[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 97 (Wednesday, July 17, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H4773-H4819]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2003
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 483 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5093.
{time} 1052
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 further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5093) making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2003, and for other purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July
16, 2002, the amendment by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) had
been disposed of and the bill was open from page 4, line 1 through page
74, line 23.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a table detailing
the various accounts in this bill be inserted in the Record at this
point.
The tabular material is as follows:
[[Page H4774]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.001
[[Page H4775]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.002
[[Page H4776]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.003
[[Page H4777]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.004
[[Page H4778]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.005
[[Page H4779]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.006
[[Page H4780]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.007
[[Page H4781]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.008
[[Page H4782]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.009
[[Page H4783]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.010
[[Page H4784]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.011
[[Page H4785]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY02.012
[[Page H4786]]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rahall
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rahall:
Page 50, beginning on line 19, strike ``expended'' and all
that follows through ``Congress: Provided further,'' on line
6, page 51, and insert ``expended: Provided,''.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I begin by commending the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the
Interior. He has brought a very sound bill to the floor. I commend the
gentleman for his leadership and salute him upon his retirement from
this body. I salute, as well, the ranking minority member, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who I understand may oppose this
amendment, but has been very courteous to me in allowing this amendment
to proceed.
I offer this amendment with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
It is my understanding the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) on the
majority side has a keen interest in this matter and may want to speak
as well.
Mr. Chairman, I did vote against the rule governing debate on this
measure because it waived all points of order against the bill on
matters which constitute an authorization on an appropriation measure
with the exception of an issue relating to the Everglades.
In this regard, I am particularly concerned with one authorizing
provision in particular that is so unfair, so callous in my view that
since it was protected from a point of order under the rule, it has
prompted me to offer this amendment.
This provision is nothing more and nothing less than a gag order on
thousands of American Indians who are seeking a proper accounting from
the Federal Government of royalties that are owed to them. It is a most
repressive provision.
Simply stated, this provision in the bill prohibits the government
from accounting for amounts owed to more than 300,000 Indians prior to
1985. It is unfortunate, but true, that through both Democrat and
Republican administrations, the Department of the Interior has acted
like the Enron of Federal agencies when it comes to managing Indian
trust assets.
Over the years, countless investigative reports by the Congress, the
GAO, the Inspector General, and others have been issued on the failure
of the Department of the Interior to properly account for and manage
Indian trust funds. This matter is in litigation and the contention is
that the Department of the Interior has squandered more than $10
billion in royalties owed to these individuals. Compared to this
scandal, the Teapot Dome scandal was chump change.
But rather than allowing the litigation to go forward, rather than
allowing for a full and proper accounting of these trust fund accounts,
H.R. 5093 places an arbitrary cutoff date of 1985. That would be like
telling Americans who have placed money in a savings account all of
their adult lives and have proper records that we will have the bank
tell the investor what is in their account regardless of what the
investor's records show. If the investor's records show an investment
of $100,000 in the bank, but the bank says they have only $50,000, then
the bank figure would stand, and there is no recourse.
That is what this provision in H.R. 5093 says to these American
citizens. They are our first Americans. They have died in our wars.
They have invested and contributed to our society. And today they are
being treated with the most callous disregard, no better than the heads
of Enron and WorldCom treated their investors.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for adoption of this amendment. I ask that my
colleagues in support be recognized as well.
Request to Limit Debate
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes to
be equally divided and controlled.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have a
number of requests on this side of the aisle for time.
Mr. SKEEN. Would the gentleman agree to an hour?
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, continuing under my reservation, at this
time I would like to reserve the option to see how many more speakers
may come to the floor.
Mr. TOOMEY. I object, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. Since fiscal year
1996, the Subcommittee on the Interior has taken the steps necessary to
have the Department of the Interior and the Indian community clean up
decades of trust fund mismanagement. After appropriating hundreds of
millions of dollars for this purpose, it has become clear that a number
of ``good government'' legislative changes were necessary to ensure
that trust fund reform can go forward. If trust reform is to succeed,
these provisions must be enacted into law.
{time} 1100
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let us begin by
acknowledging that this is not a partisan issue. We have had Interior
secretaries under Democrat administrations and under Republican
administrations that have struggled with this that have been subject to
court orders and contempt of court and employees in both
administrations. This has been an extraordinarily difficult issue.
Let us put a little perspective on this. Let us understand what is
involved with this. It was 1996 when five plaintiffs filed a class
action suit against the Department of Treasury and Interior on behalf
of themselves and 300,000 individual Indian money accountholders. It is
called the Cobell v. Norton lawsuit for breach of trust in handling
Indian funds.
Now, it is not as though the subcommittee and the House of
Representatives and the Congress have not recognized the problem. Over
the years, we have appropriated $45 million for the trust fund
accounting system, $43 million for the trust asset accounting
management system, $22 million for data cleanup, and $20 million for a
transaction-by-transaction historical accounting of the named
plaintiffs and their predecessors to serve as a benchmark to determine
future funding requirements for this type of activity. This amount,
about $130 million, is in addition to all of the other things that we
are doing on a day-to-day basis in the operations of the trust account.
Meanwhile, we have had the courts making and the plaintiffs making
life very difficult for employees. They have had contempt of court
motions filed against them. They are being advised to purchase their
own personal liability insurance. As a result, many of them have
recused themselves and they were not able to get employees to work on
this accounting system. It is becoming an almost impossible situation
for everybody within the department. We need to get this thing
resolved.
Now, the reason we have this limitation, this historical accounting
limitation, is because it would do all accounts that were opened as of
December 31, 2000, going back as far as January 1985. That is virtually
the vast majority of them. We are talking about going back to infinity
in time to the very beginning of time, and we are talking about
something that is almost impossible to do, and it is estimated that it
would cost about $2.4 billion, $2.4 billion to do the accounting. It is
extraordinarily expensive, but it is not going to yield the desired
results because of the missing data that we have. So what we are
talking about is trying to narrow this down to something that is
reasonable that we can actually accomplish.
If we were required to undertake an extensive historical accounting,
we would have to divert funds from other high priority Indian programs
and it is going to have a disastrous effect on Native Americans.
We are likely to spend, even with this limited amount, we are likely
to spend $200 million over the next several years.
Mr. Chairman, in my view, what we are trying to do is the responsible
thing, to act in a responsible way to make sure that we can get this
historical accounting done for the vast majority of the Native
Americans who deserve to have this done. One of the things we need to
make sure that we do is to release the Ernst & Young report
[[Page H4787]]
that has been held up by the Court; the Court has denied its being
released. It has been denied by the Court. We need to do that so we
could see what we would have in the way of historical accounting for
the numbers of people that would be affected. We need to give some
compensation to employees for their litigation expenses. We need to
have new members of the Special Trustee Advisory Board and, I think,
ultimately, we need to limit this historical accounting to the 300,000
individual accounts.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOBLE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding
and, certainly, as I said in my opening comments, this is something
that has gone on through a Republican and Democrat administration. I
would agree with the gentleman that it is very hard to get an
historical accounting, a true accounting of these monies that are owed,
and the Interior Department said that in our Committee on Resources
during our hearings on this issue. They said that on numerous
occasions.
But I think what we must recognize is that this issue is in
litigation at the current time, as the gentleman has noted, and as we
are all very much aware. That litigation should be allowed to proceed.
I would fear, by the language in the pending bill, that we are
prejudging the outcome of that litigation, and that is my concern.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, since I think my time is
limited at this point, I would just say that it is in litigation, but
it is not exactly the first time that the Congress of the United States
has stepped in when there has been litigation to try to resolve
something. This is litigation that has absolutely no end in sight;
none. There is no prospect of this litigation ever coming to a
resolution; there is no prospect of ever resolving this issue. We are
trying to put some parameters around it so that we can get an
historical accounting for the people who really need it. I urge this
amendment be defeated.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as cochair of the Congressional Native American Caucus,
I strongly urge the House to support the amendment to strike the
provision in the Interior appropriations that would limit government
accountability to Indians by restricting an historical accounting of
Indian trust funds.
This provision would limit the legal claims against the Federal
Government for mismanaging Indian trust funds by limiting the
accounting from 1985 forward.
Further, the provisions would presume the balances as of 1985 are
correct, even though the government admits the money has been
mismanaged for decades.
It would also overturn a central provision of the American Indian
Trust Management Reform Act, legislation enacted in 1994 after many
hearings and deliberations on this issue. That act requires that the
Secretary of the Interior provide a full accounting for ``all funds
held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Indian tribes
or individual Indians.''
The Federal courts have also mandated that the government provide
Indians with an historical accounting based on trust principles that
apply to all Americans. The D.C. Federal District Court and a unanimous
D.C. Circuit have already ruled that the government owes Indians an
historical accounting of all funds from the date the funds were
deposited into Federal accounts for Indians.
To overturn the earlier mandate of the Congress and the Federal
courts for this important act of government accountability fails the
poorest Americans: Indians, who rely on money from their lands to whom
the Federal Government owes a trust responsibility.
This provision also raises new claims that this proposed
congressional action constitutes an unconstitutional taking of Indians'
property: their money.
Mr. Chairman, this is the Indians' money, not the government's. It is
not from a Federal program or entitlement, but from the leases of
Indian lands. Money comes directly into the Interior Department in
trust from Indians from payments for use of Indian lands for grazing,
timber, and mineral royalties. The United States has admitted that it
mismanaged and lost the money.
This amendment would absolve the government for accounting for that
mismanagement while opening up the government to new legal claims based
upon unconstitutional taking of property.
In effect, this provision we seek to strike legalizes years of
malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance. In some instances, it
legalizes actual theft of Indian property.
Right now, a Tribal Task Force on Trust Reform is currently working
with the Department of Interior on a trust fund proposal that, upon
completion, will be submitted to the committees of jurisdiction for
review. Let us let them finish their work, and we are working with
them. I have been in contact with them, this Indian task force and the
Department of the Interior. They are seeking a solution to this
themselves.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike these
provisions from the Interior funding bill.
Mr. Chairman, we spend $16 billion a year on foreign aid. Should we
not at least be willing to render justice to our Native Americans at a
much less cost when it is their own money?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with great interest to the
debate, and I want to congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), for bringing this to the floor to discuss. I also
happen to agree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). This issue has been with us
since 1906, and if anybody has a responsibility, it is this body, the
Congress. Because it is our estimate, and when I say ours, the
different accounting firms and not Andersen, but different accounting
firms, there is about $12 billion unaccounted for that belonged to the
American Indians. In my State alone since 1971, we cannot account for
the BIA $800,000, and that is a short period of time.
But I will say that what the committee is trying to do here, and I
hope that as we go through this process, what I am worried about, and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) mentioned, this is the
Indians' money, and he is absolutely right, but what is happening is it
is going to be the lawyers' money. It is going to be the lawyers'
money. What the committee has tried to do, and whether they are right
or wrong, and why they picked 1985 I do not know, is try to, in fact,
pick the date that has the modern communications system for accounting,
the computer system that is in place so that they can account for that
period of time.
I do not believe, and if I could ask, although I do not see the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) here, but somebody, perhaps the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) or the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Wamp), is there somebody who can tell me, this does not preclude
or close off other investigations prior to 1985. Can anybody address
that? Does anybody know? Is anybody listening?
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the gentleman
from Alaska, and I believe that the gentleman is actually giving a very
good description of the situation we are in, and I am going to double-
check that, if the gentleman will give me 1 minute.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will get
back to the gentleman.
What I am suggesting here is I do not want to see this happen, this
to go on and on and on, and never be settled. If we can get the money
from 1985 and not preclude the money beyond that and the earlier years,
then I think we have achieved a goal. But right now, we know who is
making the money out of this, and that is the lawyers who are
presenting the cases and it is the lawyers for the government who are
defending against government inaction, a malfeasance. So I am just
saying, let us try to bring a conclusion to this, and let us really
work on making sure from now on that the system works.
[[Page H4788]]
Now, I will say when Ms. Norton became Secretary, the first thing I
did was call her up and said get rid of the BIA and that accounting
firm for the trust fund because it is not working. Mr. Babbitt was
cited for contempt. But that is not the only person, the person before
him, all the way to 1906, the government has not acted as I think they
should, and I agree with the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall),
that is absolutely wrong. But right now we have to try to get this
thing started so from now on we do not have the misuse of these funds
and, in fact, the loss of these funds.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Even
if we were to adopt this arbitrary cutoff date of 1985, from 1985 on,
we cannot even get a proper accounting. Mr. Tommy Thompson, one of the
special trustees before our committee, testified as such when he said
that we cannot get a grasp of the short-term leases that have been
recorded post-1985. So we still have an accounting nightmare out there
in which we cannot track everything.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that means
that we have to address that issue. We have to address that issue,
maybe not in this legislation; I will be honest with the gentleman on
that, I am not sure this will do it. But I am saying somewhere along
the line we have to solve this problem. Create a grand master, make an
accounting firm that will handle that and get out of the BIA, because
as long as the BIA is where it is, we will never have a good system of
accounting.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Young of
Alaska was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, it is going to cost about $900
million just to do the accounting back to 1985. The department does not
have all of these records, or they would have done it. We have to have
a settlement. At some point this Congress is going to have to impose a
settlement on this issue. I have done one before, the Puyallup Indian
land claim settlement, a very comprehensive settlement which Congress
supported. We are going to have to craft a settlement.
Now, if these gentlemen who have come here to the floor today to help
us, if their committees would get busy and develop a compromise and do
a settlement on this issue, it could be coming from the Congress.
Somehow we have to resolve this, because we do not have enough money.
I think there is a lot of wishful thinking that suggests that this is
all going to come out of the Justice Department. It may not come out of
the Justice Department. If there is malfeasance, Mitch Daniels is going
to say, Interior, you repay this $2.5 billion, 5 billion, whatever the
number is. So that is a possibility.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with
the gentleman. What I am suggesting to the people and those of us who
support the American Indians, as I do, I think it is the responsibility
of Congress. Because if we look at the trust, if we look at the trust,
if we look at what is said about the American Indians, the trust
belongs to the Congress.
{time} 1115
We have been neglectful in not pursuing and making sure that this
issue had been solved in previous years.
So I am asking us to sit down, as the gentleman mentioned before, and
say, let us solve this problem, because they owe their money to
themselves. We have spent that money somewhere. It is our
responsibility.
Like the gentleman says, they will say, we will not appropriate, we
do not have the money. But somewhere along we have to step up to the
plate and say listen, we have spent that money, we owe it to them, and
we ought to take it and get it to them as soon as possible and shut the
doors.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
this is why they cannot get this done, they do not have all the
records. There is no possible way to do this. Someone is going to make
an estimate of what is there, and it can either be done by the court,
which is not helping us, by the way, or by the Congress.
If we do not do it there, between the parties, then it has to be done
by the Congress. Congress has to step in, the authorizing committee has
to step in, and come up with a legislative settlement of this issue.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues who
have been speaking so far this morning.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield for one
minute, this is something unrelated that I think the gentleman will
support dispensing with.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) have 1 additional minute to answer the
question.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is
recognized for 1 additional minute.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a colloquy with the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), who objected to that time
limit on this amendment.
It is my understanding that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Toomey) will not object to other amendments in title I as long as title
I is not closed up, which would reserve the gentleman's right to offer
amendments to title I at a later time.
So when we consider other amendments under title I, such as the
amendment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), we can agree to
a time limit without the gentleman's objection.
Is that the gentleman's position?
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding to me.
I would say to the gentleman from Tennessee, we do have a number of
additional amendments which we would certainly reserve the right to
introduce. However, we recognize many Members have important
amendments, and in the interest of cooperation here and in giving
everybody their opportunity, we would agree to not object to any
agreements on time limits on the amendments that the gentleman would
like to offer in title I, provided that when the gentleman finishes
with his amendment, the committee rises without closing out title I.
Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for
yielding to me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again I want to say that I have a great
deal of respect for those who have spoken so far. I know that they are
well intentioned, but I am very disturbed by some of the comments and
the procedure that we are following this morning.
Let me say that I understand perfectly what the gentleman from Alaska
said, but this is a debate that really does not belong here. I know we
are dealing with money and trust reform, and one could argue that
somehow it is appropriations related, but I think the very fact that
there is such a debate, and so many questions about what we should be
doing with the trust funds means that it should not be done on an
appropriations bill.
