[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 140 (Wednesday, October 17, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7099-H7108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2217, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report to accompany 
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, and ask unanimous consent for its 
immediate consideration without intervention of any point of order.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  (For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
Thursday, October 11, 2001, at page H6507.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New Mexico?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I intend not to 
object. I simply make this observation in order to afford the gentleman 
an opportunity to explain what it is we are doing here and to respond 
to several other questions that I think are in Members' minds with 
respect to the bill, and I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, as the manager of this conference agreement, 
I do not intend to use any of the hour on general debate.
  Mr. Speaker, we bring before the House the conference agreement on 
H.R. 2217--the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 2002.
  Let me take a moment to thank the members of the Interior 
subcommittee for their support and guidance this year. I want to extend 
a special, personal thanks to the ranking minority member, Norm Dicks, 
for his extraordinary assistance in helping to shape this bill.
  This is a good agreement. It provides $19.1 billion for our public 
lands, for Indian programs, for critical science and energy research 
programs, and for cultural institutions like the Smithsonian. Within 
that total there is $1.32 billion for the conservation spending 
initiative, which is the full amount available under the law for the 
Interior bill.
  Let me cover just a couple of the highlights. The conference 
agreement includes $210 million for Payments in Lieu of Taxes, $600 
million for maintenance on our public lands and $144 million for State 
land and water conservation grants, an increase of $54 million above 
the enacted level. There is $275 million for low income weatherization 
assistance and State energy grants, an increase of $84 million above 
the enacted level. There is $150 million for a new clean coal power 
initiative, a key component of the Administration's National Energy 
Policy. All of these areas are Presidential priorities.
  The agreement also extends the recreation fee demonstration program 
for two years. Under this program, the National parks, forests, 
wildlife refugees, and other public lands retain fees they collect and 
use them to make repairs and other improvements that enhance the 
visitor experience. I am pleased to report that nearly $1 billion has 
been collected since the program was begun by this subcommittee in 
fiscal year 1997.
  The conference agreement also provides $120 million to continue the 
Everglades restoration program and over $200 million for building 
schools and hospitals for American Indians and Alaska Natives.
  The agreements has $2 billion to continue the National fire plan in 
fiscal year 2002. This includes funds for firefighting, restoration, 
hazardous fuel reduction, and community assistance.
  The National Endowment for the Arts is funded at $98 million and 
there is $17 million for the Challenge America Arts Fund. These are the 
same amounts as in the House-passed bill.
  I want to thank the staff in both the House and the Senate and on 
both sides of the aisle for their hardwork and long hours in getting 
the agreement in shape and making sure the numbers all worked within 
our allocation.
  This is a good conference report; it conforms to our allocation; it 
balances the many competing needs of the programs under the 
jurisdiction of the Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee; and I 
urge Members to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that a table on the various accounts in the bill 
agreed to by the Conferees be included at this point.

