museum and Library Services, we would increase this by $2 million,
taking it up to $26.8 million.
Since 1996, the Endowments have been woefully underfunded, as I have
stated. The National Endowment for the Arts, to be precise, received
$162 million in 1995 and was level funded at $98 million until their
small increase last year. The Humanities were funded at $172 million in
1995, yet only received $120 million in the fiscal year 2001 bill. Even
with requests from the previous administration of $150 million for both
agencies, we were not able to achieve more than a nominal increase. I
believe it is time that these programs receive at least a portion of
this request because of the value they add to our country.
The National Endowment for Humanities supports programs that matter
most, enriching classroom teaching, developing programs for public
television, supporting some of the country's finest museum exhibits,
preserving invaluable historical materials from our past, supporting
new research by scholars, and partnering with State humanities councils
across the Nation. A small grant from either the National Endowment for
Humanities or the National Endowment for the Arts spurs nearly four
times that amount of funding in the private sector.
But without additional funding, important programs supported by the
NEH will not be available. Additional funding would also be used to
preserve endangered recordings of folk music, jazz and blues. The
National Endowment for Humanities works directly with each of the State
humanities organizations and regional centers to support critical
cultural programs. They also help ensure that this information is
widely distributed into communities through technology like the
Internet and CD-roms.
The National Endowment for the Arts also receives an increase for the
work that it does. As I mentioned, the NEA received $162 million in
1995, but only $105 million last year. This is simply inadequate.

{time} 1100

I was extremely pleased that we were able to reach agreement to
provide this small increase for the NEA last year, adding an additional
$7 million for the NEA's Challenge America program.

[[Page H3384]]

The NEA should be commended for its work to address criticism and
concerns over their funding of controversial grants and for not
distributing grants in a more geographically evenhanded way throughout
the country. They have addressed those issues and I think have solved
them, and much of the credit belongs to our subcommittee, particularly
the work of our former chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula),
who was insistent that we emphasize quality in awarding these grants.
The Institute for Museum and Library Services also deserves this
small increase. Each year our Nation's 15,000 museums host 865 million
visits, a 50 percent increase from only a decade ago. For the last 25
years, the Institute of Museum and Library Services has used its modest
Federal funds to strengthen museum operations, improve care of
collections, increase professional development opportunities, and
enhance the community service role of museums.
An additional $2 million for the Institute of Museum and Library
Services will have a real impact in our communities, and I hope my
colleagues will join me in supporting this increase. It is my hope that
a favorable vote on this amendment will send a message to the
administration that these three areas are greatly deserving of these
small increases, and we want to say that we are pleased that the
administration was at least willing to support last year's efforts.
I compliment the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for her
leadership and her leadership of the Arts Caucus. We are going to
continue this fight. We think it is a worthy one. We received some
considerable support in the other body. I think it is time for this
House to take a stand in favor of support for these three important
cultural institutions.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Ms.
Slaughter of New York and myself. The amendment seeks to raise the
level of funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National
Endowment of the Humanities and the Institute for Museums and Library
Services. The increases we are seeking for the Endowments and the IMLS
would be offset by small reductions in administrative costs at the
Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture.
We had originally planned to offset these amounts through a deferral
of excess clean coal funds as we did last year. Unfortunately the Rules
Committee did not waive the rule to allow this. Instead this amendment
makes a very small reduction of less than .3 percent in administrative
costs. We believe these can be absorbed with no programmatic impact on
these agencies. The President's budget was generous in funding
administrative costs including more than $160 million for the cost of
the Federal pay raise and the committee has added additional funds.
This amendment requires that approximately 10 percent of the cost of
the pay raise be absorbed through management efficiencies. Historically
the amount of pay costs which agencies were asked to absorb has
averaged in excess of 25 percent. We believe that most of the cost will
come from a higher than expected lapse rate, the savings which occur
when positions which are assumed to be funded for all of the year are
inevitably filled more slowly with substantial savings. This lapse
savings is inevitably higher than expected when there is a new
Administration which fills vacancies slowly as is the current case. In
addition there may be some small reductions required in travel,
printing and administrative contracts costs. In no case should there be
any impact on existing staff.
The amendment would: Provide an additional $10 million for the NEA,
bringing them up to $115 million; provide an additional $3 million for
the NEH, bringing them up to $123 million; and provide an additional $2
million for the Institute for Museums and Library Services (IMLS),
bringing them up to $26.8 million.
Since 1996, the Endowments have been woefully underfunded. The
National Endowment for the Arts received $162 million in fiscal year
1995, and was level funded at $98 million until their small increase
last year. The Humanities were funded at $172 million in fiscal year
1995, yet only received $120 million in the fiscal 2001 bill. Even with
requests from the previous Administration of $150 million for both
agencies, we were not able to achieve more than a nominal increase. I
believe it is time that these programs received at least a portion of
this request because of the value they add to our country.
The National Endowment for Humanities supports programs that matter
most--enriching classroom teaching, developing programs for public
television, supporting some of the country's finest museum exhibits,
preserving invaluable historical materials from our past, supporting
new research by scholars and partnering with state humanities councils
across the Nation.
A small grant from either the NEH or the NEA spurs nearly four times
that amount in the private sector.
But without additional funding, important programs supported by the
NEH will not be available. Additional funding would also be used to
preserve endangered recordings of folk music, jazz, and blues. The NEH
works directly with each of the state humanities organizations and
regional centers to support critical cultural programs. They also help
ensure that this information is widely distributed into communities
through technology like the internet and CD-Roms.
The NEA also deserves an increase for the work that it does. As I
mentioned, the NEA received $162 million in 1995, but only $105 million
last year. This simply is inadequate.
I was extremely pleased that we were able to reach agreement to
provide the small increase for the NEA last year, adding an additional
$7 million for the NEA's Challenge American Program. The NEA should be
commended for its work to address criticisms and concerns over their
funding of controversial grants and for distributing grants in a more
geographically even-handed way throughout the country.
The Institute for Museums and Library Services also deserves this
small increase. Each year our Nation's 15,000 museums host 865 million
visits--a 50 percent increase from only a decade ago. For the last 25
years IMLS has used its modest Federal funds to strengthen museum
operations, improve care of collections, increase professional
development opportunities and enhance the community service role of
museums. An additional $2 million for the IMLS will have a real impact
in our communities, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting
this increase.
It is my hope that a favorable vote on this amendment will send a
message to the President that these three areas are greatly deserving
of these small increases.
I urge support of the amendment.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2217, the
Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. It is consistent
with the budget resolution as required under the Congressional Budget
Act.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2217, the Interior
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. This bill is consistent with
the budget resolution as required under the Congressional Budget Act.
This is the first of 13 appropriations bills that the House will
consider under the 302(a) allocation set forth in the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002.
In accordance with the Budget Act, the Committee on Appropriations
subdivided this allocation among its 13 subcommittees earlier this
week.
I am confident that the 302(b) allocations represent a good faith
effort by the Appropriations Committee and its distinguished chairman
to comply with the overall discretionary levels agreed to as part of
the budget resolution.
As reported, H.R. 2217 provides $18.9 billion in new budget authority
and $17.8 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2002.
The bill does not designate any of the new budget authority it
provides as an emergency, not does it rescind previously enacted budget
authority.
The bill is within the subcommittee on the Interior 302(b) allocation
and therefore complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which
prohibits the consideration of appropriation measures that exceed the
appropriate subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
I would note, however, that the bill changes the classification of
four fairly small programs under the separate spending cap that was
adopted last year.
Both the caps and the classification of programs under those caps is
under the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. Accordingly, the bill
violates section 306 of the Budget Act, which prohibits the
consideration of legislation within the jurisdiction of the Budget
Committee.
I would ask the subcommittee to work with the Budget Committee on the
appropriate classification of these programs in conference and on
comparable measures in the future.
In summary, this bill is consistent with the budget resolution agreed
by the Congress and, on this basis, I support the bill.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Slaughter amendment, not
because

[[Page H3385]]

I do not support the arts and the humanities or museum services, but
because I think we need to ask the fundamental question in this case of
this amendment, which is, how much is enough?
The subcommittee and the full committee made a conscious decision to
increase the NEA and NEH and Museum Services accounts for the first
time I think that I have been in the House at the committee level, the
subcommittee level. Albeit small increases, they are in fact increases.
I hear my colleagues who are in support of this amendment make the
comment that $105,234,000 for NEA is not enough; that $120,504,000 for
NEH is not enough; and that $24,899,000 for the Museum Services is not
enough. I would urge my colleagues and the chairman that it is enough.
Notwithstanding the fact that there has been a higher amount in past
years, it is enough as we think about balancing this spending amount
with other spending priorities that we have in this bill, and they are
many.
My concern with the Slaughter amendment, with all due respect to her
and her commitment to the arts and the humanities, the offsets come
from the operations of the Department of the Interior and the Forest
Service.
These accounts, in my humble opinion, cannot afford a reduction
because we have already streamlined their administrative expenses in
the bill. I come from the Pacific Northwest. The Pacific Northwest was
devastated in Montana and Idaho, luckily not so much in Washington
State, by forest fires last year. We are expecting another hot summer.
We need the personnel and the administrative assistants to meet not
only the fire needs of the region but the other needs of the region, to
have a healthy forest service system; to have an adequate protection of
our public lands in the Interior Department. Those are priorities as
well.
I just urge my colleagues to think carefully about where our
priorities are. Why is $105 million for NEA not enough? Mr. Ivey has
done a fabulous job. Why is $120 million not enough for NEH? There can
never be enough if we advocate in this body only for the priorities
that one sees as very important.
I happened last year to be the person involved in making sure that
Indian health service funding and adequate health service for our
Native American populations was provided in the bill. That is
controversial. It was controversial last year. It may be controversial
this year. The point is, the President's request was $105 million, $120
million, and $24 million for these three respective agencies. We have
met the President's request. It is an increase in all three accounts.
So, therefore, I just think we have to be careful that we do not go
overboard with respect to a balance that exists in the accounts of the
Department of the Interior agencies. The arts and the humanities do
have very important values in our country. I have been concerned that
the arts industry has not stepped up to privately try to help the NEA
raise funds. It is a $9 billion industry, and we see the highest
advocates in the entertainment industry coming and asking for more
Federal Government assistance, when I would urge that the actors and
the artists of the world and the music folks who have done so well
through the entertainment industry step up and assist on the private
side, put $1 million or $2 million or $5 million, or $10 million and $3
million and $2 million in this case of their own money in to try to
help the NEA and the NEH and the Institute of Library Services.
So we have strived mightily in the subcommittee and the full
committee to be fair to the NEA, the NEH, and the IMLS. We have done
that. We have reached a balance, Mr. Chairman, that I think meets the
needs of the community.
Can we do more next year? Maybe we can, but for this year in this
bill in these accounts that we want to keep control over, that is
balancing this Federal budget and making all the programs that have
value fit within that budget, we have done a very good job. I urge a no
on the Slaughter amendment.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
the modest increase in the arts and the funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and
the Institute of Museum and Library Services. During the past 5 years,
our cultural agencies have experienced significant cuts in their
budgets due to concerns that objectionable projects were being funded
with taxpayer money and that the grants were not accessible to all
communities.
Today, the National Endowment for the Arts is a new institution that
has undergone significant restructuring to address the problems that
concern us all, and the Endowment has introduced new initiatives to
strengthen existing programs.
For example, the Endowment has been incredibly successful in
implementing Challenge America, a program which ensures that people who
live in small rural towns or underserved urban areas gain access to the
arts by specifically targeting arts education for at-risk youth.
Cultural preservation of our national heritage and community
partnerships to help individuals gain access to the arts, Challenge
America is achieving its goals.
Furthermore, tighter reporting requirements for grantees have been
implemented and subgranting and direct funding to individual artists
has been eliminated to increase accountability.
The National Endowment for the Humanities plays a crucial role in the
education and cultural exposure of America's children.
Specifically, the National Endowment for the Humanities provides
training for the Nation's teachers through seminars and institutes;
protects our Nation's heritage through preservation projects; supports
scholarship in the humanities and facilitates the flow of research
through books, articles, educational television, such as the Public
Broadcasting System and radio programs of quality.
This year, the National Endowment for the Humanities funding would
continue to focus on helping educators incorporate technological
resources into the learning process and would target hard-to-reach
communities in both rural and urban America. I grew up in urban America
and rural America.
Lastly, the Institute of Museum and Library Services supports the
educational role of various museums, aquariums and zoos, by funding
hands-on opportunities for learning. These types of experiences are
often the most effective and memorable because they allow students to
view rare manuscripts, see marvelous paintings and exotic animals
firsthand.
Institute of Museum and Library Services will focus new funding on
increasing technological access to museum and library resources for all
Americans, building community partnerships by funding after-school
programs and building institutional expertise in local museums and
libraries.
The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the
Humanities, the Institute of Museum and Library Services work to
educate, empower and provide enrichment to communities across America.
Without these crucial agencies, many would miss the opportunity to
experience the delights of an opera, a symphony, a ballet, or a museum.
These types of opportunities foster imagination, spark creativity, and
broaden future ambitions.
We urge support of the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment that
increases funding for the National Endowment for the Arts by $10
million, the Endowment for the Humanities by $3 million, the Institute
of Museums and Library Services by $2 million. This modest, yet
effective, increase in the Interior appropriations bill will help
continue our commitment to cultural and educational importance of the
arts. Vote for that amendment and with the small amount I cannot see
anyone would be voting against it. The children of the world in K
through 12, elementary and high school students see new opportunities
and even in colleges, they can see the rotating exhibits. Let us vote
``aye'' on this amendment and educate individuals to be part of our
culture and our great history as well.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further debate
on the pending amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), and any amendments thereto, be limited to 50 minutes, to be

[[Page H3386]]

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New Mexico?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would ask
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), it is 50 minutes, 25 on each
side. The gentleman will control 25 and our side will control 25?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unanimous consent request was that the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) would each control 25 minutes.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, what an embarrassment. Once again, the
House of Representatives is considering an appropriations bill that
includes level funding for the arts, the humanities, museums and
libraries, programs that teach us to think; programs that encourage us
to feel and to see in a new way; to speak. The arts and the humanities
help us to grow. The Slaughter-Dicks-Horn amendment to increase funds
for the National Endowment for the Arts and the other programs is a
small investment with a return as vast as one's imagination.

{time} 1115

Last year, we increased funding for the National Endowment for the
first time since 1992, and this year we must increase the funding
again.
Anyone who has ever managed a budget knows that level funding means a
decrease in funds. Opponents of the NEA cry ``fiscal discipline,'' as
if the richest nation in the world need be the most culturally
impoverished. The dollars we invest in the NEA leverage matching grants
and multiply many, many times over.
The nonprofit arts industry generates more than $3 billion annually.
It supports more than 1 million jobs. In fact, the arts industry is a
money maker, not a money taker.
In addition, funding for the NEA supports programs like Challenge
America, which brings art projects to underserved areas across our
Nation. It funds programs like Positive Alternatives for Youth, which
lowers the rate of juvenile crime by creating artist-led after school
programs for our youth.
When we deprive the NEA, the NEH, our museums and libraries of
adequate funding, we deprive this entire Nation of an active cultural
community. It is a battle as old as the stockades in Puritan times, and
it is just wrong-headed.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative
Skeen for yielding me time, and I appreciate the support that the
subcommittee has shown for the NEA, the NEH and the IMLS. But I do rise
in support of this amendment, because I think we as a Nation need to
support the Challenge America initiative that the NEA has led.
The Challenge America initiative has two primary goals: One, to
literally press arts dollars down to the small communities. This is
extraordinarily important, because these communities are far more
conscious of their cultural life than they used to be. There are many
more small theater groups developing, many more chamber groups, many
more instrumentalist groups and choruses developing, and they need the
help that small dollars can give them to organize, to publicize their
concerts and to grow their position in the cultural life of our small
communities. That is where the arts take on their greatest vitality.
The second thing that these dollars do is to help their communities
begin to record and cherish and revitalize their own knowledge of their
heritage and to use that revitalization of their cultural heritage and
the revitalization of current cultural institutions to develop the
economy of rural areas, small cities, and those kinds of sectors of
America that too long have had no support in developing the arts on a
local and neighborhood and community basis.
The third thing that Challenge America tries to do is to try to press
these dollars down into our schools. If you have never stood in a
school and had some kid tell you what a HOT school is, a Higher Order
of Thinking school is, you really cannot get it, how important the arts
are to developing our children's understanding of knowledge and how
powerful knowledge is in our lives.
Math can teach you certain logical truths; the arts can help you
develop a level of intuitive thinking that is equally important.
So I urge support of this amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of
it. But I thank the committee for their general recognition of the
importance of these institutions in our Nation's lives.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter
amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts,
the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Museum Services.
Frankly, this amendment is just a drop in the bucket compared to the
increase these cultural agencies need and deserve. But it is finally a
step in the right direction.
I hope that the senseless battles over Federal funding for the arts
is finally behind us. We have debated the proper role of government in
supporting the arts time and again, and the facts are clear, the NEA is
a good investment for our country.
I will not rehash all the arguments in favor of Federal funding, from
the economic stimulus it provides, to the private and local public
money it leverages. We know about the broad geographic reach of the
NEA, with grants to all 50 States. The Challenge America initiative is
touching hundreds of rural communities across the country. We know that
NEA supports numerous educational projects for young children and
lifelong learners alike.
And then there are the intangible benefits of the arts, their ability
to lift our spirits and forge a sense of community. We need only think
of the stirring presentation by Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary at
the Republican and Democratic Caucuses this week to understand the
power that music has to bring people together.
So the debate is over. The question is no longer should the
government subsidize the arts; the question is how much. With this
amendment, we take a very modest step forward, but we must do much
more. We must fund the NEA at a level that enables it to carry out its
mission.
Today, the NEA is nearly 40 percent below where it was before the
drastic cut of 1995, and resources are stretched too thin to adequately
fund worthy projects. The average grant size has dropped by half and
will drop even further without sufficient funding. When we limit
funding, we also hamper the ability of the NEA to continue reaching out
to underserved areas.
Mr. Chairman, last year the NEA closed a dark chapter in our history
when Congress approved the first budget increase in nearly a decade.
Today we must build on that important victory and pass the Slaughter
amendment. It is a minimal increase, a very minimal increase, but it is
the very least we can do. Let us begin a new era in which we respect
and support the arts and humanities and the contribution they make to
our society, and back up that respect with some real resources.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula), the former chairman and a current valued member of the
Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

[[Page H3387]]

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to compliment Mr. Ivey and Mr.
Ferris. I think both Mr. Ivey and Mr. Ferris, and they will be leaving
in the next several months, have done a great job of administering
these agencies. The fact that we are here debating the amount of money
is indicative that we have had a good administration. We are not
talking about egregious projects. It is just a matter of priorities in
the expenditure of Federal funds.
What I am somewhat concerned about here is the fact that we still
have a $5 billion backlog of maintenance in the national parks. Art
takes on many forms. Art is also to go out in a national park, such as
the Grand Canyon, and look down in that enormous landscape in terms of
the beauty of it, or to go to Yosemite.
So I think we have to make priority judgments, and it is not a matter
of one art against the other. You have the visual art, but you also
have the natural art that is part of our national parks, national
forests, all these wonderful resources.
When we have a $5 billion backlog of maintenance, when people will
necessarily have to be RIFed in the Park Service because there is not
enough money here to give them an adequate pay raise, I think probably
priority-wise that we are not in a position to be spending more money
on these projects now. As we all know, we did increase art funding in
the past year, and I think the gentlemen who have led these two
agencies have done a good job of using the money very wisely.
But I think in terms of the priorities of this Nation, that our first
priority has to be to take care of what we have in our parks and
forests, to ensure that future generations will have the same pleasures
that we do in visiting these facilities.
It seems to me that before we start adding to the expenditures, and I
think the committee did a balanced job in making the priority choices,
that we ought to weigh carefully whether we want to limit the amount of
pay increase for our people that serve us in the national parks and
forests, whether we want to continue addressing the backlog of
maintenance. When we are talking about maintenance, it is trails, it is
roads, it is camp facilities, and I think probably priority-wise we
should leave this bill as it is as far as the numbers for the
humanities and for the arts and address some of these other needs,
because a beautiful vista in a national park or a national forest is
every bit as important as a piece of art.
I hope prospectively that the resources will be enough that we can
make the priority judgments to do both. I think there is an opportunity
to expand the arts and humanities. But in terms of our priorities, I
believe the committee made the right judgment in saying, to start with,
we need to emphasize the maintenance of the facilities we have; we need
to give these people who serve us in the national parks and forests an
adequate pay raise, because they are very selfless to begin with.
If you visit the parks and some of the facilities that people have to
live in and housing and so on, you realize that those that are public
servants in parks and forests are truly dedicated, that they do this as
a labor of love, and, therefore, I think it is important that we
adequately compensate them.
I do not have any quarrel with the need to have more money, but it is
a priority choice, and I believe today we should stay with the
committee's numbers.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would remind the previous speaker that we are talking
about three-tenths of 1 percent, it does not touch salaries, and it is
not very much. It comes out of a cushion inserted in the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-
Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment. We need to increase the funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the
Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences. These are
the agencies that are charged with bringing the history, the beauty,
the wisdom of our culture into the lives of all Americans, young and
old, rich and poor, urban and rural.
We in the Congress have said that preserving our national heritage
and bringing the arts into the lives of more Americans is a goal that
is worthy to support. Last year we made an important investment in the
NEA's new Challenge America program. This program focuses on arts
education and enrichment, after school arts programs for young people,
access to the arts for underserved communities and community arts
development initiatives.
Many years ago I spent several years as chair of the Greater New
Haven Arts Council in Connecticut, and I know firsthand that the arts
not only enrich lives, but they contribute to the economic growth of
our communities.
The Federal investment in the arts is not the only means of support
for this endeavor. Rather, our dollars, which represent only a small
fraction of our annual budget, are used to leverage private funding and
fuel what is really an arts industry. The industry creates jobs,
increases travel and tourism and generates thousands of dollars for a
State's economy.
Arts have a real value in restoring civility to our society,
providing children and our communities with real alternatives.
Participation in the arts programs helps children to learn to express
anger appropriately and enhance their communication skills with adults
and peers. Youngsters who have benefited from these programs show
better self-esteem, an improved ability to finish their tasks, less
delinquent behavior, and a more positive attitude towards school.
We know that arts build our economy, enrich our culture, and feed the
minds of adults and children alike. We need to increase the opportunity
through these organizations, to help them to fulfill their missions,
and it is time that we gave them this support.
Vote for this amendment, preserve our heritage, make it accessible to
all.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from New Mexico
(Chairman Skeen) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for the
great job they have done on this Interior appropriation. There is one
exception, however, and that is why I am rising in strong support of an
amendment that is currently being discussed, the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-
Johnson amendment, which would increase funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts, for the National Endowment for the Humanities,
and also for the Institute of Museum and Library Services, not by very
much money, altogether $15 million.

{time} 1130

It is critical that we support Federal funding for these programs.
These programs serve to broaden public access to the arts and
humanities for all Americans to participate in and enjoy. The value of
these programs lie in their ability to nurture artistic excellence of
thousands of arts organizations and artists in every corner of the
country. The NEA alone awards more than 1,000 grants to nonprofit arts
organizations for projects in every State.
These programs also are a great investment in our Nation's economic
growth. The nonprofit arts industry alone generates more than $36.8
billion annually in economic activity. It supports 1.3 million jobs and
returns more than $3.4 billion to the Federal Government in income
taxes.
I know that each of us in Congress can point to numerous worthwhile
projects in our districts that are aided by the NEA, by the NEH, by the
Institute of Museum and Library Services.
For instance, in my district of Montgomery County, Maryland the NEA
provides a grant to the Bethesda Academy of Performing Arts to support
their Arts Access Program. This inspirational program exists to offer
introductory and integrated performing arts to children, teens and
young adults who have physical, emotional, learning or developmental
disabilities. Through Arts Access, BAPA witnesses firsthand the
incredible amount of growth and development that occurs when the arts
are incorporated into lives of students who have special needs.

[[Page H3388]]

The NET and the Maryland Humanities Council, in turn, have aided
institutes and individuals in Maryland by providing over $18.2 million
of seed funds over the last 5 years for projects that help preserve the
Nation's cultural heritage, foster lifelong learning, and encourage
civic involvement.
On just March 24 of this year, I spoke at the awards ceremony for the
Maryland History Day district contest in Montgomery County, Maryland.
The Maryland Humanities Council conducts History Day in partnership
with the Montgomery County Historical Society and other cultural and
educational organizations throughout the State. It was made possible
with funds from the National Endowment for the Humanities.
By supporting the arts and humanities, the Federal Government has an
opportunity to partner with State and local communities for the
betterment of our Nation with all kinds of programs.
I also want to point out something I think is significant. Students
who engage in arts and humanities programs over a period of time show a
tremendous increase in their SAT scores, so it helps them also
intellectually. Both the arts and humanities teach us who we were, who
we are and who we might be, and both are critical to a free and
democratic society.
So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson
amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment
proposing a modest increase in America's arts budget. I represent a
district in California that lost thousands and thousands of jobs in the
defense industry with the defense contractor downsizings of the last
couple of decades, but we were fortunate. We gained these jobs back and
many more in the high-tech and entertainment industries.
In those industries, artistic skill and the creative thinking skills
that are developed through arts education are essential, and support
for the arts and support for arts education is as much a part of the
economic infrastructure of States like California and many communities
around the country as any other industry and, indeed, more than many
other industries. We thought nothing of developing the infrastructure
of other industries through focused educational efforts. We should do
no less in this critical high-tech industry throughout the country.
Objection is made that if this is so important to the entertainment
industry or the high-tech community, why do they not fund it? The
answer is, they do. They do. In thousands of communities around
America, the high-tech community and the entertainment industry do fund
local theaters and symphonies and ballet companies, et cetera, but they
cannot do it alone. They cannot do it alone.
Mr. Chairman, this modest increase in America's arts budget will
allow not only the development of this industry and this economic
infrastructure, but also support the cultural well-being of all of our
communities by helping struggling theaters to survive and struggling
ballet companies and museums and artists.
NEA grants have gone to things as varied as, for example, the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial here in Washington. So it is not simply for our own
economic well-being that we should strengthen our arts infrastructure
in this country, but our cultural well-being and richness as well. It
is the reason many of us live in the communities we live in. It is
deserving of our support, and it is good for the heart and soul of
America. I urge the continued support of my colleagues.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a valued member of the Subcommittee on the
Interior.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this
amendment. I am not going to argue that the spending is wrong, but the
cuts are wrong. We heard that it was just coming from the cushion.
There is no cushion in the Forest Service. There is no cushion in the
Forest Service. This is an agency that has not been adequately funded
for many years. Backlogs exist. Mr. Chairman, 250 million people a year
visit the Forest Service lands, 250 million, almost equal to the Park
Service.
These people depend on facilities to be maintained, trails to be
maintained, wildlife to be managed. These are the accounts that we are
going to be taking this money from: recreational facilities that are
badly in need of maintenance; law enforcement so that it is safe and
secure for our families who are touring these facilities. This money is
being taken from the wrong accounts.
The Interior budget has a $12 billion backlog in maintenance on the
facilities that are publicly visited in the Park Service and in the
Forest Service and on BLM lands. I say to my colleagues, this is not
taking from a cushion. There is no cushion. There is inadequate funding
in these departments historically. The backlog is huge. We are taking
money away from where hundreds of millions of Americans depend and will
tour this summer and expect facilities to be in shape, expect trails to
be in shape, expect wildlife to be adequately managed and expect law
enforcement to be adequately funded; and we are taking the money away
from the heart and soul of the Forest Service and the Department of the
Interior.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is wrong. There was a good balance in
this bill, and I urge the defeat of this amendment. It is not taking
from a cushion, it is being taken right out of the heart.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy
in allowing me to speak in support of her amendment.
I wish to just add one point to the discussion here today. The
funding trend that we have had ultimately moving upward is one that
needs to be continued, and it needs to be continued because of the
massive ripple effect that this has throughout the country.
In Oregon, communities like mine have had difficulty of late, but the
Federal resources have enabled them to bootstrap. Portland arts groups
have obtained a 68 percent rate of return at the box office, far ahead
of the national average. It has encouraged private sector business to
step forward doubling their investment in the first 5 years of the last
decade alone. If we were to rely solely on public support, we would be
cutting off access to people in our communities who need and deserve
these opportunities.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will join together and support the
gentlewoman's amendment. It is going to be very critical to promoting
communities that are livable where our families are safe, healthy and
more economically secure.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I
rise in support of her amendment to increase funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and
the Institute of Museum and Library Services. The arts and humanities
are important both socially and economically to our Nation as a whole.
Studies have shown students benefit from exposure to both the arts
and humanities. These students have a better chance to increase their
SAT scores, develop increased self-confidence and are more likely to
create multiple solutions to problems and work collaboratively with one
another. These skills are essential for their future in the American
workforce.
Arts and humanities funding are increasingly allocated to State
agencies for grant programs that reach out to underprivileged and
smaller suburban and rural areas that do not have the benefits of big
city arts programs. In correlation, 79 percent of businesses believe it
is important to have an active cultural community in the locale in
which they operate. For instance, the Delaware Art Museum offers
educational programs which are supported by corporate giants, the
Delaware Division of the Arts and the NEA.
I have seen firsthand the impact cultural agencies have on
communities producing results that benefit all. For example, the
Delaware Theater Company, through grants provided by the

[[Page H3389]]

NEA, has created a partnership with Ferris School, a maximum security
facility for improvisational play-writing residencies that incorporate
writing skills and art for incarcerated boys between the ages of 14 and
18. The NET has also supported projects at the University of Delaware
that have both local and national impact, including preservation and
access funds for education and the conservation of material cultural
collections.
It is important for us to remember as a body the collective benefits
that this does, not only for our districts, but for the country as a
whole. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCarthy of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) to
increase by $15 million dollars funding for our national arts agencies:
the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the
Humanities and the Institute for Museums and Library Services. These
additional funds will enable children, youth, and adults to create,
produce, learn from, and enjoy our Nation's arts and humanities.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education
Reauthorization Act which we approved in the House by a bipartisan vote
authorized numerous structural changes to assure our children would be
well read, well educated, and well adjusted. As a former educator, I
value all that we did in H.R. 1.
But we must do more for our children than structural changes alone.
We must also provide opportunities for their creativity to flourish and
for them to gain a sense of our Nation's rich culture so that they may
be the best leaders for the future.
Even more significant, we know that exposure to and participation in
the arts reduces youth violence. H.R. 1 also authorized increased
funding for arts education. This amendment, using NEA and NEH funds,
provides such opportunities for our children.
For example, the NET is helping to fund a new project in my district,
the Lewis and Clark Centennial Celebration. This project will be
inclusive of Native American populations living in the region during
this historic period of exploration, and will employ experts from
Science City at Kansas City's Union Station to discuss the scientific
methods employed by Lewis and Clark to map our frontier. This project
will make history come alive through experiential learning and historic
representations.
NEA also grants help to The Writer's Place to produce the Poets at
Large event where critically acclaimed poets from across the United
States inspire children and adults to embrace the written word as an
art form. NEA funding enables children around the country to explore
and appreciate our individual and collective identities as both
Americans and global citizens, helping children to nurture their own
love of reading, writing poetry, creating song lyrics, and drama.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment to increase support
for this funding. This support sends a message that art and music in
the classroom and the community expand and enrich our lives and make
our Nation a better place.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).