There should be a hearing, or perhaps a series of hearings that are
being held in the Committee on Resources, in the authorizing committee,
not here on the floor, when we are dealing with this larger bill.
I think it is a huge mistake. The very nature of the debate shows it
is a mistake, and why we should support the amendment offered by the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Beyond that, I was very disturbed by some of the comments the
gentleman
[[Page H4789]]
from Arizona made. He talked about how we have spent a million here or
a million there in order to try to deal with this trust issue. But we
are talking about a scandal, I use the term ``scandal'' because that is
what it is, that affects about $10 billion in funds that may or may not
be owed, depending on the amount, to American Indians.
We have had problems over the last few weeks and the last few months
with the corporate scandals and the accountants that we have had in
Enron and WorldCom and everything else, and everybody on a bipartisan
basis has been on this floor saying that we have to take responsibility
and the CEOs have to take responsibility and do the right thing to make
sure that the accounting is proper.
Why is that any different for the Federal Government? Why is it any
different for this Congress? This Congress has the same responsibility.
I am not interested in whether the employees at the Interior Department
are going to be harmed in some way, or whether or not they are going to
have to go out and get a lawyer in some way because of something they
may have done wrong.
We are talking about people who historically have been harmed by this
Congress. We have a special burden here. There are 100 or 200 years of
harm to American Indians, and they do not trust us. I understand why
they do not trust us, because of the things that have happened
historically with this Congress and with the Federal Government.
There is a special burden here, a special burden that goes beyond the
Enrons and the WorldComs, so they do not think that everything that
they do and everything that Congress does is going to harm them and be
discriminatory against them.
I know it is very easy for us to say here that we have to worry about
this money and we have to worry about that money, but I think for us to
suggest here today that we are going to have some sort of cutoff pre-
1985, or we are going to have some sort of cutoff after the year 2000,
and say that we are going to limit the accounting or what the liability
should be without having consultation with American Indian tribes is a
huge mistake.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) mentioned that there is now
a task force within the tribes in the American Indian community that is
sitting down with the Interior Department, with Members of Congress,
with our Committee on Resources, and talking about a process that we
should go about, in consultation with them, to decide how to deal with
this essentially accounting issue.
We need the time for that task force to sit down, to come back to the
authorizing committee, the Committee on Resources, and discuss what
should be done so that American Indians do not continue to be harmed.
It is not fair for us in this little debate today, even though my
friends are well-intentioned, and I am not suggesting they are not, it
is not fair for us in this half hour or hour of debate to make cutoffs
and arbitrarily decide what we want to do, even if it is for monetary
reasons, because there is too much money involved, there is too much of
a history of discrimination involved. And given what we have seen with
the corporate sector over the last few weeks and the last few months, I
think we have a particular responsibility as elected officials and as
representatives of the Federal Government to not do the same things in
trying to protect the CEOs or, in this case, the government officials
who have the responsibility to deal with this issue.
It is wrong to have that discussion here. This amendment should be
passed, if for no other reason than this is not the forum and this is
not the time to be taking this action.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as the House is in the Committee of the Whole House to
consider this, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment,
acknowledging what I believe to be good-faith efforts of the
appropriators for what is a very difficult problem. Indeed, simply to
call this a very difficult problem may be the understatement of this
new century, and maybe the understatement, quite candidly, Mr.
Chairman, of almost 3 centuries.
I was honored, upon first arriving in this House, to join my
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, in a bipartisan fashion co-
chairing a task force dealing with this very problem. In 1994, this
Congress required the Secretary of the Interior to provide an
accounting of all funds held in trust by the United States for the
benefit of an Indian tribe or individual Indians.
There is a body of law, ratified treaties, the long-standing tribal
trust relationship, the sacred trust, that this government must
exercise. And there are larger questions, not only from an
institutional perspective, where, despite the good faith of our
friends, the appropriators, they are actually stepping in to what the
authorizing committee, my colleagues and I who serve on the Committee
on Resources, should be working out.
We have taken steps, and I appreciate my friend, the gentleman from
West Virginia, and my friend, the gentleman from Michigan. We have held
some hearings. My friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, quite
correctly pointed out that the tribes themselves, working with the
Department of the Interior, and let me say, Mr. Chairman, that the
current Secretary of the Interior takes this seriously. She has worked
on this every day. The contempt citation offered by Judge Lambert is
something that she takes seriously.
Good people can disagree; but it seems to me if we are involved in
forensic accounting, the point has been made in a variety of news
analyses that when we look at the hocus-pocus of either maladroit or
unethical accounting, whatever the corporate world has done cannot
eclipse, for whatever reason, what has gone on for a long time in the
halls of government.
So, Mr. Chairman, let it begin here. Our first genuine efforts at
accounting reform, let it begin with the first Americans, the first
Americans, who have taken steps in good faith with the Secretary of the
Interior, who has taken steps in good faith with an authorizing
committee that wants to work together in good faith to address this
problem.
It is a challenge, to say the least. But the remedy offered, however
well-intentioned, by the Committee on Appropriations today is something
we should thank them for, but ultimately reject. That is why I support
this bipartisan amendment. We will work this in good order and move to
accept this amendment. I thank my friends who have spoken on behalf of
it.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from Arizona or the subcommittee aware
of any formal requests from the administration for this provision?
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not aware of any
formal requests for this particular provision. I think it offers
another compelling reason why we thank the appropriators, given the
magnitude of the task, but reassert the role of the authorizing
committee, and recognize the good but challenging work that has been
done thus far to try and deal with this problem.
So again, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
this amendment.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment. This
amendment strikes a provision that would limit a historical accounting
of Indian trusts. The accounting would only cover the period from 1985
to 2000. How can we limit the accounting to such a short period when
the accounting practices in question date back over 300 years?
At a time when we are trying to increase accounting responsibility in
the corporate world, can we really say that these standards apply only
to them, and I say, only apply to them, Native American Indians? Can we
really be that unfair to Native American brothers and sisters, once
again, to our Native American Indians being unfair?
The President and Congress has made it clear that the proper
accounting goes hand in hand with high moral standards. Should we not
expect the same standards to be applied to the Federal Government
accounting Indian
[[Page H4790]]
trust funds? Morality and ethics should be applied to all of us.
Mr. Chairman, this provision undermines a Federal law that this House
passed requiring a full accounting of all trust funds. It also
undermines a Federal court decision requiring an accounting of all
funds, regardless of dates deposited.
Most importantly, it undermines our moral and ethical values. We
cannot argue for fairness in corporate accounting and act in such a way
which is unfair today, as we are to Native Americans who have made a
contribution, who are the first Native Americans of this country, who
have contributed so much to our society. We have a trust responsibility
and a moral responsibility to provide full and fair accounting of all
Indian trust funds. I urge Members to support this amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to do is kind of go through some of the
questions that have been brought up here. One of the questions was,
Does the administration know about this? Does the administration
support it?
The administration does know about this language and the
administration does support this bill. Certainly, the Department of the
Interior has fly-specked it as carefully as they can. As we all know,
Democrats and Republicans and the administration are quick to point out
what they like or dislike on anything we are doing here on the Hill.
The second issue I wanted to touch base on was one that the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young) raised about precluding any dispute prior to
1985. It is the intention of this committee to not permanently preclude
any accounting for other accounts for other periods. Why is the 1985
date the one we are starting with? We are starting with that because
that was the beginning of the electronic era, when it became a little
easier to track this.
Why are we in this situation to begin with? We go back, and this
actually does span hundreds of years, the dates might not be exactly
accurate, but say 1820-ish. At that time, there were Indian
reservations. In 1833, there was an act of Congress that busted them
up, and it was called the Land Allotment Act, 1833 and 1834.
{time} 1130
And at that time much of this previous reservation land was returned
into the hands of Native Americans. And then through a number of
unscrupulous moves they lost a lot of this land. The Federal Government
came back and said this is not fair. We have got to get the land back
to the people who own it, and so they started a system of leasing land.
Now, let us say you were a Native American in 1840 and you owned 240
acres of land, easy, clear to understand. But fast forward down the
road 100 years, and you have got a thousand people, a thousand heirs
who are claiming that 240 acres, and in many cases smaller tracts of
lands and more heirs are claiming it. So it is very difficult to
administer this thing.
To give you an idea what we are talking about, some of these
leaseholders are getting paid 3 and 4 cents, Mr. Chairman, and it costs
$30 or $40 a lease to administer the payment to them.
So what the committee is trying to do in this confusion is bracket
the problem off and say, tell you what, the year is 2002, let us go
back to 1985 where we had hard core electronic records of the land. Let
us start with that. Let us try to figure this out in this bracket. Now
we are not saying we will not go back, but we are saying from this
point on let us clean up the mess that we have because this portion is
more manageable.
It is not, again, the intent of the committee to preclude any
accounting problems prior to 1985. But one thing I want to say, if we
do not put a bracket on it, we are looking at $2.4 billion in
accounting. And a lot of money, this money, as the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) has pointed out, is going to wind up in the hands of
lawyers, not in the hands of the Native American landowners. So the
committee is trying to find some reasonable balance and it is
bipartisan.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I think the thing we want to emphasize here is that we are
trying to get this thing resolved without spending what has been
estimated. If we go the route we are going, it could cost from $500 to
$700 million out of the Interior Department budget to do this
historical accounting. What we have proposed is let us take the period
from the year 2000 going back to 1985, let us do that first, that is
going to cost approximately $900 million. That is still going to come
out of the Interior Department budget. Then, if the Congress, if the
authorizers who we see here today, want to, we could then have a
subsequent congressional act that would, go back 100 years and try to
reach some kind of an accounting, estimate, or settlement on what would
be fair considering the facts that we do not have the accounts.
What we are faced with is we have got a broken main here. And money
is gushing out because of this lawsuit. It could be up to a billion
dollars, $500 to $700 million up to a billion. On 5 individuals they
spent $20 million. And that is the finding that the judge will not
release to the Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kingston was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we are faced with a very tough problem and
there are some who may not realize that this is already hurting all of
the other tribes because this money comes out of the Interior budget
and is not available for other programs.
Now, Babbitt tried as hard as he could. I believe that Norton is
trying as hard as she can. But you have litigants who are going after
the people in the agency who are trying to do the work, forcing them to
be recused and threatening them with civil liabilities. This is an
outrageous act of legal activity aimed at trying to destroy the
Department of Interior and its ability to function. In fact, people are
being held personally liable under lawsuits because of their work in
this particular matter.
I just think that this is broken. We have got to fix it here. It is a
possible way to move forward with a reasonable amount of money. We
could spend a billion dollars and still not get the information because
it is not there, the information pre-1985 is not there in any definable
way. You cannot do this job. And if you just keep throwing money at it
and say, do it, and they cannot do it, then we cannot get anything
done.
I am a very practical guy. At some point if it is broke, let us fix
it. Let us come up with a settlement. Let us get the authorizers to do
something and create a settlement here and pass it through the Congress
that is fair and equitable. Listen to all the witnesses. Listen to the
best information you can get, the best estimates you can. Do a
settlement, not this litigation which is broken.
We have a judge that is out of control who is saying the Department
cannot use the Internet. To me it is one of the most outrageous things
that I have witnessed in my career. We have to stop it. If the
Democrats are worried about saving some money, this is a place to do
it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kingston was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I want to make the point, this is
not an arbitrary move by the Committee on Appropriations. There were
budget hearings on this, oversight hearings and annual appropriations
committees. All we are trying to do, as the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) has said, is just start with some certainty from 1985, from
here on, that point on, we are going to clean it up. And that cost is
going to be about $900 million. If we do not have that 1985 bracketed,
we are looking at two things: A cost of about 2.4 billion according to
the Department of Interior's Office of Historical Trust Accounting. And
what is worse than that, we will not be able to resolve it.
Mr. DICKS. There is $143 million this year in this budget for this
activity.
[[Page H4791]]
This is broken. We need somehow to get our hands around this and try to
come up with a settlement. Congress is going to have to do it or we are
going to spend billions on something that we cannot do.
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, this helps a lot of people in that
1985 to 2000 and on bracket. There are lots who are not going to be
benefitted either way but these people will be helped tremendously.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am impressed with the sincerity, I think, that is
being offered by our various points of view in different perspectives
on the floor here. However, the longer I serve in Congress, this is an
area where I do not just feel worse, I feel guilty as an American about
the treatment of our Native American citizens. And it seems to me the
efforts here to establish an arbitrary date, which is arbitrary, which
is not going to stop litigation, which is not going to solve confusion,
is not going to help make the process work. By all means, treat it as
the crisis that it is.
I identify with the comments from my friend from New Jersey who
talked about how people are pulling all sorts of rabbits out of the hat
around here dealing with corporate responsibility, including putting
bills on this floor that have never been to committee, that we never
had a chance to analyze, that have had significant ramifications
because there is a scent of scandal in the air.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, this is a scandal of monumental
proportions. And I would hopefully, respectfully suggest that instead
of trying to jimmie it, to cut the ground out from underneath it, to
try and take a small portion of it, that we move forward, give it the
treatment that it accords. Work with the authorizing committee. Work
with others here who have the sincere effort to move it forward. Put
serious money behind it. It is going to cost a huge amount of money,
but it seems to me that it is not going to move us forward by trying to
arbitrarily bracket it here in the appropriations bill.
I strongly support the amendment from the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall). I hope that we can use this as a way to start
forward, taking the good will that has been expressed on a bipartisan
basis, the acknowledgment of the financial contribution that is going
to have to be made, approve the amendment, but move forward with a
comprehensive approach.
I know that there are Members of this Congress who would like to do
some serious legislating. This is an area where I think people would
step up to the plate for Congress to finally accept its responsibility.
I would not like this to be perceived by our friends in the Native
American community as another chapter in this long, sad history.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I rise in
strong support of this amendment.
I think when we come to this floor and we find ourselves in a time
like this, I am excited. I see a ray of light that can finally maybe
work for this problem. I agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks). This issue is so complicated it should not be on this bill. We
need to support the Rahall amendment, and we need to fix it this issue.
And the positive side of this, we see Members from both sides of the
aisle recognize that, A, that this problem is difficult, that it has
been festering for too long and that it is wrong of what our government
has done to Native Americans.
How many of us, when we walked out of Dances With Wolves, felt sad?
Probably sad that in what we have done to the Native Americans. What
about Wounded Knee? What about Code Talkers? I do not have a
reservation in my district. There is one in San Diego.
I want to tell you what these Native Americans are trying to do. They
are trying to stand on their own two feet, and every time they stand
and they may just get one leg up, this government takes and whacks them
and knocks them down.
This is a chance for us to come together as Members of Congress, both
in the House and in the other body, and really do some good. I want to
thank my colleague, and I think that it is time that we act. Members
will find that I think most of us on this side of the aisle are very,
very supportive.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment, and all amendments thereto, be limited to 30 minutes,
to be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, is the
request that the limit be 30 minutes equally divided between the
opponents of the amendment and the proponent, myself? Fifteen minutes
each side, is that the request?
The CHAIRMAN. That is the gentleman's request.
Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, it is the intent to do 30
minutes total, but if the gentleman would want to substitute to another
number, I think that would be appropriate.
Mr. RAHALL. I have no problem with 30 minutes. I just wanted to make
sure I understood the division of time therein.
Mr. KINGSTON. Fifteen minutes on each side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's request is to limit debate to 30
minutes, 15 minutes divided and controlled by the gentleman on this
amendment and on all amendments thereto, equally divided between the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and a Member opposed.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would
like to address in colloquy with the chairman. Would the gentleman be
opposed to making that 40 minutes, primarily the next amendment? We
have many, many speakers.
The CHAIRMAN. It is just this amendment and any amendments to this
amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the unanimous consent request is
granted.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) controls
15 minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me time.
I think it has become clear that the language in the appropriations
bill has become unacceptable. I think somebody said earlier on the
Republican side of the aisle, we should thank them for the language but
we should reject it because I think it does not deal with this in a
proper fashion.
We have all understood and many of us have been struggling for many
years on a bipartisan basis on many committees to get around the
mismanagement of these funds, to get an accounting and get the money to
the people who deserve it. It is a massive mismanagement of the funds
by the Federal government and people have been hurt and damaged by this
and we must resolve it.
I think the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has made some good
points. I think the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and others have
made some points that we are at a point here where to some extent the
Department of Interior does not want to admit that they cannot
reconcile the accounts, and we keep giving them money to do a job that
maybe they cannot do.