[[Page H7100]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17OC01.001



[[Page H7101]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17OC01.002



[[Page H7102]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17OC01.003



[[Page H7103]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17OC01.004



[[Page H7104]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17OC01.005



[[Page H7105]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17OC01.006



[[Page H7106]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) under my reservation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for reserving his reservation and also for yielding the time. I just 
want to comment on one aspect of the conference committee report, and I 
want to thank the conference committee for its attention.
  I appreciate the opportunity to comment on a provision affecting the 
tribal interests in my district, the Lytton Rancheria in California and 
in the City of San Pablo. Last year the appropriate authorizing 
committees in both the House and the Senate developed authorizing 
language to address a land into trust provision unique to the Lytton 
Rancheria.
  This conference committee revisited this issue in the Subcommittee on 
Interior of the Committee on Appropriations due to the exceptionally 
unique circumstances which necessitated the enactment of Section 819 of 
Public Law 106-568, taking lands into trust for the purposes of gaming.
  I want to clarify that our action here did not diminish requirements 
that the tribe fully comply with provisions of Public Law 100-497 and 
in particular, with respect to Class III gaming, the compact provision 
of Section 2710(d) or any relevant Class III gaming procedures.
  I want to thank the conferees for their attention to this issue and 
the determination that the tribe must proceed according to current law.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on a provision 
affecting tribal interests in my district--the Lytton Rancheria of 
California and the City of San Pablo. Last year the appropriate 
authorizing committees in both the House and the Senate developed 
authorizing language to address a land into trust provision unique to 
the Lytton Rancheria. This conference committee revisited this issue in 
the Interior Appropriations bill due to the exceptional and unique 
circumstances which necessitated the enactment of Section 819 of P.L. 
106-568, taking lands into trust for the purposes of gaming. I want to 
clarify that our action here did not diminish the requirement that the 
tribe fully comply with the provisions of P.L. 100-497 and in 
particular, with respect to Class III gaming, the compact provision of 
Section 2710(d) or any relevant Class III gaming procedures.
  I want to thank the conferees for their attention to this issue and 
determination that the tribe proceed according to current law.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Continuing under my reservation, I am happy to yield to the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I would like to say to the Members of the House, Mr. 
Speaker, that this conference went very smooth because of the good work 
being done by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman, 
and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I had an opportunity to 
participate in this conference agreement. Our colleagues in the Senate 
did as well. Most of the controversies were almost all eliminated. We 
have a good bill here today, and I appreciate the gentleman reserving 
the right to object so that we can have this brief dialogue on this 
bill, and I would hope that we would receive the support of the 
membership.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), and continuing under my reservation, Mr. Speaker, since the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is not here, I just would like to 
make one comment.
  I think this bill is a perfectly reasonable bill and I intend to 
support it. I am especially pleased with the fact that the new 
conservation initiative known in some corners as the Lands Legacy 
Variation, I am very pleased with the funding level provided in this 
bill for that item.
  As the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) knows, last year we had 
a huge argument about whether or not land purchasing programs ought to 
be consolidated into a giant entitlement program. It was the feeling of 
the committee that we could make land acquisition a high priority 
without turning it into an entitlement. The subcommittee was then 
chaired by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and 
myself and several others worked out the agreement at that time to 
maintain that as an expanded discretionary program. We indicated at the 
time that we intended to keep stepping that program up, to keep pace 
with the needs.
  The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has seen to it that this 
has happened along with other conferees, and certainly the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks). I am very pleased by that. I think this 
has been a very large step forward in the conservation area, and I 
think the entire Congress can be proud of it.
  I want to thank also the staff on the committee for the excellent 
work that they have done.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
thank the Chairman, Mr. Skeen and the ranking member, Mr. Dicks, on 
their hard work on this important appropriations legislation before the 
House today. This bill provides funding for many important programs in 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, just to 
name a few. So thank you both for making sure these vital programs 
received appropriate funding.
  Recently, I and several of my distinguished colleagues from 
Louisiana, sent a letter requesting that the Interior Conference 
Committee consider the inclusion of language in this bill that is very 
important to some of our constituents, the Coushatta Tribe of 
Louisiana. We sent the letter to bring to the attention of the Interior 
Conferees a situation that has unfortunately developed in Louisiana.
  The Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana currently services over 450 tribal 
members through Indian Health Services or IHS funds, and expects this 
number to rise due to its ever-increasing population. Unfortunately, 
access to IHS or tribally operated facilities and hospital access for 
certain medical needs, such as dialysis machines and specialized 
medical treatments, is limited. This is particularly problematic, given 
that diabetes is the Tribe's most critical health care problem. 
Consequently, because this type of care is not provided on-reservation, 
the Coushatta's health care costs have increased dramatically because 
tribal members must obtain services from local and community health 
centers.
  The Tribe does receive funding from IHS for health services performed 
off reservation but current levels fall significantly short of budget. 
Like most of Indian Country, the Coushatta Tribe needs more money for 
preventive care. They need to purchase necessary medical equipment, 
increase the clinic's hours of operation and hire a full-time physician 
to staff the clinic. The Tribe is fully committed to providing quality 
health care to its trial members and in fact currently dedicates many 
of its own resources to this cause. Additional IHS funding would go a 
long way in helping the Coushatta Tribe meet the health care needs of 
its members.
  Additional funds are key here and on that point, I'd like to commend 
the Conferees for including much needed additional funds for the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs. More specifically, I was pleased to see the Contract 
Health Services account increased. These funds will go a long way to 
address the health needs of the Native American tribes across the 
United States. I also want to specifically thank Mr. Dicks and all of 
the Conferees for their commitment to work with the Louisiana 
delegation to ensure that the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana is the 
recipient of some of these funds so they can address their critical 
health care needs.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, as the House considers passage of the 
conference report on the Interior Appropriations bill for FY 2002, I 
wanted to speak about the issue of Compact Impact Aid funding for Guam.
  While I am pleased that the conference report includes $6.38 million 
for Guam, $4 million for Hawaii, and $2 million for the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands, I remain concerned about the failure of 
the federal government to identify a better funding solution for areas 
impacted by the migrations of citizens from the Freely Associated 
States. Guam received $7.58 million and $9.58 million for FY 2000 and 
FY 2001, respectively. Because of the failure of the federal government 
to identify other sources of funding, Guam, the CNMI, and Hawaii are 
forced to secure funding from the same source, out of the Interior 
Department's Office of Insular Affairs's budget. This should not be the 
case as funding for overall territorial funding has decreased over the 
last decade. Other federal agencies like the Department of Health and 
Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, and the Department of labor should also be 
viewed as potential sources of long term funding.
  Guam is impacted more than any other territory or state by the 
unmonitored migration to