{time} 1145

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to the
previous gentleman who spoke about the cut to the National Forest
Service.
If we leave the forests alone, our national forests, they are going
to grow just fine, but if the most prosperous nation in the history of
western civilization does not make an investment in the arts in this
country, then a whole lot of cultural initiatives are going to die on
the vine. We cannot let that happen.
Mr. Chairman, we have been beating up and gutting the National
Endowment for the Arts now for the last several years. Of 117,000
grants that have been awarded by the NEA, fewer than 20 have been
controversial. That is a much lower percentage than any of the other
arts granting agencies: the Pulitzer prizes, the National Book Awards,
you name it. There ought to be some controversy in the arts.
But the strongest argument for supporting this increase is our own
experience in our own communities. Last week I went to a performance of
the Classica Theater in Arlington. Here are a group of Russian emigres
who brought with them an invaluable experience in the classical Russian
theatrical tradition.
What they are doing with a very small grant from the NEA is
extraordinarily impressive. The NEA grant gave them the credibility to
go out and raise substantially more money. Then they went to the school
system, and they found about 100 immigrant kids from Somalia, Bosnia,
and Afghanistan, who were suffering from the same kind of language and
cultural barriers that they had. These kids were not succeeding in
school. They taught them how to succeed through their theatrical
tradition. They brought the history of Virginia to life in a play that
employed their vocal and dramatic talents.
That theater was crowded and not just with their parents. They got a
sustained ovation, but most importantly, every one of those kids saw
their lives transformed. They were proud of themselves. For a few
thousand bucks, we had a wonderful artistic expression by people who
now know that they have tremendous potential for the rest of their
lives. That is happening in communities all over the country.
Mr. Chairman, this is good money. It is a good investment. We ought
to be increasing the NEA, not bashing it. The fact is the NEA, the NEH,
and our museums are something we ought to be proud of all over the
world. The rest of the world is proud. This Congress ought to be proud
and support it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
A previous speaker from the podium a few moments ago decried the fact
that this bill funds inadequately the National Park Service, and that
this amendment takes money away from that very much needed program.
This is true. It is true. But the fact of the matter is that there
are many things that are underfunded in this overall budgetary program.
The reason for that is that the majority party insisted on a $3
trillion tax cut earlier this year, and that is why we do not have
enough money to do the kinds of things that we really ought to be
doing.
We are here today to talk about giving a little bit more money to the
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the
Humanities, one of the tiniest programs in the Federal budget, I would
say much to our chagrin, much to our shame. It ought to be much bigger.
But where is that program today? In this budget, it is funded at $105
million for the National Endowment for the Arts and $120 million for
the National Endowment for the Humanities. In 1995, NEA was funded at
$57 million higher than it is today. NEH was funded at $52 million,
higher than it is today in this budget.
One of the most shameful things that the majority party did when it
came into power here in 1995 was to dramatically slash funding for the
arts and the humanities. Programs in schools all across our country and
museums all across our country were slashed.
Now, to their credit, our previous subcommittee chairman and our
present subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen), have worked to try to bring the funding level back up. I
applaud them for it. But we are still woefully below where we ought to
be, $57 million lower than in 1995 for the arts, $52 million lower than
this 1995 for the humanities.
We have got to fund these programs adequately. It is shameful the way
we have treated these programs in the Congress. That is why this
amendment is so important, because it moves these

[[Page H3390]]

funding levels up slightly, and brings them back in the right
direction.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
(Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time to speak here.
Mr. Chairman, many critics for the national endowments believe
funding given to the NEA goes only to museums in big cities. As a
former member of the National Council, I can assure the Members that
rural communities receive more funding than ever through Challenge
America and arts education programs.
Challenge America is a major NEA initiative that was newly funded by
Congress in fiscal year 2001. The legislation provided $7 million for
arts education and public outreach activities.
One of the challenges of the Challenge America program is to target
areas of this country that have been underrepresented among NEA grant
recipients. This year, 400 small grants will be provided for these
underserved communities. Of the funding appropriated for NEA by
Congress, more than 40 percent is directed to State and regional art
agencies, which in turn make grants and offer services to community-
based arts organizations in our communities.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I think everybody
here could get a map. This is a map of North Carolina, with all of the
direct grants and indirect grants that are applied using the National
Endowment. Each State can have this map.
In North Carolina. We had ten direct grants and 75 indirect grants.
One of the really important ones, as far as I was concerned, is that we
brought into Hickory, North Carolina, a thing called a Fry Street
Quartet. It was helped paid for by the NEA.
The Hickory school system had a spring program founded by a teacher
there named Dellinger, currently the director of an orchestra at the
Hickory school. Chamber music study has always been part of the program
at Hickory, North Carolina. It has been expanded. Currently the program
has 198 students in grades six to twelve.
It is unbelievable what has been used by our community to attract new
industry and new jobs by the outstanding effort by the community in
developing the National Endowment. It is hard to say how many
industries and jobs we have brought into our community because of its
support of the arts.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, there is no reason, other than an ideological
one, to oppose this amendment. As has been already pointed out, the
Endowment for the Arts as recently as 1995 was funded at $170 million
level. This amendment simply seeks to fund it at $115 million.
For those people who live in big cities or for those Members of
Congress who regularly frequent Washington, D.C., any time they want
they can go to the Kennedy Center, they can go to the Folger Library,
they can go to the Corcoran, they can go to many of the cultural
institutions in this town.
It is a lot different if your are a child in small town America. Very
often the endowment is the only thing that will introduce children in
smaller communities in this country to the fine arts and to many other
experiences that come under the rubric of the arts and humanities.
I think of one entertainer in my district, for instance, who goes
into schools, who helps schoolchildren to write down their thoughts
about life and then put those thoughts to music. Then he turns that
into CDs for those local schools. The value in that kind of an effort
is immeasurable.
As far as I am concerned, the Endowment for the Arts is one of those
tiny facilities of government that helps children from all over this
country dig much more deeply into their own souls than they even know
is possible. I think that to oppose this amendment for ideological
grounds or on ideological grounds is shortsighted. I think it neglects
the fact that the Endowment helps children to grow in many, many ways.
I would urge support for the amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am so proud to join with many of my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to support her amendment.
Economically, support for the arts and humanities just makes sense.
The arts industry contributes nearly $4 billion into our economy, and
provides more than $1.3 million full-time jobs. Furthermore, the arts
industry returns $3.4 billion to the Federal Government in taxes, and
arts education improves life skills, including self-esteem. It costs
each American the equivalent of a postage stamp to support the National
Endowment for the Arts.
In turn, last year the NEA awarded over $83 million in grants
nationwide, and over $1.7 million in my home State of Illinois. There
we have the Illinois Arts Council and the Illinois Humanities Council
providing critical leadership and support and development of programs
that touch the lives of thousands and thousands of Illinoisans.
For example, there is the Lyra Ensemble in Chicago, the only
professional performing arts company specializing in the performance,
research, and preservation of Polish music, song, and dance. Another
project is the Beacon Street Gallery Theater, a program that supports
the uptown youth and cultural heritage preservation program.
This initiative promotes cross-cultural understanding, strengthens
intergenerational ties, enhances literacy, and builds job readiness.
These kinds of programs deserve our support.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the
following specified amendments to the bill and any amendment thereto be
limited to the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent: one, an amendment to be offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) related to payment in lieu of
taxes for 30 minutes; and two, an amendment to be offered by the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) regarding the Mineral Leasing
Act for 30 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
Mr. DICKS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, as I
understand it, there would be 15 minutes on each side for both
amendments?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the vice-chairman of the
subcommittee.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this amendment, but I want to
say I am a supporter of art. I support, and have every year since I
have been in Congress, the Congressional Art Award in my district. My
father is a docent at an art museum. I have two children who are
artists, and one who would like to continue being one in the form of
acting for a career.
But Mr. Chairman, I think we in Congress always fall in a trap that
the NEA is the arts statement for America. I would like to speak about
that.
First of all, I want to say to the proponents of this that I am glad
that the NEA has reformed somewhat. They have eliminated a lot of the
art that was so controversial, the Mapplethorpe exhibits, the
watermelon women, and the things that caused so much controversy. I am
glad that they have reduced that.
I will point out that they did it very reluctantly. It was a Supreme
Court decision that said if the Federal government is funding art, then
the artist does give up some freedom of expression and has to work as a
contractor

[[Page H3391]]

for the taxpayers. So there has been progress made, for whatever
reason.
One area they have not made any progress in, as so many of the
proponents have pointed out, is that in 1975, the funding for the arts
was about $150 million. It has been reduced, and that vacuum, that
void, should have been replaced by private dollars. We have done this
in lots of other Federal Government programs, and it was the job of the
NEA to go out and seek alternative funds. I think they have done a
little bit of that, but they certainly have a long way to go.

{time} 1200

Does the Federal Government support art beyond the NEA, which every
year we hear, oh, this is what sophisticated countries do? They take
the money out of the people who work in paper mills. They take the
paycheck from the guy who works in the chicken factory.
They take the paycheck from the guy who is out there driving a long-
haul truck right now and spend it on art and that is the sign of a
sophisticated and compassionate country.
Mr. Chairman, we, in America, spend a lot of money on art education
on our State level and on our Federal levels, teaching kids in all
levels of school about art. We also have tremendous tax advantages,
billions of dollars for write-offs if you donate to art museums or give
generously.
In my town, in Savannah, Georgia, we have one of the largest private
art colleges in the country, the Savannah College of Art and Design. It
is not only one of the largest ones, but it is privately funded and one
of the most successful ones, turning out hundreds of artists into our
society from all over the country every year.
And, thirdly, our Federal Government does a lot of art purchasing. We
buy objects of arts to put on the walls in Federal buildings and to put
on the plazas, and we are major purchasers of arts and there is no ban
against that.
Fourth, we fund lots of art beyond this and lots of museums.
I will give my colleagues an example. The Smithsonian alone gets
nearly $500 million from this bill, and people should realize that we
are very committed to cultural history.
Finally, let me talk about art versus nature. It is as the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has said, art and beauty is in the eye of the
beholder. If we look at the Grand Canyon or if we look at the forest,
is it not art, maybe made by God versus made by man, but it certainly
is art.
What we are doing here is we are taking money out of one resource and
putting it into this man-made resource. I have to say there are some
provincial politics driving this. It is interesting the disproportion
of speakers who have spoken today who are from New York. Well, there is
a reason for that. For the NEA, 70 percent of their money is spent in
New York.
I know that is where lots of the art and theater companies are, but
they come down South or they come down to the heartland of America,
dusting off their halo and they put on an exhibition during the
summertime and they feel good about themselves and then they go back
home and we appreciate the visit. The reality is, 70 percent of the
money for the NEA goes to New York.
Where are they getting the money from? They are getting it from fire.
Is there anybody in the U.S. Congress that does not know about the
fires that we suffered throughout the West? This money comes out of
fire suppression accounts.
It comes from hazardous fuel accounts, facility backlogs,
rehabilitation and restoration accounts, joint fire science so that we
can prevent forest fire and volunteer fire services so that people in
small rural areas can fight forest fires. That is where this money
comes from.
Let us talk about needs versus wants. In my opinion, we need
firefighting. We might want NEA, but we do not need to have it; and we
certainly do not need to have this increase.
Mr. Chairman, lots of Members of this Congress would eliminate the
NEA if it was up to them, but we are not on the committee doing that.
We are keeping the funding level, and it is odd that a friend on the
other side of the aisle has said that level funding in Washington means
a cut. Well, maybe it is time to go back home and bounce that off your
kid, because my daughter, Ann, who is 13 years old, she gets $3 a week
allowance if she does her chores. I do not consider myself cutting her
allowance 1 week to the next when I give her $3 on one Sunday and $3 on
the next Sunday.
That is what we have been told. Level funding is a cut; go sell that
to the taxpayers back home. Again, these are the people who drive
trucks, who work in paper mills, who work in farms, who work in chicken
factories. They are the ones who are paying for this. This is not
Congress' money. This is not Washington's money. This is not
government's money.
This is hard-earned taxpayers' money, and we need to be very careful
how we spend it. It is 12 o'clock in the Eastern Standard Time zone.
That means that there are a bunch of folks right now who are wearing
hardhats who will be taking them off for 30 minutes to eat a lunch out
of a lunch pail, and then at 12:30 they will be back, they will punch
the timeclock and they will be back.
Mr. Chairman, they are the ones paying for this, not Washington, not
the Department of the Interior; and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, we should
pay them the honor that they deserve for the hard work that they are
doing, and we should reject this amendment and stick with what the
committee has worked out under a careful compromise.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington State (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Interior.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment all of our speakers
here today. They have done an outstanding job of presenting a strong
case for a very modest amendment.
Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is increasing the funding for
the National Endowment for the Arts by $10 million, $3 million for the
National Endowment for the Humanities, and $2 million for library
services.
I have served on this subcommittee for 25 years, and I can remember
when I was first on this committee we had two significant challenge
grants for the State of Washington, and we saw our Pacific Northwest
Ballet grow into a major institution.
We saw our symphony grow. We saw the theaters in Seattle grow, and
people talk about this all being New York and Chicago. I can tell my
colleagues that the work of the Endowment has helped spread the arts
throughout the country. Sometimes we have to accept a win.
The committee has insisted that the Endowments emphasize quality;
they do. The grants that are going out today are for the best art, the
best humanities in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say, I think it helps our country to have
this diversity. I bet a lot of people go down to Georgia to attend the
performing arts just like they do in the Northwest or for the
Shakespeare Festival in Oregon.
Each community is proud of its art institutions, and I can tell my
colleagues that the young people in my district enjoy being in the
symphony, enjoy being members of their theater group; and I think for
our children giving them a chance to have something to do after school,
to be involved, like the kids are at the Middle School in Tacoma that
help develop ``Chihuly's Glass.''
These are the kind of important things that will help our kids
throughout their entire lives. Let us vote for this amendment. If there
is any difficulty with the offset, we will work that out in the
conference. Everybody knows that. This is a chance to support the arts,
the humanities, and our museums.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Slaughter) has 30
seconds remaining and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has the
right to close.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my colleagues who just simply
love art but do not want to fund any of it, see how important it would
be, I would like to challenge them to go back into their districts and
talk to the art programs that are there, see how many of them are seed
money from the National Endowment for the Arts and see

[[Page H3392]]

when those troops come through and buy tickets in their areas, how much
that adds to the local economy.
Mr. Chairman, if they want to make these programs available to more
people in the country then pass this small amount of money, the truck
drivers on the long hauls who enjoy the good music at night, then, will
be grateful as will the country.
The vast majority of Americans approve of this and want it, and I
urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Kingston) the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Skeen) for the time, and I wanted to also join with the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in complimenting everybody who has
participated in this debate.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to say to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), my good friend, that that is one of the problems with the
NEA and the rest of the country. As I go around to my art community,
Savannah, Georgia, is blessed with a great and a very strong active art
community; but there is no NEA presence there whatsoever.
I would just say, again, if I was from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. Actually, I have not yielded to the gentlewoman from
New York, but I did overhear the statement. Let me say this: again,
that is one of the situations with the NEA that it is
disproportionately spent in New York.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I would say that this is one of the
problems, and I would urge the NEA in their own distribution to go out
to the rest of the country and make the their presence known. I can say
this, we do not get any letters. Yes, let us do something for the NEA
back home, because they are invisible.
We get lots of art, locally State-funded stuff, privately funded. We
have a great symphony. We have a great art museum, a huge fund-raiser
and lots of good things going on.
But one of the big vision differences here, Mr. Chairman, is that
there are those who believe that government has to be the only funder
and the only provider of things. Then there are others who think that
funding as much as possible whenever possible should be driven by the
private sector and locally.
I am going to support NEA funding, and I will support the committee
mark, as I did at the subcommittee and the full committee level; but I
will not support an increase.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of the Slaughter/Dicks Amendment and to highlight the
importance of NEA and IMLS funding for the smaller towns in my own
district.
Last year's NEA funding increase created the Challenge America
program, to help smaller communities gain access to the arts. The Arts
Council of Snohomish Country in my home district was one of the first
organizations to receive this grant. This organization offers weekly
art classes to juvenile offenders, many of which have no adult role
models in their lives, and provides them with opportunities to express
creatively and interact in a forum outside of a detention center.
Without this grant, the program would have had to cut back drastically
or even be eliminated. That would be truly unfortunate, Mr. Chairman,
because it is programs like these where the arts can provide hope and
opportunity for troubled youth. Challenge America is doing great things
for youth in my district, yet this program would not exist if the NEA
did not receive increased funding last Congress.
I would also like to offer my support for IMLS, which also funds key
services in my district. The Museum of Northwest Art in La Conner--a
town of 900--received a key grant from the IMLS to help attract more
tourists to the Skagit Valley region in my district. Because of the
IMLS grant, La Conner brings in many more visitors who come to
experience the Skagit Valley, thereby boosting their economy.
Unfortunately, other museums in my district do not receive funding
because of the lack of IMLS funding. The executive director of the
Whatcom Museum contacted me earlier this year to share his frustration
that the Whatcom Museum and Bellingham Library were denied important
funding, not because of their qualifications, but because of the lack
of funding for the IMLS. The Slaughter/Dicks amendment will provide key
funding increases for the IMLS, and help small libraries and museums in
districts like mine continue to flourish and reach out to the
community.
Mr. Chairman, let's continue to show our support for the arts, the
humanities and our museums and libraries by supporting the Slaughter/
Dicks amendment. Thank you.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-
Dicks-Horn-Johnson Amendment, to make important increases to the NEA,
NEH, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
We know that the arts are crucial to the development of our culture
and our economy, and beneficial to all our citizens. As a recent member
of the National Council on the Arts, I have seen first-hand the grant
selection process, and I applaud the NEA for successfully increasing
all Americans' access to the arts, through programs such as ``Challenge
America.''
I was very proud last year, when for the first time since 1992, we
increased funding year after year, and had repeatedly battled threats
to the very existence of this important program.
We must recognize, however, that last year's funding increase was not
the conclusion of a struggle, but rather, a first step toward funding
the arts and humanities at levels appropriate for the importance we
place on them in our society. A $10 million increase to the NEA budget
would not only support extraordinary artistic work, but would also
generate federal revenue and foster local economic activity.
Let's use this opportunity to continue providing a level of resources
to the NEA and the NEH of which we can all be proud.
My colleagues, I urge you to support the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson
amendment.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my
strong support for the Slaughter/Dicks amendment to the FY02 Department
of the Interior Appropriations bill (HR 2217) to increase funding for
the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities and the
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).
A small investment in these agencies will provide our nation with
limitless cultural, educational, and economic returns. Yet, each has
been subject to massive budget cuts over the past six years, with the
NEA receiving its first budget increase last year since 1992. The
modest increases proposed by this amendment represent a step in the
right direction toward ensuring that the arts and humanities have the
increased funding they richly need and deserve.
The mission of these agencies is to provide access to the arts for
all Americans, thus nurturing our nation's diversity and creativity,
fostering community spirit, educating our citizens, and helping our
struggling youth. The arts teach us to think, encourage us to feel,
challenge us to see the world from different perspectives, and help us
to grow. They improve the critical thinking skills and raise the self-
esteem of our children through highly successful arts in schools and
after-school arts programs. They reach into underserved areas, exposing
smaller communities to the many intangible benefits the arts have to
offer. That is why when we deprive our arts, humanities, and museums
agencies of necessary funding, we are really depriving the heart and
soul of this entire nation.
And investment in the arts and humanities just makes ``cents.'' The
NEA budget represents less than one-hundreth of one percent (0.01%) of
the Federal budget and costs each American the equivalent of one
postage stamp per year. Each year, the nonprofit arts industry returns
$3.4 billion to the federal treasury, generates $36.8 billion in
economic activity, and supports at least 1.3 million jobs. Without a
doubt, the arts contribute to the economic health and growth both of
our communities and of the nation as a whole.
The Central Coast of California has a vibrant arts community, and I
want to ensure that our well-loved cultural traditions--like the
Monterey Jazz Festival, the Cabrillo Music Festival, and the Kuumbwa
Jazz Society--continue to thrive and are accessible to all. We must
increase funding for the NEA, NEH and IMLS and ensure that they have
the resources to help our diverse local arts community continue to
shine.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment to add
much-needed funds to the National Endowment of the Arts, the National
Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute for Museum Services.
The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for
the Humanities play crucial roles in American cultural life. Since
1965, the NEA has provided over 111,000 grants for projects ranging
from theater and film festivals, to poetry readings and workshops, to
radio and TV broadcasts, to museum exhibitions, to city design and
downtown renewal. NEA funds often help to bring excellent performances
and exhibitions beyond big cities to small towns and rural areas
throughout the United States. Also, together with the state arts
agencies, the NEA provides some $30 million in annual support for more

[[Page H3393]]

than 7,800 arts education projects in more than 2,400 communities.
The NEH serves to advance the nation's scholarly and cultural life.
The additional funding contained in this amendment would enable NEH to
improve the quality of humanities education to America's school
children and college students, offer lifelong learning opportunities
through a range of public programs, and support new projects that
encourage Americans to discover their wonderful American heritage.
The IMLS supports museums, including art, history, science, as well
as zoos and aquariums. Increased funding in this area would help
reinforce museum's educational role, encourage public access, and
enable museums to care for our national treasures.
In central New Jersey, the NEA has supported arts opportunities for
local residents in places like Lambertville, where a grant is helping
support the annual New Jersey Teen Arts Festival and in New Brunswick
where the NEA is helping the George Street Playhouse stage writing
workshops for seventh to 12th grade students in local schools. The NEH
and the Institute for Museum Services help support other important
cultural opportunities for citizens throughout the state of New Jersey.
As a former teacher, I can tell you, arts education helps children be
better students and helps them learn critical thinking skills. This is
a long overdue, modest funding increase to build programs that use the
strength of the arts and our nation's cultural life to enhance
communities in every state of America.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support the Slaughter amendment.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Slaughter/Dicks/Horn/Johnson amendment. I believe that the NEA funds
extremely valuable and important educational programs and worthwhile
events. The NEA provides funding for many programs in Tennessee,
including the Nashville Symphony Association, Fisk University, and the
Tennessee Arts Commission. I believe it is important to ensure that
adequate funding for these programs continues.
NEH has also funded numerous worthwhile programs in my district and
across the state--from Vanderbilt University's Robert Penn Warren
Center for the Humanities to the Tennessee Performing Arts Center's
Humanities Outreach programs to the Southern Festival of Books. NEH
funding has allowed outstanding K-12 humanities teachers to conduct
research that enhance their classroom lessons. And NEH grants have
permitted the Tennessee Literacy Coalition to promote their adult
education classes.
Mr. Chairman, this is just a small sampling of what NEA and NEH have
done in my state. But the need is so much larger than the funds
available. For every worthwhile request that receives funding, many
other equally worthwhile proposals are rejected simply for a lack of
available funds. I urge my colleagues to support the cultural events
that these agencies support. These programs preserve and provide access
to cultural and educational resources to our citizens. They provide
opportunities for lifelong learning in arts and humanities. And they
strengthen teaching and learning in history, literature, language and
arts in schools, colleges and the surrounding communities.
Just as we need to continue to fund scientific research, we must
continue to fund the arts and humanities. A world without the arts and
humanities would be devoid of cultural meaning. Research shows that the
arts and humanities benefit our nation's young people by improving
reading, writing, speaking and listening skills and by helping to
develop problem-solving and decision-making abilities essential in
today's global marketplace.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and enhance the arts
and humanities across our great country.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter-Dicks-
Johnson-Horn amendment which calls for increases of $10 million for the
National Endowment for the Arts, $3 million for the National Endowment
for the Humanities, and $2 million for the Institute for Museums and
Library Services. Over the past 30 years, our quality of life has been
improved by the arts. Support for the arts and federal funding for the
NEA illustrates our Nation's commitment to freedom of expression, one
of the basic principles on which our nation is founded. Cutting funding
for the arts will deny citizens this freedom, and detract from the
quality of life in our nation as a whole.
Recent reports have made several recommendations about the need to
strengthen support for culture in our country. In addition to
applauding our American spirit, and observing that an energetic
cultural life contributes to a strong democracy, these reports also
highlighted the United States' unique tradition of philantrophy.
However, it was also noted that the ``Baby-Boomer'' generation, and new
American corporations, are not fulfilling this standard of giving. It
saddens me that something as important as the Arts, which has been so
integral to our American heritage, is being cast aside by our younger
generations as something of little value.
By eliminating funding for the Arts, our nation would be the first
among cultured nations to eliminate the Arts from our priorities. As
Chairman Emeritus of the International Relations Committee, I recognize
the importance of the Arts internationally, as they help foster a
common appreciation of history and culture that are so essential to our
humanity. If we eliminate the NEA, we would be erasing part of our
civilization.
Moreover, let us consider the importance of the Arts on our nation's
children. Whether it is music or drama or dance, children are drawn to
the Arts. Many after school programs give children the opportunity to
express themselves in a positive venue, away from the temptations of
drugs and violence. By giving children something to be proud of and
passionate about, they can make good choices and avoid following the
crowd down dark paths. However, many children are not able to enjoy the
feeling of pride that comes with performing or creating because their
schools are cutting arts programming or not offering it altogether. We
need to ensure that this does not continue to happen. I am doing my
part by introducing legislation to encourage the development of after
school programs at schools around the country that not only offer
sports and academic programming, but also music and arts activities.
Increasing children's access to the Arts will benefit this country as a
whole.
It is our responsibility to ensure that our children have access to
the Arts. I strongly support increased funding for the NEA and I urge
my colleagues to oppose any amendments which seek to decrease NEA
funding and I support the Slaughter-Dick-Johnson-Horn amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter/
Dicks amendment which calls for increased funding for the NEA/NEH and
IMLS.
I commend Mr. Dicks, the ranking Member of the Interior Subcommittee,
for his support of this important priority and Ms. Slaughter for her
leadership as Chair of the Arts Caucus. We owe a debt of gratitude to
Louise for the time and energy she has given to promoting the arts on
behalf of her colleagues and on behalf of the citizens of this country
and to Norm for his continued steadfast support.
National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Bill Ivey envisions ``An
America where the arts play a central role in the lives of all
Americans,'' and the NEA has indeed had great success in bringing the
arts to the center of community life. Through its Challenge America
initiative, the NEA has been focusing on access to the arts, cultural
heritage preservation and alternatives for at-risk youth. An increase
in funding is critical for ensuring access to the arts for citizens of
all economic backgrounds and in all regions of the country. The NEA has
substantially increased arts activity in every state in the country but
it is imperative that we do more to ensure that art is reaching all
Americans in communities across the nation.
The arts are important for our economy and yield major economic
benefits: the industry generates $3.86 billion annually, supports $1.3
million jobs and returns $3.4 billion in income taxes to the federal
government. The NEA represents less than one-hundredth of one percent
of the federal budget and costs each American the equivalent of one
postage stamp per year.
More importantly, the arts are important for our children. Research
continues to show that students exposed to the arts often perform
better in school. The confidence children find through the arts better
equips them to face both academic and other life challenges more
effectively.
But the founding fathers of our country knew this without the benefit
of research. In a letter written to Abigail Adams, our second
President, John Adams, wrote:

``I must study politics and war that my sons may have
liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to
study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history,
naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture in
order to give their children a right to study painting,
poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and
porcelain.''

Let's fund the arts so that we can guarantee our children the right
to develop their creativity and imagination in order to express
themselves freely while gaining confidence.
The Poet Shelley once wrote that ``the greatest force for moral good
is imagination.'' With all the challenges facing our nation's children,
it is clear that we need all of the imagination they can muster. We
must encourage a child's creativity for its own sake and for the
confidence it engenders in the child.
Support creativity, support imagination, support the Slaughter/Dicks
amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the gentlelady from New York, and Representatives Horn,
Johnson and Dicks.
I am a strong supporter of the NEA, the NEH and the IMLS. This
amendment provides

[[Page H3394]]

for a very modest increase in funding for these important programs.
Yesterday we found several billion dollars to increase funding for
the Pentagon.
Today, we need to support our school, libraries, museums, and
artistic programs, programs that make our communities more livable and
our children more likely to succeed.
I would like to point out that schools in my congressional district,
in Attleboro, Foxboro, Worcester, Wrentham and Fall River, have all
benefited from NEA grants and NEA-funded programs just in this last
year.
The NEA brought performing artists and companies to communities
across the country, including Worcester and Fall River, Massachusetts.
I have spoken before on this floor about the programs funded by the
NEH and the Institute for Museum and Library Services program that have
helped preserve history and protect important collections in my
district. The arts, scholarship, research, collaboration--these are the
fundamental services provided by these programs.
I believe it is important to protect and promote our artistic and
historical heritage. I believe it is a fundamental obligation for
government at all levels--federal, state and municipal--to support
these efforts.
I fully support this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in
support of this modest increase.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to voice my
strong support for this amendment which will add additional funding for
the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the
Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
Mr. Chairman, the NEA serves a vital role in benefitting our
communities, our children, and our economy. By providing grants to
local communities, millions of children are exposed to the rich rewards
of the arts. Studies have shown that children who experience the arts
develop improved reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills, and
are more likely to stay out of trouble.
Aside from the benefits to young people, we cannot overlook the
tremendous economic value that the arts provide.
The creative industries reap more than $60 billion annually in
overseas sales, and represent our nation's leading export.
Additionally, the arts employ millions of Americans who depend upon
this critical federal funding for their livelihoods.
The Congress took an important step last year in approving a $7
million increase for the NEA, the first increase since 1992. We must
continue this trend, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the
Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of the
amendment offered by the distinguished gentlelady from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) and the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
The amendment would increase funding for the National Endowment for the
Arts (NEA) by $10 million, the National Endowment for the Humanities
(NEH) by $3 million and the Institute for Museums and Library Services
by $2 million. The funds would be taken from the Clean Coal Technology
Program and which would not be available until September 29, 2002.
Nebraska is extremely well-served by the Nebraska Arts Council. For
FY2001, the Council received a total of $522,600, from the formula NEA
grant and additional competitive grants. This Member has been
particularly supportive of the Nebraska Arts Council efforts to provide
arts education and artists visits to rural schools, where there would
be little or no access to arts education without the Council's
involvement. Additionally, as part of a state-wide effort, the Nebraska
Arts Council is hoping to have sufficient resources to provide funding
for a series of murals in Nebraska City to commemorate the bicentennial
of the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery expedition. This effort will
contribute to the success of the Lewis and Clark events scheduled in
Nebraska City and will enhance the experience of those visiting for the
Lewis and Clark bicentennial.
Federal funding for the arts allows small towns and communities
across Nebraska to bring dancers and poets to schools, and lectures on
Impressionist painting to town halls in the Sandhills. Federal support
of the arts means that Lincoln, Nebraska, has a Civic Symphony and
Omaha, Nebraska, a children's theater. These programs and institutions
enrich all Nebraskans and are deserving of our wholehearted and
enthusiastic support.
In addition, this Member is strongly supportive of the excellent work
done by the Nebraska Council on the Humanities. In an earlier statement
today, this Member mentioned, as an example, the Humanities involvement
in the Lewis and Clark bicentennial.
In addition to the Teacher Institute, which will be held over the
next few years, the Nebraska Humanities Council has many other programs
that are related to the Lewis and Clark commemorations in Nebraska.
There is a scholar-in-residence program, in which a nationally known
expert share his knowledge and enthusiasm with students in six to ten
schools over several years. Several annual Chautauquas will be devoted
to the Lewis and Clark bicentennial through 2005. There will be teacher
seminars and lectures in addition to the continuing availability of the
existing speakers bureau.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support
the Slaughter/Dicks amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I urge you today to vote in
favor of the bi-partisan amendment introduced by Representatives
Slaughter, Horn, Dicks and Johnson. The amendment will increase funding
for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Humanities
Council and the Office of Museum Services by $15 million, of which $10
million will go to the NEA.
This increase would take the NEA budget to $120 million. Though not
the $150 million the agency requested to fully support the Challenge
America initiative, it makes important inroads into funding the arts in
parts of our country which have not received NEA support before. In a
community like my own, these new monies will reach out to community
organizations and cultural groups, previously unfunded, working to
bring the arts to our children in after school programs.
Challenge America is designed to strengthen communities through the
creation of partnerships that support arts programs. This program funds
projects serving arts education, access for underserved areas, youth-
at-risk, cultural heritage preservation and community arts
partnerships. These partnerships represent what the arts do so well.
Arts organizations working with schools, libraries, local businesses to
make the arts available for everyone.
There are numerous studies that point to the benefits of art
experience and instruction. The arts increase the ability of students
to perform better in all areas of education. There are numerous studies
that point out the economic impact of the arts in communities small and
large. And we all know that quality of life is enhanced when the arts
are a central part of a community's life.
The NEA has for over 30 years been a partner in those partnerships.
Challenge America will being federal dollars into more communities to
help more children and families. I urge you to support the Slaughter
amendment and increase the budget of the federal cultural agencies by
$15 million.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