Other people are not interested in a settlement at this point, but my
concern here with bracketing this to 1985 is we really have not
discussed what we do with the others. I appreciate people said our
intent is not to close it off, but maybe we ought to reject this
language; and hopefully between now and the conference committee be
discussing with the parties that this is a staged operation. What
happens to the people before 1985 or the accounts in 1985. Is there a
parallel negotiations that can be entered into, because everybody has
pointed out those records will not be full and complete.
[[Page H4792]]
{time} 1145
I am afraid that this alone leaves us with kind of a large unanswered
question, what happens pre-1985, and I know the Members of the
committee have expressed, well, this really, we can come along and
authorize that later, but that puts a lot of people at a disadvantage.
So I think we ought to reject this language, but we ought to do it in
the spirit of what people have said both on the Committee on
Appropriations and on the authorizing committee about, I do not know
that we can direct in legislative language a settlement, but we have
got to direct the parties that we cannot keep funding this sort of
Alice in Wonderland attempt at accounting when it will not resolve the
issue in the end, and it is taking money away from vital programs.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I completely concur with the gentleman. I
think the gentleman laid this out correctly. That is what needs to
happen in terms of having some mechanism created to deal with pre-1985
so that we get some expert estimate, and negotiate that.
Our hope was to take to the present, forward where we believe the
records are sufficient, and get that done as quickly as possible. I do
not know how we are going to have to that structured, but that is what
we need to do. I would love to work with the gentleman on this to try
to see if we cannot move something like that forward.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the concern
here is that some people are affected 1985 to 2000 and other people are
affected 1785 to 1985. I think that we have got to make sure that we
can assure both parties that their rights will be protected, but we
also have to get them to understand that no matter what we do, no
matter what the accounting is, even 1985 to 2000, it is going to be
disputed. So we are going to end up at some point in settlement, and
those settlements must go forward.
I am afraid that the Department keeps asking for money to do the
accounting. Part of that is trying to insulate themselves from
liability, that they are working on the issue, but they are digging a
hole.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, they are directed by the judge to do this.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Exactly.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, then the litigants go after the people doing
the work, saying they are not acting in good faith, and then they have
to be recused, subject to litigation, personal liability, I might add,
which we have tried to take care of in this bill.
This thing is broken; and somehow all the people that are here today
expressing their wonderful concern, there is going to be a tomorrow,
and we will see if anybody really wants to stand up with the majority
side obviously having to be involved and work on this. This has to be
done. We have got to get something done here.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from West
Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I perfectly agree with the statements that
have been said. We want to settle this. We want a settlement. Let us
allow the current litigation to go forward or get a settlement.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, what efforts
have been made by the Committee on Resources to foster a settlement?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think, with all due
respect, it is very clear, I am sorry to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young) and others, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), when he
came here with his special commission.
Part of this was about getting the administration, the past
administration and others to recognize that they had real liability for
these funds. Let us not forget that we were being pushed back by the
Department of the Interior for many, many years to somehow this problem
did not really exist. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), to his
credit, is the one who really broke it open.
Now they recognize that they cannot escape that liability. They had
had preliminary discussions about settlement. We have got to encourage
that to go forward, but we cannot make this decision about 1985 here
and now without the consultation of the other parties.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) wish to
control time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would like to control the time;
and I reserve the balance of the time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Udall), a valuable member of our Committee on Resources.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time, and let me just first thank the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for his leadership on this bill. The chairman is
from my home State of New Mexico. He has always served New Mexico very
well, many years of distinguished service, and so I just want to say to
him, I know this is going to be the last bill he manages on the floor,
that we are all going to miss him very much, and he has been somebody I
think that has always been there for New Mexico. So I thank the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
I want to rise in support of this amendment, the Kildee-Hayworth
amendment. This is a bipartisan amendment; and I think the important
thing, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) said, is that
Native American issues should not be partisan issues. This Congress
should address these issues in a bipartisan way, and that is what we
are trying to do on the Committee on Resources.
We have two senior Members that have offered this amendment. It is a
good, solid amendment, and basically what it does is take out these
provisions that hurt Native Americans. What specifically it does is
when we talk about a court case, we are talking about the current court
case of Cobell v. Norton. That court case is a case which arose from
major officials violating their trust responsibilities to Native
Americans.
The court has said in the strongest of terms and condemned the
actions of Federal officials and how they have dealt with these
accounts. So there is absolutely no doubt that there has been a
violation by the Federal Government, and the provisions in this bill
cut off Native American rights. There are very specific deadlines in
there, and all of those need to be taken out; and the important thing
here is this bill language comes at a time when the Nation is focused
on accounting responsibility.
The President and the Congress have made it clear that accounting
must be marked by transparency and high moral standards. We expect the
same standards to be applied to the Federal Government accounting for
Indian trust funds and not to allow the Federal Government to absolve
itself of accounting responsibility.
So these provisions would throw the Native Americans out of court,
and I do not think that is the way we want to go.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) raises, I think, a very
good point when he says we need to move this case toward settlement. I
do not think there is any doubt that we need to move this case toward
settlement. We should be working on the settlement issue, and we should
let all of the attorneys know we want to move towards settlement.
The key issue here, the committee that should be working on this is
the Committee on Resources. We have had hearings on this issue. We have
had Secretary Norton in the Committee on Resources as recently as
February 6, 2002; and unfortunately, she will not admit that she does
not have the records. Very pointedly, the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Rahall), the ranking member, specifically asked her, Do you have
the records? Can you do this accounting? She would not admit that she
could not do the accounting.
So part of the responsibility for prolonging this comes from the
Department, which is not willing to admit
[[Page H4793]]
that they do not have the records. They should step forward, say they
cannot do this, and that would lead to some kind of settlement.
The last issue I want to raise is this issue of attorneys' fees, and
the issue has come up that attorneys are getting rich on this. The lead
plaintiffs in this case are the Native American Rights Fund. It is a
nonprofit. It is a law firm that is dedicated to protecting Native
American rights. They are only allowed to get their attorneys' fees. No
attorneys are getting rich in the Native American Rights Fund, and so I
would just say that that attorneys' fee issue, we ought to move that to
the side, and as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) says, in
terms of the committee, let us get on with settlement and move in that
direction.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think we made some progress here today. I
want to make sure there is clear understanding that the committee, this
committee has been one of the strongest advocates for Native Americans.
We have increased every year that I have been on this committee; we
have had added money for Native Americans.
This is not an effort by the committee to do something to harm the
tribes that are affected here. What we are trying to do is to get them
money in a reasonable period of time without decimating the interior
appropriations bill every single year. I want that $143 million to be
used for other programs that will help Native Americans. I do not want
to waste $1 billion in going out and trying to do accounting that is
not going to give us the information pre-1985.
I have talked to the chairman and the staff. We are prepared to work
with the authorizers on language that would deal with the pre-1985
period between now and the conference committee and maybe we can put
together a package as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)
has laid out previously, which I think makes some sense, so that we can
move expeditiously on the period between 2000 and 1985; and then we
craft an approach for a settlement of some sort pre-1985 so that we
move the game forward, get this thing moving in the right direction so
that the tribes will get some money.
To do just historical accounting every single year and let this
litigation fester is not accomplishing anything to help the tribes.
They are not going to get the money. It is going to be years and years
and years before this will be resolved. It will go through litigation.
It will go to the circuit court of appeals. It will go to the United
States Supreme Court. We need to work out a settlement; and this
amendment was offered in the spirit of trying to break this logjam,
trying to move this thing forward.
I would like to see the authorizers agree with us today that we
should work together collectively to try to come up with some pre-1985
language. The chairman and his people are willing to work with us on
this, and I think we could make some very significant progress and move
this thing forward.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, we strike the pre-1985 accounts and then
give them some vague promise that we may restore that, and I have been
working in Indian matters now as a legislator for 38 years, and many
promises have been made.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman wants to make his
speech, make it on the gentleman from West Virginia's (Mr. Rahall)
time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, may I make my next point then?
Mr. DICKS. Yes.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I think what we do with this language that
we have in the bill is just invite new litigation with more cost to the
government, because as soon as this becomes law, new litigation will
break out because we are taking property unconstitutionally.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we are not doing very well the way we are
going, and again, the prospects are we are going to spend between 500
and $700 million on the historical accounting. It could go to $1
billion if we go the way we are going; and if we try this approach, we
may be able to limit the amount of money spent to $100 million on the
1985 to the current accounting, then work out an approach pre-1985. It
has got to be a settlement because they do not have the records. It has
got to be a settlement, and we ought to work on the language.
I resent the intonation that it is some vague promise. The gentleman
from Washington has never ever made a commitment that I have not kept
in my years in this Congress. When I say we are willing to sit down and
work on something, that is not a vague promise.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I say to my good friend from Washington, and fellow classmate, that I
do not believe I was referring to any vague promises.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, it was not
you. It was the previous speaker.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the comments he made
as far as his word and ability to work with everybody.
{time} 1200
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about settling today, and I
certainly agree with that. I think we all want to settle this very
complicated and very unjust provision that does affect our Native
Americans. I happen to believe, and the reason I offered this
amendment, was that the provision in the pending legislation happens to
hamper us in that effort and perhaps even prejudges the outcome of
current litigation.
My good friend from Washington has suggested that we perhaps work on
this between the floor and the conference. And with all due respect,
and I know he realizes, there are perhaps some scoping problems if that
were to be done. I would suggest as an alternative using the framework
of the gentleman from California, using the framework of the gentleman
from Washington, whoever else's framework wants to resolve this in a
fair manner, that we start with a clean slate. And in order to do that,
we have to delete the current provision of the pending legislation.
I would note as well that the Department of Interior, as I have
already noted in this debate, will never be able to conduct a full
historical accounting of these trust fund accounts, and the Department
has admitted that to us during hearings before our Committee on
Resources. In my opinion, the Department should be sitting down with
the plaintiffs in the current Cobell litigation and settle this matter
and move on.
Something that has been referred to earlier is the lawyers' fees;
that this is making the lawyers rich. I would note that the lawyers are
working for fees only, no percentages, and I do not believe they could
be described as getting rich on this issue. But, instead, I think some
in the Department, and again this is not a partisan comment, but it has
been occurring over time, have engaged in sleights of hand. They have
thought to shuffle the deck chairs and intended to dilute their
responsibility, and that is just truly unfair.
I would suggest that we delete this provision and allow litigation to
come to a proper and fair resolution. And I would note as well that any
settlement of this litigation would not be paid for by this
appropriation bill; rather, any settlement of this litigation would
come out of the Claims and Judgment Fund at the Justice Department,
which is set up when the United States loses any legal case, not just
in this matter but any others. That is where the settlement would come
from.
It is not the intention of this gentleman to see this matter drag on
any longer than it has. However, I cannot stand idly by while the
rights of thousands of citizens are trampled upon by the limitation
that is contained in the pending legislation. I think it is a dangerous
precedent. It is one we should not be establishing, and especially in
these times of widespread accounting scandals in the corporate world.
So, in conclusion, we all agree we must settle this, but I fear that
the provision in the current legislation would harm our bipartisan
efforts to settle this important matter for our Native Americans in a
fair manner, and I would urge adoption of the pending amendment.
[[Page H4794]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I thank the gentleman for his comments. I want to make a
few closing points that I think are very important.
Number one, on the question of 1985, it has been called an arbitrary
date. It is not an arbitrary date. That is the date of the electronic
records. If my colleagues do not like the 1985 date, what date do they
want? 1980, 1975, 1979? And then with that gap, what records will you
have? If you have the records for the period prior to 1985 to any other
date certain, please come up with it.
Number two, this does not preclude claims that happened before 1985.
It simply gets us started.
Number three, we are looking at now making real progress, getting the
job done, or at least taking the first very significant step at a cost
of about $900 million versus a cost of $2.4 billion. Earlier, on this
bill, last night, we had lots of debate and heartaches about the money
this bill was spending. It seems odd to me that now people would say,
well, let us just spend $1.5 billion.
And that money, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has
pointed out, may never get to the people who we all want to get the
money to eventually. It has been said that the lawyers are not making
money. Well, lawyers do tend to do things for a profit. The court
monitors in 2001, for example, were paid about $342,000. The court
monitor was paid $342,000 and the special master was paid $354,000.
That is compensation well over $400,000 a year. So I think what was
asserted earlier, that the lawyers are making money on this thing, I
think is important to say.
This committee has long stood up for Native Americans. This is the
committee that funds the Native American programs. This is the
committee that advocates for Native Americans, and it is in that regard
that we are saying let us get this job started with the 1985 date, do a
good job on those that we know are certain, and then go back.
I want to point out that this bill has $2.9 billion for Indian health
services, new hospitals, critical health care services, research on
diabetes and treatment. It has $1.8 billion for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs' operation of Indian programs. That, Mr. Chairman, means
education programs, money for new computers, money for new teachers,
money for new transportation so school kids can get to schools. And,
also, this bill, at the advocacy of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth) and many, many others, puts $22 million in Indian program
increases, which will help build six new schools and continues critical
hospital and clinic construction.
This bill does a lot of things because this committee, on a
bipartisan basis, does everything it can for our Native Americans.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the one thing I want to correct, and I know
the gentleman from West Virginia did not intend it, but there is an
assumption being made by the proponents of this amendment that any
claim in this issue will be paid for out of the Justice Department
funds. We have had just recently a Ramah settlement, $80 million, that
came out of the claims fund, and OMB directed the Department of the
Interior to take money from their accounts and put it back into the
Justice Department.
So this is not a clear-cut case. And there could be an effort to make
the Department of the Interior pay this.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Just on that point, Mr. Chairman, it
would be a travesty of justice if the Indian programs ended up getting
punished because of the mismanagement by the Federal Government of
Indian trust funds.
I appreciate OMB may direct them to do that, but I cannot believe the
Congress is going to go along with that directive.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it
would not be just the Indian programs. All the programs of the
Department of the Interior would have to be taxed for the $80 million
to pay back to the claims.
The point I am making is the gentleman from West Virginia stood up
here and said that it is an automatic deal for the Justice Department
to have to take care of this settlement. That is not an automatic deal.
I want the House and the Members to understand that.
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for his comments.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to
H.R. 5093 offered by Mr. Nick Rahall of West Virginia that would strike
provisions in the Interior Appropriations bill that rob the legal
rights of Native Americans. The provision in question limits the
Federal Government's accountability to Native Americans by restricting
an historical accounting of Indian Trust Funds.
Mr. Chairman, these trust funds have been entrusted to the care of
the Federal Government for over a century and for nearly as long the
trust has experienced rampant mismanagement of funds, destruction of
records, and blatant dissembling by those charged with management. And
the provision of the Interior Appropriations bill would seek to limit
billions of dollars in claims against the Federal Government, claims
that are legal and just, by mandating accurate accounting of the trust
funds only from 1985 forward. The trust has been in existence since
1887--that is the date from which accurate accounting should be given.
Mr. Chairman, this provision is not only unjust, it's downright
illegal, overturning a central provision of the American Indian Trust
Management Reform Act that requires the Secretary of the Interior to
provide a full accounting of ``all funds held in trust by the United
States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual Indians.'' If a
Congressional act were not enough, the federal courts have also
demanded a full accurate accounting from the date the funds were
deposited into Federal accounts.
Mr. Chairman, these trust funds are not entitlements, they are monies
that come directly from the sale or lease of Native American owned
property and is held in trust by the Department of the Interior. This
is Native American money. And the Federal Government has admitted the
funds' mismanagement and an inexplicable ``loss'' of its money.
Mr. Chairman, the sort of mismanagement of accounts and destruction
of records the Department of the Interior has performed makes the
scandals of Enron seem like stealing from a piggy bank. If the House of
Representatives truly wants to make a statement about fair accounting
and accountability, it will start here by supporting the Rahall
Amendment.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rahall Amendment
and urge its adoption by the House. Included in the Interior bill are
several provisions relating to trust reform efforts and the Cobell v.
Norton litigation. These legislative provisions will limit an
historical accounting of trust funds from the period of 1985 to 2000,
which will assume all records before 1985 are correct. There is also
language included in the bill that would not provide an accounting for
funds held in an account closed as of December 31, 2000.
I believe these provisions undermine existing Federal law requiring a
full accounting of all trust funds and a Federal court decision
requiring an accounting of all funds regardless of the date deposited.