[[Page H7107]]

Guam by citizens of the Freely Associated States in Micronesia that 
continues to have significant financial and social impacts on our 
island. Since the Compact of Free Association was established in 1986, 
Guam only started to receive Compact Impact Aid in FY 1996. During the 
FY 1996-FY1999 period, Guam received $4.58 million annually from the 
Department of Interior's Office of Insular Affairs budget. However, the 
Government of Guam expends between $15-$25 million annually to provide 
educational and social services for migrants from the Freely Associated 
States under the Compact agreements.
  Although there continues to be differences between the Government of 
Guam and the Department of Interior on the actual impact costs, the 
Department of Interior has acknowledged ``best estimates'' of $12.8 
million for compact costs to Guam annually. The Government of Guam 
estimates that it has spent $180 million between 1986-2000 for Compact 
Impact costs, while federal reimbursement has been $41 million through 
FY 2001. Most recently, the General Accounting Office released on 
October 5, 2001, report entitled, ``Migration from Micronesian Nations 
Has Had Significant Impact on Guam, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands.'' The report concluded that Freely Associated 
States migration has clearly had a significant impact on Guam, Hawaii, 
and the CNMI, and noted that it particularly affected the budgetary 
resources of Guam and the CNMI, ``locations that have relatively small 
populations and budgets, and economies that have recently suffered 
economic setbacks.'' As the U.S. government continues to negotiate 
expiring provisions of the Compact agreements with the Federated States 
of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, I hope that 
policymakers will take a careful look at some of the findings in this 
GAO report.
  This is a difficult time for all Americans and all jurisdictions need 
assistance. Guam is facing a particularly difficult time. The terrorist 
attacks have caused a downturn in tourism and serious economic 
difficulties for Guam. Even prior to the attacks, Guam had a 15% 
unemployment rate due to Asian economic problems. Guam was not in a 
position to deal with these costs in the past few years. Given the 
current situation, Guam is in an even more precarious situation.
  Rest assured that I will make sure that Congress has a strong say on 
the inadequate funding levels and funding sources for Compact Impact 
aid, as well as migration provisions, on any proposed agreements.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Interior Appropriations Conference Report for FY 2002 and I want to 
express by sincerest thanks to Chairman Skeen and Ranking Member Dicks 
for their support of the provisions in the bill to aid the Virgin 
Islands in overcoming its fiscal crisis.
  I want to also commend the Chairman and Ranking Member for the 
skillful way in which they guided the Interior bill through the 
legislative process this year. I cannot remember a time, during my 
tenure in Congress, that the Interior Appropriations bill has been one 
of the first to clear both houses of Congress with near unanimous 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, the Conference Agreement is $186 million over FY 2001, 
$214 million over the House bill and $414 million over the Senate bill. 
It fully funds the new Conservation Trust Fund and provides and 
increase of about 50% for our nation's weatherization programs for low-
income families. The National Endowment for the Arts is funded at a $10 
million increase over last year and it provides no funding for drilling 
in the Artic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWAR) while funding certain 
Department of Energy programs at a $313 million increase over last 
year.
  This is a good bill; a fair bill and I urge my colleagues to support 
its passage.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of H.R. 
2217, the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations conference report. 
This Member also commends the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen), Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and 
the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the Ranking 
Minority Member of the Subcommittee for their hard work on this 
important bill.
  This Member is appreciative of the $15 million appropriation for 
continued construction for the replacement Indian Health Service 
Hospital located in Winnebago, Nebraska. Of course, it is unfortunate 
that the appropriation is less than the Administration's request and 
the House-passed allocation which would have completed the 
appropriations for the hospital project; however, at least construction 
can continue under this reduced funding level. Furthermore, this Member 
would like to thank the Members of the Subcommittee and the 
Subcommittee staff for the invaluable assistance they have provided 
over the years in obtaining funding for this new hospital, which is 