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 221,
noes 193, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 177]

AYES--221

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh

[[Page H3395]]

McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--193

Akin
Armey
Baker
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCrery
McIntyre
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

DeFazio

NOT VOTING--18

Aderholt
Baca
Bachus
Callahan
Cox
Cramer
Cubin
Dingell
Everett
Fattah
Houghton
Kaptur
Kilpatrick
McInnis
Riley
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Rush

{time} 1234

Messrs. HUNTER, SHUSTER, HUTCHINSON, HILLEARY and GUTKNECHT changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. Baca. Mr. Chairman, I regret that due to a physician's
appointment I was unable to cast a vote on the Slaughter amendment to
H.R. 2217 (Roll 177), to increase funding for the National Endowment
for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the
Institute of Museum and Library Services by $15 million.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee
in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico for his
hard work and leadership on the interior appropriations bill and
mention that it is not the same on the agriculture appropriations bill
without the gentleman's presence.
Mr. Chairman, I want to address an issue concerning a devastating
disease. It is called the sudden oak death syndrome; and as the
gentleman knows, sudden oak death has left miles of dead tanoaks and
oaks in woodlands across California. In addition to its forest impacts,
this disease has a potential impact on interstate and international
trade. Both Canada and the State of Oregon have issued emergency
quarantines banning the importation of nursery stock such as
rhododendrons, azaleas and huckleberries.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that this bill does not include the
resources necessary to address the lack of fundamental knowledge and
tools for effective eradication or containment of sudden oak death.
I am prepared to offer an amendment to increase the funding for the
Forest Service and Range Land Research Account. However, I am
encouraged to hear by the gentleman's efforts that he has agreed to
work with me; and will, therefore, withhold offering my amendment at
this time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind words,
and I assure the gentleman that I will work in conference to address
his concerns regarding the search for funds for sudden oak death.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I look
forward to working with him in solving this problem in much of the
West.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word. I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the subcommittee, as well as the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, it was my initial intention to offer an amendment to
increase funding for the Indian Health Services Loan Repayment Program
by $17 million. The Indian Loan Repayment Program is designed as a
recruitment and retention tool for health care professionals who are
willing to serve in the American Indian and Alaskan Native communities
in exchange for relief from their substantial loan burdens.
As my colleagues from New Mexico and Washington know, the state of
health care in Indian country is far from ideal. American Indians and
Alaskan Natives have incidences that are 950 percent higher for
diabetes, 630 percent higher with respect to tuberculosis, and 350
percent higher when it comes to diabetes when compared to their non-
Native counterparts.
In the area of mental health, the incidence of suicide among Native
Americans is 72 percent higher, and greater than the rate for all other
races in the United States.
As a new member of the Committee on Appropriations, let me commend
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) for increasing the overall Indian Health
Services budget by $124 million, for a total of almost $2.4 billion. I
have been witness to the difficult budget decisions that the gentlemen
must have made; and given the accounts in this bill, I appreciate their
consideration on this issue. I think we all can agree that historical
funding levels for IHS have represented only a fraction of the
resources necessary to equalize the health care between Native and non-
Native communities.
I believe that the subcommittee has approached the pressing need of
Indian health with the utmost sincerity, and to this point has made the
most of what has been allocated. For this reason I have decided not to
offer my amendment, instead opting to ask that the gentleman from New
Mexico and the gentleman from Washington proceed to conference with the
United States Senate so they can consider increasing the allocation for
the loan repayment program.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from New
Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. As a strong
proponent for programs of American Indians and Alaskan Native people, I
share his concerns about the condition of health care in Indian
country. I want

[[Page H3396]]

to assure the gentleman that funding for the Indian Health Service
remains a top priority. I look forward to working with the gentleman to
try and increase IHS funding as the process moves forward.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues in their assertion that
the IHS needs more resources to address the health care disparities
within Indian country. The health care needs of many American Indian
and Alaskan Natives are not being met. Clearly it is our responsibility
to address these health disparities. I appreciate the gentleman's
efforts, and look forward to working with him as we complete the fiscal
year 2002 budget process. I appreciate his leadership on this issue.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member
and the subcommittee chairman.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like
to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee On
Interior of the Committee On Appropriations.
Much of the land within the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge in
Maine is protected today. However, several in-holdings and other areas
of critical concern are not. The Rachel Carson Wildlife Refuge consists
of tidal creeks, coastal uplands, sandy dunes, salt ponds, and various
types of wetlands that provide precious nesting and feeding habitat for
a variety of migratory waterfowl, and a nursery for many shellfish and
fin fish.
The refuge also serves our communities by providing countless
individuals and school groups the opportunity to gain firsthand
knowledge of the critical and unusual nature of Maine's coastal
habitats.
Mr. Chairman, there is an opportunity in fiscal year 2002 to purchase
properties for the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge. Southern
Maine is witnessing rapid development. Without preservation, coastal
and wetland habitats are at great risk. I ask for the gentleman's
assistance to identify funding for a $3 million appropriation from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. This would ensure that the
opportunity to protect these properties is not lost.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this
project to the committee's attention; and we will give his request
serious consideration as we move to conference.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
(Mr. MANZULLO asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)

Personal Explanation

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, last night I should have voted ``yes'' as
opposed to ``no'' on the final passage of the supplemental
appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman needs to make his unanimous consent
request when the body sits in the House, not the Committee of the
Whole.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Sanders

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 7, line 11, insert ``(increased by $12,000,000)''
after ``$200,000,000''.
Page 87, line 13, insert ``(reduced by $52,000,000)'' after
``$579,000,000''.
Page 89, line 5, insert ``(increased by $36,000,000)''
after ``$940,805,000''.
Page 89, line 6, insert ``(increased by $24,000,000)''
after ``$311,000,000''.
Page 89, line 11, insert ``(increased by $24,000,000)''
after ``$249,000,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this tripartisan amendment which
is cosponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
This amendment is similar in many ways to an amendment that was
passed by voice vote last year, and that passed with 248 votes 2 years
ago. This amendment is also supported by a broad coalition of
environmental and public interest groups, including the League of
Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense
Council, Public Citizen, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and the
National Association of State Energy Officials.

{time} 1245

This amendment accomplishes three primary goals. First, in the midst
of the worst energy crisis that this country has faced in 25 years,
this amendment adds $24 million to the very successful weatherization
program. All over this country, lower income people and senior citizens
are wasting huge amounts of energy because their homes are inadequately
insulated. While I appreciate the good work of Ranking Members Obey and
Dicks and Chairmen Young and Skeen to increase funding for this program
from last year, it is still not enough. In fact, the $249 million
provided in this bill for weatherization is $24 million less than the
President's budget request. In other words, all that we are doing here
is funding the weatherization program at the same level the President
has requested. I should tell Members that I have been very critical of
the President's funding for energy in general.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides an additional $12
million for a number of other energy conservation programs. The various
programs have been highly successful in leveraging State and private
funds in terms of reducing the energy used by homeowners, schools,
hospitals, farmers and others. No one denies that our country can do
much more in a wide range of energy conservation efforts, and this
additional funding will provide some help in that direction.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, this amendment also increases the payments in
lieu of taxes program by $12 million, something that I and many other
Members have been deeply interested in for a number of years. Mr.
Chairman, the PILT program was established to address the fact that the
Federal Government does not pay taxes on the land that it owns. These
Federal lands can include national forests, national parks, fish and
wildlife refuges and land owned by the Bureau of Land Management. Like
local property taxes, PILT payments are used to pay for school budgets,
law enforcement, search and rescue, fire fighting, parks and recreation
and other municipal expenses. The PILT program benefits 1,789 counties
in 49 States throughout the country. I appreciate the committee's
increasing funding for this program. They have. But once again because
of woefully inadequate funding in recent years, we have got a long way
to go. We cannot talk about respect for local government and then not
pay them the amounts of money that we have to.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in support of the Sanders-Quinn-Kind amendment. This amendment
to the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill increases funding
to provide $48 million for the weatherization assistance program, for
PILT and for energy conservation. The weatherization assistance program
has been highly successful and helped so many of our constituents.
Increasing the weatherization assistance program by $24 million raises
funding to the level that President Bush has requested in his fiscal
year 2002 budget, as the gentleman from Vermont has pointed out.
Mr. Chairman, weatherization does work. It is a vital program that
improves the energy efficiency for low-income families throughout our
great Nation. These programs assist those most in need, those least
able to afford the high cost of energy. This beneficial program saves
our low-income constituents about $200 a year in heating costs. That is
$200 more that our hardworking families can now spend on food,
clothing, housing costs and for other necessities.

[[Page H3397]]

Mr. Chairman, in this energy crisis, energy conservation is and
should be on everyone's mind. The energy conservation program has a
proven track record. This program assists our hospitals, our farmers,
our homeowners, our schools and others to be able to reduce their cost
of energy. The savings on energy allow our hospitals and schools to use
the funds that would have gone towards energy costs to go towards
education and medical care. One reason for the success of the energy
conservation program is the effective leveraging of significant amounts
of State and private funds.
Mr. Chairman, the exorbitant costs of gasoline and other sources of
energy have been devastating to our small businesses, to our truckers
and so many of our constituents. In order to remedy this energy crisis
and to mitigate its effects on the future, we need to invest in energy
efficient technologies. We need these technologies now. We must invest
in our future and in the future of our children.
Mr. Chairman, another important provision of the Sanders-Quinn-Kind
weatherization/PILT amendment is the $12 million allocated towards
payments in lieu of taxes which provides our counties and towns with
welcome relief from the burden of supporting nontaxable Federal lands.
I have a good portion of those lands in my district. In addition,
through PILT, the Federal Government has the opportunity to give back
to the communities for the services they provide to the lands. My
congressional district is among the 1,789 counties throughout 49 States
that benefit from PILT.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, in the face of this energy crisis, we need
to be proactive in order to combat the high prices for energy and to
create energy-saving and energy-efficient technologies. The Sanders-
Kind-Quinn amendment is proactive and laudable. Accordingly, I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia will be recognized for 15
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, no one in this House has been a more
longstanding supporter of the weatherization program than I have, but
this amendment deserves to be defeated. I oppose it on two grounds:
First of all, we had a major victory in the committee on the issue of
weatherization. This bill includes $311 million. That is a 63 percent
increase over last year. The committee's original number was $60
million lower. We negotiated it up to double that amount.
The gentleman mentions the $24 million by which it is below the
President. That is only because that $24 million was used to insulate
schools and hospitals which is an equally deserving requirement. None
of us should be ashamed of doing that.
Secondly, I would point out that this amendment actually reduces
funds for fossil energy research. We need a balanced research program
in all areas of energy research. That includes research on more
efficient power plants and distributed generation technologies which
are part of the fossil energy program that this amendment seeks to cut.
In fact, the Democratic minority in the committee supported an
amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) to increase
fossil fuel energy research along with energy conservation by $200
million. I think it would be foolish for us to support an amendment
today which reduces funding for any energy research program.
This amendment seeks to increase a fund which we have already
increased by 63 percent by cutting further a fund which is already $4
million below last year. That makes no sense if we are trying to
achieve a balanced program.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. No one in the House is a bigger supporter of the
weatherization program than this Member. Weatherization funds are
critical to lower income families who look for long-term savings in the
cost of home energy through conservation, in particular insulating
their homes.
I oppose this amendment, however, for two important reasons. First,
the chairman and the committee have been extremely generous, as the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out, to the
weatherization program in the committee bill. The bill includes $311
million for weatherization and State energy assistance. This is a $120
million, 63 percent increase over last year. Yes, the gentleman is
correct, the committee has allocated $24 million of this increase to
programs to insulate schools and hospitals. I personally believe that
this is a reasonable accommodation given the energy use of these
facilities. The bottom line is that I want to support the chairman in
his overall generosity to these programs.
Second and equally important, I cannot support an amendment which
reduces funding for fossil energy research. I believe that the lesson
of the current energy crisis is that we need a larger and a balanced
research program in all areas of energy research. This includes
research on more efficient power plants and distributed generation
technologies, which are part of the fossil energy program. The minority
supported an amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) in
committee to increase fossil energy along with energy conservation
research by $200 million. I do not think we should support an amendment
today which reduces funding for energy research programs. Therefore, I
rise in very strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My friends, of course, are right. We do take money from the fossil
fuel energy research and development program in order to fund
weatherization, in order to fund energy conservation, in order to fund
the long overdue efforts to bring PILT payments to where they should
be.
Mr. Chairman, regarding the fossil fuel energy research and
development program, let me quote from the report of the fiscal year
1997 Republican budget resolution:
``The Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars on research
and development since the oil crisis in 1973 triggered this activity.
Returns on this investment have not been cost effective, particularly
for applied research and development which industry has ample incentive
to undertake. Some of this activity is simply corporate welfare for the
oil, gas and utility industries. Much of it duplicates what industry is
already doing. Some has gone to fund technology in which the market has
no interest.''
That is the Republican budget resolution of 1997, not Bernie Sanders.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. First of
all, we appreciate the work that is being done in the Committee on
Appropriations between the chairman and the ranking member and the
subcommittee chairman and ranking member, but the fight is not here
with this amendment. The fight is with an administration that submitted
a budget that drastically reduced energy research programs by between
48 and 52 percent across the board, whether it was alternative or
renewable energy sources. It is also an administration that claims that
they will restore funding to these programs but only after they collect
oil royalties from drilling up in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
If there is a skewing of priorities here, I would submit it is with the
administration in their energy plan and the budget that they had
submitted.
This weatherization program is important to people across the
country, not only in my district in western Wisconsin but throughout
the United States. In light of the fact that we just passed a large tax
cut about a month ago which disproportionately benefits the wealthiest
of the wealthy in this country, this weatherization program assists
low-income families in order to weatherize their homes and businesses

[[Page H3398]]

so that they can better deal with the rising energy costs that are
sweeping across the country right now.
Just a couple of short months after the Vice President's now infamous
statement that conservation may be a noble value but it is not any real
underpinning of a sensible energy policy, the State of California has
reduced their energy consumption by 11 percent, which shows you the
value of conservation and increased energy efficiency in this country.
That is all this amendment is trying to do, bolster those types of
programs in energy conservation, in energy efficiency for low-income
families, as well as provide some much needed revenue relief back to
local districts with the PILT program who are financing the nontaxable
Federal property that exists in their local communities. That is why we
feel that this amendment is eminently fair, why we need to make this
investment. I appreciate my friend from Vermont highlighting some of
the difficulties a lot of analysts have revealed in regard to the coal
research program, which I think needs further exploration.
Mr. Chairman, much of the focus on our current energy crisis has been
the rising price of gasoline. But in my district and throughout the
country, the price of heating oil has risen as much as 40 percent in
the past year. Conservation efforts such as the Weatherization
Assistance Program go a long way to helping us become less dependent on
foreign oil.
The Weatherization Assistance Program helps correct the
disproportionate energy burden faced by low-income Americans. The
program has helped make over five million homes more energy efficient
and the average home has seen heating savings of 23 percent. With many
low-income households spending over $1,100 on energy costs annually,
this energy efficiency savings can further help these families afford
the basic necessities of life. Mr. Chairman, we do not want any of our
citizens having to make the difficult choice between food and fuel. I
urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the past chairman of the subcommittee
and an active and current member.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). I
do not want to be repetitive, they had it exactly right.
There are a couple of other things I would like to point out and,
that is, this takes money from research on pipelines. Last year, in
connection with the Northeast heating oil program, we put tanks in New
York Harbor because there are not enough pipelines in the Northeast to
deliver fuel. Here we have a chance to do research on putting these
pipelines in without disturbing the surface. That program of research
is cut.
Something else I want to point out, and that is that in the LIHEAP
program, which is in the Labor, Health, Human Services and Education
bill, 15 percent of the LIHEAP money goes to weatherization. So the
effect of the $300 million that we added in the supplemental this week
actually provides 45 million additional dollars for weatherization.
What we are talking about here today in effect is a double dip. I
think this is a bad amendment. It takes money from research that is
vitally important for fuel cells and for other forms of alternative
fuels.

{time} 1300

As we face an energy crisis, one of the great hopes we have is to
develop alternative ways of providing fuel rather than to just scatter
this in other programs. For all the reasons, and particularly as they
were outlined by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), it is a bad amendment in terms
of our overall energy policy; and I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, it is true, this would take some money from fossil
energy. For instance, Chevron, whose profits last year were $5.2
billion, up from $2 billion in 1999, that is a $3 billion 1-year
increase, they will get $5 million or more under this bill as they did
last year. The Phillips Petroleum, profits 1999 only $700 million, last
year $1.9 billion. They got $7 million from this program last year.
Am I being told that Phillips Petroleum and Chevron will not make
these investments themselves, and they cannot afford to make it
themselves? That is not true. There are millions of Americans who
cannot afford to make even more cost-effective investments themselves
in weatherization. We can get three or four times as many kilowatts
with weatherization for the price in today's market. We can get three
or four times more with conservation programs than we can in the most
efficient fossil-fired fuel plants in this country.
This amendment makes sense for individual Americans and for
residential ratepayers; but it does not, I must admit my colleagues are
right, it does not make sense for Westinghouse, Phillips Petroleum, GE,
and other companies that just cannot afford to make these investments
on their own.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we have 600 years of coal reserves
underneath the ground. Even in my district people want to burn coal
cleanly, and in order to burn coal cleanly we have to have research to
do that. It is absolutely essential to my district, as well as western
Pennsylvania.
We have lost 10,000 or 12,000 coal miners in western Pennsylvania in
the last 20 years. The thing that worries us is that if we do not do
the research, in the end we will not be able to burn the coal cleanly.
Every year, we try to balance in this bill all the agencies that need
money. We increased weatherization. We increased fossil research. The
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) offered the amendment. We
supported the amendment. Now that we are going through an energy
crisis, when 52 percent of our electricity is produced by coal
production, it would be foolish for us to eliminate this resource.
So I would urge all the Members in the House to vote against this
amendment. It is essential to the future of this country to have a
consistent, low-cost energy resource. So I would hope that we would
vote against this amendment and get on with the bill.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), a member of the committee.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Kingston) very much for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sanders amendment. I want
to offer a little different perspective. Certainly we can acknowledge
that the increase in the weatherization has been substantial, 64
percent I think it is in the committee, and yet we have reduced the
energy research account as well; but now the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) wants to reduce it even more. I think that is a mistake.
My perspective is this: energy research on fossil fuels, oil and gas
and coal in this country, is conducted primarily by small outfits,
small independent companies that have either family owned or small
entrepreneurial operations that have small numbers of employees. So
this is not a big oil-and-gas reduction attempt. This is going to hurt
small companies and jobs in smaller communities that will add to the
research that we need to make sure that we do achieve greater
independence in the years ahead on fossil fuels. Whether we like it or
not, we are dependent on fossil fuels in this country; 52 percent coal
dependent, substantial oil and gas dependence.
What we do not want to do is be dependent for our national security
interests on foreign imports from countries around the world. That is
dangerous for our country. This energy fossil fuel research and
technology development will allow us to be more independent in the
coming years, and it is critically important that we do that research
to become more independent and become technologically adept at meeting
the challenges of energy supply.
I am one who favors PILT, increase in the PILT account; but I think
under

[[Page H3399]]

this circumstance it is a balanced approach that we have adopted, and I
urge a rejection of the amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). At a time when the
entire country's attention is focused on the need for a national energy
policy which is comprehensive, balanced and improves the overall
national security by reducing our dependency on foreign sources, I
believe a move to slash $52 million from energy R&D will produce
unwarranted and detrimental effects that will only make the current
situation worse. Now is not the time to be short-sighted in making our
funding decisions.
We have heard the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) speak eloquently to the fact that
both of these programs, which we all support, PILT and weatherization,
have been adequately funded in this bill. The gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) talks about the benefit of energy R&D research. If
Members do take time to do a brief cost-benefit analysis, they will
find that supporting energy R&D efforts is the most efficient,
effective, and timely investment we can make; and for those Members who
think that slashing $52 million from fossil energy research, that they
are somehow going to improve the environment, they should think again
about that disjointed logic of such a conclusion.
Consider the following that has occurred as a result of energy R&D:
we now see the possibility of zero-emission power plants using coal,
natural gas, municipal waste and biomass; and research is under way to
capture and sequester carbon dioxide. DOE's FE research program has a
solid record of success. We have over $9 billion of commercial sales,
of fluidized bed combustors that have been made, a commercial return of
over $9 for every $1 of DOE investment. More than 200 commercial fuel
cells operate in the United States and overseas and the most efficient,
cleanest gas turbine in the world has ``Made in America'' stamped on
it.
Without question, FE R&D is a lot more than just coal and fossil
energy research, and development does more than one might have imagined
to help all of our constituents meet their needs when it comes to
paying their energy needs. Please defeat this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my friends talk about slashing fossil fuel research. If
our amendment passes, it would represent an increase of $58 million
more than the President wanted and $75 million more than fiscal year
2001. That is not exactly slashing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment, and I do so with the full understanding and appreciation for
the increase in the weatherization program. I appreciate that, but the
realty is that if there is not enough in the pot to begin with, we
cannot get out of it what is not there.
I come from an environment where it is always too hot or too cold,
always. I have more than 165,000 low-income consumers who live at or
below the poverty level in a high-priced economic market. All of the
time, every day of their lives, they are always moaning, groaning,
crying about the inability to have a comfortable environment in which
to live.
While I appreciate research, am a strong proponent of it, we know
that weatherization works. We know that it works. I support this
amendment and would urge its passage to give relief to those
individuals who need it now because we know that weatherization does
work.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), not
because of the programs that he wishes to fund, but from where he is
taking the money from.
We are in an energy crisis, and we need to take full advantage of all
of our own natural resources. We should be increasing investment in
research and development, not decreasing it.
I represent the androcyte coal fields of Pennsylvania, and there is a
DOE-funded program there taking advantage of a decades' old technology
of converting coal and waste coal into gasoline.
We need to do that. We are too dependent upon foreign oil.
I had the opportunity to visit Penn State University a few months ago
and look at the noncombustible applications that are being done there
in their research and development, where they can convert coal and
waste coal again into graphite, which is strong and light; and the
automobile industry and the aircraft industry are looking at it for
applications there because of its strength and how light it is.
We need to up our investment in research and development of fossil
fuels, not decrease it. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against
this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple of points. According to the
Republican Committee on the Budget, the fossil fuel research program is
largely corporate welfare and ineffective. According to the CBO, let me
quote, ``The appropriateness of Federal Government funding for such
research and development is questionable,'' CBO.
Mr. Chairman, I can understand why some of my good friends want to
see this research, fossil fuel research, expanded. Thirty-eight percent
of the money goes to two States. Weatherization goes to 50 States. The
bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that we are increasing funding for
weatherization desperately needed. Hundreds of thousands of Americans
cannot get into a program which saves them money and protects the
environment. We are expanding money for other energy conservation
programs, and we are putting more money in to programs that compensate
local governments when the Federal Government is using their property,
the PILT program.
Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of a major energy crisis, the worst
crisis this country has experienced in over 25 years. Let us stand with
lower-income people all over this country. Let us help them weatherize
the homes in which they are living. Let us stand with small communities
all over this country who deserve fair PILT funding. Let us stand with
those people who say we are doing nowhere near enough in terms of
energy conservation.
This is a good amendment, and I urge its passage.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), because I know he had some points he wanted to
make.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Kingston) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, let me repeat again, this amendment increases a program
which we have already increased by 63 percent. It cuts fossil fuels
which we have already cut by 4 percent. There is nothing wrong with
research for more efficient power plants or distributed generation
technologies or pipeline improvement. Those are some of the programs
this amendment would cut. This amendment is well meaning but it is ill
advised and ill targeted.
I have defended weatherization longer than any other person in this
Chamber, and I stand here today urging a no vote on this amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say this, again summarizing our bipartisan
opposition to this amendment, that PILT is funded at the historically
high level in this bill of $200 million. That is $50 million above the
budget request.

{time} 1315

Weatherization programs receive a 70 percent increase in funding
above last year.
Here we are in an energy crisis, and energy conservation research
funding has been restored to last year's historically high level, which
is a good increase. But we need to continue that

[[Page H3400]]

research. We need to keep the commitment. Fossil energy research after
deducting the President's clean coal power initiative is below last
year's level. Further cuts would be foolhardy.
This amendment is bad for our energy security, bad for the consumer
who purchases energy, and bad for the economy. We need to continue our
research. We need to vote no on this amendment.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders-
Quinn-Kind amendment to increase funding for low-income weatherization
and energy efficiency.
What we do in this amendment is fairly simple. Most significantly, we
increase weatherization by $24 million which would bring overall
funding up to the Bush administration requested level of $273 million.
Weatherization is a program that is proven and really works to increase
energy conservation.
Through this program, low income families save $200 a year in heating
costs, and these modest savings can be used for other important family
needs such as food, clothing, housing and other basic necessities of
life.
In addition, we increase overall state conservation programs by $12
million, and increases the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program by
$12 million.
We would offset these increases by cutting the Fossil Fuel R&D
program by $52 million.
Last year's amendment on this issue passed by a voice vote, and I
hope that this year we will have a similar level of support from this
Body. I urge Members to pass the Sanders-Quinn amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
Page 36, beginning at line 1, strike ``under a comparable
royalty-in-value program'' and insert ``under the existing
royalty-in-value program, including the royalty valuation
procedures established by the final rule published by the
Minerals Management Service on March 15, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg.
14022 et seq.)''.

(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
ranking member and the Chair for working with me on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in an attempt to stop giving
corporate welfare to America's oil companies. This amendment simply
clarifies that royalty-in-kind must earn at least as much money for the
Federal Government as a royalty-in-value program operating under the
new rules put in effect last year.
For too long, major oil companies were paying fees to the Federal
Government based on prices that were lower than market value. Basically
the oil companies kept two sets of books; one which they paid each
other based on market value, and one which was much lower that they
paid to the Federal Government and the American taxpayers. Now, it is
one thing for oil to be slick; it is quite another for oil companies to
be slick at the expense of the American taxpayer.
In a bipartisan way, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and I
held hearings to investigate money that major oil companies owed the
Federal Government. Our hearings showed that many of these companies
were underpaying fees, costing the American taxpayer nearly $100
million a year.
Many companies were sued by the Federal Government for deliberate
underpayment of fees. Most have elected to settle, and to date over
$425 million has been collected. Combined with State and private
lawsuits, the oil industry has reluctantly paid to the government close
to $5 billion to settle these underpayment claims.
The Interior Department's new oil valuation rule, which was announced
last year, will save taxpayers at least $67 million each year by
ensuring that oil companies pay the fair market value for the oil that
is taken from Federal lands.
Now that we have finally put a stop to the industry's secret scheme
and are collecting a fair amount for fees for the American taxpayer, we
are now being asked to examine an entirely new system of fee
collection. Now the oil industry is telling us that they do not want to
pay in money, they want to pay in oil.
The last I heard, money was still the currency of the United States,
and the American taxpayer should demand no less. The oil companies call
it a new way to pay; I call it a new way to stiff America's taxpayers.
Today I offer an amendment to guarantee that the industry fees, the
so-called royalty-in-kind program, earns at least fair market value or
more. Why the need for this amendment? Independent analysis shows that
in almost all cases, the government, under the oil industry plan, would
have lost revenue compared to actual market prices. In fact, the
government actually lost almost $3 million when you compare what was
received via royalty-in-kind with what would have been collected with
fair market value.
Mr. Chairman, the royalty-in-kind program puts the Federal Government
into the oil business; not because it will save taxpayers money. It
will actually cost them more. Not because it is more efficient; that
has not been shown. No, we are asking the Federal Government to enter
into the oil business because big oil can no longer get away with
cheating taxpayers out of their fair share of royalties received for
value. That is the only reason that I have seen to support this
particular program.
Today, all we are asking is that if you are going to move ahead with
this program, we should make sure that it is not costing taxpayers
money, that it in fact is tied to fair market value.
I hope that my colleagues will support in a bipartisan way this
amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the gentlewoman's
amendment. My reading of the amendment is it just codifies the current
program.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Chairman Skeen) that we appreciate his willingness to accept
the amendment, and compliment the gentlewoman for her hard work on this
issue.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank
the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title II be
considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The text of title II is as follows:

TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

forest and rangeland research

For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as
authorized by law, $236,979,000, to remain available until
expended.

state and private forestry

For necessary expenses of cooperating with and providing
technical and financial assistance to States, territories,
possessions, and others, and for forest health management,
cooperative forestry, and education and land conservation
activities and conducting an international program as
authorized, $277,771,000, to remain available until expended,
as authorized by law, of which $60,000,000 is for the Forest
Legacy Program, $8,000,000 is for the Stewardship Incentives
Program, and $36,000,000 is for the Urban and Community
Forestry Program, defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(ix) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, for the purposes of such Act: Provided, That,
hereafter, ``Forest Service State and Private Forestry,
Stewardship Incentives Program'' shall be considered to be
within the ``State and Other Conservation

[[Page H3401]]

sub-category'' in section 250(c)(4)(G) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this
heading for the acquisition of lands or interests in lands
shall be available until the House Committee on
Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Appropriations
provide to the Secretary, in writing, a list of specific
acquisitions to be undertaken with such funds.

national forest system

For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided, for management, protection, improvement, and
utilization of the National Forest System, $1,326,445,000, to
remain available until expended, which shall include 50
percent of all moneys received during prior fiscal years as
fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
of 1965, as amended, in accordance with section 4 of the Act
(16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)): Provided, That unobligated balances
available at the start of fiscal year 2002 shall be displayed
by budget line item in the fiscal year 2003 budget
justification: Provided further, That the Secretary may
authorize the expenditure or transfer of such sums as
necessary to the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management for removal, preparation, and adoption of excess
wild horses and burros from National Forest System lands.

wildland fire management

For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression
activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency
fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands
under fire protection agreement, and for emergency
rehabilitation of burned-over National Forest System lands
and water, $1,402,305,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That such funds including unobligated
balances under this head, are available for repayment of
advances from other appropriations accounts previously
transferred for such purposes: Provided further, That not
less than 50 percent of any unobligated balances remaining
(exclusive of amounts for hazardous fuels reduction) at the
end of fiscal year 2000 shall be transferred, as repayment
for past advances that have not been repaid, to the fund
established pursuant to section 3 of Public Law 71-319 (16
U.S.C. 576 et seq.): Provided further, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, $8,000,000 of funds appropriated
under this appropriation shall be used for Fire Science
Research in support of the Joint Fire Science Program:
Provided further, That all authorities for the use of funds,
including the use of contracts, grants, and cooperative
agreements, available to execute the Forest and Rangeland
Research appropriation, are also available in the utilization
of these funds for Fire Science Research: Provided further,
That funds provided shall be available for emergency
rehabilitation and restoration, hazard reduction activities
in the urban-wildland interface, support to federal emergency
response, and wildfire suppression activities of the Forest
Service; Provided further, That of the funds provided,
$227,010,000 is for hazardous fuel treatment, $81,000,000 is
for rehabilitation and restoration, $38,000,000 is for
capital improvement and maintenance of fire facilities,
$27,265,000 is for research activities and to make
competitive research grants pursuant to the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1641 et seq.), $50,383,000 is for state fire
assistance, $8,262,000 is for volunteer fire assistance,
$11,974,000 is for forest health activities on state,
private, and federal lands, and $12,472,000 is for economic
action programs: Provided further, That amounts in this
paragraph may be transferred to the ``State and Private
Forestry'', ``National Forest System'', ``Forest and
Rangeland Research'', and ``Capital Improvement and
Maintenance'' accounts to fund state fire assistance,
volunteer fire assistance, and forest health management,
vegetation and watershed management, heritage site
rehabilitation, wildlife and fish habitat management, trails
and facilities maintenance and restoration: Provided further,
That transfers of any amounts in excess of those authorized
in this paragraph, shall require approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with
reprogramming procedures contained in House Report No. 105-
163: Provided further, That the costs of implementing any
cooperative agreement between the Federal government and any
non-Federal entity may be shared, as mutually agreed on by
the affected parties: Provided further, That in entering into
such grants or cooperative agreements, the Secretary may
consider the enhancement of local and small business
employment opportunities for rural communities, and that in
entering into procurement contracts under this section on a
best value basis, the Secretary may take into account the
ability of an entity to enhance local and small business
employment opportunities in rural communities, and that the
Secretary may award procurement contracts, grants, or
cooperative agreements under this section to entities that
include local non-profit entities, Youth Conservation Corps
or related partnerships with State, local or non-profit youth
groups, or small or disadvantaged businesses: Provided
further, That:
(1) In expending the funds provided with respect to this
Act for hazardous fuels reduction, the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture may conduct fuel
reduction treatments on Federal lands using all contracting
and hiring authorities available to the Secretaries
applicable to hazardous fuel reduction activities under the
wildland fire management accounts. Notwithstanding Federal
government procurement and contracting laws, the Secretaries
may conduct fuel reduction treatments on Federal lands using
grants and cooperative agreements. Notwithstanding Federal
government procurement and contracting laws, in order to
provide employment and training opportunities to people in
rural communities, the Secretaries may award contracts,
including contracts for monitoring activities, to--
(A) local private, nonprofit, or cooperative entities;
(B) Youth Conservation Corps crews or related partnerships,
with State, local and non-profit youth groups;
(C) small or micro-businesses; or
(D) other entities that will hire or train a significant
percentage of local people to complete such contracts. The
authorities described above relating to contracts, grants,
and cooperative agreements are available until all funds
provided in this title for hazardous fuels reduction
activities in the urban wildland interface are obligated.
(2)(A) The Secretary of Agriculture may transfer or
reimburse funds to the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service of the Department of the Interior, or the National
Marine Fisheries Service of the Department of Commerce, for
the costs of carrying out their responsibilities under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to
consult and conference as required by section 7 of such Act
in connection with wildland fire management activities in
fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
(B) Only those funds appropriated for fiscal years 2001 and
2002 to Forest Service (USDA) for wildland fire management
are available to the Secretary of Agriculture for such
transfer or reimbursement.
(C) The amount of the transfer or reimbursement shall be as
mutually agreed by the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of Commerce, as
applicable, or their designees. The amount shall in no case
exceed the actual costs of consultation and conferencing in
connection with wildland fire management activities affecting
National Forest System lands.
For an additional amount, to liquidate obligations
previously incurred, $274,147,000.