As a former Chairman of the Native American and Insular Affairs
Committee of the House Resources Committee, I have heard countless
times the concerns of Native Americans who say they just want an
historical accounting done by the government entrusted with managing
their assets. They have waited long enough.
I would strongly encourage the House to vote for the Rahall
Amendment.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that the federal government
has failed its responsibility in handling American Indian trust funds.
But parties, Republicans and Democrats, agree that the governments has
mismanaged these trust funds and there is definite need for reform.
Previously, trust reform legislation has passed Congress twice. In
addition, a Task Force is currently working with Members of Congress,
the Administration and the tribal communities on how to best reform how
Indian Trust Funds are managed.
Unfortunately, current provisions in this bill would limit true fund
reform. By accepting the provisions in the Interior bill, Congress must
assume that the records and accounting are correct prior to 1985. This
is hard to believe, due to the fact that the trust funds have been
mismanage for decades. The Federal Government is responsible for these
funds, and to simply suggest that everything is perfect prior to 1985
is a slap in the face to our Native
[[Page H4795]]
Americans. Through legislation, Congress has asked for historical
accounting of these trust funds and a Federal Court has ordered it as
well. The provisions in the bill would overturn legislation already
passed and could possibly open up the government to even more lawsuits.
It is imperative for historical accounting to take place, which
includes the years and decades prior to 1985.
The issue of Trust Fund reform is extremely important to me and the
Tribes I represent in the state of South Dakota. Their voice needs to
be heard whenever decisions are being made regarding Indian Trust
Funds. I have heard from them, and they are adamantly opposed to these
provisions of the bill.
We must remember that the funds we are talking about are not federal
programs or entitlements, but money that Native Americans have earned
from the lease of their lands for mining, grazing and timber. This is
their money, and the Federal Government has failed to honor its
responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment to strike the
provisions of this bill, and the continuation of true Indian Trust Fund
reform.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
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 ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. 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.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hayworth
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Hayworth:
Strike section 141.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 60 minutes to
be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like
to inquire of the chairman if this is on the Hayworth amendment?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Yes, this is on the Hayworth amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, is it his amendment and all amendments
thereto?
Mr. SKEEN. Yes.
Mr. DICKS. And we would split it 30-30, or would it be 15?
Mr. SKEEN. Thirty-thirty.
Mr. DICKS. And then it would be split, the time in opposition?
Mr. SKEEN. Yes.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. A further point of clarification. Again, this would be
time divided between opponents and proponents, instead of along party
lines?
Mr. DICKS. As I understand it, the gentleman from Arizona would have
30 minutes and the chairman and I would split the other 30 minutes, 15
minutes each in opposition.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends for the clarification
on a bipartisan basis. Appreciate where we are headed.
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.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 30 minutes
on his amendment.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment for a simple reason: The current
language in title I provides for yet another study of Native American
gaming. Mr. Chairman, I am holding here in my hand a recitation of
recent studies, most of them in the 1990s, a couple from the 1980s, but
73 studies in total dealing with Indian Country health, infrastructure,
economic development, education and housing; and, more specifically,
Mr. Chairman, to the question of the influence of organized crime on
Indian gaming, no fewer than three studies already conducted by our
Federal Government.
So 73 studies total, six of them directly linked to my good friend
from Virginia. Let me say in defense of the work he does, I understand
his intent and his sincerity, but I come to this floor to say that we
must strike section 141 because it offers yet another study of
something we have studied before and we have studied time and again.
The money involved here, I realize by Washington standards, does not
even qualify as something to come out of Uncle Sam's change scoop. But,
Mr. Chairman, a couple hundred thousand dollars would go a long way in
Bylas, Arizona. A couple hundred thousand dollars would help my Native
American constituents, who are dealing with fire and the aftermath of
what went on in the White Mountains. This is real money. And to take
this from programs of the BIA and apply it to yet another study, no
matter how well intentioned, is exactly the wrong policy at the wrong
time for what might be sincere reasons.
Not only is it ill-advised policy, Mr. Chairman, but once again we
are getting into a situation where this House could find itself in
violation of rule XXI. No matter what mores or customs of the House
have been observed here, the fact is, in the final analysis, by
allowing this language to stay in the bill, this is a legislative rider
on appropriations legislation. This takes from the purview of the
authorizing committee the public policy that the authorizing committee
should continue to control.
The exact language of this proposal is already found in H.R. 2244, a
bill that is pending before the Committee on Resources. So not only, in
my opinion, do we have an ill-advised study, number 74 on the list, and
not only is it spending money that could be better utilized, but again
it is a usurpation of the prerogatives of the authorizing committee.
For those reasons, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment and
join in striking section 141 of this title I.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) controls 15
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time
in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) controls 15
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Let me just say that what the gentleman said, the scope of this is
totally new. Totally. There has never been a study of these issues with
regard to the tribal relationship regarding the surrounding
communities.
I worked at the Department of Interior for 5 years under Secretary
Morton. I am sure for those who have ever gone on any reservation they
have seen the utter despair that is on those reservations. This
amendment, Mr. Chairman, will hurt Native Americans.
Eighty percent of the Native Americans in this country, 80 percent,
have never received one penny from gambling.
{time} 1215
The Hopi, the Navajos, most of the tribes do not want gambling; but
in many respects this has given an opportunity and allowed the country
and allowed the government and the Congress to neglect Native
Americans. Indians and Native Americans have suffered more and have not
been treated well by this Congress and not been treated well by this
administration or previous administrations.
The poverty level that afflicts Native Americans, they are in the 36
percent category. The gentleman says there have been other studies, but
they have
[[Page H4796]]
not worked; and we all know and anyone who has been on an Indian
reservation knows that what has been tried has not worked. Why do
Members oppose something that is going to study something to see if we
can do something to help Native Americans?
With regard to stroke, they have one of the highest rates in the
country, so that is not working; and the study over there is not
working. Lung cancer, the highest; breast cancer, the highest; suicide,
the highest. So the policies of the Congress and the policies of both
Republican and Democrat administrations have not worked. Why do Members
oppose something that will bring members all together to come up with a
study to help them?
The death rate among Native Americans is higher in seven major
categories. Alcoholism, the death rate is 627 percent higher than other
categories. TB, 533 percent higher than other categories. Diabetes, 249
percent higher than other categories. Accidents, 204 percent higher
than other categories. Homicide, it is dangerous, 63 percent higher
than other categories. Housing, and those Members who have been on
Indian reservations know that housing is miserable; it is absolutely
miserable. We all like to live in a good house and our constituents
like to live in a good house. Why can they not have the same
opportunity?
Crime is twice the national average on the reservation. Education is
miserable. This is a commission, and what the amendment of the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee) does is strike this. It says we are going to put our head
in the sand and say we do not know how bad alcoholism and education is.
We are not going to look at it.
We have seen the movies, and the gentleman from San Diego has talked
about the movie ``Wounded Knee'' and other things, we have seen the
movies; but we are not going to look at it and see if we can come up
with something different. Maybe an economic development administration,
maybe an EDA like what has been used in Appalachia, maybe something
constructive, something new that we can do to help. We must not be
afraid to at least look at it.
The 13-member commission will include representatives of State
Governors. That should not frighten us. Attorney generals, members of
the Departments of Treasury, Interior and Commerce, and the National
Indian Gaming Commission, they are going to be participating. A local
or municipal government official, a small businessperson from areas
near the reservation, two representatives from nongambling Indian
tribes, and they should be heard from. We should not just hear from
those who have gambling and also two representatives from tribes that
are operating gambling casinos. And thanks to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we will work with others who represent Indian
interests.
So what will this commission do? It will take a thorough look at the
living standards on Indian country, including health care,
infrastructure, economic development, and education and housing. Now
that is not a bad thing. That is not a bad thing to look at.
If Members lived on some of these reservations, Members would not
object to us looking to see if we could come up with some constructive
ideas to see if we could improve the situation. The commission will
look at the effectiveness of current Federal programs designed to
improve standards in these designated areas. That is not a bad thing.
That is not a bad thing to look at. That will not hurt. That will not
hurt.
Go on an Indian reservation and ask them whether they object to us
seeing if we can improve housing and education and health care. Whether
they have gambling or not, they will not object to this.
Crime control on Indian reservations, we all like to live in a safe
community. Would it hurt for Congress to look at crime on Indian
reservations? What would be wrong with that? What would be wrong with
looking at crime on Indian reservations? We would also look at the
influence of non-Native American private investors on the Indian
Federal recognition process. We know there have been Inspector General
reports that the process is becoming corrupt. We know it. The Wall
Street Journal knows it; the Boston Globe knows it. The London Day in
Connecticut knows it. Papers know there are problems here.
They know in the previous administration, one person came in the day
after the administration left and signed the recognition thing. And
non-Indians are exploiting those in certain cases and taking advantage
of them. So what would be wrong with looking at that, the economic, the
environmental, the social impact? So after an 18-month review, the
commission will submit to Congress a report containing legislative
recommendations as to the welfare of Native Americans, including health
care and infrastructure and housing and education.
I, frankly, think we in the government have failed Native Americans.
I think we have used the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 to
provide gambling as a staple of Native American policies. Since that
act, our investment in Federal programs intended to improve the health
and welfare of tribes has declined significantly.
Mr. Chairman, gambling has been an excuse to reduce the commitment of
the Federal Government to the Nation's first citizens. A bad excuse.
The overall portrait of America's most impoverished group continues to
be dominated by disease, by unemployment, by infant mortality, and by
school dropout rates that are among the highest in the Nation. We can
do something today to make a difference in the lives of the Nation's
first citizens. We can quit hiding behind gambling as a panacea for
Native Americans and take action to improve their health, their lives,
and their welfare. I do not believe that those Members supporting the
amendment believe any differently. I think we should do this. I urge
defeat of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, from 1989 until now, there have been no fewer than one
dozen studies dealing with the spectre of crime on Indian reservations.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee), the co-chairman of the Native American Caucus.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, as cochair of the Native American Caucus, I
would like to express my strong opposition to provisions included in
the fiscal year 2003 interior appropriations bill relating to
establishing a commission on Native American policy. I support the
bipartisan amendment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth),
whose knowledge and concern of Indian matters is of the highest order,
and his credentials among Indians are held in the highest regard.
The commission proposed in this bill would address several areas
including Indian gaming examined recently by the National Gambling
Impact Study Commission. In 1996, Congress authorized $5 million to
fund this study. In fact, since 1980, more than 70 federally funded
reports have been published that address the same areas that the
commission would study.
Provisions similar to the amendment are included in H.R. 2244, a bill
pending in the Committee on Resources, the committee of jurisdiction.
These provisions will take Federal funds from badly needed Indian
programs.
The funding for the commission would come from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs operation of Indian programs line item, which pays for welfare
assistance payments, housing improvements, roads, education, tribal
courts, law enforcement, and other programs that improve the quality of
life and the economic potential of those on Indian reservations.
Congress does not need another study to tell us that these programs
require more funding, not less, to assist tribes and their members.
Millions of Federal dollars have already been spent studying the same
areas that the proposed commission would study. Congress should not
waste taxpayers' dollars by duplicating studies on the same subject
matter.
Congress should not take Federal dollars from Federal programs
designed to assist tribal governments that continue to suffer from high
unemployment rates, inadequate educational systems, poor road
conditions,
[[Page H4797]]
and insufficient health care systems. I urge my colleagues to support
the Hayworth amendment to strike these provisions.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment and in support of the proposal for a commission in this
bill by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
I fail to understand why we do not need this kind of study. In 14
years since the 1988 bill, we have seen enormous problems of poverty,
school dropout, disease, infant mortality and unemployment. Since 1994,
because we passed a more enlightened policy for the rest of America, we
have reduced poverty among children in American 3 consecutive years. We
have never done that. And the deepest reductions in poverty were among
black kids. Why is it that we just ignore the fact that poverty among
Indian children is terrible? Why do we not notice or study the impact
on families of the level of substance abuse on the reservations. We
have known it is there. Why do we keep appropriating dollars when we
know they are not changing lives?
I see no reason to fear this commission, and I see every reason to
look at what is Federal policy in regard to our reservations, and how
does it compare to Federal policy in regard to the rest of Americans.
Why is it Federal policy has reduced poverty in America but not for
reservations? Why is it we are making progress on some of the child-
abuse issues in the States and our Federal level, and we are not
strengthening families on the reservations? Why is it that the school
dropout rate is so extraordinary? What are the policy comparisons? What
are the policies that we as Federal lawmakers are supporting in these
different areas?
As one who is increasingly affected and frankly more aware of and
knowledgeable about Federal policy toward tribes, I would have to say
it is distressing to watch outsiders come in, finance big-stakes
casinos, and watch the people in the surrounding towns pay for the
hospitals that everybody has to use. I do not see the little guys
getting the same benefit as the big guys.
It is time to look at this. I do not see that it is a danger, and I
do not see that it is duplicative. Recognizing that on Indian issues I
am not one of the more knowledgeable Members, but seeing Indians from
my perspective in a community where they have benefited from all these
resources, and we do not have the poverty, but seeing the big money
going to some and not others, we need this study. It is disgraceful not
to do it.
{time} 1230
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the chairman emeritus, in fact, vice chairman of the
Committee on Resources.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment.
I think most of you heard me yesterday on the floor. This provision
should not be in this bill. This legislation was introduced in the
Committee on Resources and it never had a hearing because we did not
want one. We do not believe it is necessary. It has been repeated
before. There have been many studies. The studies show, in fact, that
the native groups are doing quite well in the gaming industry.
Let us not kid ourselves, this is what this is all about. But also
let us answer the question. I listened to my good friend, and I do
respect him a great deal, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and
his opposition to this amendment. He is really trying to target the
gaming. Let us be knowledgeable about that and recognize that, and he
has that right to do so. But he talks about the suicides and the
poverty and the poor housing and the education level and the sewer
problems, all those things that every Native American has faced over
these years. Let us not kid ourselves. This is nothing new.
But you ask why that occurs. I will tell you why it occurs. One of
the basic reasons why is they are tired of having people study them and
tell them how to solve their problems, of having the people come in
with their briefcases, the Governors and this person and that person
and say, ``We're going to study you,'' and they have to respond to the
study. It happens every day.
I live with them. I am close to them. My wife is native, my kids are
Native American Indians, and I am proud of it. I think I have a little
bit of knowledge about this. If you really want to help the Native
Americans, let them help themselves, provide the money, but let them
make the decisions, and not some commission. We know the problems. They
know the problems. Let them solve those problems with their knowledge
and their will and they will do it. We do not need another government
study to explain this to everybody and spend that money out of needed
funds. That is where these moneys are coming from. Let us give them
credit. Intelligent, smart, persevering, if they have an opportunity
and not the government to tell them how to do it and what they cannot
do.
Let us say you can do it and we will help you. You know the old
saying, a hand down will help everybody up. Let us not put our hand on
their head again with another study. My God, if you go back to the
history of this Congress, how many studies have we had and spent that
money to take and identify the problem? In my case I will tell you. My
12 regional corporations know the problem. They are addressing the
problem. They know what can be done and they want to do it themselves
and the money that is being spent on this commission ought to go to
solving those problems and letting them do it themselves. That is what
we ought to be doing today. It should not be in this bill. I told the
leadership it should not be in this bill. We should not attempt to try
to do it again and again and again. It solves nothing.
There are those who will say this is about gambling. I guess maybe
those that oppose this, taking it out, is about gambling. I happened to
be the author of that original gambling bill with Mr. Udall. Some of
you object to gambling and I understand that. I do not gamble myself,
other than being elected once in a while. That is a gamble. But I will
tell you one thing. I have visited most of these gambling
establishments and seen what the people say about what it has done for
their tribes. And, yes, there is outside involvement. You would not
expect them not to have that. They hire the best. They do the job. If
there is something illegally happening, then let us address that and we
do that under the gambling commission and under the Justice Department.
Both of those say there is nothing happening there that is illegal.
If you want to be against gambling, and I am all for that, let us
eliminate all gambling. Let us not have racetracks in Virginia. They do
not have racetracks, but lotto, pull tabs. What else? Racetracks in
every other State. Gambling in some States. Let us look at that. But
let us not have a so-called quasi-study to take and identify the
problems when we know what the problems are. I urge this Congress to
think about that a moment.