much needed and will greatly benefit Native Americans in Nebraska.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support 
H.R. 2217.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment that this 
conference report does not contain the important mining protections of 
the Inslee-Horn Amendment which the House strongly endorsed when we 
first considered this bill in June.
  There was bipartisan support for this amendment, which would have 
kept in place badly needed protections for the environment, taxpayers 
and the health of western communities against the most irresponsible 
mining practices.
  Such protections are needed because independent reports estimate the 
old mining laws have left taxpayers with a potential cleanup liability 
in excess of $1 billion.
  The old regulations and the 1872 mining law simply did not account 
for destructive new practices like open pit mining with chemicals such 
as cyanide and sulfuric acid. These new 3809 regulations are the first 
attempt to address environmental and taxpayer problems arising from 
modern mines.
  These protections were the work of four years of public input and 
continue to enjoy strong public support. During a 45-day public comment 
period on the proposed weakening of the mining rules, 47,000 citizens 
(out of 49,000 comments received) opposed weakening the rule.
  Even though the Inslee-Horn Amendment was not included in this 
report, we must continue to urge the Interior Department to leave the 
current rules in place. In particular we must retain: strong water 
resource protections and cleanup standards; strong bonding 
requirements; and the ability for federal land managers to deny the 
most irresponsible mines.
  Taxpayer protections without adequate environmental standards on 
destructive
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
Interior Conference Report. This bill includes important funding for 
conservation programs and includes monies for the maintenance of 
wildlife habitat protection in national parks, forests and refuge 
areas. I am especially happy to see that 65 million dollars was 
included for the Forest Legacy Program which provides assistance in the 
private and voluntary conservation of our forest lands, including $2 
million dollars to protect the Adirondack Lakes in beautiful upstate 
New York. Since 1990 the Forest Legacy Program has protected nearly 
100,000 acres of forest lands in eight states, ensuring that these 
lands will never be developed but will be managed sustainably and 
continue to provide much needed raw materials for today's marketplace. 
In addition, given the recent attacks on New York City and the threat 
of bioterrorism we have been very concerned about the quality of our 
water supply.
  The $500,000 dollars designated in the Forest Legacy Program for the 
New York City watershed project is an important and vital step in 
protecting New York City's drinking water. The critical funding of the 
Forest Legacy Program will ensure that these areas continue to provide 
recreational opportunities, filter our water, clean our air, and 
protect tourism and forest product jobs in the area. I am also pleased 
that this legislation includes $98 million for the National Endowment 
for the Arts and $125 million for the National Endowment of the 
Humanities, amounts which exceed the current funding levels for these 
valuable agencies. We cannot ignore the rich cultural benefits that the 
arts provide to our nation. Additionally, the arts generate 
approximately $3.6 billion each year for local economies across the 
country.
  I am disappointed that an oil royalties amendment of mine--which was 
included in the House-passed version of the bill--was removed in 
conference. The amendment would have ensured that the Royalty in Kind 
program would not continue to lose money for America's tax payers. I 
offered the amendment to guarantee that oil industry fees, collected 
through the so-called ``Royalty in Kind'' program, earn at least fair 
market value or more. I will continue to work on this issue; we must 
stop what I consider to be a Corporate Welfare Scheme.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report and I want to thank the 
Conferees for working together to bring to the floor an Appropriations 
bill that both sides of the aisle can and should support.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, representing a fair 
compromise between the versions that were passed in each House. While I 
certainly would have preferred a higher level of funding in some of the 
key programs of this bill, I am encouraged by many elements of the 
compromise. The conference report represents a fair effort to provide 
the necessary funds to maintain the National Park System and our 
federal land management agencies, to address tribal needs through the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, to increase wildfire readiness, to encourage 
important energy research and conservation programs, and to