capital improvement and maintenance

For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, $535,513,000, to remain available until
expended for construction, reconstruction, maintenance and
acquisition of buildings and other facilities, and for
construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance of
forest roads and trails by the Forest Service as authorized
by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205, of which
$50,000,000 is for ``Federal Infrastructure Improvement'',
defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(xiv) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for
the purposes of such Act: Provided, That fiscal year 2001
balances in the Federal Infrastructure Improvement account
for the Forest Service shall be transferred to and merged
with this appropriation, and shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That up to $15,000,000 of the
funds provided herein for road maintenance shall be available
for the decommissioning of roads, including unauthorized
roads not part of the transportation system, which are no
longer needed: Provided further, That no funds shall be
expended to decommission any system road until notice and an
opportunity for public comment has been provided on each
decommissioning project.

land acquisition

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16
U.S.C. 460l-4 through 11), including administrative expenses,
and for acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein,
in accordance with statutory authority applicable to the
Forest Service, $130,877,000 to be derived from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended,
and to be for the conservation activities defined in section
250(c)(4)(E)(iv) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such
Act.

acquisition of lands for national forests special acts

For acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of
the Cache, Uinta, and Wasatch National Forests, Utah; the
Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada; and the Angeles, San
Bernardino, Sequoia, and Cleveland National Forests,
California, as authorized by law, $1,069,000, to be derived
from forest receipts.

acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges

For acquisition of lands, such sums, to be derived from
funds deposited by State, county, or municipal governments,
public school districts, or other public school authorities
pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16
U.S.C. 484a), to remain available until expended.

range betterment fund

For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection,
and improvement, 50 percent of all moneys received during the
prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock on
lands in National Forests in the 16 Western States, pursuant
to section 401(b)(1)

[[Page H3402]]

of Public Law 94-579, as amended, to remain available until
expended, of which not to exceed 6 percent shall be available
for administrative expenses associated with on-the-ground
range rehabilitation, protection, and improvements.

gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research

For expenses authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1643(b), $92,000, to
remain available until expended, to be derived from the fund
established pursuant to the above Act.

management of national forest lands for subsistence uses

For necessary expenses of the Forest Service to manage
federal lands in Alaska for subsistence uses under title VIII
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(Public Law 96-487), $5,488,000, to remain available until
expended.

administrative provisions, forest service

Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal
year shall be available for: (1) purchase of not to exceed
132 passenger motor vehicles of which eight will be used
primarily for law enforcement purposes and of which 130 shall
be for replacement; acquisition of 25 passenger motor
vehicles from excess sources, and hire of such vehicles;
operation and maintenance of aircraft, the purchase of not to
exceed seven for replacement only, and acquisition of
sufficient aircraft from excess sources to maintain the
operable fleet at 195 aircraft for use in Forest Service
wildland fire programs and other Forest Service programs;
notwithstanding other provisions of law, existing aircraft
being replaced may be sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in
value used to offset the purchase price for the replacement
aircraft; (2) services pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2225, and not to
exceed $100,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; (3)
purchase, erection, and alteration of buildings and other
public improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4) for expenses
pursuant to the Volunteers in the National Forest Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 558a note); (5) the cost of
uniforms as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and (6) for
debt collection contracts in accordance with 31 U.S.C.
3718(c).
Any appropriations or funds available to the Secretary may
be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management appropriation
for forest firefighting, emergency rehabilitation of burned-
over or damaged lands or waters under its jurisdiction, and
fire preparedness due to severe burning conditions if and
only if all previously appropriated emergency contingent
funds under the heading ``Wildland Fire Management'' have
been released by the President and apportioned.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for assistance to or through the Agency for International
Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service in
connection with forest and rangeland research, technical
information, and assistance in foreign countries, and shall
be available to support forestry and related natural resource
activities outside the United States and its territories and
possessions, including technical assistance, education and
training, and cooperation with United States and
international organizations.
None of the funds made available to the Forest Service
under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the
provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture
Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b unless
the proposed transfer is approved in advance by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the
reprogramming procedures contained in House Report No. 105-
163.
None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be
reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the
procedures contained in House Report No. 105-163.
No funds available to the Forest Service shall be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund of the Department of
Agriculture that exceed the total amount transferred during
fiscal year 2000 for such purposes without the advance
approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to
conduct a program of not less than $2,000,000 for high
priority projects within the scope of the approved budget
which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps,
defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(xii) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for
the purposes of such Act.
Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $2,500 is
available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official
reception and representation expenses.
Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, up to
$2,250,000 may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial
assistance to the National Forest Foundation, without regard
to when the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative
expenses or projects on or benefitting National Forest System
lands or related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That
of the Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no
more than $300,000 shall be available for administrative
expenses: Provided further, That the Foundation shall obtain,
by the end of the period of Federal financial assistance,
private contributions to match on at least one-for-one basis
funds made available by the Forest Service: Provided further,
That the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a non-
Federal recipient for a project at the same rate that the
recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching funds:
Provided further, That hereafter, the National Forest
Foundation may hold Federal funds made available but not
immediately disbursed and may use any interest or other
investment income earned (before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of this Act) on Federal funds to carry out the
purposes of Public Law 101-593: Provided further, That such
investments may be made only in interest-bearing obligations
of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both
principal and interest by the United States.
Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244,
$2,650,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall
be available for matching funds to the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3701-3709,
and may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial
assistance, without regard to when expenses are incurred, for
projects on or benefitting National Forest System lands or
related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That the
Foundation shall obtain, by the end of the period of Federal
financial assistance, private contributions to match on at
least one-for-one basis funds advanced by the Forest Service:
Provided further, That the Foundation may transfer Federal
funds to a non-Federal recipient for a project at the same
rate that the recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching
funds.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for interactions with and providing technical assistance to
rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 80 percent of
the funds appropriated to the Forest Service in the
``National Forest System'' and ``Capital Improvement and
Maintenance'' accounts and planned to be allocated to
activities under the ``Jobs in the Woods'' program for
projects on National Forest land in the State of Washington
may be granted directly to the Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife for accomplishment of planned projects.
Twenty percent of said funds shall be retained by the Forest
Service for planning and administering projects. Project
selection and prioritization shall be accomplished by the
Forest Service with such consultation with the State of
Washington as the Forest Service deems appropriate.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available
for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and (2),
and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to enter into
grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements as appropriate
with the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, as well as with
public and other private agencies, organizations,
institutions, and individuals, to provide for the
development, administration, maintenance, or restoration of
land, facilities, or Forest Service programs, at the Grey
Towers National Historic Landmark: Provided, That, subject to
such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture may
prescribe, any such public or private agency, organization,
institution, or individual may solicit, accept, and
administer private gifts of money and real or personal
property for the benefit of, or in connection with, the
activities and services at the Grey Towers National Historic
Landmark: Provided further, That such gifts may be accepted
notwithstanding the fact that a donor conducts business with
the Department of Agriculture in any capacity.
Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be
available, as determined by the Secretary, for payments to
Del Norte County, California, pursuant to sections 13(e) and
14 of the Smith River National Recreation Area Act (Public
Law 101-612).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service not
to exceed $500,000 may be used to reimburse the Office of the
General Counsel (OGC), Department of Agriculture, for travel
and related expenses incurred as a result of OGC assistance
or participation requested by the Forest Service at meetings,
training sessions, management reviews, land purchase
negotiations and similar non-litigation related matters.
Future budget justifications for both the Forest Service and
the Department of Agriculture should clearly display the sums
previously transferred and the requested funding transfers.
No employee of the Department of Agriculture may be
detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by this
Act to any other agency or office of the department for more
than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or
office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office
for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of
assignment.
The Forest Service shall fund indirect expenses, that is
expenses not directly related to specific programs or to the
accomplishment of specific work on-the-ground, from any funds
available to the Forest Service: Provided, That the Forest
Service shall implement and adhere to the definitions of
indirect expenditures established pursuant to Public Law 105-
277 on a nationwide basis without flexibility for
modification by any organizational level except the
Washington Office, and when changed by the Washington Office,
such changes in definition shall be reported in budget
requests submitted by the Forest Service: Provided further,
That the Forest Service shall provide in all future

[[Page H3403]]

budget justifications, planned indirect expenditures in
accordance with the definitions, summarized and displayed to
the Regional, Station, Area, and detached unit office level.
The justification shall display the estimated source and
amount of indirect expenditures, by expanded budget line
item, of funds in the agency's annual budget justification.
The display shall include appropriated funds and the Knutson-
Vandenberg, Brush Disposal, Cooperative Work-Other, and
Salvage Sale funds. Changes between estimated and actual
indirect expenditures shall be reported in subsequent budget
justifications: Provided, That during fiscal year 2002 the
Secretary shall limit total annual indirect obligations from
the Brush Disposal, Knutson-Vandenberg, Reforestation,
Salvage Sale, and Roads and Trails funds to 20 percent of the
total obligations from each fund. Obligations in excess of 20
percent which would otherwise be charged to the above funds
may be charged to appropriated funds available to the Forest
Service subject to notification of the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and Senate.
Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service
may be used for necessary expenses in the event of law
enforcement emergencies as necessary to protect natural
resources and public or employee safety: Provided, That such
amounts shall not exceed $750,000.
The Secretary of Agriculture may authorize the sale of
excess buildings, facilities, and other properties owned by
the Forest Service and located on the Green Mountain National
Forest, the revenues of which shall be retained by the Forest
Service and available to the Secretary without further
appropriation and until expended for maintenance and
rehabilitation activities on the Green Mountain National
Forest.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

fossil energy research and development

For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy
research and development activities, under the authority of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91),
including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible
and equitable interests in any real property or any facility
or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for
conducting inquiries, technological investigations and
research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and
disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social
and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603),
$579,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$150,000,000 is to be available, after coordination with the
private sector, for a request for proposals for a Clean Coal
Power Initiative providing for competitively-awarded
research, development and demonstration of commercial scale
technologies to reduce the barriers to continued and expanded
coal use: Provided, That all awards shall be cost-shared with
industry participants: Provided further, That in order to
enhance the return to the taxpayer, provisions for royalties
from commercialization of funded technologies shall be
included in the program solicitation, including provisions
for reasonable royalties from sale or licensing of
technologies from both domestic and foreign transactions:
Provided further, That no part of the sum herein made
available shall be used for the field testing of nuclear
explosives in the recovery of oil and gas: Provided further,
That up to 4 percent of program direction funds available to
the National Energy Technology Laboratory may be used to
support Department of Energy activities not included in this
account.

naval petroleum and oil shale reserves

For expenses necessary to carry out engineering studies to
determine thecost of development, the predicted rate and
quantity of petroleum recovery, the methodology, and the
equipment specifications for development of Shannon Formation
at Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 3, utilizing a below-the-
reservoir production method, $17,371,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, unobligated funds remaining from prior
years shall be available for all naval petroleum and oil
shale reserve activities.

elk hills school lands fund

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses in fulfilling installment payments
under the Settlement Agreement entered into by the United
States and the State of California on October 11, 1996, as
authorized by section 3415 of Public Law 104-106,
$36,000,000, to be derived by transfer from funds
appropriated in prior years under the heading ``Clean Coal
Technology''.

energy conservation

For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation
activities, $940,805,000 to remain available until expended:
Provided, That $311,000,000 shall be for use in energy
conservation grant programs as defined in section 3008(3) of
Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507): Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public Law 99-509, such
sums shall be allocated to the eligible programs as follows:
$249,000,000 for weatherization assistance grants and
$62,000,000 for State energy conservation grants: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
fiscal year 2002 and thereafter sums appropriated for
weatherization assistance grants shall be contingent on a
non-Federal cost share of 25 percent by each participating
State or other qualified participant: Provided further, That
the Secretary of Energy may waive up to fifty percent of the
cost-sharing requirement for weatherization assistance for a
State which he finds to be experiencing fiscal hardship or
major changes in energy markets or suppliers or other
temporary limitations on its ability to provide matching
funds, provided that the State is demonstrably engaged in
continuing activities to secure non-Federal resources and
that such waiver is limited to one fiscal year and that no
State may be granted such waiver more than twice: Provided
further, That, hereafter, Indian tribal direct grantees of
weatherization assistance shall not be required to provide
matching funds.

economic regulation

For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Office of Hearings and Appeals, $1,996,000, to remain
available until expended.

strategic petroleum reserve

For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve
facility development and operations and program management
activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $179,009,000,
to remain available until expended, of which $8,000,000 shall
be available for maintenance of a Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve.

energy information administration

For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Energy Information Administration, $78,499,000, to remain
available until expended.

administrative provisions, department of energy

Appropriations under this Act for the current fiscal year
shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles;
hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase,
repair, and cleaning of uniforms; and reimbursement to the
General Services Administration for security guard services.
From appropriations under this Act, transfers of sums may
be made to other agencies of the Government for the
performance of work for which the appropriation is made.
None of the funds made available to the Department of
Energy under this Act shall be used to implement or finance
authorized price support or loan guarantee programs unless
specific provision is made for such programs in an
appropriations Act.
The Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings,
equipment, and other contributions from public and private
sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other
agencies, Federal, State, private or foreign: Provided, That
revenues and other moneys received by or for the account of
the Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of
products in connection with projects of the Department
appropriated under this Act may be retained by the Secretary
of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for
plant construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-
sharing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing
contracts or agreements: Provided further, That the remainder
of revenues after the making of such payments shall be
covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided
further, That any contract, agreement, or provision thereof
entered into by the Secretary pursuant to this authority
shall not be executed prior to the expiration of 30 calendar
days (not including any day in which either House of Congress
is not in session because of adjournment of more than three
calendar days to a day certain) from the receipt by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of
the Senate of a full comprehensive report on such project,
including the facts and circumstances relied upon in support
of the proposed project.
No funds provided in this Act may be expended by the
Department of Energy to prepare, issue, or process
procurement documents for programs or projects for which
appropriations have not been made.
In addition to other authorities set forth in this Act, the
Secretary may accept fees and contributions from public and
private sources, to be deposited in a contributed funds
account, and prosecute projects using such fees and
contributions in cooperation with other Federal, State or
private agencies or concerns.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Indian Health Service

indian health services

For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5,
1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of
the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian
Health Service, $2,390,014,000, together with payments
received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b)
for services furnished by the Indian Health Service:
Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal
organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any
other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C.
450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the
grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available
to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year
limitation: Provided further, That $15,000,000 shall remain
available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic Health
Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $445,776,000 for
contract medical care shall remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2003: Provided further, That of the funds
provided, up to $22,000,000 shall be used

[[Page H3404]]

to carry out the loan repayment program under section 108 of
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act: Provided further,
That funds provided in this Act may be used for one-year
contracts and grants which are to be performed in two fiscal
years, so long as the total obligation is recorded in the
year for which the funds are appropriated: Provided further,
That the amounts collected by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services under the authority of title IV of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act shall remain available until
expended for the purpose of achieving compliance with the
applicable conditions and requirements of titles XVIII and
XIX of the Social Security Act (exclusive of planning,
design, or construction of new facilities): Provided further,
That funding contained herein, and in any earlier
appropriations Acts for scholarship programs under the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1613) shall remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2003: Provided
further, That amounts received by tribes and tribal
organizations under title IV of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act shall be reported and accounted for and
available to the receiving tribes and tribal organizations
until expended: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, of the amounts provided herein, not
to exceed $268,234,000 shall be for payments to tribes and
tribal organizations for contract or grant support costs
associated with contracts, grants, self-governance compacts
or annual funding agreements between the Indian Health
Service and a tribe or tribal organization pursuant to the
Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, prior to
or during fiscal year 2002, of which not to exceed
$20,000,000 may be used for contract support costs associated
with new or expanded self-determination contracts, grants,
self-governance compacts or annual funding agreements:
Provided further, That such costs should be paid at a rate
commensurate with existing contracts and no new or expanded
self-determination contracts, grants, self-governance
compacts or annual funding agreements shall be entered into
once the $20,000,000 has been committed: Provided further,
That no existing self-determination contract, grant, self-
governance compact or annual funding agreement shall receive
direct contract support costs in excess of the amount
received in fiscal year 2001 for such costs: Provided
further, That funds available for the Indian Health Care
Improvement Fund may be used, as needed, to carry out
activities typically funded under the Indian Health
Facilities account.

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, $369,795,000, 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 from the funds appropriated herein,
$5,000,000 shall be designated by the Indian Health Service
as a contribution to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation
(YKHC) to start a priority project for the acquisition of
land, planning, design and construction of 79 staff quarters
at Bethel, Alaska, subject to a negotiated project agreement
between the YKHC and the Indian Health Service: Provided
further, That this project shall not be subject to the
construction provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act and shall be removed from the Indian
Health Service priority list upon completion: Provided
further, That the Federal Government shall not be liable for
any property damages or other construction claims that may
arise from YKHC undertaking this project: Provided further,
That the land shall be owned or leased by the YKHC and title
to quarters shall remain vested with the YKHC: Provided
further, That $5,000,000 shall remain available until
expended for the purpose of funding up to two joint venture
health care facility projects authorized under the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act, as amended: Provided further,
That priority, by rank order, shall be given to tribes with
outpatient projects on the existing Indian Health Services
priority list that have Service-approved planning documents,
and can demonstrate by March 1, 2002, the financial
capability necessary to provide an appropriate facility:
Provided further, That joint venture funds unallocated after
March 1, 2002, shall be made available for joint venture
projects on a competitive basis giving priority to tribes
that currently have no existing Federally-owned health care
facility, have planning documents meeting Indian Health
Service requirements prepared for approval by the Service and
can demonstrate the financial capability needed to provide an
appropriate facility: Provided further, That the Indian
Health Service shall request additional staffing, operation
and maintenance funds for these facilities in future budget
requests: 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:
Provided further, That notwithstanding the provisions of
title III, section 306, of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act (Public Law 94-437, as amended), construction contracts
authorized under title I of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act of 1975, as amended, may be used
rather than grants to fund small ambulatory facility
construction projects: Provided further, That if a contract
is used, the IHS is authorized to improve municipal, private,
or tribal lands, and that at no time, during construction or
after completion of the project will the Federal Government
have any rights or title to any real or personal property
acquired as a part of the contract.

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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. Such amounts shall remain
available until expended.
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.

[[Page H3405]]

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,
$15,148,000, 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.

Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
Development

payment to the institute

For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title
XV of Public Law 99-498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56 part A),
$4,490,000.

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, $396,200,000, of which
not to exceed $53,030,000 is 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, Latino
programming, and outreach, and including such funds as may be
necessary to support American overseas research centers and a
total of $125,000 for the Council of American Overseas
Research 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 maintenance, 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, $67,900,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $10,000,000 is provided for
maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and alteration of
facilities at the National Zoological Park: 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.

construction

For necessary expenses for construction, $30,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

administrative provisions, smithsonian institution

None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to
make any changes to the existing Smithsonian science programs
including closure of facilities, relocation of staff or
redirection of functions and programs without approval by the
Board of Regents of recommendations received from the Science
Commission.
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.
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.
None of the funds available to the Smithsonian may be
reprogrammed without the advance written approval of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance
with the procedures contained in House Report No. 105-163.

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, $68,967,000,
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, $14,220,000, 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, $15,000,000.

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, $19,000,000, 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, $7,796,000.

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,
$98,234,000, 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,
$104,882,000, 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

[[Page H3406]]

amended, $15,622,000, to remain available until expended, of
which $11,622,000 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, $24,899,000, to remain
available until expended.

Challenge America Arts Fund

challenge america grants

For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 89-209,
as amended, $7,000,000, for support for arts education and
public outreach activities to be administered by the National
Endowment for the Arts, 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), $1,274,000:
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, $7,000,000.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $3,400,000:
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, $7,253,000:
Provided, That all appointed members of the Commission will
be compensated at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of pay 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 museum

For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, as
authorized by Public Law 96-388 (36 U.S.C. 1401), as amended
(36 U.S.C. 2301-2310), $36,028,000, of which $1,900,000 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, $22,427,000,
shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available
until expended.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any points of order against the
provisions of title II?

Point of Order

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order
that the language beginning with the words ``provided further''
appearing on page 89, line 13, and following through the words
``qualified participants'' on line 18 violates clause 2 of rule XXI of
the rules of the House of Representatives prohibiting legislation on an
appropriations bill.
The language in question directly contradicts current law by making
weatherization assistance grants contingent on a 25 percent matching
share from recipients. The Energy, Conservation and Production Act
imposes no such requirement. Accordingly, the language changes current
laws and constitutes a violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I must
regrettably insist on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to speak on the
point of order?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman concedes the point of order.
The Chair finds that this provision explicitly supersedes existing
law. The provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order of the gentleman from North Carolina is sustained,
and the provision is stricken from the bill.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word
for the purpose of engaging the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen)
in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, last March the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published
a rule designating critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner. The
designated areas include 300 feet on either side of more than 1,100
miles of river in four States, including Oklahoma. This critical
habitat for the Arkansas River shiner was designated as a result of a
lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity.
Recently, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the way the
Fish and Wildlife Service conducts economic analysis for critical
habitat designations does not comply with the Endangered Species Act
and the court set aside the designation for critical habitat for the
Southwestern willow flycatcher. The same type of analysis invalidated
in that case was used in the Arkansas River shiner habitat designation.
This recent court decision casts a shadow of doubt on all recent
critical habitat designations. The original intent of the Endangered
Species Act has been lost as designations of critical habitat have
gotten completely out of hand, while true endangered species recovery
efforts are ignored.
Mr. Chairman, if I had my way, we would prohibit any finding in this
bill to be used for the implementation of the critical habitat for the
Arkansas River shiner. However, I know this debate is greater than just
one species.
I would challenge my colleagues to join me in calling for much needed
reform of the Endangered Species Act. If we do not do something soon,
then it will be our farmers and landowners impacted by these
designations that will become extinct.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I empathize fully with the gentleman's
frustration with the Endangered Species Act and critical habitat
designation requirements. The gentleman is exactly right in calling for
reform of the act, and I look forward to working with him and the
legislative committee of jurisdiction to see if we can address this
problem in the 107th Congress.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring attention to an issue that is of
concern to the people of Guam and within this Interior appropriations
bill.
I believe an increase in funding for Compact Impact to Guam can be
accomplished through an overall increase in funding for the Office of
Insular Affairs. This issue is basically one of fairness for the people
of Guam. In the past couple of years we have received funding, in
fiscal year 2000 for $7.58 million, and in fiscal year 2001, the
current year, we are receiving $9.58 million. The President's request
is $4.58 million. I appreciate the subcommittee adding $800,000 to
that.
However, the government of Guam has indicated that this kind of
assistance, which is assistance that is given to the people of Guam as
recompense, as reimbursement for the unrestricted migration from the
Compacts of Free Association, is actually costing the government of
Guam anywhere between $15 million and $25 million annually to provide
educational and social services for these migrants.
I must point out to the House and to the American people that these
are the only citizens of foreign countries that are allowed to freely
migrate into the United States unmonitored and without restriction,
and, by and large, the vast majority of them end up in Guam.

[[Page H3407]]

Even the Department of Interior acknowledges that best estimates are
that annually the people of Guam spend at least $12.8 million for
Compact Impact costs to Guam directly, and we have, for the record, a
letter from Secretary of Interior Gale Norton detailing how the
Department of Interior arrived at this calculation.
Regardless of the differences between the government of Guam and the
Department of Interior, it is clear that the current funding level of
$5.38 million, as recommended by the committee, is inadequate. We will
continue to work on this in conference, and hopefully Members of both
the majority and the minority, as well as Members in the other body,
will see fit to increase the amounts for Compact Impact Aid assistance
to Guam.
This is an issue of fairness, it is doable, and the people of Guam
deserve it.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to title II?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

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 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. 303. 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. 304. 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. 305. 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. 306. 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 2001.
Sec. 307. 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. 308. 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. 309. (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, 2002, 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. 310. 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, 106-113, and 106-291 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 2001 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. 311. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
fiscal year 2002 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'' 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. The Secretaries shall
consider the benefits to the local economy in evaluating bids
and designing procurements which create economic
opportunities for local contractors.
Sec. 312. (a) Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.--
Subsection (f) of 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; 110 Stat.
1321-200; 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note), is amended--
(1) by striking ``commence on October 1, 1995, and end on
September 30, 2002'' and inserting ``end on September 30,
2006''; and
(2) by striking ``September 30, 2005'' and inserting
``September 30, 2009''.
(b) Expansion of Program.--Subsection (b) of such section
is amended by striking ``no fewer than 10, but as many as
100,''.
(c) Revenue Sharing.--Subsection (d)(1) of such section is
amended by inserting ``the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C.
500 note),'' before ``and any other provision''.
(d) Discounted Fees.--Subsection (b)(2) of such section is
amended by inserting after ``testing'' the following: ``,
including the provision of discounted or free admission or
use as the Secretary considers appropriate''.
(e) Special Use Permits.--Subsection (b) of such section is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end of the
paragraph;
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end of
the paragraph and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) in fiscal year 2003 and thereafter may retain, for
distribution and use as provided in subsection (c), fees
imposed by the Forest Service for the issuance of recreation
special use authorizations not exceeding one year under any
provision of law.''.
(f) Capital Projects.--Subsection (c)(2) of such section is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) None of the funds collected under this section may be
used to plan, design, or construct a visitor center or any
other permanent structure without prior approval of the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate if the
estimated total cost of the structure exceeds $500,000.''.

{time} 1330

Amendment No. 2 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. 2 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Page 118, line 3, strike ``2006'' and insert ``2003''.
Page 118, line 5, strike ``2009'' and insert ``2006''.
Page 118, strike lines 6 though 8 (and redesignate the
subsequent subsections accordingly).
Page 118, strike line 18 and all that follows through page
119, line 5 (and redesignate the subsequent subsection
accordingly).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I am attempting here to craft what I would
see as a reasonable compromise on the contentious issue of the
continued authorization of the so-called Recreation Fee Demonstration
Program without any consideration, without one moment's consideration,
by the authorizing committee on which I sit.
Now, this is a tax on the American people, plain and simple. We all
agree that for years we have been charging to

[[Page H3408]]

access parks, to access developed camp grounds, special fee use areas;
those things have ongoing maintenance costs that are directly
attributable to the users. There is no issue over that and my amendment
does not touch that authority.
However, the special new authority in the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program allows the United States Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management to charge people to drive on Forest Service
logging roads paid for by tax dollars to roadside areas, pull-offs, or
the end of the road and have to pay a fee to do that.
Now, I represent many communities that are surrounded by national
forests and for the people in those communities to recreate, they have
to buy a pass to go out and hunt or picnic with their kids, drive the
roads and park the car if they want to get out. Now, that is by any
measure a tax on Americans, on average Americans who use our public
lands. We essentially have created a new king's domain here: you can
use the lands if you pay your fee.
Now, the rationale is we do not have enough money in the budget to
pay for recreation use on these lands, even though these people may not
be incurring any costs since they are using already developed Forest
Service roads, turnouts, parking areas, whatever. These are already
there; they do not require any maintenance that is paid for out of this
program. So the question becomes, should we continue to assess this fee
without having a deliberation and a consideration.
Now, on October 1 of this year, the GAO will render a new, updated
report on the Recreation Fee Demo Program. I believe that that will
point to a direction for some changes that are sorely needed. It will
also point out how the money is being spent or has been spent.
In their first report, we find out that it generated $31.9 million on
Forest Service lands. It cost almost $5 billion to collect that $31.9
million, so 18 percent of the revenue went to collection on the Forest
Service, 18 percent went to administration over and above that. For the
whole program, 21 percent went to collection costs. In addition to
that, there is a general fund appropriation to subsidize the collection
costs of $1.5 million, not a very efficient way to raise funds and,
obviously, a very small amount of money, a tiny fraction of many of the
giveaways in the recent tax bill.
So the question would be, why are we assessing this tax on tens of
thousands of individual Americans, many of modest means, many of whom
will be eligible for nothing in the tax bill because their incomes are
so low, they are retired, they are not paying Federal income taxes;
they may only be paying FICA taxes if they are still working, they are
going to have to pay more than they are going to get back because we
are saying we cannot afford to pay for these services.
So the compromise I offer is, since the then-subcommittee chairman,
the now full committee chairman assured me 2 years ago when I did not
ask for a recorded vote on this amendment that it would go through the
proper authorizing process. It would actually have, God forbid,
hearings; we would actually, God forbid, invite in the public; we might
even go to some of the areas affected and hold a hearing, although that
might be going a little far, and then we would actually act to
authorize any future extension in the shape of this program and the
levying of this tax on the American people.
This bill, without a single hearing, without a moment's hearing, will
extend it for 4 years. My compromise would be to extend it for 1 year,
receive the GAO report, and give the authorizing committee the
opportunity to hold hearings and mark up a proper authorization. If we
want a long-term authorization, I believe it should go through the
authorizing committee and the proper process. If the committee cannot
accept that amendment, we will then move on to my amendment to strike
this provision all together. But in the interests of comity and time of
the body, I would be willing, after we hear from at least one other
speaker in support, to offer this as a compromise. If the committee is
unwilling to accept it, we will then proceed to the debate and a
recorded vote on a total repeal of this program.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Recreation Fee Demonstration Program has come a long way and it
is improving. Through fiscal year 2002, it will have raised over $900
million to help fix the huge backlog in deferred maintenance in our
national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands. Yes, there have
been a few problems along the way, but we have provided congressional
oversight and have improved the program every year.
The President has requested a 4-year extension and that is what I
support as well. Similar amendments have been soundly defeated by the
House in the past, and I ask the Members to defeat this amendment as
well.
Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise today in support of the DeFazio amendment. For centuries, our
forests have remained free and open to the public. So when Congress
decided to start charging families for the right to park their car on
the side of the road in order just to walk their dog or catch a sunset,
it did not seem right. When I am told that the fee is not much, I
cannot help but think of the families struggling to make it by month to
month. Our public lands are a way they can share valued time off
without the worries of being able to afford it.
Mr. Chairman, I am a great supporter of the national forest system
and its personnel. The U.S. Forest Service staff are dedicated
individuals for whom I have the utmost amount of respect, and I realize
they do not operate with enough resources. However, I believe that the
forests are for the entire Nation and should be supported through the
traditional funding processes like most all other Federal Government
programs.
This amendment seeks to extend the Adventure Pass program for only a
year, because that would give Congress an opportunity to review the GAO
report on this issue due out this fall. The more facts we have about
this program, the better we are able to address it. Let us give
ourselves a chance to learn more and maybe even improve on this program
without making our constituents pay for it.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the DeFazio amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 1 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. 1 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Page 117, beginning on line 18, strike section 312
(relating to recreational fee demonstration program).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, here we are again. We are about to extend
a tax which nicks the American people least able to afford it, people
living in rural areas; certainly, some people who recreate on Federal
lands can afford the $35, but many whom I represent in depressed
logging communities and former mill communities cannot. To say that
somehow we should extract $35 from each family so they can take the
kids out, park the car by the side of a logging road and swim in their
favorite stream that they have been swimming in for generations, or to
go hunting for rocks or go hunting in the fall.
This is extraordinary to me. These are public lands. These are not
developed areas. These do not require recurring costs to the Federal
Government. We are creating a new king's domain. I mean let us be
straight about it here. Let us admit we are charging the American
people for something they have already paid for in their tax dollars.
We are charging them to use logging roads and turnouts that were
subsidized by their tax dollars. We are charging them to drive on
public lands and park their car, public lands that are paid for and
maintained out of the general fund of the United States in terms of
forest firefighting and other issues.
Should those people be charged and be caused to bear those costs? I
think not. This is not a fair fee or a fair tax.
The amendment I am offering, since the committee has turned down a
reasonable proposal; I suppose perhaps there is something to hide here.
Perhaps we do not want to go through the regular authorizing process as
the subcommittee chairman promised me we

[[Page H3409]]

would do 2 years ago; perhaps we do not want to hold hearings in areas
that are affected by this tax. Perhaps we are worried about the
outcome. Perhaps the people on the Committee on Resources on which I
sit, who represent people in the areas which are most affected, might
not be totally receptive to this. Perhaps it would be a risk. Perhaps
the program would be modified, changed, or maybe it would not even get
through. That would be a true legislative process. Instead, buried deep
in an appropriations bill without a single hearing is a 4-year
extension of a new tax created in 1996. That is not right. It is not
fair.
If my colleagues have confidence in this, because I heard in the
debate last year, oh, people love this program. Of course, the Forest
Service says something different. The people who are trying to enforce
it are being abused and threatened. They have had more vandalism of the
signs for this program than anything else. A lot of people do not even
know where to pay the fee. The sign does not tell you. You get to the
end of the logging road, this has happened to me, and there is a sign
there saying, you must pay a fee to use the site. It is too far from
anywhere for them to put one of those dead-man kind of collection
things because someone will pull it out and take the money out of it.
So it just says, you have to pay this fee somewhere, somehow, some
time, or you are going to get a ticket if you park here. People do not
even know where to go.
Yes, the program has been slightly simplified. No longer do you have
to have 50 or 60 different passes to drive throughout forests in the
Western U.S. In the Northwest, you can get away with just a couple.
That is $70. Seventy bucks is a lot of money for an average working
family. I know it does not nick people in this place too much, but it
certainly does the people who I represent.
It is not fair to do this and it is not right to do this without
going through the authorizing process, without holding hearings,
without taking public testimony, without assessing the next GAO report
on how much of this is going to administrative costs and collection
costs because in the first cut, almost 40 percent of this program was
going to administration costs and collection costs. Forty percent of a
new tax. So every American family paying $35 is contributing 40 percent
of that for bureaucracy and maybe the other 60 percent goes to
something they care about. Since this money is not centrally controlled
or not spent according to any plan, it is up to the discretion of the
local forests. Some forests have done better than others in spending
these excess funds out of this new tax. Others have not. They spend it
in ways that the people who paid it do not want to see it happen.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to strike this
section from the bill. It would still run for 1 year from next October,
even if this is struck from the bill, and that would give the Committee
on Resources a year to read and digest the GAO report, report an
authorization, and take it up before the entire House. That is the way
we normally do things around here, except when we have something to
hide, and I guess in this case we have something to hide: an unfair tax
on the American people that has never been properly authorized or
commented upon.