Let us let them help them lift themselves up. Let us not have a
commission dictating to them what is wrong with their great race of
people. That is all I ask you. Vote for this amendment. The gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is right on. I believe the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) is right on.
For you appropriators again, it is not your fault. I say this. I do
blame the Committee on Rules and the leadership for not making this
issue for a point of order. It should never have been protected. We
would not have had this debate if we had gone through the legislative
process.
Vote for the Hayworth amendment.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this bipartisan amendment, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the
ranking member of the authorizing committee, the Committee on
Resources.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
yielding time. I commend him on his effort here today and his
leadership, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment to strike the provision
[[Page H4798]]
which authorizes the establishment of the Commission on Native American
Policy to study Indian Country. This provision sets up a fiscally
irresponsible study which is underfunded, far-reaching and duplicative
of numerous other Federal studies.
As the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Resources, I do
oppose the way this commission is being forced down the throats of
Indian Country. Clearly, authorizing a study of this magnitude and the
value of such a study is the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Resources. Yet we have not had the opportunity to study or hold
hearings on this matter at all.
This language has not been publicly vetted and Indian tribes have not
been permitted to participate in crafting this provision. So we should
not be surprised that the commission and its study is set up to fail.
It is simply wrong to set this up without allowing for open
consultation with Indian tribes.
Funding for this commission is set so low that it would virtually
guarantee a flawed study being conducted. In addition, these moneys
would be taken from Federal Indian programs where they are badly needed
for housing, transportation, welfare assistance, tribal courts and law
enforcement.
As we have heard, Mr. Chairman, since 1980 more than 70 federally
funded reports have been released addressing the same areas that this
commission would study. Most of those reports were well thought out,
narrow in scope and appropriately funded to assure accurate and
comprehensive findings. Sadly, that is not the case with this
commission.
It is clear, and nobody is being misled here, that the Committee on
Appropriations can establish this commission and with the support of
the Committee on Rules and the leadership of this House, we are at a
severe disadvantage in trying to delete the provision, make no mistake
about it. But just because the appropriators can do it to Indian
Country does not mean that the appropriators should do it to Indian
Country.
If you want to spend money and set up a flawed study, do not do it
out of the paltry Indian program budget. I urge my colleagues to
support the Hayworth amendment to strike the Commission on Native
American Policy from this bill and once again to be fair to our Native
American Indians.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
(Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the amendment by
the gentlemen from Arizona and Michigan, both fine and excellent
Members of this body, but like many Americans, I am concerned that
gambling is a panacea for the real problems of poverty on Indian
reservations. As gambling has become more and more a part of Native
American policy, investment in Federal programs intended to improve the
health and welfare of tribes has declined.
While the intent of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was to
allow Native Americans to lift themselves out of poverty through self-
reliance, today nearly 80 percent of Native Americans do not receive
anything from gambling revenues. The reality is that most tribes, which
are located in areas not economically viable for a casino, live in
poverty.
The National Indian Gaming Commission, which is now in the bill,
would be struck by this amendment. This would be unfortunate because
the Indian Gaming Commission would undertake a study of a number of
problems which impact the Native American community, including the
welfare of Native Americans, including health, infrastructure, housing,
economic development and educational opportunities; the relationship
between tribal entities and nontribal communities; and regulations that
govern tribal gaming to produce potential for abuse or exploitation by
organized crime and the gaming industry.
This commission, I believe, provides a much-needed review of Federal
policy on Native Americans. Given the current state of affairs, I urge
my colleagues to preserve the National Indian Gaming Commission and to
oppose the Hayworth-Kildee amendment.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on
Appropriations and a genuine American hero.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Virginia said that 80
percent of the Native Americans never receive funds. That is not
factual. It is absolutely untrue. The study that he himself proposed
cost $5 million. He said this would only cost $200,000. Well, this 13-
board commission also receives full per diem, airline tickets for 18
months. This is going to cost another million bucks. And study after
study after study generated by the gentleman from Virginia. He can be
opposed to gaming, that is fine. But do not try and do it with study
after study, because the studies that he proposed found out many of the
same things he is asking in this study. The only problem is he did not
get the answers that he wants, so you do another study until you get
the answers that you want. It is wrong.
Mr. Chairman, the Interior appropriations bill before the House does
include these provisions, and it is wrong. No hearings. In the dead of
night--actually it was the daytime--all of a sudden the gentleman from
Virginia inserts an amendment on an appropriations bill, not
authorized, not studied but in the appropriations bill. I was told by
staff that if I did not object in the committee, this would be killed.
And here I find it is okayed by the rules. Why? The gentleman is a
cardinal and leadership recognized that. But it does not make it right.
It should be eliminated.
The chairman of this committee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen), is going to vote for this amendment because it is bad policy,
terrible policy. There have been studies from the Department of
Justice, memos from the Department of Justice to the anticrime, all
recognizing the issues that the gentleman from Virginia is talking
about. And you want to talk about Indian health care and education and
those things. Absolutely. But visit some of these tribes. I do not have
it in my district, but they are in San Diego and I visit them because
they used to come down to my ranch to swim, the kids. I want to tell
you, they did not have an education center. They do now. They did not
have a health care center. They do now. As a matter of fact, that
center studies alcoholism, which is a primary problem with Native
Americans, and tied to that is diabetes. These people have pulled
themselves up by their bootstrings. Just because you are against
gambling, do not try to hamfist them and tie them down from doing the
things that help them the most. It is just wrong.
We all want to do what is right and promised, but how many times have
we looked at Native Americans and tied them down in every type of
endeavor? Oil on their land. We took it. Their hunting rights. We
stopped them. Water rights. They have to fight tooth, hook and nail
even for water rights on their own land. We took it.
{time} 1245
And here, for the first time, they found something that is viable.
The study that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) commissioned
found that there is no other viable, long-term, across-the-board
resource that can help as much as this issue. They are doing everything
that we ask. They spend millions of dollars to fund the gaming
commission. They spend millions of dollars internally to fund it, and
they are doing it right; and because someone is opposed to gaming, they
want to stop it. That is wrong. Support the Hayworth amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just to respond.
The study does show, as the Boston Globe piece demonstrates, which we
are bringing over, that 80 percent of the Indians have never received
anything. Fifty percent of all of the revenues have gone to 2 percent.
It is actually an area of location, where you are is what you do, and
Indians on the tribes and the reservations in most parts of the country
have received absolutely nothing.
Secondly, it did not say what the gentleman said in that report.
Lastly, what the report that we are asking for talks about is looking
at the welfare of native Americans, including health, which everyone
will acknowledge, and I stipulate the goodness of
[[Page H4799]]
the gentleman on the other side; the health infrastructure, housing,
and economic development, and educational, educational opportunities.
They are all things that we all want for our families and for our
constituents and others.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Simmons).
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. My
State of Connecticut is home to two of the world's, the world's largest
casinos. In fact, both of these casinos are about a 15-minute drive
from my home; both are Indian casinos, and both were built within the
last decade.
When gaming came to Connecticut in the early 1990s, it was a
fortuitous event. The Cold War had ended, defense cutbacks had affected
our defense industry, our economy was in decline. Unemployment was
high, and there was actually a net loss of population from the region.
Indian casinos created thousands of jobs. They increased the State's
revenues, and spared the region from an economic recession.
The casinos purchase goods and services and pay upwards of $300
million a year to the State of Connecticut. Tribal members have been
personally generous with their new wealth and support numerous
community projects and charities.
But with all of these benefits come some very real problems. Indian
casinos place a substantial burden on small, local municipalities who
have no right to tax, to zone, or to plan for these facilities. Small
State and local roads are overburdened, again, with no offsetting tax
revenues. Volunteer fire and ambulance services are overwhelmed to the
point that some have shut down their operations altogether. Land taken
into trust is removed from the tax rolls. Gambling addiction creates
problems at home, in the schools, and in the workplaces.
While Indian casino gambling in Connecticut has made two tribes very
wealthy and has motivated other groups in Connecticut to seek Federal
recognition, the fundamental question remains: To what extent has
casino gambling improved the health and the wealth of Indian country as
a whole, and what are the costs involved?
I have read that 365 of the 561 Indian tribes do not have casinos. I
am told that up to 80 percent of American Indians do not receive any
benefit from gambling revenues, and we know that many continue to live
in terrible poverty. That is why I support the provision of the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). A commission would examine how we
can do a better job to help Indian tribes for whom gambling is not an
option, either because of their geographic location or for other
reasons; and it would also help examine how gambling affects the
welfare of Indian tribes.
Earlier amendments have focused on substantial increases in funding
within this bill overall; tens, actually hundreds of millions of
dollars. But this recommendation to establish a commission costs merely
$200,000. It is a small price to pay. It is an insignificant price to
pay.
Recently, my hometown newspaper, The New London Day, editorialized in
favor of the Wolf provision and they said, ``His amendment will ruffle
some feathers, but Representative Wolf is asking questions worth
answering.''
I concur with the editor, and I cannot understand why current
information on an important issue is a problem. It would seem to me
that current information on an important issue would be a plus, not a
minus.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, continuing with the bipartisan support of
this amendment, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone), a fellow member of the Committee on Resources.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I listened to what the gentleman from
Connecticut said and the gentleman from Virginia said and, again, just
as on the previous amendment that we discussed today, there are a lot
of important issues here, but it does not belong on an appropriations
bill. The Wolf amendment is before the Committee on Resources. We
should have a hearing. We should have an opportunity for all sides to
be heard, not bring it up today in this debate in the context of the
appropriations bill.
I just want to remind those who are opposed to this amendment that
the law is clear that Indian nations are sovereign. They make a
decision, just like a State makes a decision, about whether they want
to have gambling or what kind of gambling they want to have; and as
long as States are allowed to have it, they should be allowed to make
those decisions as well. A lot of sovereign Indian nations have decided
they do not want gambling, but a lot of them have decided that they do
want it because they know that it is a way for them to achieve economic
self-sufficiency.
Now, I do not hear any proposal here to say to, for example, a State
or even my own State, well, why do you not have a Federal body that is
going to look into gambling and see whether it is a good thing or not?
This is only being imposed on tribes. That is not fair. There is no
indication, as the gentleman from Virginia said, that somehow Indian
gambling is corrupt versus gambling in other aspects. In fact, we have
had many, many studies that have shown, in fact, that that is not the
case; that it is well regulated; that it is not in any way a victim of
corruption. In fact, there may be corruption in other types of
gambling, but where is the indication that it is strongly or in any way
significantly influences Indian gambling? There is not any.
I know that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is well
intentioned. I have seen him stand up for press people, and I know that
he is not influenced by any special interests. But let me tell my
colleagues, not him, but a lot of the people that are making the
allegations about corruption in Indian gambling is because they resent
the competition from Indian gambling. These media interests that are
being cited here that are criticizing Indian gaming, they are not
operating with clean hands. They represent special interests. So do not
impose this on Indian nations and not talk about it in terms of other
States or other groups that do the gambling. If someone is opposed to
gambling, then look at it in general, but do not pick on Indian tribes,
once again.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hayworth
and the Kildee amendment to strike the Wolf language from this
appropriations bill.
Like my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), I stand in
strong support of the first Americans; and I believe they need to be
given every opportunity as we work to ensure that they are full
Americans. Our Constitution, as I have learned over the years, gives
full sovereignty to our Native American tribes; and I think we all
respect their efforts to be self-determined and self-sufficient.
The question is, Why do we need one more commission? Now, a lot of
times when we talk to the tribes and they wonder, because they have
already had 70 of these kinds of commissions, and what good is one more
group of guys in suits carrying brief cases saying, we are here from
Washington and we are here to help and we are going to study you and we
need you to fill out these forms. We are going to take you away from
all of your other activities, so, hopefully, we can get some results
that we want for whatever our agenda is.
I have great respect for the gentleman from Virginia. I have admired
his perseverance. He is a leading opponent of commercial gaming in
America, and I have admired his perseverance about that, and that is
what this is all about. What this study is being proposed for is to
eliminate Indian gaming. That is the agenda here. Whether we support
Indian gaming or not, the tribes have the right, under our national
laws, to be able to engage in commercial gaming activities. If it is
going to be discussed whether or not to take it away, it should be
fully and thoroughly discussed in the Committee on Resources, which has
jurisdiction over this language. It is the authorizing committee of
this language. I would note that the Committee on Resources has not
held a hearing on this bill and has not moved this legislation,
probably because they recognize there have already been 70 other
studies.
Now, if one opposes gaming, I would note that the National Gaming
Impact Study Commission and National Indian
[[Page H4800]]
Gaming Commission have already thoroughly discussed these issues.
Please vote for the Hayworth-Kildee amendment. It is the right thing to
do. Let us not harass the tribes any more.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. What the gentleman
said is not accurate. My good friend from Illinois said it is to
eliminate, and that is not true. There is nothing in the bill that says
that, and it is not fair to go down to the well of the House and say
something that is not in the bill. That is not fair. I would urge the
gentleman from Illinois, my friend, to read what it says. It does not
say that.
I have a Boston Globe piece right here, Mr. Chairman. It said the
plight of the native Americans is the unemployment rate, which is 43
percent. We argue in this body over is it going to go to 4 to 5 to 6
percent for non-Native Americans. Forty-three percent, says the Boston
Globe. Employed, but living below poverty, 33 percent. I stand
corrected; I just said it was 26 percent. It is 33 percent. Suicide
rate for ages 15 to 24, the flower of the youth, 37.15 percent. We have
to look at that. We have to look at that.
So what the gentleman says, and he is a good friend, it is not to
eliminate; it is to look at other ways in addition. We do not say that.
Lastly, with regard to diabetes, my figure was too low; it is 9
percent.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kildee-Hayworth
amendment and in support of establishing a commission to examine the
Federal Government's policy towards Native Americans.
Our Nation has a responsibility to Native Americans. This commission
would go a long way in finding out if the Federal Government is meeting
this responsibility.
It is important for us to establish conditions so that we can examine
what we are doing right, what we are doing wrong and what more needs to
be done for the Native American community. Studies suggest the overall
portrait of the community is failing in the areas of poverty, health
care, housing, crime, education, and economic development.
Finally, I fail to see any harm in establishing a commission which
would make recommendations on how we can improve the performance of
Federal assistance programs. I see only a positive.
A commission will examine what the true effect of the Federal
Government's reliance on gaming to the societal ills on reservations
and answer the long-standing question of what it means for the Native
American community at large.
{time} 1300
I would also suggest that whatever we are doing today for Native
Americans is simply not succeeding. I have wondered for a long time why
we failed to have any real, meaningful dialogue in the committee on why
conditions are so bad for Native Americans.
I happen to believe that, sadly, gaming has helped in some
communities simply because the Federal Government has failed to do its
job. Gaming cannot be a substitute for what we need to be doing as the
Federal Government to help our Native Americans.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca), continuing with the bipartisan support for this
amendment.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kildee-Hayworth
amendment. This amendment strikes a provision that would create a
Commission on Native American Policy to conduct more studies related to
Native American communities.
This provision violates House rules that prohibit legislation on an
appropriation bill.
We talked earlier about needing a study. The problem with this bill
is it does not appropriate additional dollars. It does not appropriate
additional dollars.
The studies have already been done. We know that. What we need to do
is provide more funding. What we are doing right now is we are taking
Federal funding away from Indian bureaus when we should be providing
the additional funding for education, for housing, for law enforcement.
Yes, that is what we should be doing right now, but we are not doing
it. All we are asking for is an additional study with no appropriation
monies. We all have the information in front of us. What we should be
doing is providing the funding.
Yes, I have been to Indian reservations. I have visited the schools.
When schools are going on, we see a child who does not have a computer,
does not have the technology; and when we look at people who do not
have the clothing, we need to make sure that we provide the funding.
This study does not do anything for us. Let us make sure that we
provide the assistance and support for the Kildee-Hayworth amendment
right now that strikes this provision.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
It does not take it away from housing. It does not. It takes it away
from the administration. It takes it away from the administration. We
cannot come down and say things that are not accurate on the bill. It
takes it away from administration; it does not take it away from
housing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I personally find this a very difficult
issue. On one hand, I think it should be abundantly clear that gambling
is corroding the fundamental moral fabric of our Nation, as hard work
is being disconnected from financial success. We see more and more
Americans thinking that somewhere it is in the lottery or by
manipulation through the stock market or manipulating the bank
statements of different companies; that there is an easy way out.