[[Page H7108]]

offer the small--but important--cultural funding through the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
  One of the most important aspects of this bill and of the conference 
report, I believe, was the decision to honor the commitment we made 
last year when we enacted the Conservation Spending Trust Fund. I am 
extremely pleased that both the House and Senate bills contained full 
funding of $1.32 billion for these conservation programs--a dramatic 
increase over the $1.2 billion that was provided in the current year 
and $637 million in Fiscal Year 2000. This six-year effort represents 
the most significant increase ever approved for conservation spending 
across federal environmental accounts that will boost land acquisition, 
maintenance and wildlife habitat protection in national parks, forests 
and refuge areas. This was an important step taken last year in the 
House, and I am proud that we have brought the final version of the 
Fiscal Year 2002 bill to the floor in a form that included all of the 
funding anticipated in the second year of this conservation spending 
agreement.
  Despite an allocation in conference that was lower than many of us 
would have preferred, I am very pleased that this conference agreement 
funds several specific programs at adequate levels, including:
  $85 million for State Wildlife Grants;
  $140 million for stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund Grants;
  $50 million for the new Land Owner Incentive Program;
  $115 million for the National Endowment for the Arts;
  A 50 percent increase for the Weatherization program over last year's 
level;
  $2.2 billion for National Fire Plan activities, $300 million over the 
President's budget request.
  As the Ranking Democratic Member of the Interior Subcommittee, I want 
to thank all of my colleagues in the House for the substantial input 
and advice you have given to me and to our staff, and I assure you that 
I have made a diligent effort to attempt to address as many of those 
concerns as possible within the limitations of our allocation. I also 
want to thank the professional staff of the Interior Subcommittee for 
the long hours and meticulous attention to detail that has 
characterized their work on this legislation. Every member of the 
Subcommittee--Democrats as well as Republicans--appreciates their hard 
work under tight deadlines.
  So I urge my colleagues to approve this bill. I am convinced that it 
responds to the most urgent environmental needs of our nation at this 
time, and that it addresses the major priorities of the Interior 
Department and the related programs with the Departments of Agriculture 
and Energy.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Both sides have yielded back all time for 
debate on the conference report.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference 
report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on adoption of 
the conference report are postponed.

                          ____________________