{time} 1345

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeFazio amendment on
recreation fees. At the height of summer recreation season when tens of
millions of Americans most enjoy their national parks and other public
lands, the bill before us expands the recreation fees that are
financially unfair to seniors, families, and children.
After just passing a tax cut, there are those who want to give money
with the one hand and take it back with the other.
I am concerned with the scope and nature of the recreation fees being
charged, and the fees' impact on senior citizens, families, and other
recreational users. I am especially disturbed by the fact that while
recreational trail users of our Federal lands are being asked to bear
an increased financial burden for the management of these lands, the
same is not being asked of many subsidized individuals, businesses, and
industries whose consumptive use of Federal lands have far more impact.
It is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that proponents propose substantial
increases in recreation fees at the height of the summer recreation
season, yet have been unwilling to reduce the generous subsidy
corporations receive from the use of public resources.
It is regrettable that proponents apparently believe that only
private citizens, not the corporations that profit from the resources
of this Nation, should be called upon to pay more. How much additional
revenue can the majority expect to squeeze out of families and senior
citizens?
Our national shrines and the national heritage embodied in our public
lands provide an exceptional and unique place in which to instill a
solid value system in our children. We should be encouraging this
family value, not hindering it. It will be a sad day when families and
other visitors have to look in their wallets to see if they can afford
to use our great system of national parks, forests, and public lands in
which they, the public, share ownership.
Mr. Chairman, I support the DeFazio amendment. I do not believe it is
right that our constituents should have to pay to simply walk in our
national forests or watch a sunset on our public lands.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the elimination of this
amendment. The fee program has worked extremely well. It has raised
about $400 million that has been used to improve campsites, repair
sanitation facilities, roads, bridges, and safety.
I heard this characterized as a tax. It is a user fee, and the people
that pay the fee get the benefit. If one does not use the facilities,
they are not paying for them.
We know that the backlog of maintenance in the national parks is
about $5 billion, maybe $10 billion, no one knows for sure. But when we
do not have maintenance, this means that the visitors do not have an
opportunity to enjoy these facilities, as has been described.
By having a very modest fee, and usually the fee for a whole carload
of people is about the price of one ticket to Disneyland, or maybe even
less than that, they have the benefit of the trails, the campsites, the
sanitation facilities, the enhancement of visitor locations.
Thus far, we have raised over $600 million. Under the language, this
money has to be on top of the base support of the park program in the
bill. This is not a substitute for what we would be normally spending.
Therefore, the money is used to enhance the visitors' experience.
When I talk to the superintendents, they say that the vast majority,
the vast majority of the people are happy to pay a fee. In fact,
oftentimes they will contribute extra if they have a box for
contributions. People appreciate the parks and forests and the
recreational opportunities afforded to them, and they are perfectly
willing in most cases to pay a very modest fee.
This program over the next year or year and a half will produce a
total of over $900 million. Members can imagine what that means in
fixing up rundown campgrounds and picnic sites, and fixing cultural
parks that are part of our great parks and forest system.
Sometimes campgrounds are closed because they do not have the money
to maintain them. By having the fee program, they have an opportunity
to open these campgrounds and give more visitors a chance to use the
facilities.
One other thing I am told by park and forest superintendents is that
vandalism is substantially reduced, because when people pay a certain
small fee they have a greater appreciation of the facility, plus the
fact that they do not go in there in a careless way.
I still remember visiting the Angelos National Forest, where they
built a beautiful picnic area with slides and charcoal burners and
picnic tables. Obviously, what had happened the night before we were
there, someone with one of these vehicles with huge tires had come into
this facility and just drove over it, drove over the gate, smashed

[[Page H3410]]

everything in sight. Had they paid a fee they would not have done that,
because they would have known that somebody at the gate knew they were
in there. But at that time, there was no fee program.
This is just one example of how vandalism would be reduced under this
program.
I think if we talk to park and forest superintendents, if we talk to
the vast majority of people who use the parks and forests for
recreation, they will be very supportive of this program. It has worked
well. A lot of the facilities are in far better condition than they
would be otherwise, had there not been the program of modest fees.
I think this is a bad thing, this amendment, it is a bad thing for
the parks and forests. It would take away from them an opportunity to
work with the visitors in improving their experience when they do use
our parks and recreation facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a strong no vote on this amendment.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has always been gracious in
dealing with our disagreements over this, and I appreciate it.
I would just like to clarify, the gentleman kept saying parks and
park superintendents. This amendment applies only to the Forest Service
and the BLM, so the parks and park superintendents are not at issue
here. They would still be allowed to go there.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, in the mind of the public, the forests and
parks are oftentimes indistinguishable.
I might say, the forests are a very rapidly growing source of
recreation. In fact, what used to a source of wood fiber is now a
source of recreation, and I think the gentleman will find in this bill
a lot of commitment of money to enhancing the recreation dimension of
the national forests. So obviously the fee program works there as
effectively, and will, as it does in the parks.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. Defazio. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman admits this will not affect
the Park Service, it is only the Forest Service and the BLM.
Mr. REGULA. The committee in their wisdom chose to structure it that
way.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment of my
friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). I frankly believe,
based on my own visits to the parks, that the American people are
delighted. Not everyone is delighted, obviously, but the vast majority
are willing to make a small contribution for the maintenance of the
parks, which, as we all know, is something that has been underfunded.
Last year, when I offered the conservation amendment with the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), one of the things we had in it was
a lot of additional money for maintenance. We recognized that our
parks, our national forests, our recreation areas, need additional
maintenance.
Under this program, 80 percent of the money that is collected stays
at that local park, and when people see the signs about the
improvements that are being made on the trails, in the housing for the
workers, in the facilities, we have all kind of these facilities that
are very, very old that need to have their sewers repaired, that need
to have their septic tanks repaired, need to have work done on the
water systems, many of which are old. People I think are willing to
make this contribution.
The authorizing committees have had a lot of time here. This has been
in place now for several years. They have time to have acted, and they
have not acted. I think one of the reasons they have not acted is
because they basically believe, as I do, that this program is working.
I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). He put this
together. I supported him. I think it is working. We are doing better
on maintenance, we are keeping these facilities in better condition,
and the other 20 percent goes to the lesser parks, the lesser
facilities. I think that also makes sense.
We are not substituting the money. Where in the past the money was
sent back to Washington and then they would get the 80 percent locally
but they would cut the amount of money that goes to that park, they are
not doing that.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to consider this.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to help the gentleman with
meetings with the Forest Service to try to clear up the problems in the
gentleman's area.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I appreciate that the program is better than when it
started, and we do not need 15 different forest passes in Oregon again.
But the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from Ohio keep
referring to parks. There is a huge infrastructure backlog in the
parks. This amendment does not go to the parks, it goes to undeveloped
recreation sites, off-logging roads, in the national forests and on BLM
land.
If I could, one further point, the gentleman who preceded the
gentleman, I would disagree with what he said, that people do not
differentiate between parks and Forest Service land.
I am certain that the people in Oregon, as they do in Washington,
discriminate between the parks and the forest lands. No one is
contesting charging park fees. We are talking about a new fee on using
Forest Service lands and BLM lands.
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
I would point out to the gentleman, however, that in terms of
recreational opportunity, that our National Forest lands have more
recreational opportunity than do our national parks. We have to keep
and maintain those National Forest campgrounds and hiking sites.
I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from Oregon,
but I think we should defeat his amendment here today and keep this
bill moving forward to final passage before we have to leave today.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. A statement was made a
few moments ago of the poverty in sawmill towns. That is one part of
the statement from a previous speaker that I will agree with. He has
been successful at helping create a lot of poverty in sawmill towns.
But when we go beyond that, we own one-third of America. The backlog
on the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the BLM is
$12 billion to $15 billion, forgetting the Park Service, $12 billion to
$15 billion.
Hearings were held. There were many chances to be heard. Let us look
at the program and how it has worked. Visitors to the Forest Service
and BLM are up. Why are they up? When we have the funds to maintain the
trails, get the old logs out of there where trees have fallen, to
maintain the facilities, to maintain and open new parking areas so
people can come in, that is good.
I hear complaints where sometimes there are not enough parking areas,
places to park and access our public land. It costs money for water and
sewer and buildings and trails and roads. It costs a lot of money. Have
we adequately put the money behind all of the land we purchased? No, we
have not. In fact, we have taken money that should go to maintenance
and we keep buying more land in all of these jurisdictions.
Trails have been reopened and improved with the demonstration fee
money. Facilities have been updated. Boating areas have been expanded.
Roads have been improved. Parking areas have been improved, and water
and sewer made available. These are the things that the people need
when they are out there.
Yes, the poor people of America use our parks, the working people of
America use our parks. A little bit ago we had an amendment that took
that

[[Page H3411]]

money away and gave it to some of the richest in America, the arts
folks. Those are the richest people in America. The working people of
America use our parks, and the vast majority support this program.
There will be some that will not, but the vast majority of the people
support this program because it works. They see what is happening. They
see better roads. They see better facilities. They see better boating
areas. The proof is in the pudding.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. So I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, he wants to
charge for users of public lands?
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Only in limited areas.
Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I
would ask him, how about oil, gas, mining, and mineral extraction?
Would the gentleman be agreeable to a fee for mineral extraction from
Federal lands?
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mineral extraction is big, it is paid
for.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mineral extraction is not paid for, there is no royalty.
It is $3.50 cents an acre under the 1872 mining law.
I am glad the gentleman will support a fee on mining. I will have a
bill to him in the near future.

{time} 1400

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this
program has benefited the people of America. Our facilities, we own a
third of it, it ought to be accessible. Our facilities ought to be
good. Our roads ought to be decent and safe. Our water and sewer
facilities ought to be there.
We ought to make it accessible and a fun experience for all of those
who want to use it. Mr. Chairman, I urge the continuation. If it needs
altering, we will alter it. It has been a demonstration project. It is
only on selected sites.
I have the Allegheny National Forest in my district, and they have
some fees. I have not had complaints on those fees. People want to see
those areas more accessible, brought up to date and where the
experience is a good experience.
We, as a Congress, have historically not been willing to invest the
money in the investment we have made in owning a third of America. This
helps us do that. I urge a continuation. Should we alter it down the
road? Probably.
But let us let this project move forward. It is the only hope of the
public land having good facilities, well maintained, is having a fee
schedule that helps us do that, because this Congress has been
unwilling to put the dollars where their land is.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio)
will be postponed.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of title III 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
New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of title III is as follows:
Sec. 313. 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.
Sec. 314. 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. 315. 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. 316. 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. 317. (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. 318. 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. 319. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds in this Act may be used for GSA
Telecommunication Centers.
Sec. 320. 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. 321. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 2001 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 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.

[[Page H3412]]

Nothing in this section shall be construed to exempt any
project from any environmental law.
Sec. 322. 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. 323. 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 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. 324. The Forest Service, in consultation with the
Department of Labor, shall review Forest Service campground
concessions policy to determine if modifications can be made
to Forest Service contracts for campgrounds so that such
concessions fall within the regulatory exemption of 29 CFR
4.122(b). The Forest Service shall offer in fiscal year 2002
such concession prospectuses under the regulatory exemption,
except that, any prospectus that does not meet the
requirements of the regulatory exemption shall be offered as
a service contract in accordance with the requirements of 41
U.S.C. 351-358.
Sec. 325. A project undertaken by the Forest Service under
the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program as authorized by
section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, as amended,
shall not result in--
(1) displacement of the holder of an authorization to
provide commercial recreation services on Federal lands.
Prior to initiating any project, the Secretary shall consult
with potentially affected holders to determine what impacts
the project may have on the holders. Any modifications to the
authorization shall be made within the terms and conditions
of the authorization and authorities of the impacted agency.
(2) the return of a commercial recreation service to the
Secretary for operation when such services have been provided
in the past by a private sector provider, except when--
(A) the private sector provider fails to bid on such
opportunities;
(B) the private sector provider terminates its relationship
with the agency; or
(C) the agency revokes the permit for non-compliance with
the terms and conditions of the authorization.
In such cases, the agency may use the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program to provide for operations until a
subsequent operator can be found through the offering of a
new prospectus.
Sec. 326. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the Secretary of
Agriculture is authorized to limit competition for fire and
fuel treatment and watershed restoration contracts in the
Giant Sequoia National Monument and the Sequoia National
Forest. Preference for employment shall be given to
dislocated and displaced workers in Tulare, Kern and Fresno
Counties, California, for work associated with the
establishment of the Giant Sequoia National Monument.
Sec. 327. Expeditious Treatment of Forest Plan Revisions.--
The Secretary of Agriculture shall complete revisions to all
land and resource management plans to manage a unit of the
National Forest System pursuant to Section 6 of the Forest
and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16
U.S.C. 1604) as expeditiously as practicable using the funds
provided for that purpose by this Act.
Sec. 328. Until September 30, 2003, the authority of the
Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a cooperative
agreement under the first section of Public Law 94-148 (16
U.S.C. 565a-1) for a purpose described in such section
includes the authority to use that legal instrument when the
principal purpose of the resulting relationship is to the
mutually significant benefit of the Forest Service and the
other party or parties to the agreement, including nonprofit
entities.
Sec. 329. (a) Pilot Program Authorizing Conveyance of
Excess Forest Service Structures.--The Secretary of
Agriculture may convey, by sale or exchange, any or all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
excess buildings and other structures located on National
Forest System lands and under the jurisdiction of the Forest
Service. The conveyance may include the land on which the
building or other structure is located and such other land
immediately adjacent to the building or structure as the
Secretary considers necessary.
(b) Limitation.--Not more than 10 conveyances may be made
under the authority of this section, and the Secretary of
Agriculture shall obtain the concurrence of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate in advance of each
conveyance.
(c) Use of Proceeds.--The proceeds derived from the sale of
a building or other structure under this section shall be
retained by the Secretary of Agriculture and shall be
available to the Secretary, without further appropriation
until expended, for maintenance and rehabilitation activities
within the Forest Service Region in which the building or
structure is located.
(d) Duration of Authority.--The authority provided by this
section expires on September 30, 2005.
Sec. 330. Section 551(c) of the Land Between the Lakes
Protection Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 460lll-61(c)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2004''.
Sec. 331. Section 323(a) of the Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, as included in
Public Law 105-277, Div. A, section 101(e) is amended by
inserting ``and fiscal years 2002 through 2005,'' before ``to
the extent funds are otherwise available''.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Traficant

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Sec. . No funds made available under this Act shall be
made available to any person or entity who has been convicted
of violating the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c,
popularly known as the ``Buy American Act'').

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is standard ``buy American''
language that has been placed on appropriation bills.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen),
the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I accept the Traficant amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I accept the Traficant amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would just hope that we continue to
focus on buying American goods and products wherever we can. I
appreciate the fine work of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman
Skeen), his consideration, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks), ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Interior. Mr.
Chairman, I ask for an aye vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the
Interior.
Mr. Chairman, the administration included a land acquisition request
for

[[Page H3413]]

several tracts of land along the Chattahoochee River within the
Chattahoochee National Forest in my Ninth Congressional District of
Georgia.
This particular acquisition ranked third on the Forest Service's
fiscal year 2002 national land acquisition priority list. Recently, I
was informed that the owners of these tracts have delayed their
decision to sell their properties.
Fortunately, there are other landowners in the area with similarly
important tracts of land who wish to convey them to the Forest Service.
The land now available will provide habitat and watershed protection,
as well as recreation opportunities.
The committee report provides $1 million for the Forest Service to
acquire lands along the Chattahoochee River within the Chattahoochee
National Forest.
Given the recent changes with land availability, I ask that the
gentleman work with me in conference to remove the report language in
the Forest Service land acquisition table referring to the
Chattahoochee River and simply appropriate the $1 million to the
Chattahoochee National Forest so they may purchase the key tracts now
available.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. We have consulted with the Forest Service and the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) is correct that the original tracts
of land requested by the administration are no longer available.
However, new tracts of land have become available that will help the
forest to meet its management objectives.
Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to work with the gentleman as this bill
moves forward to conference.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman
Skeen) earlier was referring to the Maloney amendment and it was
accepted, but I have some concerns with it; and I hope that in
conference committee, the gentleman will consider these concerns.
The amendment wrongfully substitutes the use of ``spot'' prices as an
index for the oil and gas value for royalty purposes in all cases.
The Clinton administration, when publishing the final oil valuation
rule in March 2000, agreed with the Rocky Mountain producers that the
use of spot prices was not an appropriate measure of the value. In
fact, the current rule allows the use of comparable arm's-length sales
of crude oil in the field to establish that value.
What the Maloney amendment really does is have Congress endorse the
``duty-to-market'' concept in the oil and gas valuation rules. It
wrongfully requires lessees to pay royalties based on downstream value-
added system, rather than the ``wellhead'' value which is required by
existing leases and current mineral leases statutes.
This amendment seeks to prevent further royalty-in-kind crude oil
pilot projects like in Wyoming, despite the analysis by the Minerals
Management Service and the State of Wyoming, that the government
received 45 cents per barrel more in revenue than it had received under
the original or the current royalty-in-value system.
Saved administrative costs should not be ignored as a policy matter,
and the royalty-in-kind involves far less administration by the
Department of the Interior than the royalty in value.
The materials management service pilot project increasingly shows
that the royalty-in-kind works. And in my home State of Texas, we have
had a successful royalty-in-kind program for a number of years, and it
can and does work very well.
The minerals management service recently completed its evaluation of
the Wyoming royalty-in-kind pilot project and published that report in
the Federal Register for public comment, and yet there were no
objections submitted by the public.
The minerals management service based its Wyoming pilot on the
criteria that to be successful the pilot must provide simplicity,
accuracy, and certainty for leases and the government.
The revenue should be revenue neutral or better for the government
and must reduce the administrative burden for leases and the
government.
The Wyoming pilot met these criteria. Royalty-in-kind receipts
exceeded comparable in-value royalties by approximately $810,000. In
addition, the royalty-in-kind streamlined processes have established a
foundation for administrative savings for the minerals management
service and also the industry.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the minerals management has made it clear that
they would not force any Federal lands into the royalty-in-kind and
States where the State is not a partner, and there is no mandatory
royalty-in-kind program or mandatory expansion.
The minerals management service should be allowed to manage the
minerals and have the choice to use royalty-in-value or royalty-in-kind
as allowed by the lease conditions, the market and the Federal
statutes.
At this critical point, we need to address our Nation's energy needs.
We should not restrict or limit the government's ability to conduct
programs that benefit us all, particularly the taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to look at this amendment in
conference committee, so it will benefit the taxpayers and also the
producers.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concerns, and
we will definitely take a look at this during the conference with the
House and the Senate.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from
New Mexico (Chairman Skeen). The land acquisition that I would like to
bring to the gentleman's attention today is 5,988 acres which is in-
holding called Thunder Mountain. Thunder Mountain is located in the
Payette National Forest in West Central Idaho and is located in the
heart of the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness area.
This area is home to five listed species and large populations of
game, large game including elk, deer, moose, and bighorn sheep. The
purchase of this land would allow the Forest Service to protect the
critical areas that are necessary for generations to come.
I offer my appreciation to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen)
in advance for the gentleman's sincere consideration of this effort.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OTTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this land
acquisition request to our attention and for making his interests
known. There were many worthy land acquisition projects requested for
fiscal year 2002.
We tried to fund as many as we could; nevertheless, we will closely
examine this request should the opportunity arise in conference.
Mr. OTTER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OTTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have been in that area that the gentleman
is talking about, and I think it is something we ought to look at very
closely.
We appreciate the concern of the gentleman from Idaho for endangered
species. That is kind of a new thing from Idaho, and we appreciate it.
Mr. OTTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) I appreciate his concern for
those of us in Idaho who are becoming more endangered every year.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rahall

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Rahall:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:

Sec. __. No funds provided in this Act may be expended to
conduct preleasing, leasing and related activities under
either the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)
within the boundaries of a National Monument established
pursuant to the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.)
as such boundary existed on January 20, 2001, except where
such activities are allowed under the Presidential
proclamation establishing such monument.

[[Page H3414]]

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and a Member opposed each
will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, America's national monuments are under siege. Under the
guise of an energy crisis, both the President and his Interior
Secretary have publicly suggested that some of our national monuments
might be pretty nice places for oil and gas drilling or perhaps even a
coal mine.
In my view, this is not what America is about. Americans are
rightfully concerned about energy security, but I do not think that the
majority of Americans believe that we are in such a sorry state of
affairs that we must unleash big oil onto some of our most cherished
and sacred public lands.
Make no mistake about it, some of the oil and gas companies have been
hankering to get into these areas for years. They are salivating over
the thought that these monuments might be opened.
Mr. Chairman, I maintain that our national monuments, our national
heritage must not be sacrificed on the alter of greed and profit.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply prohibit the issuance of new
energy leases in designated national monuments.
It would not, it would not vanquish any valid existing right, nor
would it prevent leasing in any situation where that activity was
authorized when the monument was established. Establishment of a
national monument is an authority vested with the President under what
is known as the Antiquities Act.
Beginning with that great Republican conservative Teddy Roosevelt, 14
of the 17 Presidents who served since 1906 have used this power. In
all, they have established 122 national monuments, with Congress
subsequently redesignating 30 of them as national parks.
We are talking about places like the California Coastal National
Monument and the Giant Sequoia National Monument in California. The
Craters of the Moon National Monument in Idaho and Vermillion Cliffs
National Monument in Arizona.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) a question. I did not want to interrupt the
gentleman, and I will be glad to give him some additional time.
I say to the gentleman, is it not true that before these became
monuments, these were all Federal lands? Mr. Chairman, sometimes people
think that Presidents go out and create just out of whole cloth
wilderness or whatever area, but the monument has to have been Federal
land before it became a monument; is that not correct?
Mr. RAHALL. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks), the distinguished ranking member, is exactly right.
Mr. Chairman, I yield further to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point that out to my
colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman from West Virginia be granted
an additional minute due to my interruption.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is unable to grant that request unless there
is a unanimous consent request that each side get an additional minute,
because this is a controlled-time debate.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, these places I just
mentioned, they are incredible treasures. They are incredible
treasures; from the Atlantic to the Pacific, historic sites, glacial
fjords, towering mountains and fragile deserts. Indeed, they are a
lasting legacy that we as Americans can hand down for generations to
come.
Are we really that desperate that we will allow coal mining or oil
and gas drilling in these national monuments? I do not believe so. Yet
there are some, there are some who see things differently.
Under the Bush administration, the Interior Department has conducted
a new analysis of the energy potential of national monument lands, not
all monuments, mind you, not an analysis of all monuments, just those
it so happened were designated by President Clinton.
What a surprise. This new analysis found that a number of our
national monuments may contain some oil and gas and coal resources.
These areas apparently now represent the administration's monument hit
list. So the question comes down to this: 95 percent of BLM lands in
the western energy-producing States are already open to oil, gas and
coal leasing; 95 percent BLM lands are already open to oil, gas and
coal leasing.

{time} 1415

Must we now sacrifice the remaining 5 percent of protected areas, our
wilderness, our historic sites, our wildlife preserves? Must they now
be subjected to exploitation and speculation? I say no, and I sincerely
hope that this body says no as well.
Vote for our heritage. Vote for our legacy. Vote for our future
generations. Vote for American values. And vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
This amendment would put in place a moratorium, stopping any new
energy development within the current boundaries of the newly created
national monuments without regard to the energy needs of the Nation.
Passage of this amendment would limit the Department's capability to
consider actions through the land planning process that could be in our
Nation's interest. If after extensive consultation with all parties the
President determines that it is in the best interest of the American
people to modify a monument boundary, while still maintaining the
integrity of our precious national monuments, he should not be
prohibited from doing so.
Members have been rightfully concerned about the electricity
situation in California and the rest of the West right now, and about
supply and price problems of various energy fuels. This amendment sends
the wrong message. It says regardless of the energy situation, we are
going to place certain lands off limits, even if the President
determines that leasing of those lands will not interfere with their
national monument significance.
Therefore, I must ask for my colleagues' support in defeating this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce and a former ranking member of
the Committee on Resources.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time, and we must support this amendment. We must
support this amendment so the energy crisis in California and the West
Coast is not allowed to be used as a battering ram by this
administration to batter down the designation of national monuments and
some of the most valuable and most prized and most beautiful and sacred
lands in this entire country.
This administration now wants to come in, after all the effort was
made to delineate and to make determinations about the values of these
lands in terms of their cultural and historic significance, and after
the designation of the monument has been given in the name of the
people of the United States of America, this administration would try
to batter down those designations at the very time when millions of
Americans are taking their children and other members of their family
and traveling across this country visiting monuments of this country,
recognizing the historical importance of these, the cultural importance
of these lands, the Craters of the Moon, the Effigy Mounds, the Little
Bighorn Battlefield, Scotts Bluff, the Statute of Liberty, Bandelier
National Monument, Gila Cliff Dwellings, White Sands, Governor's
Island, Oregon Caves. These are all different. In the West we have some

[[Page H3415]]

monuments, in the East we have different monuments, but this is about
the culture of this Nation.
You tried to use the energy crisis in California to batter the
California consumers, Mr. President, and that did not work. And now we
see finally you are taking some actions to help those consumers. You
should not use this energy crisis to batter down the designation of
these lands. These lands belong to the people of the United States. And
when your Secretary of the Interior sends a letter suggesting to
consult with just local officials, these are not local parks, these are
not local districts, these are national monuments. Why are we not
consulting with all the people of this Nation? That is what President
Clinton did before he made the designation. There were public hearings,
there was a process, because we knew the significance and the
importance of a monument designation.
We should not cower behind our energy problems in California to try
to change the status of these great public lands.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind all Members that remarks during
debate should be directed to the Chair.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Otter).
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the amendment is nothing more
than an attempt by the Democrats to congressionally legitimize those
actions taken by President Clinton during the last hours, without
adequate public input, in the dead of night.
These proclamations, of course, clearly abused the letter and the
spirit of the Antiquities Act of 1906, when they knew what they were
doing. The Antiquities Act, among other things, mandates that when a
President declares a monument it ``shall be confined to the smallest
area available, compatible with the proper care and management of the
objects to be protected.'' Now, I know that that means we must question
ourselves as to what we mean by objects or what we might mean by
protected. However, as we all know, President Clinton blatantly used
this act solely for political purposes like no other before him.
Mr. Chairman, passing this amendment would in effect put a
congressional rubber stamp on those actions and those boundaries taken
by these ill-considered proclamations. Secondly, if the boundaries of
the national monuments do change, this amendment to the bill today is
totally unnecessary. Most, if not all, the proclamations withdraw the
lands from all forms of mineral entry, including oil and gas leasing,
except when subject to valid and existing rights. This amendment keeps
the exemption for valid and existing rights, thus actually does nothing
at all, Mr. Chairman, for the monument boundaries if they are never
adjusted.
Lastly, and however very important, by agreeing to this amendment we
also prevent future oil and gas leasing in these areas that would not
be withdrawn as a national monument if the boundaries ever did change.
If the boundaries are to be adjusted to meet the real intent of the
1906 Antiquities Act and the real intent of protecting the object of
significance contained in those monuments, then the areas withdrawn,
which would not contain any significant objects, could be open to gas
and oil and other exploration.
Eliminating future options for our country's resources is simply not
acceptable, and I submit that the other side cannot have it both ways.
You cannot suck and blow in the same breath, and, Mr. Chairman, that is
precisely what they are doing.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a valued member of our committee and the ranking
member on the Subcommittee Committee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Committee
on Resources for yielding me this time. As ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, I rise in strong support
of the Rahall amendment that prohibits funding for new leasing for oil
and gas exploration in our national monuments.
Mr. Chairman, Teddy Roosevelt must be rolling in his grave right now.
A great Republican conservationist, he was the first President to use
his powers of the Antiquities Act to designate national monuments
throughout the country. Now, 100 years later, a Republican President is
suggesting opening up these same very precious lands to oil and gas
exploration. Our national monuments should be the last place open for
energy development, not the first. We should instead be focusing on
effectively managing the millions of acres of Federal land that are
already available for energy development.
In fact, the work we have been doing in the Subcommittee on Energy
and Mineral Resources, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) and I
have demonstrated that 95 percent of the available Federal lands are
already accessible to oil and gas exploration. We should be keeping our
focus on that rather than the remaining 5 percent that is not. Granted,
there may be some permitting problems that have come out during the
course of these hearings that we need to work through, but there is
sufficient Federal lands already for the oil and gas energy needs that
this country faces.
Rather than opening our national monuments to oil drilling, we should
instead bring balance to our national energy policy by developing
renewable and alternative energy sources, such as solar, wind, and
biomass. We should be increasing our funding for those programs instead
of cutting them, as the administration now proposes.
We should also be encouraging the development of hybrid cars in this
country. The big three in this country have fallen behind the
competitive scale when it comes to developing these hybrids, which are
more energy efficient and more environmentally friendly. We have
waiting lines across the country of consumers wanting to buy the
foreign-made hybrid cars. So there is a market demand for this, Mr.
Chairman.
Clearly, the American people would like to see more fuel efficient,
environmentally friendly vehicles, not more drilling in the national
monuments, and so I would encourage my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the
following specified amendments to the bill, and any amendments thereto,
be limited to the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent.
An amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis)
related to oil and gas leasing in Florida for 30 minutes; an amendment
to be offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) regarding
hardrock mining for 30 minutes; an amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) regarding Biscayne National Park for 10
minutes; and an amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns) regarding the National Endowment for the Arts for 10 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I want to
make certain on the Stearns amendment that I would have the 5 minutes
in opposition; if we could just have that understanding.
Mr. SKEEN. I will yield that.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent agreement is agreed to.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Hansen).
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting debate we are
in. My good friend from West Virginia, I am afraid I am going to have
to go to the other side on this one, and I want to explain why, because
I have great respect for him and the ability he has.
I noticed when I read his statement this morning, he talked about the
crown jewels that we were going to protect under this amendment. I
would agree with that, if they were the crown jewels. If we go back to
the 1906 Antiquities Law and carry it out and find out where we are
going, those original ones truly did fit that category, the Grand
Canyon, the Zion, the Bryce,

[[Page H3416]]

and the others, they are the crown jewels, and we compliment Teddy
Roosevelt for taking the time, the initiative, and having the
enlightenment to come up with the idea of taking care of those crown
jewels.
But now we find ourselves in an entirely different situation today.
What do we have on these crown jewels? Let me point out, Mr. Chairman,
that we have a whole group of energy problems. I do not think there is
any intelligent person in America that does not realize we are going to
have a tremendous energy problem. It is going to be coal, it is going
to be natural gas. We are talking about alternative sources, and we get
2 percent, that huge amount of 2 percent of alternative sources that
everybody is talking about, and then we have got coal at 52 percent.
Now let me talk about one of these crown jewels my good friend from
West Virginia talked about. On September 16, 1996, standing safely on
the south rim of the Grand Canyon, President Clinton got up and he
declared that he was going to put 1.7 million acres into one of these
crown jewels. The interesting thing about it is that President Clinton
had never been there. When he was asked where it was, he put it in
Nevada, though that is immaterial. That is a little different than
someone like Teddy Roosevelt, who had lived on the ground, who had been
to the Grand Canyon, who had hunted in the Grand Canyon, had floated in
the river, had hiked those canyons. He knew it from one inch to the
other.
Now, do my colleagues know what the law says? I thought we were bound
by the law. I thought it was necessary we follow the law. We are a
Nation of laws. Yet this President comes along and he talks about the
three things we are supposed to name in the 1906 Antiquities Law.