The more we see the advertising for the lotteries, the ads for the
casinos, it is undermining the moral fabric. We are also seeing
families deprived of the income that they need. As adult members of
their family blow their savings, thinking they are going to see some
pot of gold at the bottom of the rainbow, it is hitting their potential
to actually care for the health care or the education needs of their
children because of the gambling epidemic we have in our country.
That said, this is still a complicated issue, because I believe that
some seem to argue that the only people who should not be allowed to
have gaming are the tribal nations of America; that it is okay for all
the politicians to run lotteries; it is okay for them to have the
casinos, and not the Indian nations.
I think it is indisputable that there have been some financial gains
to the Indian nations from this, and it has caused some transformation
of the different nations. I have also seen in the State of Indiana
where the Potowatomie Indians are being deprived their tribal status
because competing gaming interests, as well as those of us who oppose
gambling, do not want to see them own a casino.
The Miami Indians of Indiana have been deprived tribal status, even
though they unanimously voted not to have a casino. Because of the fear
that they might do a casino, they cannot get their tribal status
recognized because of the opposition to gambling. Plus, those people
have a vested interest in the gambling people.
That said, we still have a fundamental question that needs to be
looked at. Yes, we have had studies. We have studies on child abuse all
the time. We have studies on juvenile delinquency all the time. We have
studies on drug abuse all the time because conditions change, variables
change, and also the different studies change.
This government would not be spending hundreds of millions of
dollars, billions of dollars in studies, if the criteria for a study
was, oh, we researched that before. We research all the time looking
for new angles and information.
There are a couple of questions that clearly need to be looked at.
While, superficially, additional dollars are being brought in to the
Indian nations, but net, what is being actually transformed in those
communities, and is it reaching the communities?
Or, secondarily, are there damages being done that are going to be
very
[[Page H4801]]
difficult to undermine? Are there dependency things, and are we
substituting quick financial success for the real things that we need
to do: how to develop an infrastructure and an independence for these
communities?
Secondly, when I was just in New Mexico, we could see every pueblo
had been turned into a big casino operation; and the historic
structures and things that historically were the way people viewed the
Pueblan people were not the way they do them currently. Most of those
cars at those casinos were not, there are not enough Indians to fill
those casinos.
It is also having an impact on the communities around them. We need
to be looking at the broader impact, in addition to the Indian nations.
I hope we will go ahead with this study. I am not hostile in
particular to whether Native Americans should have casinos and the
government should be allowed to do this, but I do believe we need to
look at the impact on the peoples themselves and whether we have
reached the limit, whether it is a corrupting influence on the families
there and outside, and what the balances are.
I believe the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is
important. Where we get the money should not be the fundamental
question; it is that we need this information to do a wise job managing
funds.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp), a fellow member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I rise in support of the Hayworth amendment in this bipartisan effort
to remove the Wolf language creating a Commission on Native American
Policy from the interior appropriations bill.
I have great personal respect for the gentleman from Virginia, and we
agree on most things; but the Wolf provision is unnecessarily
duplicative, and it violates rule XXI by legislating on an
appropriations bill.
What is particularly troubling to me is that there was no process, no
hearings, no authorization, no consultation. The Wolf language would
direct available funds from the very tight budget of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs to create a commission.
Others have said the proposed commission would duplicate existing
reports to Congress. I will not go through all of that, but each of
these questions has been answered a number of times, at great cost to
the American taxpayer, millions of dollars.
If there has been any thread tying together centuries of failed
United States Government policy toward the First Americans, it is the
lack of consultation. In the name of trying to help Native Americans,
there has been untold heartache and much loss of life. At a minimum,
Native Americans should be part of any process and have the same
respect and opportunity to be heard as any other group who is being
considered to have legislation in the United States Congress.
Let us let the committee of jurisdiction deal with this issue. Let us
have hearings. The United States Constitution recognizes the
sovereignty of the First Americans. I would hope this House would do
so, as well, and support the Hayworth amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), former chairman of the
committee, continuing with the support for the bipartisan amendment we
offer.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me, Mr. Chairman, and for offering this amendment.
Let us just begin that by understanding for $200,000 we are not going
to get a quality study covering this range of issues. It is just simply
impossible, and to assemble the expertise for the time and effort to do
that. That is why we spent $5 million just on gaming in that
commission.
Let us all understand that to say that 80 percent of the Native
Americans do not participate in gaming does not tell us anything. Many
States do not allow gaming. Many do not allow gaming at all. Many
reservations cannot participate because it is not economically viable.
Many have chosen voluntarily not to do that.
That does not tell us anything about the benefits of Indian gaming.
What we ought to do is spend more time on reservations and see the kind
of economic development, the kind of economic diversity, the kind of
opportunity that is being presented now that did not exist.
I sat on the Committee on Resources and watched this Committee on
Appropriations appropriate millions and millions and hundreds of
millions of dollars in economic development that went nowhere, that
went nowhere, just disasters across Indian country. Now we have an
opportunity to have some success. They may not like that it is based in
gaming, but the fact is that it is successful and it is providing that
economic opportunity.
I have listened to this ruse argument about organized crime from the
day we wrote the first statute to the Supreme Court, and nobody has
been able to prove it; nobody has been able to show it. These people
operate their casinos under more restrictions than any other operators
in the country. This is just disingenuous. Disingenuous is what this is
about.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)
said is not accurate with regard to more regulations than any other. In
Atlantic City there are 12 casinos, and there are roughly 800 people,
totally, who regulate them, 100 every day. In Indian casinos, there are
roughly 200 casinos and there are a few dozen, probably about 36. So
what the gentleman said, again, is really not accurate.
Again, the fact deserves a cap on how much we are regulating. But
that is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about
health care and those other issues.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hayworth-Kildee amendment.
I understand the concerns people have about gambling in America. They
are very real concerns, and there is much that we can do as a Congress
and much we can do as a country to deal with some of the tragedy that
occurs from gambling around the country.
But this has nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with it.
This is a study on Indian gaming when studies have already occurred. It
is focusing only on Indian gaming. It is a mistake.
If the issue really is, and I acknowledge and I support and I have
been involved in efforts to deal with some ancillary problems, and they
are very real and serious problems about gaming in America, then let us
address them. Let us have the Congress do oversight investigations. Let
us do hearings on those issues.
Really, there is much we can do. There is absolutely much we can do
in terms of research in terms of addictive gambling and things like
that. But through this process, this is just a mistake; and the
amendment should be supported and the study not go on.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself in support
of the Kildee-Hayworth amendment. I do have the utmost respect for my
friend, the gentleman from Virginia, and his efforts, never questioning
his integrity nor his sincerity about the proposed amendment.
But Mr. Chairman, I submit, the Pacific Island cultures and the First
Americans have been studied to death. We have had enough studies
already: 11 Federal studies on health and economic needs of Native
Americans; four Federal studies on economic development; nine Federal
studies on educational needs of the First Americans; nine Federal
studies of housing for First Americans; four Federal studies on
infrastructure development; nine Federal studies on the effectiveness
of the current programs that we are giving to the First Americans; 12
Federal studies on crime control in Indian reservations; six Federal
studies on influence
[[Page H4802]]
on non-Native American private investors dealing with Indian gaming;
three Federal studies on influence of organized crime, supposedly.
I want to submit, Mr. Chairman, the Indian gaming industry is
controlled by the Federal Government under the auspices of the
Congress. That is not the case with State gaming operations, and that
makes a distinction here. There is no organized crime involvement in
this effort. I submit, Mr. Chairman, we do not need this proposed
amendment.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as vice-
chairman of the Native American Caucus to express my support for the
Kildee-Hayworth amendment, and encourage my colleagues to strike this
measure from the bill.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that since I was first elected to Congress,
I have strongly supported efforts that would seek to expose the long
history and failure of this country to recognize the deep poverty
within Native American country.
I applaud the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for continuing to
expose that. But the answer is not to take away the one vehicle that so
many tribes have used to even take themselves out of poverty. The
answer is, we need to put more money into Indian health services, more
money into education, more money into Indian law enforcement. These are
the answers.
Until we have those answers, we do not pull the leg out of the stool
that is the one thing that many Native American tribes are standing on.
That happens to be gaming.
{time} 1315
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman on the other side.
To read from the Boston Globe, here is what it said: ``Congress in
the Reagan administration embraced Indian gambling as a vehicle to
foster tribal self-sufficiency in 1988, after a decade of steadily
cutting per capita spending on six major programs for Native Americans
from 6,000 to 3,000 measured in 1997 dollars, a time when spending on
social services aimed at the rest of America was on the rise.'' It goes
on to say, ``The result is untold riches for a few smaller tribes.
Annual revenues are 100 million or more for a couple of dozen of
additional tribes near major urban centers and continued poverty for
the vast majority of Indians spread across rural America.''
We are talking, Mr. Chairman, as I said, 43 percent unemployment. If
we had 43 percent unemployment in our district, we would be upset. We
would say let us study it. We would be saying let's storm the Bastille
doors to do something. But today we are complaining about a study to
see. Thirty-three percent live below poverty. Why would not we want to
find out today? You have different computers in your offices than you
had 5 years ago. Did you say we do not want to study new computers? We
do not want to change? So a study was done 5 years ago. We do it again
today. But would it not be worth it to spend $200,000 to do it?
The suicide rate is 37.5 percent. The national average is 13 percent
of those ages 15 to 24.
I urge defeat of the Hayworth-Kildee amendment and urge that we can
move on and study these issues so we can truly come together. And let
me say there are Indian tribes who have gambling and who do not have
gambling who were on this commission, good people. And I spoke to my
friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), saying we can come
together, if I happen to be successful, come together and try to find
out the very best minds that are around in the country to see if we can
come up with some new ideas to really make life better for these people
who have suffered so much.
I thank the gentleman on the other side for the debate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the
gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, last Sunday I was driving up on the Tulalip
reservation in northwest Washington. I was going to a memorial service
for a good friend of mine, and I noticed a really nice white building
on the Tulalip reservation in Tulalip, Washington. It was a beautiful
place on the water. And when I got to the service I asked my friend
what that new building was, and he said that was the Tulalip Boys and
Girls Club, and that was the first Boys and Girls Club on an Indian
reservation in America ever.
It has been supremely successful. And the reason it has been
supremely successful, in part, is because this group of folks have
developed an industry to make this possible.
Now, I know many people have very sincere concerns about gaming, but
I just hope that when we vote on this, we will think of the faces of
those young boys and girls of Tulalip people who are learning respect
for elders, discipline, team work in that building that has been
allowed because this industry has been allowed to blossom.
I hope we reject this amendment, sincere as it is, for that reason,
so these people can continue those American values of the first
American people.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman, sometimes studies of the obvious are important. But it
is obvious that across the width and breadth of the country we have the
first Americans, quite candidly, oftentimes dealing with Third World
conditions. Economic opportunity should know no bounds. If there are
those who dispute some endeavors, God bless them. They have that right.
But to again study, to add now to the grand total study number 74 of
what we know to be problematic, I think is wrong. Support this
bipartisan amendment.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be one of the supporters of
this amendment to strike language in the Fiscal Year 2003 Interior
Appropriations bill that would create yet another commission to study
the benefits of gaming to the Native American community.
The Commission on Native American Policy created by the Interior bill
would report to Congress on whether Indian gaming benefits Indian
communities, whether Tribal government gaming is regulated and whether
Tribal government gaming is influenced by organized crime. I oppose
this language because it would be legislating on an appropriations
bill. This provision has not been subject to any hearings or debate in
the Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over Native American
issues. I addition, because these issues have been thoroughly studied
before, I believe this language wastes valuable taxpayer resources.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is more important for Congress to continue
to focus funding towards providing the educational, healthcare and
economic needs of the Native American community. I urge the House to
adopt this amendment.
Again, I thank you Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WOLF. 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 Arizona will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter:
Under the heading ``Departmental Management--salaries and
expenses'' in title I, insert after the dollar amount on page
49, line 16, the following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
Under the heading ``National Endowment for the Humanities--
grants and administration'' in title II, insert after the
dollar amount on page 114, line 18, the following:
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Under the heading ``Challenge America Arts Fund--challenge
america grants'' in title II, insert after the dollar amount
on page 115, line 14, the following: ``(increased by
$10,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Nethercutt) for a unanimous consent request.
[[Page H4803]]
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate
on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 60 minutes
to be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) will
control 30 minutes and a Member opposed will control 30 minutes.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is our annual rite of passage on the Interior
bill. I remember that one of my colleagues recently said in the last
debate that it just is not right to come down here and lie.
Well, we are accustomed to that. It seems that every year something
comes up that people view with great alarm by the National Endowment
for the Arts. This year is a very interesting one. This one comes from
Eagle Forum and they say something like 167, I believe, which is an odd
number, but 167 naked go-go dancers put on a performance sponsored by
the NEA. Not so, Mr. Chairman.
The group called Broadway Cares, which was in Equity, fights AIDS,
was given a $10,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts for
a single performance to be held in September of this year. It has not
been held. They are master classes conducted by some of the most
prestigious companies in modern dance, including the Alvin Ailey Dance
Theater, the Merce Cunningham Dance Company, and the Tricia Brown
Company. The festival will include performances by notable dancers
including current and former dancers of the New York City Ballet,
Ballet Hispanico, Sean Curr and Company, Alpha Omega, and that is the
only project of Broadway Cares sponsored by the NEA. So that one bites
the dust.
Today comes a new Dear Colleague saying that NEA has lined up with
Planned Parenthood for a dance group, $10,000 again, they do not have
many grants, for young people to stop teen pregnancy. And I say hooray
for that. But I am proud of my colleagues who every year have seen
through this verbiage and understand that the NEA is a very important
part.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today as I do every year to offer an amendment
to try to offer a very modest increase in the National Endowment for
the Arts and also for the National Endowment for the Humanities.
We can and we should appropriate an additional $10 million to the NEA
and an additional $5 million to the NEH because these agencies both
remain well below the funding level from a decade ago.
A recent economic impact study clearly shows that investing in the
arts has a profound economic impact on our States and local
communities. The Arts and Economic Prosperity Study which was conducted
by the Americans for the Arts just recently, and mostly in rural
America and smaller cities, reveals that the nonprofit arts industry,
this is so important, I do not want anybody to miss this. The nonprofit
arts industry generates $134 billion annually in economic activity.
Now, over $80 billion of this stems from related spending by the arts
audiences. At the parking lots where they park their cars, the
restaurants where they eat before or after performances, at the gift
shops where they buy souvenirs, at the hotels where they spend the
night, and on and on.
I have this chart here to give you some idea of what we get. The $134
billion that comes back into the Federal Treasury, it creates 4.58
million full time equivalent jobs. The resident household income of the
people who work in arts is 89.4 billion. The local government revenue
is 6.6 billion. State government revenue, 7.3 billion. Federal income
tax revenue, 10.5 billion. I challenge anybody to tell me of any other
program which we give a very modest amount to, $116 million in this
case, that comes back with this kind of return, and this is just the
economic return.
There are many others. The things that it does for young children;
their developing minds; as we have mentioned a while ago, cutting down
on teenage pregnancy.
Let me go on with some of these figures that I think are very
important. The patrons spend an average of $22.87 per person over the
price of admission which is being spent in our local communities,
supporting the businesses and sustaining the local jobs. As you can
see, this is a very important investment that we make here and we get a
great deal back for the modest amount we put in.
Now the 232 million the Federal Government invested in NEA and NEH
last year, as I said, has returned $134 billion and I think that is a
good investment. The study also shows that the kids who are exposed to
art, their SAT scores in high school go up 57 points. It improves their
critical skills in math, reading, language development and writing.
That, again, is cheap at the price to get that kind of return for money
for arts in schools. For example, the study shows that learning dance
and drama help to develop skills that improve creative writing.
Probably what they are worried about this morning with Planned
Parenthood will teach young women that they have a better hope in life
other than being a teenage mother.
Skills learned in music increases a student's understanding of
concepts in math. That is so important to us.
More broadly, the study concludes student attendance and retention is
better for those involved in the arts. Additionally, student learning
experiences in drama, music, dance and other art activities assist in
conflict resolution and lead to improved self-confidence and social
tolerance.
I think as I go through these things you can say these are things we
devoutly wish for the children of the United States.