{time} 1430

What are they? One is a scientific site. Another is an archeological
site like Rainbow Bridge, obviously one. Another one is an historic
site where the two trains came together. That is obviously an historic
site.
This is the first President, and I have sat on this committee and
chaired the Subcommittee on Parks and Lands, and now I am the chairman
of the Committee on Resources, I cannot find a President who has
violated that up to this point. This President did not state any one of
the three. Not one.
What is the next thing that the law says, the law that we put our
hand to the square and said, we will uphold this law. And the next part
says this. It says, and he shall use the smallest acreage available to
protect that site. In the first place, my colleagues, President Clinton
did not name the site. In the second place, he gives us 1.7 million
acres.
Mr. Chairman, let me go back to the idea of energy. What is in this
area? I asked John Leshy, the solicitor for the Department of Interior,
explain this beautiful area that President Clinton is taking care of.
He did not know what he was talking about, and I say that respectfully,
because he said where there is 1 trillion tons, get that word
``trillion,'' 1 trillion tons of low sulfur coal, the best in the
world, right in the Kaiparowits Plateau.
Mr. Chairman, have any of my colleagues been there? It amazes me, we
are so good about talking about places, but often my colleagues have
never been there. Well, I have been there. My dad had mines on it. As a
private pilot, I put airplanes down in the craziest places, I repent
for doing that, but all through that area, and I can tell my colleagues
without any equivocation, if my colleagues like rolling hills of
sagebrush and nothing else but hot, dry land with bugs flying around,
that is two-thirds of the Grand Staircase Escalante. Two-thirds of it
is nothing but sagebrush. But there is a trillion tons of low sulfur
coal.
Now we are talking about President Carter who says our ace in the
hole is coal; and yet we say we cannot do that under the gentleman's
amendment. We cannot take care of that.
What I have heard on some of these other 18 crown jewels that came
about: fossil fuels, natural gas. All of these things, and these are
not, my friends, the crown jewels that my good friend of West Virginia
talked about. These are areas put in there, obviously abusing the 1906
antiquity law, obviously there for political reasons. In fact, we
subpoenaed the papers and we wrote a pamphlet called ``Behind Closed
Doors.'' I do not have the quotes here, I was at another meeting and
just ran over, and so I quote from memory, ``These grounds do not
deserve protection.'' Kathleen McGinty, working for President Clinton
and Al Gore, ``These grounds do not deserve protection,'' yet we say
they are crown jewels. Give me a break.
Why are we doing this anyway? Another thing between the Department of
Interior and the White House, another statement, ``These grounds do not
deserve that kind of protection.'' Yet today, we are here saying we
have an energy crisis on our hands and we cannot handle it, so let us
close up areas of rolling sagebrush.
The Grand Staircase Escalante does not deserve that protection.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
in allowing me to speak in support of his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I disagree with my colleague from Idaho who talked
about sneaking this in the last hours in the dead of night. I am
speaking just to one monument in the State of Oregon, the Cascade-
Siskiyous, where approximately a year ago 52,000 acres were protected.
I would suggest that there is significant support in our State, and the
notion that this would be an area where we should open up to mineral
exploration, energy exploration, is something that would be opposed by
the people in our community.
Mr. Chairman, we may disagree over issues that deal with energy. I am
sure we will have spirited debate, but I would hope that this is one
area where we could step back and recognize that these are areas that
deserve protection.
If the Congress wants to overturn the Presidential designation, if
there is one that is inappropriate, by all means come forward and we
will have the debate, have Members vote them up or down. But unless and
until my colleagues are willing to step forward and show where they
think it is not worthy of protection, I think we ought to support the
gentleman's amendment, and I know that the people in Oregon appreciate
it.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I have been in my office listening
to the debate on the gentleman's amendment, and I have never heard so
much energy wasted on an amendment that very frankly does damage to
this Nation and not to the monuments. When I hear people talk about the
Statute of Liberty and the Grand Canyon, they are full of it. That is
really, in fact, not what this is all about.
Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues want to know what it is about, read
this report called ``A Monumental Abuse: The Clinton Administration's
Campaign of Misinformation in the Establishment of the Grand Staircase
Escalante National Monument.'' I have it right here. This was passed by
the Committee on Resources. Read it. It is the greatest blatant
political piece of trash that administration did. There was no danger
to that area of the Escalante, but because the environmentalists wanted
it and Kathleen McGinty wanted it, they set this vast area of land,
without consulting with the governor and without consulting with the
local representative, and by the way he lost, because there was a huge
coal deposit there and they did not want that coal deposit developed.
Read your record. Do not vote for this amendment. It is nothing but a
bunch of hot air.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, as far as the debate earlier on the
recreation fee demo amendments, they are something that should be
subject to the Committee on Resources, on which I serve, which is a tax
on the average American people. It is hidden in this bill to avoid
accountability and responsibility.
Now here hidden in this bill is the authority to go into and drill on
national monuments. If my colleagues want to undo the national
monuments, have

[[Page H3417]]

the courage of their convictions. Introduce legislation. Hold hearings.
Have a debate. Bring it to the floor. Have a vote. See if it can be
gotten out of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is going to happen. I do not
believe this body is going to undo formally any monuments. So do not
have this subterranean subterfuge of drilling. Be honest. If my
colleagues want to undo the monuments, introduce the legislation and
let us have a vote on it up or down.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with the last
speaker when he says introduce legislation if Members want to change
it, do not do it through a rider.
Mr. Chairman, I had a hearing in Lewistown, Montana a couple of weeks
ago. I had just short of 300 people there. It took 8 hours. There is
not consensus on this.
When I came to Congress, I made the determination I would try and
change the rhetoric when it came to natural resources policy so we do
not dig ourselves into corners and then have to litigate our way back
out.
The President dropped a bad piece in our laps. We are trying to pick
up the pieces. We will do the best we can. We want full disclosure and
full debate, but let us not close the door to a reasonable conclusion
to something that is very emotional in my State of Montana.
Over 80,000 acres of private property were included in this monument.
What reasonable President, if he had gone through the appropriate
process of debate and consideration, would have allowed that to happen?
Secretary Norton recently sent out a letter to over 200 local
officials asking their opinion. She has stated the position that she
will not make changes without adequate consideration and due process.
There is only one reason this amendment has been introduced, and that
is to shut the door further on what we believe the President did in the
first place.
Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prohibit oil and gas leasing and
preleasing in our national monuments. Without this amendment, we may
have to rename some of our national monuments to reflect their new
status. The Statute of Liberty National Monument, for example, could
become the ``Statue of Fossil Fuels Production National Monument,''
with an actual flame burning at the top of the torch. Of course, we
will have to change the inscription to read:

Give me your drill bits, your rigs,
Your huddled oil companies yearning to drill free,
To dump their wretched refuse on our pristine shores,
Send these, your well-heeled executives to me:
I lift my lamp besides their golden doors.

Of course, there are other types of national monuments in our
country. Here is a photograph from the Upper Missouri River Breaks
National Monument. It is beautiful. But perhaps the oil industry could
improve upon the view? Bam. Oil rigs in the national monument. How much
oil would we retrieve from the Upper Missouri River Breaks? One hour's
worth of our national consumption. One hour. What this amendment says
is that one hour of our oil use in the United States is worth
despoiling this pristine view forever.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot condone this wanton disregard of our
responsibilities to succeeding generations. Our national monuments
represent the most unique, most irreplaceable, the most breathtaking of
all of the natural wonders in this great land. All we are asking is
that we meet our energy needs outside the boundaries of these special
treasures, not on top of them.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the Rahall amendment.
First, let us make SUVs and air conditioners and refrigerators more
efficient before we tell every succeeding generation of Americans that
we had no other option but to take the national monuments and to
despoil them for one hour's worth of energy, and to damage them
permanently.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, after listening to the last few speakers,
I have to tell my colleagues, if rhetoric were fast food, Members would
have to walk through golden arches to enter this floor, because I have
never heard so much rhetoric as I have just heard from the gentleman
from Massachusetts who just spoke. He talks about the beauty of these
things, and many are beautiful.
But some of them, my colleagues ought to come to Idaho and look at
the expansion of the Craters of the Moon. It is a bunch of lava rock.
And we are still trying to figure out what the imminent threat was to
the Craters of the Moon when they designated it as a national monument,
yet they decided they had to do it. It was under no imminent threat.
That is the reality.
Mr. Chairman, clearly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
are passionate about national monuments. So am I; and so is anybody on
this side of the aisle. We all love our public lands and want to
protect them, but look at what this amendment does. What this amendment
does is say that we cannot have any preleasing, any leasing, or any
related activities on a national monument as it existed prior to
January 20, 2001.
Now, the gentleman from Oregon that spoke said we are not going to
change any of those things. If Members want to change any of those
things, bring them to the floor. We have done that in this Congress.
Many of my colleagues voted for it because it went by suspension. We
changed a national monument in Idaho to a national preserve, so we do
change them occasionally and we need to look at that.
Mr. Chairman, the reality is the real purpose of the Rahall amendment
is to freeze the dozens of monuments that President Clinton declared
during the waning days of his administration and prohibit mineral
leasing activities in these areas. That is the intent of this
amendment. This would occur even if Congress enacted a law which
adjusted a boundary to a national monument or if President Bush reduced
the size of a monument by administrative order.

{time} 1445

The effect of the Rahall amendment will be to lock up acres of coal,
gas, oil and other much needed energy resources at a time the United
States needs these domestic resources to avert a further energy crisis.
The House of Representatives, as I have said, has already changed one
to a national preserve, so the reality is we do look at them, we do
change them, we do change the boundaries. But under current law, 30
United States Code section 181, mineral leasing cannot take place on
national monuments. If you look at most of the national monument
designations that have been made, they prevent mineral leasing in the
designation.
I would bet the gentleman from Oregon that spoke earlier about the
beauty of the national monument in his State if he would look at the
designation would see that it is prevented in the designation of that
national monument. So we are not going to go out and drill in these
areas, Mr. Chairman. We should not tie Congress' hands and the
President's hands with this ill-advised, unnecessary, silly amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the people on this side of the aisle care as much about
our public lands and our national monuments as they do. That is why we
live there, because we love the beauty of our rivers and mountains and
streams. That is what we want to preserve. But yes, there are
legitimate reasons to look at our national monuments for other
purposes.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not adopt this amendment. It is
silly and unnecessary.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time. As a Rocky Mountain westerner, I rise in support of this
amendment and I share the sentiments of the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Simpson) that we do love these lands in the West. I have been dismayed,
though, to

[[Page H3418]]

some extent to hear my colleagues describe these lands as sagebrush and
rolling hills and nothing but black lava rock. But as we know, those
lands provide us with solitude and great viewscapes, clean air, and
clean water. They are God's creation. We should set them aside in
perpetuity as President Clinton had the wisdom to do.
In our State, rapid population growth is putting increased pressure
on all our Federal lands. We have become aware of the need to preserve
and protect those lands. That is simply what President Clinton has
done. But President Bush seems to be going the other way. In fact, I am
tempted to borrow an old phrase and suggest that maybe we are on the
verge of a ``war on the West.''
Unless we restore some balance, this energy policy will be a war on
wilderness, a war on wildlife, a war on our open spaces, and ultimately
a war on our economy which is dependent now on these open spaces and
the clean air and the clean water.
This amendment will limit the potential of that potential attack. I
hope it will be unnecessary. I hope that the President will pull back
and not open our national monuments to drilling, but let us be safe
rather than sorry. I urge support of this important amendment by the
gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Secretary Norton has written a series of letters to various State and
local officials encouraging reassessments of existing national
monuments. I would like to quote directly from the Secretary's March 28
letter to the Governor of Arizona:

I would like to hear from you about what role these
monuments should play in Arizona. Are there boundary
adjustments that the Department of Interior should consider
recommending? Are there existing uses inside these monuments
that we should accommodate?

Mr. Chairman, I think this clearly shows that our monuments are under
threat. The President, on March 13, additionally said, and I quote,
``there are parts of monuments where we can explore.''
Vote for this amendment. Protect our heritage. Protect our national
monuments.
Mr HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by my
colleague from the state of West Virginia, Congressman Rahall, to
protect National Monuments from energy and mineral development.
National monument status designation has been used to protect some of
our most unique and significant natural and historic areas. In the last
95 years, 122 national monuments have been designated through the use
of the Antiquities Act. Clearly, presidents from the time of Theodore
Roosevelt have realized the wisdom of protecting sensitive public
lands, already owned by the public, from natural resource exploitation.
The designation of national monuments follows a serious and
deliberate process, including extensive study and involvement by the
public. The process relies heavily on the input of local officials and
citizens, those who will be most directly affected by the designations.
Impacts are weighed in light of the benefits that will be enjoyed by
the American public and the fact that a natural resources legacy has
been created for future generations.
Some coal, natural gas, and oil does underlie a number of our
national monument lands. However, the significance of these resources
when compared to our overall energy supply was part of the
consideration before the monument status was bestowed. Ninety-five
percent of the public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management
already is open to energy leasing. This amounts to millions of acres of
federal land. We should be focused on doing a better job managing and
developing fuels from the lands already available for leasing rather
than looking at the remaining five percent for further exploitation.
The high cost of electricity and the rising costs of gasoline and
home heating oil will not be reduced by drilling on national monument
lands. The amount of energy resources on these lands is only a small
fraction of what is available elsewhere. Our monuments must be
protected against the forces of commercialization that would use them
to enrich a few at the expense of the many by sacrificing our most
spectacular and prized natural landscapes and historical sites. I urge
you to join me and support the Rahall amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall) will be postponed.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the
purpose of entering into a very brief colloquy with the chairman on a
matter of importance to my State.
As chairman of the House Interior appropriations subcommittee, I know
the gentleman from New Mexico is faced with many funding requests and
faces a difficult task in balancing competing demands.
As the gentleman may know, Delaware has a rich heritage in the
underground railroad. There are 18 underground railroad sites in
Delaware, including the Governor's house at Woodburn where I lived, the
courthouse where abolitionist Thomas Garrett was tried, and numerous
other sites utilized by the principal underground railroad conductor
Harriet Tubman.
Sadly, there is more information about Delaware's role in the
underground railroad in the museum shop at Ford's Theater in
Washington, D.C. than in Delaware's museums. Delaware is rallying to
correct this oversight by filming a documentary about the underground
railroad and sponsoring a lecture series at Delaware State University.
Pursuant to the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act
of 1998, the Delaware Underground Railroad Coalition is seeking
$250,000 to develop a heritage plan to highlight Delaware's role in the
underground railroad.
I seek the gentleman's support in working to provide funding for this
heritage plan as the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill
moves forward.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. It is true the committee views funding the National
Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998 as a priority. I
pledge to work with the gentleman from Delaware as this legislation
moves forward to accommodate this request if the opportunity for
additional funding arises.
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman and I appreciate his support.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 6 offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders); amendment No. 1 offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio); and amendment No. 5 offered by the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Sanders

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153,
noes 262, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 178]

AYES--153

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Brown (OH)
Cannon
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Castle
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Frank
Ganske
Gephardt
Gilman
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Harman
Hinojosa

[[Page H3419]]

Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hulshof
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Nussle
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Sherwood
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Solis
Stark
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Walsh
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--262

Akin
Allen
Armey
Baca
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bentsen
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Evans
Fattah
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kilpatrick
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lampson
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
McCrery
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sandlin
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--17

Aderholt
Bachus
Callahan
Cox
Cramer
Cubin
Everett
Herger
Houghton
Israel
Kaptur
Lewis (GA)
McInnis
Neal
Riley
Rush
Serrano

{time} 1514

Mr. CALVERT, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Ms.
GRANGER and Mrs. TAUSCHER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. QUINN, SHAYS, HONDA, BERRY, KING, ROTHMAN, WELDON of
Pennsylvania, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon and Ms.
MILLENDER-McDONALD changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement by The Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by a voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 129,
noes 287, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 179]

AYES--129

Ackerman
Allen
Baldacci
Barcia
Bass
Becerra
Berkley
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Clay
Clayton
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Deutsch
Doggett
Doolittle
Dreier
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Gallegly
Gephardt
Graves
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kildee
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mink
Moran (KS)
Nadler
Napolitano
Ney
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherman
Shows
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Walden
Waters
Watt (NC)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--287

Abercrombie
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meehan
Meek (FL)

[[Page H3420]]

Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--16

Aderholt
Bachus
Callahan
Cox
Cramer
Cubin
Everett
Houghton
Israel
Kaptur
Lewis (GA)
McInnis
Neal
Riley
Rush
Serrano

{time} 1523

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rahall

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on Amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall) on which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the
noes prevailed by a voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 180]

AYES--242

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Bass
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gephardt
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--173

Akin
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barton
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kerns
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--17

Aderholt
Bachus
Becerra
Callahan
Cox
Cramer
Cubin
Everett
Houghton
Israel
Kaptur
Lewis (GA)
McInnis
Neal
Riley
Rush
Serrano

{time} 1532

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

{time} 1530

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a
colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee and with the ranking
member with respect to what I believe to be an oversight in this
legislation.
Years ago, in 1986, the Compact of Free Association was entered into
between various entities in Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and with
Palau. It provided citizens of the Freely Associated States certain
rights and privileges. One of the rights and privileges was free access
to the United States. The 1986 Compact allowed citizens of the Free
Associated States from the Marshalls, Micronesia, Palau and other
places, unrestricted entry into the United States and access to
residence, education, employment and all of the various services.
Hawaii was always a major destination for these migrants.
Congress provided, in the legislation at that time, that beginning
from September 30, 1985, such sums as may be necessary to cover the
costs incurred by the State of Hawaii, the Territories of Guam and
American Samoa resulting from the increased demand; the problem was the
increased entry from these entities into Hawaii and Guam that has
caused very serious additional expenses upon my State and Guam
specifically. The costs to Hawaii since 1986 exceeds $64 million, $10
million just in the year 2000. Many of the Compact migrants who come to
Hawaii have significant health problems, including

[[Page H3421]]

Hansen's Disease, hepatitis, tuberculosis and so forth, and they
increase the costs of my State.
The intent of Congress and the legislation was to compensate the
State of Hawaii and Guam and others for these additional expenses. So
we had hoped that the committee would take this into consideration. All
of us from the State of Hawaii and from Guam wrote the committee.
My purpose in raising this issue today, because this was not covered
in the legislation, is to ask the chairman and the ranking member if
they would comment on the reasons for noninclusion. Is there a legal
restriction from being able to qualify for the monies that were
intended to come to our State? But since the very beginning, in 1986,
we have not been considered at all for compensation under this
legislation. I would hope that I might get a very encouraging response
from either the ranking member or the chairman of this committee. I
yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and
let me just say this. We appreciate the gentlewoman's concern on it,
and we will see if there is anything, but it is a question of funding
and just a limited bill and lots of choices. But we are early in the
process and the gentlewoman is showing a lot of concern, and we will
just have to see. I am sorry I cannot be more specific.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's hard work on
this issue. I know this is a major concern. I want to work with the
gentlewoman on this, and hopefully we can have a meeting before the
conference and go through the details of this and try to work with our
friends in the other body who now are chairmen of major committees that
might be able to help us find some solutions to this.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
words of encouragement. There is every indication that the Senate will
comply with this request, and I am hopeful that the conferees from this
body will agree to those additions to the legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Florida:
On page 131 after line 4 insert the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds in this Act may be used to
execute a final lease agreement for oil or gas development in
the area of the Gulf of Mexico known as Lease Sale 181 prior
to April 1, 2002.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am offering this amendment today with the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Scarborough). The effect of the amendment, which has been read in
its entirety, is to prohibit the Secretary of Interior from signing any
new leases off the coast of Florida that would allow oil and gas
drilling to proceed for the first 6 months of the next fiscal year.
The reason the amendment is necessary is because the Interior
Secretary has expressed her intention to continue with a process which
could well result in the issuance of oil and gas leases within 30 miles
of Pensacola, with some of the most pristine beaches, not just in the
State of Florida, but I would submit in the United States and the
world, and 200 miles off the coast of the Tampa Bay area, my home.
I remember as a small child what happened when the last oil spill
occurred in Tampa Bay. It took us years to recover from that. We in
Florida do not want to see that happen again. This amendment will
assure that what occurred in Tampa Bay some years ago and,
unfortunately, has happened in other parts of the United States, does
not happen to our precious coastline.
Our coastline is not just something that is precious to Floridians,
because we cherish our environment and it is integral to our economy.
This is truly a national treasure. I would urge all of my colleagues,
Democrats and Republicans, to think about where their constituents are
headed this summer. They are headed south. They are headed to our
beaches, because they are beautiful beaches. We want to protect those
beaches.
We are against quick fixes to solve our energy problems. We do not
want to see oil drilling right off the coast of Florida at the expense
of Floridians.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this sale was included in the Mineral Management
Service's 5-year plan, and the Congress has voted specifically to
exclude sale 181 from the current leasing moratorium for the past 6
years. More importantly, it is necessary that the sale of 181 may hold
as much as 7.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This is enough
natural gas to supply 4.6 million households for 20 years. This sale
represents one of the Nation's best short-term hopes for increasing
much-needed natural gas supplies.
Energy issues have dominated the debate lately, especially as they
relate to both prices and supply of energy fuels. This amendment sends
the wrong message. It says, regardless of the energy situation, we are
going to place certain lands off limits. We cannot continue to lock up
the Nation's energy resources and then expect to let our energy
problems simply solve themselves. That is why we ask for our
colleagues' support in opposing this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the cosponsor of this
amendment,
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida,
and I would like to stand beside him and other Members from Florida and
across the country who support the Davis-Scarborough amendment.
As the gentleman from Florida said, we do have some of the most
pristine beaches, not only in Florida or the United States, but, in
fact, they are recognized as some of the most pristine beaches across
the world, and are consistently rated at the top of every list that
comes out. Yet, lease sale 181 would allow drilling and exploration
less than 20 miles off of our shores.
We certainly do welcome tourists from across the country, across the
world, and I disagree that this amendment sends the wrong message. I
think it sends the right message. It recognizes that the people of the
State of Florida, the Republicans and Democrats alike, the Republican
Governor Jeb Bush, and all of us oppose oil and gas exploration less
than 20 miles off the shore.
I applaud the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Goss) and other people that have led on this issue
year in and year out. It is important to remember that this amendment
will simply prohibit the Minerals Management Service from finalizing
the lease sale on area 181, which is less than 17 miles off the coast
of my district.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) once again spearheaded the
amendment that has kept Florida's waters rig-free for the past decade.
This amendment builds on the chairman's language to include the 181
lease sale, and I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and several others for supporting
it. It is important. It is important not only to northwest Florida, it
is important to the State and it is important that the country
recognize, recognize the desires of the people of the State of Florida.
In my home district, we do not want exploration less than 20 miles off
of our shores.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) a member of the committee.

{time} 1545

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I have a map which I think will be helpful to our colleagues. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the

[[Page H3422]]

amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Florida, and
supported by many of my friends from Florida.
I would think that we would realize we are now in an energy crisis in
the United States of America. We are increasingly dependent on foreign
sources of oil, but the one product in abundance we have here in the
United States in North America is natural gas. That is what we are
talking about primarily here, natural gas in lease sale 181.
This amendment would cripple one of the largest sources of natural
gas we have in North America. As the chairman said, it is $7.8 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas. My friend, the gentleman from Florida, when
he introduced this amendment, said we do not need a quick fix in this
area. My goodness gracious, this has been under review for 5 years, Mr.
Chairman, an exhaustive review process. It began in 1996. For 5 years,
sale 181 has been subjected to careful review and study to ensure all
concerns are addressed.
In fact, then Governor Lawton Chiles expressed his appreciation to
the Department of the Interior for recognizing his request to exclude
any tracts within 100 miles of the Florida coast.
What are we talking about here? If my friends can look at the map,
and those on the other side, I would appreciate it if they would come
over here, we are talking about an area here that is 213 miles from
Tampa, 108 miles from the coastline near Panama City. This little part
that goes up near Pensacola, that is Alabama territory. Alabama gets to
make the choice there. That is why it comes so close to Pensacola,
because it is Alabama offshore territory.
It is true that the previous administration called for a moratorium
on the exploration and drilling in the eastern Gulf of Members, but not
for lease sale 181, not even the previous administration. Even this
Congress took action to impose a moratorium on drilling in the eastern
Gulf, except for lease area 181.
The last administration and this Congress have both recognized the
critical importance of lease sale 181 in meeting our natural gas
demand. I repeat, we are talking about 7.8 trillion cubic feet of sale
of natural gas, one of the cleanest types of energy we could produce,
during the time of an energy crisis.
With production declining over here in the western area and in the
central area of the Gulf of Mexico, this part of the eastern section,
just sale 181, hundreds of miles out in the Gulf of Mexico, is crucial
to meeting our national energy needs. The sale of 181 is critical to
that effort.
Mr. Chairman, with the current energy crisis, you would think our
politicians might have learned their lesson about restricting the
production of needed and environmentally-friendly energy sources.
I urge the defeat of this amendment. This may be one of the most
important votes we take this summer.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
The gentleman from Mississippi is correct, it may be a couple
hundreds miles away from Tampa, but it is only about 15 miles away from
the beaches of northwest Florida, where the gentleman from Mississippi
and his family come to vacation every summer.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to the forefront, and
for his continued efforts on behalf of Florida.
I would say to the gentleman from Mississippi, 181, it does not
matter, it could be down in the Keys next, it could be someplace near
Tampa. It is just the fact and idea that we do not want this open at
all in Florida. I would say to the gentleman that this amendment is
about Floridians and their wants; or, in this case, what they do not
want. They do not want drilling off the coast of Florida.
Governor Jeb Bush has said that he, and I would say that 94 percent
of the people who have contacted me from the nature coast, oppose
further oil and gas drilling off the coast of Florida. Florida's
economy and general welfare depend on a healthy marine environment,
including clean beaches. An offshore accident of any size seriously
threatens not only our shoreline, but it also will hurt our seafood and
fishing beds. Clearly we must do all we can to protect Florida's
sensitive seacoast.
What Floridians do want, though, what I have advocated, and so have
many others on this floor, is a prudent, responsible energy policy that
includes safe, clean supplies and reduced demand through conservation
and energy efficiency.
Up to now, we have done too little in these areas. Renewable
resources, such as solar and wind, I have to tell the Members, these
energies could be providing energy today if we would just use the
technology. We could be well down the road to a sensible energy policy
if the majority had only considered in 1999 or 2000 the energy tax
credit bill that my Democratic colleagues and I supported.
Instead of funding and using sources we now have, we again are
debating issues that should have been settled by now. Years ago
Congress first imposed the moratorium on expanded drilling in the Gulf.
The past administration accepted the ban on drilling. The current
administration does not.
If the administration forgets about oil drilling near Florida and if
Congress would restore Bush budget cuts for energy efficiency and
renewable energy programs, we can move forward to an energy policy that
serves all Americans and does not include drilling off the coast of
Florida. I support the Davis amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, in these times this amendment makes no sense, and it is
the height of irresponsibility. This lease is not off the coast of
Florida, it is in the Gulf of Mexico. It is off the coast of Louisiana
and Mississippi. This amendment makes about as much sense as shutting
down all exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It weakens our energy
security.
Our long-term energy security, particularly at this time, requires us
to seek out new sources of oil and natural gas. America is growing
increasingly dependent on foreign sources of oil. That trend endangers
our national security. When the proportion of oil we import from a
volatile region rises, average Americans grow more vulnerable to supply
interruptions and international conflicts.
When we have an opportunity to reverse this trend, we need to seize
upon it. We need to take responsible steps to decrease our dependence
on foreign sources, and when we discover a promising domestic reserve
of natural gas and oil, we need to move forward by opening that area to
safe exploration.
Lease sale 181 has the potential to play a very important role in
strengthening our energy security. It could hold trillions of cubic
feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil. Natural gas and oil
produced at home lowers the sway that potentially hostile foreign
leaders would hold over average Americans.
Recently we have seen fluctuations in the price of natural gas
because supplies have run short. This clean-burning fuel is becoming an
increasingly important source of energy. Each additional source adds to
the supply and can offset new demand for natural gas. Lease sale 181
can make natural gas prices lower and more stable.
Now, some Members oppose exploration in this area because they are
concerned about environmental risks. That is a radical notion, because
what we think is a reasonable and understandable concern is not a
concern at all. We do not face an either/or proposition. Lease sale 181
can be explored safely. Today advances in technology let drilling
platforms probe much larger areas. Sophisticated new drilling devices
provide multiple protections against oil spills.
We can add these resources to our energy supply without compromising
environmental standards. I say to the gentlewoman from Florida, the
best fishing in the world is around these platforms, if the gentlewoman
has ever taken the time to visit one. Over the past 20 years, oil
exploration firms operating in the Gulf have built a solid track record
of environmental stewardship.

[[Page H3423]]

Defeat this amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would say respectfully to my dear friend, the
gentleman from Texas, that perhaps the people of Florida would much
rather have artificial reefs around which their fishing can be improved
instead of oil platforms.
In addition to that, while we might say that it is radical to protect
our environment, perhaps more and more Americans are becoming radical
because, to look at the polls in this country, the American people
strongly defend their environment. I do not think the American people
want drilling off the coast of one of the most pristine areas in this
country, because it belongs not only to Florida, it belongs to the
people of my State in Ohio, it belongs to the people all over this
country.
There are people who want to drill in the Great Lakes, which
represent 20 percent of the fresh water supply of America. When do we
stop trying to trade the treasure of this Nation to industries which
are gouging the public, which are raising prices to unconscionable
levels, which are withholding supplies?
We are going to put our trust in the gas and oil industry and forfeit
our natural treasures? I think not. Support Scarborough-Davis.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, section 181 is located 64 miles from my district. It is
much closer to my district in Louisiana, and much closer, by the way,
to Alabama and Mississippi than it is to Florida. That is point number
one.
Point number two, right adjacent to section 181 BP just discovered
1.5 billion barrels of oil. There are huge reserves there, 7.8 trillion
feet of natural gas probably in section 181. Section 181 is under a 5-
year plan approved by President Clinton in his executive order 98,
signed off by Florida and the other States of the area, that in fact
respects the rights of Florida not to have drilling within 100 miles of
its coast.
Section 181 can help us through a terrible crisis we are about to
face. It is not moratorium, it is in the 5-year leasing plan, and it
needs to be developed.
Ninety-two percent of the new electric power plants that are planned
to be built in this country are being planned to be built with natural
gas. Yet, we produce 14 percent less natural gas in this country than
we did in 1973.
Section 181 is critical. It has, on best estimates, 7.8 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas available for this country. We are not going
to drill it? We are not talking about moratoriumed areas, we are not
talking about monuments, we are talking about an area in the Gulf of
Mexico right next to an area in Louisiana that is currently being
drilled, currently being processed, for oil and gas for our country. It
is an area rich in oil and gas for a nation that desperately need
natural gas.
Seven out of twelve fertilizer plants in Louisiana were shut down
this year because we could not afford the natural gas to process
fertilizer for the rest of this country. Do Members want to see more
problems? Shut down section 181 and we will begin to shut down
America's farm belt. We will begin to shut down clean power for
America. We literally predict a crisis that will come true.
Defeat this amendment for the good of the country.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Orlando, Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I rise today in strong support of the Davis amendment. We need oil
rigs off the Florida beaches about as much as we need crackhouses next
to our churches.
Florida is home to this Nation's finest beaches. We have a tourism-
based economy. The last thing we need is oil drilling 17 miles off the
shores of our Pensacola beaches in north Florida.
I represented the world's number one vacation destination. I get to
meet thousands of tourists every year. I have never yet heard a child
to me say, ``I want to see Mickey Mouse, Shamu, and wouldn't it be
great to see a couple oil rigs off the beaches?"
Reasonable people surely can differ on this issue. It genuinely is a
risk-versus-benefits analysis, but in the case of Florida, in light of
our economy, the risks outweigh the benefits.

{time} 1600

To the extent we need more energy supply, and we do, let us start
with places that actually want the oil drillings and not the Florida
beaches.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the Subcommittee of the Interior,
for yielding me the time.
I am proud to follow some of my colleagues. As a country, we cannot
enjoy a growing and cleaner economy without more domestic production of
natural gas. It is clear that our Nation's demand for natural gas is
growing significantly.
If our Nation is to meet its growing demand, then we have to have
access to gas-prone areas like Sale 181, which is really closer to
other States than it is to Florida.
We cannot set aside Florida. I wonder about my colleagues who want to
have a vacation destination. People will not be able to drive there to
enjoy Mickey Mouse unless we have production domestically.
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot demand lower energy prices and
continued reliability and at the same time discourage domestic
production. Exploration and production of domestic energy sources are
keys to staying in front of our energy needs.
Sure, we need to conserve. Sure, we need to have alternatives, but
conservation and alternatives will not satisfy the demands of the
American people. We have to have production, particularly from natural
gas, to fuel all of these cleaner-burning power plants that are on the
drawing boards and actually being built.
Mr. Chairman, Sale 181 actually during the last administration was
left out of President Clinton's executive order in 1998 because it was
agreed to by all the States, including Florida. In fact, the sale was
specifically excluded from the current leasing moratorium language.
Key stakeholders including Alabama, Florida and the Department of
Defense were consulted on the 5-year plan. The sale of the area was
drawn to ensure it was consistent with Florida's request for no oil and
gas activities within 100 miles, but what we are talking about is
within the Alabama border, and that is why we need this production.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Miami, Florida (Mrs. Meek).
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, when are people going to get it
in their minds that the people of Florida do not want oil and gas
drilling in the sea bed of the Gulf of Mexico? It does not take a Ph.D.
to figure that out. It is simple. Why is it my colleagues cannot figure
that out?
Our Governor, Jeb Bush, has made it explicitly clear even to his
brother that he does not want this to happen. Why can we not listen to
those people who know what the deleterious effects will be of this in
Florida? Within 30 miles of Perdido Key you want to drill. Sixteen
million Americans residing in the State of Florida do not want it.
Mr. Chairman, I will repeat it again, I do not have much time, the
people of Florida do not want it. The Governor does not wanted it. So
do not push the President into wanting it. Please remember we do not
want it. Do my colleagues want to ruin our beaches? My colleagues want
to turn us into another Planet of the Apes.
We do not want it, the toxic pollution, offshore oil drillings, air
pollution, spills. These things will happen. Why would we want to put
our natural system at risk? We have Everglades here. We have the beauty
that God has given us. Let us keep it. It is not that important.
We are not going to stand for it. We are not going to allow it to
happen. We will not allow Bush I or II and their best friends to
destroy this beautiful

[[Page H3424]]

natural system. Let us protect Florida's coastline and beaches. Support
the Davis amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, we face a real energy crisis in this
country which is only going to grow; and to meet that crisis, we need a
balanced long-term approach.
We are not going to drill our way out of the crisis, nor are we going
to conserve our way out of the crisis, nor are we going to work our way
out of the crisis through pure energy efficiency.
The bottom line is that clearly we have to do all of these things.
The problem with this amendment is it takes safe, clear opportunity for
domestic oil and gas production off the table, and we have been doing
that for 30 years, taking more and more off the table.
That is exactly the sort of not-in-my-backyard mentality which has us
where we are today. That is exactly what we have to get beyond if we
are going to have a balanced comprehensive approach to meeting our
Nation's energy needs.
The most ironic thing about this not-in-my-backyard argument, it is
not even in their backyard. In fact, it is in Federal territory, and it
is more in the backyards of Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana than
it is in their backyard.
Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues want to be so parochial in their
approach, then maybe we could make a deal with them: I will not go to
Florida beaches for a while. I will just go to Gulf Shores in Alabama,
but my colleagues should not demand that and should not use energy from
the rest of the country including everything that we explore and drill
for and produce in Louisiana.
Obviously, we need to get beyond that narrow-mindedness and that
parochialism and have a balanced approach, including producing this
clean, safe energy.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Palm Beach, Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want people to focus a little bit on the
debate for a moment. It is very, very simple. We have heard people from
other States, Texas, Louisiana, all say they are for oil drilling. You
can have all you want. You can do it in your home State. You can do it
off your shores.
Florida is making a very simple and specific request, leave us out of
your dialogue and leave us out of your drawings. We believe strongly in
having a cohesive environmental policy. In fact, in the 1970s I worked
in a Shell gas station, and I remember having people antagonized over
the fact they could not fill their tanks; but since the 1970s we have
done very little to have a comprehensive energy policy. But just
suggesting that we start putting pipes in the ground is not a solution.
A lot of people are paying attention and wanting to know when can we
set the rigs. Florida is simply saying not in our backyard. We are
delighted to say it and proud to say it.
Democrats and Republicans in the delegation joined together trying to
urge Congress to leave us out of this. Have it in Alabama. Have it in
Louisiana. Go to Texas. Go to California, and even in Alaska if you
want. Yes, it may be controversial, but the sovereign right of that
State should be heard. Our sovereign right is expressing opposition,
and I urge my colleagues to join us in this initiative.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, actually, this would be a lot more fun if
it was real. It is the phoniest debate I have heard in a long, long
time.
If we look at the amendment, this significant move on the part of
Florida is going to last until April 1, 2002; maybe April 2001 is more
appropriate than 2002. The fact of the matter is if they were serious,
they would have made it permanent. They did not make it permanent
because it costs money.
We have heard about this particular area. It is in the Gulf of
Mexico. The area looks like this. Why does it have this long neck?
Because Florida said they did not want any drilling over there within
100 miles of their coastline. Frankly, most of the natural gas is
probably in this area. So there was an agreement between Florida and
the other States.
Mr. Chairman, this literally is 200 miles from Florida there and 100
miles from Florida there. But here is the dirty little secret that no
one in Florida will tell you. Guess what this line is right across the
gulf? That is an already-agreed-upon pipeline 740 miles to supply oil
and gas to Florida. No, they do not want to drill near you, but they
want the oil and gas to use.
How hypocritical can you be? How far is 100 miles? It is from New
York City to Scranton, Pennsylvania. It is from Madison, Wisconsin, to
Waterloo, Iowa. And if we cannot drill in an already-approved area in
which the State of Florida was a negotiator and the lines were drawn to
fit them, it really will be our Waterloo when we are trying to be self-
sufficient for energy.
Here is the question, Members, when my colleagues vote: If it was
worth fighting for oil and gas in the Persian Gulf, why is it not worth
looking for in the gulf near America?
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Miami, Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the
Scarborough-Davis amendment that would prohibit the Secretary of the
Interior from executing a final lease agreement for oil or gas
development in the area of the Gulf of Mexico known as Lease Sale 181.
The beaches on the gulf coast of Florida are comprised of some of the
most pristine and beautiful areas that would be devastated by an oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Our tourism and fishing industries would
also be devastated by such a spill.
Many of my congressional colleagues have told me recently that they
will be visiting this area of Florida during the July 4th holiday.
People come to Florida for the beaches. So please join the citizens
of the State of Florida who overwhelmingly and in a bipartisan way
oppose drilling off of our waters.
We are talking about 17 miles off of Pensacola Florida. Florida's
white sand, clear waters, and gorgeous sunsets have truly not only
become a treasure for our State, but they are a treasure for our Nation
and the millions of tourists who visit Florida's beaches every year.
Please join the State of Florida in protecting our beaches and
crystal blue waters by opposing offshore drilling. All of our
constituents will thank you for it.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), the bipartisan
amendment. Certainly, Members from Louisiana and Texas and Florida and
even Indiana and Ohio have every right to speak on this amendment.
Sixteen million Floridians do not want drilling off their shore. Tens
of thousands of people from Indiana and Ohio and Illinois that go down
to Fort Lauderdale, Long Key, Sanibel Island, also enjoy the tourism,
the fishing, the environmental areas down there; and we want to see
that protected.
There is an old saying that you cannot have it both ways. The problem
with the Bush administration's energy policy is in energy you need to
have it both ways. You need to have production and conservation. They
only emphasize production and drilling and more drilling and drilling
in Alaska.
We need to make sure we have a balanced approach to protect our
environment. We need to make sure we enhance the new technologies out
there to drill in prior areas and get more out of those areas rather
than going into pristine environmental areas.
Support the Davis amendment. Support bipartisan environmental
concerns and support going toward a balanced energy policy.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), a cosponsor of the amendment.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to give another point of
reference to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), who was
talking about 100 miles or 200 miles from Waterloo to whatever. We are
talking about 17 miles which will not get you

[[Page H3425]]

from the United States capitol to the airport. Seventeen miles is what
we are talking about, that will not even get you to Washington's
airport at Dulles so you can fly home to California.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to some of the statements that
were made. Let us go back to the facts. Nobody has questioned the
statement of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) that this is
17 miles from the coast of Florida.
Let us be perfectly clear. This is drilling for oil, crude oil, as
well as gas; and there are 21 days of crude oil in Sale 181. If we
raise fuel efficiency standards by 16 miles per hour, that achieves 10
times more result than proceeding with Sale 181.
Mr. Chairman, with the exception of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas), every Member of Congress that told Florida that we should
put our coastline at risk is from an oil-producing State, and they do
not have to apologize for protecting jobs in their States. But our
tourists do not wash up on their beaches, and we do not want their oil
washing up on ours.
Let me just further say, with respect to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay), if being against the risk of oil spills in Florida makes
us radical by Texas' environmental standards, then we proudly wear that
label.
The point is, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) said, we
need a balance here; and we support solutions to our energy problem.
But let us have a thoughtful debate. Let us not engage in quick fixes
at the expense of Floridians. We have suffered oil spills before. I saw
one when I was a small child in Tampa Bay. I do not want my children or
grandchildren to see that again.

{time} 1615

This is in Florida's waters. This is something we are entitled to
protect. We can do better. Let us adopt this amendment. Let us slow
this down for 6 months and find a balanced solution to the energy
challenges that face our country and not do so at the expense of
Florida and its coastline.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 45 seconds remaining.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, the entire Alabama delegation is on record
supporting Sale 181. Unfortunately, the delegation is in Alabama with
the President of the United States and will be unable to vote. I submit
for the Record herewith the delegation letters in support of Sale 181.

United States Senate,

Washington, DC, April 9, 2001.
Hon. George W. Bush,
President of the United States, The White House, Washington,
DC.
Dear President Bush: We are writing to endorse the State of
Alabama's strong support for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
Lease Sale 181 scheduled for December 2001. H.J. Res. 13, as
passed by the Alabama Legislature and signed by Governor
Siegelman unequivocally recognizes the positive benefits of
Sale 181. We agree with the Governor's stated position
supporting the proposed sale so long as no blocks are leased
within 15 miles of the Alabama coast and safety measures are
ensured.
We agree this sale is a crucial component of a strategy to
develop new, diverse supplies of oil and natural gas to meet
the ever-increasing energy demands of our nation's new
economy. As production declines in the western and central
portions of the Gulf of Mexico, there is a growing
recognition of the need for the vast resources contained in
this eastern segment of the Gulf. Importantly, all of Sale
181's tracts are outside the areas that are off-limits to
exploration and production under the mandated federal
moratorium area. The Gulf Of Mexico now provides about 24% of
U.S. oil production and about 26% of U.S. natural gas
production. The resources contained in this sale area are
estimated to hold approximately 7.8 trillion cubic feet of
gas and 1.9 billion barrels of oil.
The oil and natural gas industry has been good for Alabama,
providing fuel and employment, to thousands of our state's
residents, contributing to our economy and depositing
millions of dollars into our state's treasury. It is
estimated the oil and gas industry spends over $50 million
annually on Alabama and Mississippi products and services.
State funds derived from lease agreements in the Gulf of
Mexico are utilized to improve our environment and protect
unique coastal and estuarine habitats. The successful and
timely continuation of Sale 181 would only further enhance
these benefits to our state.
Alabama and the offshore industry have coexisted to the
mutual benefit of both for decades. As you know, the oil and
natural gas industry has an outstanding record for operating
safety on the more than 3,800 offshore platform, which are
subject to extremely rigorous environment standards. It is
anticipated this excellent record will continue to improve as
new technology allows the extraction of more oil and gas from
wider areas using fewer wells and platform protecting seabeds
and marine life.
Like other Gulf of Mexico states, Alabama has a thriving
and expanding tourism business. The oil and natural gas
activities offshore have not discouraged visitors to our
beaches and other recreational areas along our coast.
We urge you to continue your support of responsible
development of our domestic resources, including the Sale 181
area. Alabama is proud of our contribution to national energy
security and economic growth through the prudent and
environmentally sound development of our offshore energy
resources.
With kind regards, we are
Sincerely,
Richard Shelby, U.S.S., Sonny Callahan, M.C., Spencer
Bachus, M.C., Terry Everett, M.C., Bob Riley, M.C.,
Jeff Sessions, U.S.S., Robert Aderholt, M.C. Robert E.
``Bud'' Cramer, M.C., Earl Hilliard, M.C.
____

Proposed Lease Sale 181,

Don Siegelman, Governor,

April 24, 2001.
President Bush asked me to help with this proposed lease
sale and I am pleased to lend my support as long as there are
no blocks sold within 15 miles of the Alabama coast and
safety measures are ensured. I believe this is in the
country's and Alabama's best long-term interest. Because
Alabama is an energy producing state, this proposed lease
sale will help Alabama propel its economic development
effort. It is my hope that this would help increase supply
and reduce prices for consumers. At my request, we will meet
with the Mineral Management Service on May 7th, to ensure
that all safety measures are in place before moving forward
with the lease sale. If I am satisfied that the necessary
precautions are in place, I look forward to proceeding with
proposed lease sale 181.
____

Don Siegelman, Governor,

State of Alabama, January 24, 2001.
Dear Mr. Oynes: With respect to your letter of December 1,
2000, concerning the draft environmental Impact Statement for
proposed Eastern Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 181, we offer the
following comments.
I am pleased the Minerals Management Service is not
offering any blocks in proposed Lease Sale 181 within 15
miles of the Alabama coast. The Interior secretary's decision
to delete blocks within 15 miles offshore Baldwin County in
the eastern Gulf of Mexico serves to mitigate the concerns of
Alabama's residents regarding visual impacts from new natural
gas structures in the areas of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach.
In the future, I will continue to oppose the leasing of any
unleased blocks southward and within 15 miles of the Baldwin
County coast. We recognize that new natural gas structures
may be installed on currently leased federal blocks, and we
support and appreciate MMS's efforts to work cooperatively
with the industry and the state of Alabama to minimize the
visual impacts of new natural gas structures offshore Baldwin
County. I request that you continue to work with the
Geological Survey/State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama to find
realistic methods for addressing this viewshed issue.
As you are aware, the state of Alabama consistently has
supported protection for live bottoms, pinnacle reefs,
chemosynthetic communities and other sensitive environments
of offshore Alabama in the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning
Area. We certainly support these same types of protection for
Lease Sale 181 in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area.
We continue to support MMS's nonenergy minerals program. It
is important that MMS continue to gather geological and
environmental information regarding Outer Continental Shelf
sand resources that may be required for coastal erosion
management. We appreciate MMS's interaction with the state of
Alabama to identify these resources which may have both
short- and long-term utility.
We have concerns regarding statements on page IV-128 of the
DEIS which indicate that coastal Alabama has the highest
probability of contact if a large offshore spill occurred in
the area for proposed Lease Sale 181. In addition, we have
concerns regarding the number of new pipeline landfalls (page
IV-221), new gas processing plants (page IV-238), new oil
pipeline shore facilities (page IV-238), and adverse impacts
to air quality (page IV-287). These matters are of particular
concern, given that the vast majority of blocks available for
lease in proposed Lease Sale 181 are located offshore
Florida. It would appear

[[Page H3426]]

that the coastal Alabama area could be significantly impacted
by OCS activities occurring offshore Florida as a result of
the proposed sale. I request that MMS meet with
representatives of the Geological Survey/State Oil and Gas
Board of Alabama and discuss all of these matters in detail
in the near future.
The state of Alabama supports a balanced and reasonable
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing program that leads to
exploration, development and production, with the stipulation
that all OCS activities be carried out in full compliance
with relevant Alabama laws, rules, and regulations, and be
consistent with our Coastal Zone Management Program.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for proposed Eastern Gulf of
Mexico Lease Sale 181 and look forward to working
cooperatively with MMS in the successful and safe development
of the hydrocarbon resources located offshore Alabama and in
sharing in the benefits of OCS leasing and production
activities.
Sincerely,
Don Siegelman, Governor.

House Joint Resolution

Whereas, Alabama annual natural gas production from onshore
and offshore wells, combined, is 433 billion cubic feet, of
which 217 billion cubic feet come from offshore wells; and
Whereas, Alabama Gulf Coast and Dauphin Island tourism
economy co-exist in harmony through mutual use of Alabama's
natural resources with Alabama offshore natural gas
production operations; and
Whereas, Alabama's recreational fishing and commercial
fishing industry co-exist in harmony through mutual use of
Alabama's natural resources with Alabama offshore natural gas
production operations; and
Whereas, Alabama benefits from offshore natural gas
operations in many ways, including, but not limited to, local
and state revenues from severance taxes, and state revenues
from Trust Fund interest, including royalty state payments,
federal 8(g) royalties, and lease sale proceeds; and
Whereas, Alabama jobs, income taxes, and other positive
economic benefits have been created by Alabama's offshore
natural gas developments, including exploration and drilling,
platform fabrication and installation, pipeline contracting
and construction, onshore gas treatment plant construction,
operation, and maintenance, and goods, services, and supplies
purchased; and
Whereas, Additional positive economic benefits related to
Alabama offshore natural gas developments include direct
effects such as direct purchases, indirect effects such as
purchases by contractors and suppliers, and induced effects
such as the re-circulation of wages, salaries, and profits;
and
Whereas, Alabama offshore natural gas developments and
operations have performed in a safe and environmentally-
sensitive manner, with benefits to Alabama citizens far
outweighing any/all perceived risks; and
Whereas, Alabama citizens and industries, and individual
natural gas consumers and industries outside Alabama continue
to use and need more clean-burning natural gas supplies; and
Whereas, areas in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) 25 miles and further south of
Alabama's and Florida's coastlines represent a major prospect
for drilling and producing future supplies of clean-burning
natural gas; and
Whereas, two eastern Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) areas, specifically an area known as the Destin Dome
and Federal Lease Sale 181 Area, if drilled in a safe and
environmentally-sensitive manner, are predicted to hold large
natural gas reserves; and
Whereas, Coastal Alabama is the likely natural gas
infrastructure area to take new reserves to market,
increasing Alabama's economic benefits directly related to
new natural gas production from the Eastern Gulf of Mexico;
now therefore, be it
Resolved by the legislature of Alabama, both houses thereof
Concurring, That we express our support for natural gas
drilling and development in the federal Outer Continental
shelf (OCS) Eastern Gulf of Mexico areas of the Destin Dome
and Federal Lease Sale 181 Area. Be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to each
member of Alabama's U.S. Congressional Delegation and to
President Clinton, Secretary of Commerce William Daley, The
Minerals Management Service, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy, and the
environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a valued member of the
Subcommittee on Interior.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I tell my friends briefly, in terms of a
response, it is only 6 months, and the lines that are on the map are
the lines that the Floridians agreed to. It is 100 miles from the
Florida border, as agreed to by Florida's governor. So I understand my
colleagues' concern, but as a matter of fact, what is going to be put
in that pipeline? It is going to be some other State's gas. Come on.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, in
conclusion, gas prices last year doubled. We have put a huge amount of
electric generation on this year, all natural gas. Next year home
heating natural gas costs could double again and our energy sensitive
businesses are going to be priced right out of business.
When my colleagues' seniors cannot afford to heat their homes next
year, when they get the second year in a row with high natural gas
prices, and look at any of the curves, the natural gas uses for
electric generation exceeds any new gas coming out of the ground, My
colleagues' seniors are going to be very angry with this decision.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for an
amendment offered by my colleagues from Florida, Representatives Davis
and Scarborough, to prohibit oil and gas exploration and development
off the coast of Florida. The issue at hand is the sale of Lease Sale
181 in the Gulf of Mexico, although offshore drilling threatens all
coastal communities, including those of New Jersey. We in New Jersey
thought we had put to rest the idea of drilling off the New Jersey
coast, but recently we have begun to wonder.
Sale 181 contains 5.9 million acres of an offshore area in the Gulf,
in water ranging from 108 to over 10,000 feet deep. The sale is
scheduled for December, 2001. Although both the past administration and
the present governor of Florida support a ban on oil and gas
development within 100 miles of the coast of Florida, part of Sale 181
come to within 15 miles of the Alabama coast.
I see this sale as a potential threat to the economy and environment
of the gulf states. Although cleaner than in the past, oil and gas
exploration cannot be done without threatening our natural resources,
commercial fishing industries, tourism, and marine ecology. Nearly 90
percent of the reef fish resources of the Gulf of Mexico are caught on
the West Florida Shelf. Oil and gas development would threaten the
shallow, clean water marine communities found on the Florida outer
continental shelf. Ecology and environment are central to the economy
of Florida. Damage to the environment would threaten the tourism
industry upon which much of their economy is based.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that drilling in Lease 181 would
have a significant impact on our energy supply. Increased conservation
and efficiency would do more to meet our country's energy needs than
drilling off of the coast of Florida, and the impact of conservation
would be immediate with little environmental cost.
I endorse this amendment as a strong message to Secretary Norton to
maintain the moratorium on offshore drilling and not to sacrifice our
marine ecosystem in an attempt to satisfy our energy demands. I
strongly support this amendment to prohibit the sale of the Sale 181
area and I urge my colleagues, particularly those who represent coastal
states, to join me.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to suspend or revise the final regulations published
in the Federal Register on November 21, 2000, that amended
part 3809 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that,
notwithstanding the unanimous consent agreement that was previously
reached, we limit this amendment to 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each
side.
The CHAIRMAN. And all amendments thereto?
Mr. DICKS. And all amendments thereto.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKEEN. We approve.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.

[[Page H3427]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn) and myself. It is a bipartisan amendment intended
to maintain, maintain, existing environmental protections. It is about
arsenic, it is about cyanide, it is about sulfuric acid, it is about
making sure that we do not roll back existing rules in place today that
have been implemented to prevent the discharge of arsenic and cyanide
and other toxics into our streams and rivers.
Mr. Chairman, here is why this amendment is necessary. Before the
adoption of these rules, we had a scandalous situation in mining and
release of toxics. Twelve thousand miles of streams in the West are
polluted from mining tailings, 40 percent of streams in the West.
Ninety-six percent of all of the arsenic compounds artificially
released in the environment have been from the mining industry, without
these rules that have now been implemented; 600 million pounds of
arsenic and arsenic compounds a year from the mining industry.
Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure in this appropriation bill that no
hand is taken to reduce the effectiveness or repeal these rules that
have been adopted after 4 years and 35,000 pieces of input from the
American public.
Now, let me tell my colleagues, there are three things at risk here:
Number one, the existing rules adopted by rule. Number one has
environmental performance standards, standards that every mining
operation has to meet to prevent the discharge of cyanide. And because
of the implementation of cyanide heap leach mining, this is extremely
important.
Number two, we have got to have a way for local communities to have
input in these decisions of siting, and we do not want to allow any
hand to remove the ability to have local communities where there is
substantial irreparable harm to a local community. This is a local
control issue.
Number three, we want to make sure the mines put up adequate bonding
capability. Under this rule, the administration, to its credit, has
said they will keep this part, this one-third of the bill, and this is
the part we want to make sure we keep the administration policy in
hand.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill, and so we seek
bipartisan support. It is a strong problem that deserves that we keep
the status quo for the environment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico seek time in
opposition?
Mr. SKEEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the gentleman's amendment. I see
nothing wrong with the Department of Interior reevaluating regulations
that were finalized in the last days of the past administration. In
fact, it is my understanding that this type of review is commonplace
during the changes of administration.
We should allow the rulemaking process to continue and not preempt
the process by establishing yet another moratorium on this bill. The
Interior bill is not the appropriate place to address the changes in
the Mining Law of 1872. This is best left to the authorizing committee
which has jurisdiction over this issue.
After reviewing the National Research Council report on hardrock
mining on Federal lands, it is obvious to me that the previous
administration went too far in amending the mining regulations. It is
my opinion that these rules will have a significant economic impact on
the mining sector. However, while I personally would like to limit any
changes to these regulations to the regulatory gaps identified by the
National Research Council, I have refrained from doing so because we
have an appropriate rulemaking process in place to address this issue.
I therefore ask for my colleagues' support in opposing this
amendment. Amen.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn), the cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which
seeks to continue our commitment to responsible public land management.
Environmental mining rules, also known as 3809 regulations, provide
critical Federal oversight specifically for hardrock mining on lands
managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
The current regulations were enacted because the old regulations
failed to keep pace with modern mining techniques. The current rule is
critical because it requires mining companies to pay for the full cost
of environmental cleanup rather than being able to shift those costs to
taxpayers. Right now, because of the old mining rules, taxpayers are on
the hook for $1 billion in cleanup costs just at currently operating
mines.
The current rule puts strong environmental standards in place to
protect water supplies from excessive contamination of arsenic and
other heavy metals by directing mining operators to protect surface and
groundwater resources. As of the year 2000, the Environmental
Protection Agency estimated that 40 percent of the headwaters of all
the western watersheds are polluted by mining. This is due in part to
the fact that the old mining rules had no environmental performance
standards.
This amendment simply states that no funds shall be used to suspend
or revise the final regulations published in the Federal Register on
November 21, 2000. This will ensure the protection of our waters from
arsenic, cyanide and other toxic pollutants and give certainty that the
taxpayers are protected as well.
I again urge my colleagues to support this amendment and keep the
current rule in place.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico,
the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this rider on an
appropriation bill. I listened with interest, Mr. Chairman, to my good
friend from Washington State, because in a previous Congress, both on
October 4 of 1999 and October 21 of 1999, he told us how horrible it
was to have riders added to appropriation bills. In fact, he likened
them to fleas.
Well, I will tell my colleague what is going to flee. With the
passage of some of these anti-mining and anti-jobs riders, say good-bye
to the jobs. If my colleagues care about endangered species, I wish we
cared one whit about the people of America who earn a solid, decent,
honest living from mining. But we can laugh and watch the other
countries put up help wanted signs and kiss off another industry, when
the fact is that already on the books there is effective regulation
that has ended the scourge of environmental harm. The industry has
changed.
Look, all we are saying is let the current administration have the
same courtesy the previous administration did. Let a reexamination of
section 3809 take place, rules that took effect in the last nanosecond
of the previous administration on January 20. Why not have a situation
where we can review them?
This body has twice directed the Department of the Interior to not
promulgate rules inconsistent with the recommendations of a
congressionally mandated study of hardrock mining on Federal lands by
the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. We
hear so much about the NAS and its studies, we hear so much lip service
paid to science, yet when we have a provision here that says let us
stand up for sound science, we want to abandon it, and with it the jobs
of this industry, to make headlines in terms of what some deem to be
politically correct.
What this amendment will do is set the precedent my friend from
Washington State was so concerned about in 1999. This will unfurl a
cascade of riders for the remainder of this appropriations process. And
what again this will do, and this is the tragedy of the situation, Mr.
Chairman, we will add more regulation and cost more jobs. For my friend
from California, who is interested in high-tech, I wonder how his

[[Page H3428]]

computers are going to work when we do not have the copper wiring any
more.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond that we seek to maintain the existing regulation, which is
fully consistent with the NAS study that concluded we needed better
regulations against arsenic and cyanide in our waters.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell).
(Mr. Pascrell asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my
esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Washington, (Mr. Inslee), to
keep standards in place that protect our water resources from mining
pollution.
Clean water is the most fundamental quality of life issue we have in
this country. That is why I support funding the U.S. Geological
Survey's water science programs and its 54 State Water Institutes in
the amount recommended by the Subcommittee on Interior.