These results demonstrate the importance of incorporating arts into
our schools. So it is time for us to give them a portion of the
financial support they deserve.
This amendment goes just to support the NEA's Challenge America
program which is targeted specifically for communities that have been
underrepresented among the NEA direct grants.
Challenge America has successfully supported arts education and
community arts development in many communities nationwide. The program
facilitates State and local arts partnerships and regional touring arts
programs. We need to extend this great program and the amendment will
provide part of the funds to be able to do that.
State and local and regional arts associations receive vital support
from the NEA, bringing arts close to home. The NEA also supports the
after-school programs and activities in underserved communities that
allow our youth to understand the benefits of arts learning.
The NEH. NEH is a wonderful program, bringing into our communities
the humanities; subjects such as history and literature or foreign
languages and philosophy and geography. For example, they support a
summer teacher training program that prepares and encourages teachers
to bring humanities alive in the classroom. They teach us well who we
were, what we hope to be, and what we can become.
The NEH actively supports historic preservations of books,
newspapers, official documents and material culture collections that
are so important for us to understand our history. These efforts are
vital to preserving America's historical and cultural heritage.
I commend the President for recognizing the critical role the arts
play in our schools and communities. Now it is time to show us the
money. The administration's budget request includes a very slight
increase, actually not any increase at all, just inflation. But if we
want to leave no child behind, if we really want to encourage growth in
this economy, we need to increase the funding for these two agencies
because they are proven, proven like no other to do exactly that:
Encourage growth in the economy and leaving no child behind.
So we request $10 million more for the NEA, $5 million for the NEH by
making minor correspondent reductions in the administrative budget in
the Department of the Interior.
The account, which is appropriated an increase in the underlying
bill, would be increased by less than half of 1 percent. This offset
ought to be acceptable to all of my colleagues.
Less than 1 percent of our entire budget is committed to arts. In
other
[[Page H4804]]
words, it costs each year less than 40 cents a year to support art.
Yet, our small Federal investment in the arts reaps rewards, as we have
said here, many, many times over. I urge my colleagues to vote for this
amendment cosponsored by my good friend and cochairman, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Horn), and by the ranking member on this
committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) who fights
valiantly every year for this program in committee, and for whom we are
very grateful, to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), and
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Please support this modest increase in the NEA and NEH. It is the
least we can do to invest in cultural and economic well-being of our
Nation. And once again, I ask my colleagues to reject the fearmongering
that comes out every year. To tell the truth, I almost wait with some
anticipation to see what they will dig up year after year.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
The CHAIRMAN. Who claims time in opposition?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I do; and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen) for yielding me the time, and last night, many of us commended
all the good things he has done and I want to say it again. He helped
parks and he has cared about the students in rural America. I grew up
on a farm, and I am talking about the National Endowment for the Arts,
which includes not just urban America but also rural America. That is
when I first saw a symphony and that was in the WPA. He will remember
that and I will, in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, the WPA, and that was
the wonderful job they did to have young children that never would have
to do it any other way than in that.
The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) was highlighting the
enormous benefits of the arts to our economy and to our local
communities. A recent economic impact study from Georgia Institute of
Technology, which she used, and I want to put this again, nonprofit
arts industries in America generate $134 billion for our Nation's
economy. That is an outstanding return on taxpayers' investment, and
that is about $10.5 billion for the Internal Revenue Service; and the
children also benefit from the arts and the educational curriculum, as
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) noted. And we obviously
want arts education, and it has happened in math, reading, language
development, and writing.
This is a new NEA in the sense that they have a lot of common sense
now in that group, and I would hope that all of us could vote for that
and see the arts that percolate through our secondary schools, our
community colleges, our research centers, our State humanities council;
and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this amendment to
increase funding for the national endowment for the arts and the
national endowment for the humanities.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
(Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for her leadership on these
issues over the years. She has been tireless, and with those Members
that are supporting this Member, I rise in support of this amendment.
Just to give my colleagues a little bit of a picture of what happens
in a rural State like Maine and the importance of the arts and
humanities, there are many areas of America, particularly rural America
and rural Maine, that cannot afford some of the luxuries of major urban
areas; and it is important to have organizations like the NEA and NEH
provide resources to rural communities so that they can have an
opportunity to participate and be exposed to the arts programs.
In my home State, the Maine Humanities Council has developed several
programs that have greatly served our State. Current programs run by
the council promote literacy for all ages, provide teacher enrichment.
They have seminars in preserving cultural heritage. In addition, they
have grant programs that provide the support to Maine libraries and
museums, historical societies and schools.
One of their programs, literature and medicine, has become so
successful that the national council has just received a significant
grant application and awarded Maine a national endowment grant for the
humanities to expand this program to eight other States.
Clearly, we must continue the support of these programs. Even on top
of all of that, the economic opportunity that was highlighted earlier
generated over $134 billion in economic opportunity. This gives rural
States like Maine a real opportunity to focus on this creative cluster
of development opportunities in our region; so that in a lot of rural
areas we are manufacturing textiles and the agriculture have seen some
declines, that there is an opportunity to create new economic growth in
opportunities in terms of our art galleries, art exhibits and the
promotion of the arts.
So we are very much in support of this effort, very much asking my
colleagues to support this increase. It does a great job. It does a
great job in Maine, and it does a great job in the Nation.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time; and Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the arts, but I rise
in opposition to this amendment.
The President's budget provides a budget request of $116,489,000.
Last year, fiscal year 2002, the enacted budget appropriation was
$115,234,000. So we are over a $1 million increase already in the
President's budget, essentially flat-funding it, but increasing it
slightly.
The request today is for $116,489,000 for the National Endowment for
the Arts; and the committee, in a bipartisan way, supported that. They
supported it because it believed it is an adequate amount to pay for
the Federal share of contribution to the arts, and I believe that, too.
I think $116,489,000 is a fair amount. It is a fair number.
I point out to my colleagues that this was an increase last year of
over $10 million a year ago for the National Endowment for the Arts. It
was $104 million, went up to $115 million. So we have already added
over $10 million a year ago and now to come back and add another $10
million this year, in addition to the $1 million that the President has
already requested and the committee, in a bipartisan way, has already
approved, I think is wrong.
When is enough enough? I have serious questions about the $134
billion that is generated, allegedly generated, by nonprofit arts
groups; and I know they do a great job. They do it in my State, and I
support them very strongly. However, that is like saying if we buy
little league uniforms for the teams in America, we are going to
generate all the money that goes to little league or high school or
sports. It is a big universe, in other words; and I will give credit to
some amount of money that is generated by the $115 million that we put
in last year and that we are going to put in $116 million this year. I
think that is a fair expenditure. For some it is too much; for some it
is too little. But I think it is just right.
I would just urge my colleagues, when is enough enough? I will say to
the sponsors of the amendment, this is money that is going to be cut
out of the Interior Department operations accounts. We have held these
operations accounts in the bill down. We have not even fully funded
their inflationary request; and so if we are going to further cut into
the Interior Department operations accounts, I think it is going to
have an impact on the national parks operations. It is going to have an
impact on public lands administration, on refuges that a lot of people
go to see and enjoy the wildlife refuges in this country, and other
programs that are part of the interior appropriations process.
The interior bill has a lot of responsibilities. We have a documented
backlog in repairs for public facilities of over $12 billion. Ten
million can make a big difference in that $12 billion
[[Page H4805]]
backlog maintenance problem. We are trying to make prudent investment
in our land management agencies, in Indian health programs, in energy
research. They can use $10 million, too, if we really want to look at
the cumulative effect of having dollars invested and benefits to the
public.
I am not going to say the arts are not valuable, they are; but $116
million is enough, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment, finding that $116 million is adequate.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleague from
Washington State that just applauding the arts is not enough, and I
yield 2 minutes to the other gentleman from Washington State (Mr.
Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thought that the study was very
professionally done, and I think the arts generate probably more than
$134 billion in economic activity. The most important number was the
Federal revenues, $10.5 billion for a $116 million investment. I do not
think we are going to do any better than that on return in investment.
The other thing I would point out, when the House of Representatives
was under the control of the Democratic Party in 1994, we provided $162
million for the National Endowment for the Arts on a very bipartisan
basis. I see many Members here on the floor supported that level of
funding; and then, of course, in 1995 that was reduced to less than
$100 million, we had this dramatic Draconian cut in funding.
We have come back, and last year we had a vote on the floor of the
House of Representatives for an increase of $15 million: $10 million
for the endowment for the arts, because it was cut more severely than
the endowment for the humanities, $3 million for humanities, $2 million
for museums and library services. We do not have museum services
anymore in this bill, so it is $10 million for the arts, $5 million for
the humanities this year.
We can go to every part of this country now and we can see the
consequences, the impact of these efforts, the Challenge America
program. These moneys are going all over the country. We made sure that
all the arts are not in the big cities. They are now everywhere; and
that is why they are creating all this economic activity, creating
these jobs and giving audiences all over the country a chance to enjoy
the arts and the humanities.
This is a good, positive thing to do. Let us support it. Let us get
back to where we used to be back in the good old days in 1994.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, let me just talk about the good old
days. The good old days, for my dear friend from Washington State, were
days when there was deep criticism of the National Endowment for the
Arts for putting pornographic material in grants that they offered. I
mean, that is what resulted in the cut. The representatives in the
House of Representatives and the Senate and the country were disgusted
with the way that the National Endowment for the Arts was distributing
grants. They were wasting taxpayers' money. So just as a matter of
historical reference, that is why they were cut back was because they
were granting sort of disgusting material for grants with taxpayer
money.
So what we did not see before 1994 was a limitation on the amount of
money that went to big museums and big cities and people with all the
money and the resources in the world. Thanks to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula), the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and others, we put in these reforms after
1995 and 1996, which said put a cap on the amount of funds that one
State can receive, that State grant programs and State set-asides
increased to 40 percent of the total grants. That is what we did in the
post-1994 period.
Anti-obscenity requirement for grants supported by a Supreme Court
decision in 1998. Put six Members of Congress on the National Council
of the Arts to monitor what went through the system. We reduced the
Presidentially appointed council members to 14 instead of 26. We
prohibited grants to individuals except for literature fellowships and
National Heritage fellowships or American Jazz Masters fellowships.
Prohibited self-granting or full seasonal support grants. Allowed the
NEA and the NEH to solicit vest private funds to support the agencies.
That is a beef that I have had for quite a while is that we give
grants to people. With all due respect for the good work they do, they
go out and make a tremendously good commercial success, but they do not
give back; and my argument has been commercially successful people
ought to be able to come back and give back to the big pot to help
everybody, the fledgling artists and others who are out there trying to
get some help instead of reaping the commercial benefit at taxpayers'
expense.
{time} 1345
We have provided granting priority for projects to underserved
populations. That is very important, as I come from a relatively rural
area. We have provided priority for education, understanding and
appreciation of the arts, and emphasis for grants to community music
programs. These were all post-1994 reforms.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Well, then, we have a bipartisan consensus that we made
these changes. Then let us give them back the money they so desperately
need to fund the program all over the country. They need this money.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman
if $116 million is not enough.
Mr. DICKS. No. No.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thought the gentleman would say that. Back in the
1970s, when this program first came out, it had zero. So now we have
grown it to $116 million. One hundred sixteen million is enough. Let us
give it a one-year hiatus. We have a war going on, we are trying to
provide for people in New York, we have a defense bill, and homeland
security. Let us give it a rest. Let us economize.
Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
What we have heard on this floor for years on this subject is that we
should not fund amendments like this simply because at some time in the
past the arts program was not perfect. Well, I grant that. But for how
we ought to view them today, I once again consult my sociological
bible, my friend archie the cockroach, and here is what archie said
about the arts.
``They are instinctively trying to hand the public some kind of stuff
that wins the audience away from the often sordid surface of existence.
They may do it badly, they may do it obviously, they may do it crudely,
but they do have the hunch that what the millions want is to be shown
that there is something possible to the human race besides the dull
repetition of the triviality which is so often the routine of common
existence. . . . And every now and then they have blundered into doing
something with the touch of the universal in it.''
That, to me, is what is so great about this little program. I do not
much care about what this program does for the big cities in this
country. I do not represent a city over 40,000. What I care about is
what these programs help to deliver by way of cultural experiences,
door-opening experiences for kids and for working families who, in the
rural parts of this country and the small towns of this country, would
otherwise never be exposed to it. And sometimes it may not be perfect,
but a lot of times it is awfully good and it has a profoundly enriching
experience on young people's lives. That is why this amendment ought to
be passed.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support
of the amendment, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Let me just tell my colleagues why we are introducing this amendment
that I am a coauthor of. The National Endowment for the Humanities will
get 5 million more dollars because they carry enormously important
national
[[Page H4806]]
responsibilities, like dealing with brittle books and the problem of
documents that are critical to our heritage and to future generations,
needing a lot of care and a lot of restoration.
They are also in libraries in very small towns, bringing experts on
poetry to do readings and workshops, and provide inspiration and
guidance for those who want to learn to write poetry or short stories
or get acquainted with the body of literature that has developed the
culture of the Western world.
In the arts, we put $10 million more into the Challenge America
program. That is the grassroots. Let me tell my colleagues what
grassroots sounds like and looks like in my district.
I walked into a HOT school the other day. Now, HOT schools are funded
by national NEA money flowing through our Connecticut Commission on the
Arts. And I asked this young girl who was touring me around, a 5th
grader, I said, what is a HOT school? She said, well, it is a Higher
Order of Thinking School. And as we went through the school, there was
a kid who was drawing everything we did, and there were several kids
who were scribing down everything we did so they could do a report.
We saw the exhibition of art, portraits done by the kindergartners in
the style of Miro. How wonderful for these kids to see the abstraction
of portraiture done in that very modern style, so they could begin to
think about who they really were, who the next person was, and how do
we conceptualize the world around us.
There is just overwhelming evidence that strong arts develop higher
test scores on math and reading. Why? Because it develops the mind, not
just the tables, but the abstraction of mathematics.
Then we went on to the older grades where they had studied the
Lascaux caves and how those drawings in the caves represented the
history and the way people lived in that era, and they thought about
it. They thought about not only the substance of life, but the artistic
expression and how we communicate.
Then, every month, they have an assembly in which they have a
competition for the best poetry, the best drawing. This has changed the
lives of these inner-city children. It changed their lives and elevated
their thinking. It has made them think that education is fun and
powerful. So let us not neglect to fund the arts.
My Governor, a Republican in Connecticut, put more money into the
arts than had ever been invested because the arts help revitalize our
cities economically. So this is about education, it is about
achievement, it is about excellence, it is about communication, it is
about history, it is about culture, it is about inspiration, and it is
about the dollars and cents of a strong economy. Support the amendment
to increase funding for the arts.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Davis).
(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
restoring funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities.
While the proposed increases still will not return the support we
knew in 1995, it is so important to the children of our country that we
make this progress.
I want to cite what many of my colleagues have talked about today.
Many people think of the NEA and the NEH grants as large grants to
communities, but, actually, what we have are a number of grants that go
to small organizations. I think even the fact that they are out there
really inspires many, many organizations to put forth initiatives that
they otherwise would never have put together, would never have
explored.
In San Diego, we have many, many connections and many, many links.
The National Endowment for the Arts supports major organizations in my
area, like the San Diego Opera Association in its symphony outreach to
students and the Old Globe Theater in their Teatro Meta program.
We also have a Challenge America grant, which enabled the San Diego
Youth & Community Services to artist-led activities that link students
in the Teen Connection program with actors from the La Jolla Playhouse
and the Diversionary Theater.
Another grant enabled a partnership with the Metropolitan Area
Advisory Committee on Anti-Poverty for the Teen Producers Project, and
that provides after-school media arts education to young people living
in public housing.
There are many, many of these grants, and all children deserve this
opportunity to explore new arts interests and develop their talent, the
kind of opportunities that the NEA and the NEH grants offer to enrich
their lives.
My colleagues, if looking into the eyes of children who become
inspired by the arts is not sufficient, I would point out, as my
colleagues have, that the multiplier effect on the economy of every
dollar spent on the arts also enriches all of our communities.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and as I sit here and listen to this bill, now going close
to 24 hours, I am reminded of a Dr. Seuss character that I think was
called a Push Me-Pull You. I do not really remember what it was all
about, but it seemed to me that the character was unwilling to be
pushed, unwilling to be pulled.