{time} 1630

We cannot live without clean water. This amendment will strengthen
the committee's wise decision to fund the USGS water programs by adding
environmental safeguards to protect our water resources from pollution
caused by mining. The USGS mission from its inception has focused on
water resources. They must remain focused on our water resources in
order to preserve the health of every American.
In New Jersey alone, our percentage of impaired waters have worsened
from 50 percent of our streams and rivers in 1993 to 65 percent today.
Changing the USGS focus away from these crucial water programs in order
to protect any industry is the very last thing we should be allowing.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for total support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my esteemed
colleague from Washington, Mr. Inslee, to keep standards in place that
protect our water resources from mining pollution.
Clear water is the most fundamental quality-of-life issue we have in
this country. That is why I support funding the US Geological Survey's
water science programs and its 54 State Water Institutes in the amount
recommended by the Interior Subcommittee of Appropriations--We cannot
live without clean water!
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strengthen the Committee's wise
decision to fund the USGS water programs, by adding environmental
safeguards to protect our water resources from pollution caused by
mining.
The Department of the Interior proposes to change the mission of the
US Geological Services away from water in order to focus more on
mining. But focusing on mining at the expense of our water science and
clean water protection is the wrong approach!
The USGS mission, from its inception, has correctly focused on water
resources--and it must remain focused on our water resources, in order
to preserve the health of very American!
Without the US Geological Survey's water programs and USGS State
University Institutes--including our own Rugers Institute--we cannot
assess the quality of our water, or train our future water
professionals. These programs are the core of the USGS! The Geological
Survey must remain much more than simple mining protection!
The USGS ability to track and map problems with our water is a vital
component in helping our state environmental agencies, so we can
visualize problems while solutions are still doable and still cost
effective.
In New Jersey alone, our percentage of ``impaired'' waters has
worsened from 50% of our streams and rivers in 1993, to 65% today,
according to the most recent study.
In our state, data from USGS has helped us see that worsening
pollution follows our ``sprawl line''--and I know that in every state
the causes of pollution may differ, whether it is sprawl, or acid rain,
or mining, or some combination of pollutants.
But Mr. Chairman, it is only with these important USGS tolls that we
can learn about these pollutants, and learn what does not work in the
way we manage our water resources and land use! Changing the USGS focus
away from these crucial water programs, in order to protect the mining
industry, is the very last thing we should allow, if we want to
continue preserving our water and our health!
Mr. Inslee's amendment is exactly what is needed to help protect
these threatened resources, by allowing our communities and land
management agencies to protect our water from pollution.
Our communities already struggle to keep our fragile watersheds
pure--as we well know in New Jersey. So I want to commend the Chair and
Ranking Member of the Interior Subcommittee, and all of my
Appropriations colleagues, for supporting our water science programs,
and voting unanimously to restore more than $90 million in funding to
the USGS.
And I want to thank my many colleagues on both sides of the aisle for
helping me to champion the USGS water science programs--the Honorable
Asa Hutchinson, and Michael Bilirakis; and my colleagues Mr. Gibbons,
and Mr. Green and Mr. Boehlert, as well as many of my Republican
colleagues.
I also want to thank my esteemed colleagues form this side of the
aisle--Mr. Kind, Mrs. Napolitano and Mrs. Maloney; Mr. Blumenauer and
Mr. Payne, Mrs. Mink and Mr. Pallone--and many, many others of you who
have recognized--as I do--the importance of the USGS water programs to
our nation's health.
Mr. Chairman, I know, and my esteemed colleagues know that the USGS
is our ``early warning system'' in the battle against deadly toxins and
pollution in our water. We must not tolerate the dismantling of these
vital programs or a change in the USGS mission away from water, to
focus on mining.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the full funding that was
appropriated for all U.S. Geological Survey water programs, and to
support Mr. Inslee's amendment protecting our water resources from
deadly mining pollution.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond, and I want to oppose
the amendment of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. Chairman, the National Academy of Sciences indicated prior to the
issuance of the regulations that we are questioning today, the 3809
changes by the Clinton administration, the National Academy of Sciences
issued a report prior to the existence of those regulations that the
current 3809 regulations on hardrock mining on public lands, stated
that the ``existing array of Federal and State laws regulating mining
is effective in protecting the environment.'' They did not say we
needed additional regulations for that. They said the existing array of
regulations are effective in protecting the environment.
What we have here, Mr. Chairman, is an attack on the mining industry.
I am proud to say that America's mining industry is the world's most
modern, technically advanced and environmentally responsible mining
industry, and I am proud as an American to have the mining industry
especially in our State, the State of Nevada.
Mr. Chairman, this regulatory change that is being attempted here
obviously goes to addressing the issue of whether or not this
administration has the right to address regulations. We are going about
it by saying if legislative fiat is what we are after to change and
stop an administrative ability to change regulations, then that is what
we should be doing. But then let us do it in all cases as well, and let
us take away the administrative power for making changes to regulatory
action, which is in the realm and the authority of the administration.
Let me say that the mining industry today is already responsible for
and applicable to the Clean Water Act. It cannot pollute the water and
not be responsible for it. That is a myth that is being propagated out
there. It is already responsible for the Clean Air Act. It cannot
pollute the air and not be responsible for it.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this gentleman's amendment.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire as to the time remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) has 4\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 4
minutes remaining.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I note that the argument just propounded essentially
was rejected in a lawsuit which refused to stay implementation of these
rules several weeks ago.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the cosponsor of this amendment,
the

[[Page H3429]]

gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, normally I would have offered this type of amendment,
being the usual suspect, because I have a long history on the issue
that it touches upon. I have invested a great deal of time, indeed
years, in an effort to reform the Mining Law of 1872.
To be clear, I fully support this amendment. It represents a type of
policy that should be in place. At the same time, it is far past time
to be doing piecemeal reform of the Mining Law of 1872. The solution
is, without a doubt, comprehensive reform, not this piecemeal fashion
that we have been doing. I have stood on this floor with amendments and
bills on this issue, yet the hard heads in the hardrock mining industry
just do not get it. They have not gotten it yet. Their allies in this
body, although in a minority, are in a position to block comprehensive
reform measures from being considered in committee; so we are forced to
come to the floor with amendments of this nature or amendments that I
have offered in the past on efforts to stop the patenting of mining
claims and to uphold the millsite decision. This will continue until
the mining industry comes to the table.
Mr. Chairman, I say to the industry, come to the table. Negotiate.
Compromise. My door is open. We will find common ground. Not ground
sold for $2.50 an acre under a 19th century law. No, not that common
ground. Not ground from the public's gold and silver that is mined with
no royalty paid to the true owners of the land, the American people.
I believe we can reach a sensible agreement on how to address issues
which swirl around this industry and plague this industry in its
investment decisions, and I understand the need for stability and
certainty before making those types of investment in large equipment
that is needed to mine our Nation's resources.
Mr. Chairman, there is new leadership at the National Mining
Association. I have told them my door is open. Let us work together to
restore the public faith and interest in this matter.
In the meantime, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Inslee amendment. I say
to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, who described these
regulations as promulgated by the last administration in the last
nanosecond, that is because a Republican Congress for five times has
delayed through appropriations riders these regulations.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, just to expand on the comments of the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for 4-5 years, the administration could not
act even though 35,000 people had impact on this decision. Now it is
time for us.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Inslee amendment. The
gentleman from Arizona said let the law stand. That is what we are
trying to do here. We are trying to let section 3809, which was the
law, the regulations properly adopted, we would like to see those
sustained. The Bush administration has suspended the 3809 rule and
intends to revise the rule. Remember, this is just on BLM lands. The
Clinton administration also granted BLM the authority to deny permits
to irresponsible mines in places where they would cause substantial,
irreparable harm to environmental and cultural resources. The mining
industry opposed both of those provisions.
Mr. Chairman, I think the Inslee amendment is called for; and I
intend to support it.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is not a rollback of environmental
laws. Critics of the mining industry charge that reviewing the Clinton-
Babbitt 3809 regulations constitutes a rollback of environmental laws.
This is not true. The industry is not fighting to lessen any necessary
environmental regulations governing hardrock mining on Federal lands.
In fact, it supports and complies with all existing environmental
statutes and supports the addition of any new rules consistent with the
recommendations of the study on hardrock mining on Federal lands
completed for Congress by the National Academy of Sciences.
The new 3809 regulations are extremely burdensome, complex and
counterproductive, and contradict the NAS report. They go far beyond
filling the narrow regulatory gaps identified by the report and add
onerous regulatory burdens that will deter mineral exploration in
mining activity in the western United States.
Unnecessarily strict new performance standards and expanded
liabilities are created under the new regulations that the amendment
before the House would keep in place. This would greatly disrupt the
preexisting coordination between the Bureau of Land Management and the
western States regarding the environmental regulations of mining. A
number of new performance standards are prescriptive, one-size-fits-all
requirements which are inconsistent with the Academy's recommendations
that mining regulations should be based on site-specific performance
standards.
There are strong environmental laws in effect that will not be rolled
back or lessened in any way by suspending the new 3809 regulations. For
instance, the disposal of mining wastes is strictly regulated on
Federal, State and private lands through the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act, as well as numerous State laws
and regulations protecting groundwater resources. All facets of mining
are covered by equally comprehensive legal frameworks.
The mining industry pays millions of dollars each year to comply with
laws to ensure the protection of the environment. That is hardly the
mark of an industry trying to flout its responsibility by fighting to
roll back environmental laws.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) has 1 minute
remaining. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 2 minutes
remaining, and the right to close.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, when there was a discussion about rolling back arsenic
standards some time ago, the American people went into basic revulsion.
If we reject this amendment today, we will be heading in the same
direction, rolling back standards designed to keep arsenic out of our
streams and rivers, cyanide out of our streams and rivers, sulfuric
acid out of our streams and rivers.
I believe the American public made their position very clear on this
during the last several months while people in this town were
discussing going backwards on the environment. I stand here today to
say that in this appropriation process, we should not go backwards on
arsenic. We should not go backwards on cyanide. That history has given
us 12,000 miles of polluted rivers and a problem with arsenic in our
water. That is why the League of Conservation Voters is so keenly
interested in this vote. That is why I hope we stand together on a
bipartisan basis and make sure that we adhere to the existing standards
on arsenic.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, we have heard much about how old this law is
and how unnecessary it is in this day and age. I suspect that is
consistent with what we have heard today for quite awhile. Mr.
Chairman, it seems we forget that there was also a law written in the
late 1700s. We call it the Constitution today; yet that law has
sustained us pretty well because, for the most part, we have tried to
adhere to it.
Mr. Chairman, that law written in 1872 was written in the best of
times for mining because it was one of the most important economies to
the United States. But I would also remind my colleagues, consistent, I
suspect with the inconsistency that we hear here that one day it is a
good idea to put a rider on the bill and the next day it is not.
I am confused by all of this admittedly, Mr. Chairman, and I have
only been here 165 days, but I am beginning to learn; and I am
beginning to learn that what the people feel about Congress being out
of touch, Americans out in the country that feel that Congress is no
longer representative of them, now I understand.

[[Page H3430]]

There is no need to be consistent up here, Mr. Chairman. I have seen
it happen. I have seen it happen to my colleagues that have been here
far beyond my days and far beyond my years. Because not only do they
not remember what they said yesterday, they do not remember that it is
the very government that they now want to completely entrust in this
day and age with the safeguards of our environment, was the very
government that went to the Coeur d'Alene mining district during World
War I and World War II and said forget about what you might do to the
rivers and lakes, we need those minerals for the defense of that very
Constitution, and we need these minerals for the very defense of this
country.
So if I cannot ask for anything else, I would ask my more learned
colleagues who maybe are more learned because they have been here
longer to be consistent, if nothing else, and be representative of the
law that was written in the 1700s as well as 1872.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman. I would like to express my support for an
amendment offered by my two colleagues, Representatives Inslee and
Horn, regarding the Bureau of Land Management hard rock mining rules.
New mining regulations were put into place at the end of the Clinton
Administration, after a four-year period of intense public comment,
hearings, and Congressional input. These new regulations are a vast
improvement over the old BLM rules under the 1872 Mining Law. The old
rules did not protect the public from the financial burden of failed
mining ventures--leaving a legacy of thousands of abandoned mines, and
the risk of a further billion dollars for potential clean up of ongoing
operations. Furthermore, the old regulations did not protect the public
from the massive pollution potential at modern large-scale mines.
The new mining regulations provide these protections, and I believe
that they ought to be preserved. They require mining companies to pay
the full cost of environmental cleanup, rather than shifting the cost
to the taxpayer. The new rules put into place standards to protect
surface and ground water from harmful mine drainage. EPA estimates that
40 percent of the western watersheds are polluted from mine drainage
and leaching. Finally, the new rules prevent mining companies from
staking a claim on public lands without regard to environmental and
archeological resources or consideration of local communities.
The Inslee/Horn amendment will protect public lands and local
communities by ensuring that the new mining regulations are kept in
place. We can not afford to retreat on environmental and public health
safeguards by weakening protective standards. The values of the 1800s
no longer apply to the mining industry of today and the old rules do
not offer the protection that is needed. Too much is at stake for us to
allow mining companies to contaminate our water supply or lands. This
amendment is the best way we have to protect our communities from
outdated and harmful practices. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee)
will be postponed.

{time} 1645

Amendment Offered by Mr. Deutsch

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Deutsch:
Insert before the short title at the end the following new
section:
Sec. __. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available in this Act may be used to pay the
salaries or expenses of personnel of the Department of the
Interior to extend the leases, any standstill agreement, or
the terms of the settlement agreement that took effect March
30, 2001, concerning the holders of interests in seven
campsite leases in Biscayne National Park, Florida,
identified as campsite leases 2173A, 2146A, 2167A, 2159A,
2213A, 2157A, and 2303A and collectively known as
``Stiltsville''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the Committee of
today, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) and the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a limiting amendment to prevent the
implementation of rules that the Secretary of Interior has overturned
of the previous administration dealing with seven leasehold parcels in
Biscayne National Park, parcels whose leases ran out 3 years ago, six
of whom were subsequent leaseholders who purchased those leases from
the original leaseholders at fair market value. So we have seven
leaseholders who have not paid rent for 3 years.
Under the prior administration, regulations were in place to develop
a management plan. The Secretary of the Interior overturned that
regulation upon her assumption of that office. This is really not just
an issue about these seven leaseholders. This is really an issue about
private use of a national park or public lands. That is what this issue
is about. This happened in my district, in my area. I represent 90
percent of Biscayne National Park. But this could happen tomorrow in
any of the national parks, the 400 national parks in the United States
of America.
I urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly and sincerely support this
amendment to prevent this from happening.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Deutsch amendment introduced at the 11th hour affecting a very
important area in my congressional district. Stiltsville is in my
congressional district, miles away from the district of the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Deutsch). Stiltsville is a group of seven homes
located south of Key Biscayne in my district that has been part of the
landscape and seascape of our young community since the 1930s.
This amendment prevents the Secretary of the Interior from extending
any further standstill agreements. After much negotiation between
Stiltsville homeowners and the Park Service, a standstill agreement was
reached earlier this year that expires on March 31, 2002. This
agreement is crucial because it prevents both parties from acting
against each other and allows time for constructive negotiations and
prevents the houses from being unfairly torn down. The Deutsch
amendment ties the Secretary's hands and allows the clock to run out on
further talks, putting Stiltsville owners at a negotiating
disadvantage.
The Deutsch amendment is an underhanded attempt at tearing down these
historic homes without coming out and saying so. The houses that make
up Stiltsville are internationally known as the place that has that
little village in the middle of the bay.
And who supports Stiltsville? Governor Jeb Bush. Who else supports
Stiltsville? The Florida House of Representatives that passed a
unanimous resolution in support of preserving Stiltsville. The Miami-
Dade County Commission supports Stiltsville. The city of Miami. Let me
tell my colleagues the cities that have said we want to support these
homes: the City of Miami; the City of Miami Beach; the City of Coral
Gables; the City of Hialeah Gardens; Homestead; Miami Springs; South
Miami; West Miami; Key Biscayne, Key Biscayne that is just miles from
these beautiful homes; Sweetwater; Virginia Gardens. I could go on and
on.
It is incredible that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) would
come here and present this amendment when literally thousands of
homeowners support the preservation of Stiltsville.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond
to some specific points.
First of all, I represent 90 percent of Biscayne National Park. My
district is literally feet, not miles, from Stiltsville. My colleague
represents 10 percent of the park. It so happens these structures are
there. But I think the critical distinction that we need to make,
number one, I support Stiltsville. This is not about Stiltsville. What
this is about is freeloaders in a national park. My colleague said
owners. These people are not owners. These are leaseholders. The people
that own that property is

[[Page H3431]]

us, the people of the United States of America, not the seven
leaseholders. There is a difference between leaseholders and owners.
We, as the owners, deserve to do what we want, which is to keep
Stiltsville but use it for public purpose, not private gain.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I talked to my son Danny today. He is
16 years old. He is no owner of one of these houses. He and his
friends, however, through the generosity and the courtesy of the folks
that lease here, they go out there and they fish and they swim. I
talked to Danny today. I said, ``Danny, there is going to be an
amendment to, in effect, knock these houses down. What should I tell my
colleagues?''
He said, ``Dad, that's a Florida tradition. Nature is taking care of
that.''
So why should now Congress intervene and knock down these homes? This
is a really unfortunate amendment that our colleague from the other
side of the aisle has brought forward. Let the kids go out there and
swim and fish.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in 1980 this Congress created Biscayne
National Park, a park for all the people of the entire country. At that
time there were seven leaseholders in the park who held campsites by
lease. They were given a period of time to remove themselves from the
national park. In 1990, they asked for an extension. That extension was
given to them, and they had until 1999. They have had 20 years now for
these leaseholders to get out of a national park. They are denying
access to the public by holding these leases. This is a park that has
been designated by the Congress for the enjoyment of all the people of
the country. Anyone should be able to go there. They should not be able
to be stopped by people who have illegal leaseholds. That is precisely
what this is.
The issue here is a very simple one. In a national park, are we going
to allow private people who are intruders, who are violating the law,
who have overstayed their welcome, to continue to be there and prevent
the rest of the public from using that public land appropriately as the
Congress has designated? That is the issue.
I think that most people here would say no to that. We want the
national parks to be used for the right purpose, to be used by all
people, not by a few who have special interests, who have the ear of
the Governor, or who have the ear of one of us Members of the Congress.
I do not think any of us want to uphold that kind of a policy for
public lands. A national park is there for all the people of the
country. Let us make sure that this national park, Biscayne National
Park, finally achieves that status and these people who have overstayed
their welcome can finally leave quietly so that the rest of the public
can enjoy that national park appropriately.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Resources.
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very interesting debate.
I find this interesting because I took the time to go down there. I
held a hearing on it as chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks
and Public Lands a few years back. We could not find any problems at
all with any of the scientists we brought up of hurting any of the
environment.
A lot of people have said they have overstayed their welcome. I find
that very interesting because these homes were there 50 years before
the park. Who overstayed their welcome? Who was there first?
Another thing my colleagues may find interesting on this, I come from
Utah. We do not have big pieces of Biscayne Bay. But what we do have,
we have these beautiful cabins that are scattered all over the Forest
Service and BLM and they are leased to those areas. What do those folks
do with them? They go up there, they hold Boy Scout things, they teach
young kids how to be good Americans, they use them and they take
awfully good care of them. I wondered, what can they do in Florida with
that old flat land down there? I cannot believe it.
Then I went down with the gentlewoman. What did I find down there? I
found that exactly the same thing was going on. They take Boy Scouts
out there. I got in this power boat with some guys and we went out and
looked at that thing. They have Boy Scouts, people go out, they enjoy
it. It turns out to be one of the things that they are very proud of.
Now, my colleagues worry about that. I think a few hurricanes may
take care of it but right now it is one of the beautiful things they
have got in that area. This is part of their heritage. This is part of
something they love and believe in. I did not talk to a soul and when
we held the hearings everybody that came up there said we love this
area, we like Stiltsville.
What this amendment would do, Mr. Chairman, is in effect say, the
heck with Stiltsville, it is gone. And one of the best parts that
America can have in Florida will go with it. Why do you want to go away
with that heritage? Why do we want to take away the things that people
have built? Why, this would be like taking Temple Square out of Salt
Lake City.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SHAW. I would like to congratulate the gentleman on his statement
and also express the appreciation of those who have lived in south
Florida, I for my entire life, in going down and seeing that unique
little village that we have, and it is not even a village anymore. It
is not doing any harm. It is part of our heritage. Let us leave it
alone. Some day a hurricane will take it out, but until then let us
leave it alone and let us let it continue as it is.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle have made the case for this amendment.
This is a great area, everybody loves it, everybody uses it, everybody
likes it the way it is, except that it is not open to the public. That
is the agreement that we made with the people that had these leases.
They got a 25-year lease, the lease is now at the end, and now we have
had some political intervention so they do not have to vacate the
leasehold so that in fact all of the public can use it.
I will grant that one of the people leasing these properties let a
Congressman's son come go fishing there, but what about other people
that want to go fishing there? It is nice that they let some Boy Scouts
in. The whole purpose of this is open up these leaseholds for public
uses and public purposes so that whether it is the Boy Scouts or other
organizations can come and use these facilities. There is a planning
process that is going on so that this in fact can be a public facility
of which it is. Because the original leaseholders made a decision, they
have sold their interest, they entered into those leases, those leases
have expired, and now it is just a question of whether you are going to
use the power and the might of the United States Congress or the
Secretary of Interior's office so she can close out the public so that
seven entities get to continue to control what everybody says here is a
wonderful asset that the public would love to use.
We ought to support the Deutsch-Hinchey amendment on this and open it
up in fact to the public like all national parks.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I support Stiltsville. I think Stiltsville is a wonderful part of our
community of south Florida. I live in south Florida. My family was
raised there. I want to stay there for the rest of my life and
hopefully for generations after. But again this is literally private
use of public lands. These are leaseholds that ran out 3 years ago. Six
of the seven people bought those leases at fair market value from the
original leaseholders. They ran out 3 years, they have not paid
anything, on us the owners. They have not paid anything to us as the
owners, the people of the United States of America, for the last 3
years. They have been freeloading. If

[[Page H3432]]

it can happen in Biscayne National Park, it can happen anywhere. Let us
stop this policy of the Secretary of the Interior.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch)
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
At the end of the bill, preceding the short title, insert
the following:
Sec. . The amounts otherwise provided by this Act--
(1) for ``CHALLENGE AMERICAN ARTS FUND--CHALLENGE AMERICA
GRANTS'' are hereby reduced by, and
(2) for ``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY--ENERGY CONSERVATION'' are
hereby supplemented by an additional appropriation for energy
conservation grant programs as defined in section 3008(3) of
Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507) in the amount of,

$10,000,000 each.

Mr. STEARNS (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 gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the Committee of
today, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. I ask my colleague, is there any way we can get more
time than that?
Mr. DICKS. No. This is the end of this bill. The gentleman is having
the second shot at this.
Mr. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, I request 10 minutes
apiece.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which would
basically do something very simple. As many of my colleagues know, this
morning we passed an increase for the National Endowment for the Arts
by another, I believe it was $10 million. All my amendment does is
quite simple, is reduce that $10 million back to level funding.

{time} 1700

So it is not a cut. So a lot of people who come on the floor who will
be voting for my amendment should realize this is not about cutting the
National Endowment for the Arts. This is basically keeping level
funding for this program and, in fact, taking the $10 million which was
added on to this program and using it for the Department of Energy;
more specifically, for energy conservation for grant programs to help
across this Nation for people who need increased amount of energy and
in a larger sense to help low-income people in weatherization of their
homes.
So I ask my colleagues to consider the priority of the two,
increasing $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts or
increasing the Department of Energy's energy conservation program.
Now, this debate used to be about reducing or, as that side would
say, cutting the NEA; but this is not a debate about that. So I want to
take that off the table, and I hope that side will realize that the
debate and focus has changed.
Mr. Ivey, who is head of the department of National Endowment for the
Arts, has made a great effort to change the image of the National
Endowment for the Arts, and I applaud him for his efforts. I think at
this point he has been successful so that our debate today is more
about should we increase that program at the expense of energy
conservation.
Now let me just take my colleagues on a little, small journey on what
we could do with this money. Items funded under this program include
research and development projects that develop new and improved
existing technologies; Federal energy management; low-income
weatherization assistance; and State energy program grants.
Through these projects and research, we can continue to sustain
future economic growth while at the same time, Mr. Chairman, increasing
America's awareness of new energy efficiency.
In my home State of Florida we expect to need about 10,000 to 15,000
megawatts of new generation to keep pace with demand. Florida is one of
the foremost populous States, increasing by over 20 percent last year
since 1990 in population. In addition, we are the sixth highest in
energy consumption.
The need for energy conservation is clear. We need to focus funds
where the need is. We are not in a position where we can say we are not
in a crisis, because we are. We could have rolling blackouts across
this country. Arts is important, I know it is, but energy is also
important. So surely, Mr. Chairman, the money provided for energy
conservation under this amendment will serve the taxpayers, I believe,
in a much more satisfactory manner.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), in opposition to the
amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is being offered for one purpose and one
purpose only: to squash a fair and hard-fought victory that we had 4
hours ago to increase funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and
other cultural agencies.
Similar to our debate last year, some Members have resorted to last
minute shenanigans to reverse support for arts funding and to
wrongfully deny the NEA, a most worthy agency, from receiving the funds
it justly deserves.
At the last minute, without warning, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns) has designed an amendment to eliminate the entire amount that
we had granted the NEA, a modest boost of $10 million. The amendment is
an obvious attempt to sabotage this, the first clean, overwhelming
positive vote that we have had on NEA in years.
Witnessing our amendment win fair and square, some Members have
gotten nervous and put forth yet another cheap tactic to deny this
agency the small pot of money that it deserves. With today's vote of
221 to 193 in favor of increasing funds for the cultural agencies, the
House has taken its stand in support of them.
It is ludicrous and unconscionable to consider this amendment on the
heels of this victory and a great disservice to those Members and the
constituents they represent to go back on their word. I urge a no vote.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this. This amendment
simply puts the NEA back to the funding level that it should be at, and
the funding level that was passed on a bipartisan level by the
committee. More importantly than that, it invests the money in energy
conservation.
Here are some of the things that the NEA does: promotes poetry,
promotes puppetry, promotes jazz. All these things are very important.
These are things they do in my area; and frankly, my folks can do this
without the NEA's help. Given the choice between a puppet show and gas
selling at $1.50 a gallon versus $1.20 a gallon, we would rather have
gas at $1.20 a gallon, and then we would write our own checks to
promote art locally.
I believe we need heat for hospitals, light for learning and gas for
going places; and that is what the Stearns amendment does. It puts
money into energy conservation so there will be more energy, more
source of energy for all of us; and I believe that this is a far more
needed expenditure than spending additional money on the NEA at this
time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee
on Appropriations.

[[Page H3433]]

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has as much to do with energy
as it has to do with my dead dog. All it is is an effort to try to get
a second kick at the cat and thereby eliminate a fairly won decision to
increase funding for the arts.
For those of you who are interested in seeing this bill completed
today, I simply want to remind you, if this double-backed maneuver were
to succeed, and I do not believe it will, but if it were to succeed,
and if this amendment would be adopted, that would require yet another
revolt in the full House, again further delaying the adjournment of
this House tonight.
I do not think you want to do that. I also do not think that you want
to have to explain another vote reversal. So I think for the good of
all concerned, I would advise you to stick with your final vote. It is
consistent; it is fair; and it is a whole lot easier to explain to the
folks back home.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, what we have learned this afternoon is
that some Members in the majority party here hate the National
Endowment for the Arts more than they hate energy conservation. If they
really liked energy conservation, they had an opportunity to pass some
responsible amendments to this bill, both in the Committee on
Appropriations where it was defeated by a party line vote and out here
on the full floor where they denied us the opportunity to have a vote
on a bill that would have brought about $200 million in energy
conservation.
We are talking real energy conservation, not this little bit that the
gentleman is talking about here. The gentleman does not want any energy
conservation. He just cannot stand the National Endowment for the Arts
more than he cannot stand energy conservation. He says it is not a cut.
His bill gives us $57 million less for the National Endowment for the
Arts than we had for it in 1995, and now we have a $10 million increase
making us still $47 million lower than we had in 1995; and the
gentleman wants to take that $10 million away. He ought to be ashamed
of himself.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn), a cosponsor of our amendment.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I must say I am disappointed with this further attack
on the NEA and the NEH and the Institute of Museums and Libraries. I
cannot believe that. When little kids in rural America and urban
America need to get this type of culture and music and this great
history of this Nation, I cannot believe it when individuals start and
say let us get rid of people that study history or everything else. It
is just plain wrong.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 25 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, when George Bush became President, he
promised the American people fiscal discipline; that he would limit the
size of government; that they would get some of their money back in tax
cuts and we would pay down the public debt. So far Congress has kept
faith with the President, and we want to limit the size of government.
Why are we getting such a huge increase to NEA? This controversial
agency has not had a funding increase that big in almost 20 years. This
is $10 million more than the President asked for. I urge my colleagues
to do the right thing for fiscal restraint and support this amendment.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I conclude by just saying this is not about cutting the
NEA. This is continuing the level of funding and moving the money that
we increased to energy conservation, a priority between energy
conservation and increasing the NEA.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to close.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my colleagues would not do what we
did last year when we reversed this vote. I would ask everyone to use
good common sense. This amendment was offered. We had a good hour
debate. Everybody had a chance to present their point of view and
clearly the people of this House, by a good majority, 221 to 193, voted
to give modest increases to the National Endowment for the Arts, for
the Humanities and Museum Services. Now the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns) comes in and tries to reverse that decision. We increased the
budget for energy programs by over $300 million. So the budget is not
lacking in funding for energy conservation, where the gentleman tries
to add the money. So this is done strictly for a political purpose. I
would say let us stay with this. This is a good decision. It is a
modest increase. This House has sent a strong message to the NEA and
they have responded. They are now making grants that are quality
grants, and so I think this is a vote that we do not want to have to
repeat in the House. Let us just vote no and sustain the position in
the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired. The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns)
will be postponed.
Are there further amendments to the bill?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002''.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: an amendment by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis); an amendment by the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Inslee); an amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch); and
an amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Florida

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by a voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247,
noes 164, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 181]

AYES--247

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doyle
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)

[[Page H3434]]

Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Platts
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOES--164

Akin
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Biggert
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Cannon
Cantor
Carson (OK)
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Crane
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Flake
Fletcher
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Kennedy (MN)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lucas (OK)
McCrery
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stenholm
Stump
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--21

Aderholt
Bachus
Berman
Callahan
Calvert
Cox
Cramer
Cubin
Everett
Houghton
Israel
Kaptur
Lewis (GA)
Linder
McInnis
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Neal
Riley
Rush
Serrano

{time} 1736

Messrs. ENGLISH, SWEENEY, HUTCHINSON, NEY and STRICKLAND changed
their votes from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXVIII, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device may be taken on each
additional amendment on which the Chair has postponed further
proceedings.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216
noes 194, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 182]

AYES--216

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Shays
Sherman
Shows
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--194

Akin
Armey
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry

[[Page H3435]]

Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--22

Aderholt
Bachus
Baker
Berman
Boehner
Callahan
Calvert
Cox
Cramer
Cubin
Everett
Houghton
Israel
Kaptur
Lewis (GA)
McInnis
Meehan
Neal
Riley
Roukema
Rush
Serrano

{time} 1744

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. ENGLISH and Mr. SHOWS changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Deutsch

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 222, not voting 23, as follows:

[Roll No. 183]

AYES--187

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Shays
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOES--222

Abercrombie
Akin
Armey
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--23

Aderholt
Bachus
Baker
Berman
Callahan
Calvert
Cox
Cramer
Cubin
Everett
Graham
Houghton
Israel
Kaptur
Lewis (GA)
McInnis
Meehan
Neal
Pitts
Riley
Roukema
Rush
Serrano

{time} 1751

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 184]

AYES--145

Akin
Armey
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
Flake
Fletcher
Ganske
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Graham
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Largent
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McIntyre
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Putnam
Radanovich
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--264

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird

[[Page H3436]]

Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Platts
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--23

Aderholt
Bachus
Baker
Berman
Callahan
Calvert
Cox
Cramer
Cubin
Everett
Houghton
Israel
Kaptur
Lewis (GA)
McCarthy (NY)
McInnis
Meehan
Neal
Peterson (PA)
Riley
Roukema
Rush
Serrano

{time} 1759

Messrs. TAUZIN, BONILLA, and MORAN of Kansas changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) 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. 2217)
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 174, 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 376,
nays 32, not voting 24, as follows:

[Roll No. 185]

YEAS--376

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--32

Barr
Berry
Cannon
Crane
Culberson
Emerson
Flake
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Green (WI)
Hefley
Hostettler
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Moran (KS)
Otter
Paul
Petri
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg

[[Page H3437]]

Simpson
Smith (MI)
Stearns
Thornberry
Toomey
Whitfield

NOT VOTING--24

Aderholt
Bachus
Baker
Berman
Callahan
Calvert
Cox
Cramer
Cubin
Everett
Ford
Houghton
Israel
Kaptur
Lewis (GA)
McInnis
Meehan
Neal
Riley
Roukema
Rush
Scarborough
Serrano
Watson (CA)

{time} 1819

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________