I think that must be the description of the Interior bill; that it is
a very delicately balanced bill, and we can push it one way, but it is
not going to pass; or we can pull it another way, and it is not going
to pass. That is why this is kind of a thin-ice situation here. There
are a lot of good arguments for this, but put one more straw on the
camel's back, and then we lose on our side 24 votes. Same way on the
other side; they lose 25 votes. That is why I think it is important
that we leave the language and the numbers where they are in this
particular bill on this amendment.
I support the arts, and I think everybody in Congress supports the
arts. That is why it is very important to not confuse the NEA with the
arts. We in Congress provide a $10 billion tax credit that is
authorized for people who donate to art galleries and to art-related
theaters and so forth. That is $10 billion. The Democrats are fond of
saying how much is this costing? Well, $10 billion.
What about all the art that the Federal Government purchases, the
paintings in this Capitol? We just underwent a renovation of the
rotunda. That is in support of the arts. What about art education? All
the programs on the State level, on the local level, on the Federal
level that we as taxpayers of America support the arts on? We are very
pro art in America. But to confuse the NEA with the art statement of
America is truly misleading.
I believe that art is magical. I heard a songwriter say a good song
takes you someplace else. And that is true, because, doggone it, I
cannot drive my car without the radio going, because, Mr. Chairman, I
do not always want to go to work. I like to hear the song about, I miss
the planes out in Africa or the land down under in Australia. I think
that is why we listen to music, because it does take us to a different
place.
When we look at this picture of Lafayette over here, and think about
the inspiration of a great Frenchman who comes over here and fights for
America during the Revolutionary War. We get inspired when we look at
the portrait of George Washington with the sword carefully painted out
to show that this is not an institution that uses violence but that we
use the weapons of words to clash our ideas together.
It is inspirational, as we look at the dynamics of both of these
people, and to look up to the ceiling in the rotunda, and to think
about a good drama that we all get invited to every now and then at
JFK. It is truly inspirational. We need to all be protective of art.
And I want to say that I think the NEA has gone a long way in kind of
cleaning up their act. The NEA, I think, has come a long way. The
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has cited it well. And I can
say that on our side of the aisle, as the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) knows, some of the strong offended feelings, and I saw it
was included in this regarding some of the
[[Page H4807]]
shenanigans of the NEA in the past, I have to say that, actually, it
was cleaned up probably more by the Supreme Court than by Congress.
I will yield to my friend in a minute, but as the gentleman
remembers, it was the famous case of a woman who was dipped in
chocolate, and the question was is that a proper use of the taxpayer
dollars or should it be artistic freedom. I believe in artistic
freedom, but let her leap in a whole vat of chocolate. I am all for it.
A new definition of Hershey's Kisses. But when I am paying for it, or I
am asking a guy who is driving a truck for $6 an hour back in Georgia,
maybe we should not do that. Maybe we should just stick with the
picture of the cow standing by the mill stream.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the point we tried to make before, and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) did a good job, as has the
gentleman from Georgia, in going back to those issues, but we reformed
those things. We put provisions in the bill that emphasized quality,
and those have all been adopted.
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. That is exactly why I
bring it up, is to acknowledge the changes that have been made. And the
gentleman and I have both sat through hearings, through Democrat and
Republican administrators over there, and I think they have cleaned it
up, and I am glad. Some of it has been with a hammer, some of it has
been more willing, but a lot has gone on.
I would also like them to continue to decentralize the NEA. I do
think, and if I were the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) I
would be pushing it hard, because so much of the money is concentrated
in New England, but there is a lot of art outside of New York City.
When these theater groups come down and they do a little ballet for the
rural folks down home, and they say, well, we kept the hicks from the
sticks happy, now we can go home, I do not think it is anything that
great and wonderful. I would love to see the NEA have a distribution
formula where they say we have to push that stuff out and distribute it
more in Idaho, Montana, and Mississippi.
{time} 1400
Mr. Chairman, my point is NEA, I think, has moved forward in a good
direction. Unlike years past when I have voted to cut the NEA, I will
vote to support the NEA. But I know as the vice chairman of this
committee, to put more money in it means that we are going to lose
votes, so I must oppose this amendment.
On the NEH, I am a big NEH supporter. I would support the NEH
increase, but I cannot do it on the floor of the House because that is
going to run off votes. I think there are some things to talk about in
the process which I look forward to engaging in as the months go by.
Right now, all of the issues that we have gotten together with the
Westerners and the Easterners and the folks on Native American issues,
we need to keep the precarious balance of this bill where it is because
it is a Push Me-Pull You.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume 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 rise in support of the
Slaughter-Dicks amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-
Johnson-Morella amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill to give
the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) additional appropriations of
$10 million and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) an
additional $5 million. The value of the NEA lies in its ability to
nurture the growth and artistic excellence of thousands of arts
organizations and artists in every corner of the country, making the
performing, visual, literary, media and folk arts available to millions
of Americans.
Even in this time of fiscal restraint and budget deficits, the value
of the NEA cannot be overstated. Additional appropriations are still
required, as the NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of
every community in the country. A recent study conducted by the Georgia
Institute of Technology found that the nonprofit arts industry alone
generates $134 billion annually in economic activity, supports 4.85
million full time jobs and returns $10.5 billion to the Federal
Government in income taxes. While the economic benefit of the arts
industry is integral to our Nation's economy, affording children access
to the arts through education yields more significant dividends to our
society. The U.S. Department of Justice found that arts education
reduced delinquency in San Antonio by 13 percent, increased
communication skills of Atlanta students by 57 percent, and improved
cooperation skills of Portland youth by 57 percent. In addition, the
College Board has shown that college bound students who are involved in
the arts have higher overall SAT scores than other students.
The National Endowment for the Humanities is the largest single
funder of humanities programs in the United States, enriching American
intellectual and cultural life through support to museums, archives,
libraries, colleges, universities, state humanities councils, public
television and radio, and to individual scholars. A small investment
through NEH reaps large rewards, providing seed money for high quality
projects and programs that reach millions of Americans each year. This
money, and NEH's reputation, leverage millions of dollars in private
support for humanities projects. NEH is critical to addressing the
Nation's future needs in education. More than two-thirds of our
Nation's K-12 curriculum is dedicated to the humanities; 2 million new
teachers will be needed in our classrooms over the next decade, and 4
out of 5 teachers feel inadequately prepared in their subject area. NEH
summer seminars and institutes address these very issues, and are the
catalyst for revitalized teachers for tens of thousands of students
each year.
America's creative industries are our Nation's leading export with
over $60 billion annually in overseas sales, including the output of
artists and other creative workers in publishing, audiovisual, music
and recording and entertainment businesses.
The National Endowment for the Humanities plays an important role in
the American arts enterprise. NEH grants provide critical funding for
work in art history, theory and criticism, including: university based
and independent research projects; professional development seminars
for K-12 and college teachers; film and radio programs; museum
exhibitions and exhibition catalogs; and material culture preservation.
In my home state of Missouri, our Humanities Council currently is
planning an array of public programs for distribution in Missouri
during the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition, 2003 through
2006. The planning is supported by grants from the National Endowment
for the Humanities and the Missouri Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
Commission. The NEH planning grant supporting these trial programs is
intended to produce program templates that can be deployed successfully
with local participation by Native American spokespersons in Missouri,
Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa, serving communities within a day-trip's
distance of the Missouri River. These programs will provide Missouri
youth an important lesson in American history in an entertaining
environment.
Mr. Chairman, I commend all arts advocates today on their continued
dedication to arts in education. I strongly urge for increased
resources for arts education in this year's appropriations process.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
increase, although it is so minimal I hesitate to call it an increase.
We have still not recovered from the grave cuts of 1994, but I strongly
support this amendment and wish I had time to talk about how important
the arts are to New York and this country.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my enthusiastic support for the
Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment.
The $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and the $5
million for the National Endowment for the Humanities will continue the
process of restoring Federal funding for the arts to appropriate
levels.
It is difficult to call it an increase since the amount is so
minimal. These organizations have not recovered from the severe cuts of
1994.
NEA funds do more than simply support individual programs, they
support entire communities.
NEA funds help encourage private donors to give to a program, so
every dollar we spend pays dividends.
When we invest in the arts, entire neighborhoods benefit. Studies
show that children who are involved in the arts, concentrate better,
learn how to listen and do better in school.
[[Page H4808]]
Every community has their own example of a program that has
benefitted from NEA grants. I'll give a small example from my district.
The New York Ballet Theater received a $15,000 grant from the NEA last
year. They are a terrifically innovative program that teaches young
people to dance and introduces children to the ballet.
More importantly, they recruit students from the shelter system,
along with their more wealthy pupils. Their work has literally saved
lives, taking at risk children and giving them a future.
One student, Steven Melendez, a 15-year-old boy from the shelter
system, has literally had his life changed. He is a phenomenally
talented dancer who has a future because of the New York Ballet
Theater. His dancing received national recognition and he has been
offered a place at the world renowned American Ballet Theatre. His
story shows what a difference NEA funding can make in the lives of our
young people.
I urge my colleagues to support the slaughter amendment, to enable
the NEA to reach more programs.
In addition, the nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion in
economic activity yearly and over $20 billion in taxes.
Millions of Americans are employed in arts organizations, and they
depend on the U.S. Government to continue to fund their industry.
We can help them, help our children, improve our economy, and create
an enduring cultural legacy--all by passing this necessary amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to enable the NEA and
NIH to reach more programs.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter-Dicks
amendment to benefit the National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities. The arts and the humanities
enrich all of our lives; and as the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) has pointed out, the arts enrich not just our lives
figuratively, they enrich us economically. They not only challenge us
to think, they deepen our understanding of the world around us and help
us to understand ourselves and each other.
Not surprisingly, they help us in a number of other ways, in building
spatial reasoning skills and improving performance in math and science
in our children, language development and reading skills. The arts and
humanities affect every American. In fact, they are central to being
American. Our rights of speech and assembly have fueled works of art.
I ask Members to look around this beautiful Capitol building. This
symbol of our democracy is a work of art. The NEA provides tens of
millions of dollars, along with State arts agencies for more than
7,000, almost 8,000, arts education programs in thousands of
communities all over America, large and small towns. The NEA offers
lifetime learning opportunities through a range of public programs.
This budget-neutral amendment represents a small, but meaningful,
increase for the arts and humanities. The arts give back to all of us
many times over. This is not enough funding, but at least let us do
this much.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to question this
amendment, the fact that if we were awash in money, if we were in a
surplus, if we had lots of cash to spread around, I think this
amendment might be appropriate. But when it really comes down to it, we
have gotten by the original NEA debate in this country. A lot of
positive changes have happened. A lot of the things that upset the
American public have been changed. But is it really a priority in
America to have almost a 10 percent increase in the arts when we have
an economy that is in trouble, when we have poor people in this country
who have lost their jobs, we have people underemployed, unemployed? Is
this a prudent expenditure of our funds? When we are in economic
trouble, is there no line item that can be level-funded? And this is
not level-funded; it is increased. Does it really stand up to a test of
almost a 10 percent increase? I think not.
The arts and entertainment community in America is the richest of the
rich. I applaud them for what they do. But this is a time that they can
step up and help expand the arts to all Americans. I find it
interesting that those who are vehemently supporting this 10 percent
increase oppose across-the-board tax cuts because some of them go to
the more successful Americans.
We all know when we cut taxes across the board, we stimulate the
economy because we give American employers more money to invest in
their businesses. I think it is the wrong time to ask for a major
increase. We have gotten by the debate of the past. Let us stay there.
Let us not revive that issue at this time when America is struggling to
balance its budget. We cannot willy-nilly hand out 9 and 10 percent
increases to nice things.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is an inappropriate amendment. I think it is
not well thought out. I think it revives the debate we could get by
this year if we do not do it. I urge Members to say ``no'' to this
amendment. It is the wrong time, the wrong place, and sends the wrong
message to the poor of America.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is completely offset by a
very small cut in administrative expenses. Because of the offset, the
money is not going to be taken from here and moved over to some worthy
cause. This is a worthy cause because we have created this enormous
industry in this country that have jobs, economic activity surrounding
the arts.
We started this endowment back in 1964. My good friend, Livingston
Biddle, was the staff person who worked with Senator Pell to get this
thing created. Ever since then, we have seen the growth of the arts
throughout the country because of the seed money that comes from the
endowment. Even with this 10 percent increase, we are still 30 percent
below where we were in 1994. If we had inflation, it would be 50
percent below. We are just trying to get back to a reasonable level of
funding, and this House supported this amendment last year. I urge a
vote for it this year.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 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, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen) for all the gentleman has done over the years. But despite how
much I like the gentleman from New Mexico, what an embarrassment. Once
again, the House of Representatives is considering a Department of
Interior appropriations bill that does not sufficiently fund the arts
and the humanities.
Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts was cut dramatically
in 1995 by more than 40 percent, and it has never returned to adequacy.
Shame on us.
Opponents of this amendment call for fiscal discipline, as if the
richest Nation in the world needs to be culturally impoverished. Shame
on us.
We all know that it is not the lack of money that keeps funding for
the NEA and the NEH so low, because the funding we invest provides a
huge economic return on our Federal investment, both in dollars and in
jobs. According to a recent study by Americans for the Arts, the
nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion in economic activity
every year, creating more than 4 million jobs. The arts industry is a
money maker, not a money taker. Another study, this one by the Arts
Education Partnership, provides hard evidence that children who
participate in the arts improve their critical learning skills in math,
reading, language development, and writing. In addition, NEA 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 or the NEH of needed funds, we deprive this
entire Nation of an active cultural community. It is a battle that has
been going on since the stockades were used to control creativity in
Puritan times, and it is absolutely wrong-headed.
The arts teaches us to think, encourages us to feel and see and to
look in
[[Page H4809]]
different ways. This is a good amendment, and it must be passed.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Solis).
(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I also rise today in support of the
Slaughter-Dicks amendment, which would increase the funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts by $10 million and the National
Endowment for the Humanities by $5 million.
In our country, 76.2 million adults attend performing arts events or
exhibition events every year. Arts and humanities play a big role in
our lives.
This year I had the honor of serving as co-chair with the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Foley) for the Congressional Arts Competition. Not
too long ago, we had 308 students from across this country come here
and exhibit their artwork. We were all very proud to see them here, for
them to realize their talents and skills, and to maybe someday think
that they could also receive a grant to continue their profession.
I cannot tell Members how heartfelt it was for me to see a student
from my district compete in this competition and know that they have a
career ahead of them. Coming from a life of poverty, living in a
trailer park could somehow be able to actualize their talents and
skills. I think we need to support this amendment. We need to continue
to increase funding, especially for our young, disadvantaged youth that
were discussed earlier. Let us not leave any child behind. Let us give
them an opportunity to participate in a civic way in the arts, to give
good examples and allow them to extend their talents and share that
with the entire world.
NEA funds 249 grants throughout the country called the Challenge
American Positive Alternative Youth Program. I am in support of this
program. Just remember, Members, when we walk through the tunnel
between our buildings and the Capitol, look at the artwork. Think about
what young people have been helped, and let us give them a chance to be
a part of the artistic discoveries in our country.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, in listening to this debate, Members
would think that in fact prior to the establishment of the National
Endowment for the Arts, prior to the hundreds of millions of dollars
that we have taken away from our taxpayers and given to that
organization, if we do not pass this amendment, there will be no art.
All of the wonderful things that art has done through our history has
been recounted by the supporters of this particular amendment. Of
course, who can argue that art is not a good thing? It is a great
thing. It is a wonderful thing. I am all for art. And I can assure
Members, if we defeat this amendment, and if we struck all funding for
the National Endowment for the Arts, there would still be art.
{time} 1415
It actually existed before the National Endowment for the Arts. It
actually was able to thrive, to be nurtured by individuals, to somehow
find its way into the public life before the National Endowment for the
Arts and certainly before this amendment was even thought of.
We have heard over and over again about the effect of art on
students, that they learn more. The effect of art on the general
population, that we are all somehow made better individually as a
result of having art out there. That is probably true. I will not even
deny that there is some effect on children's learning, on just the
general nature of the population if you have a lot of art available to
you. I have heard these things stated so far: It changed their lives,
elevated their thinking, improved their test scores. It is about
inspiration.
Mr. Chairman, every single one of those things can be attributed to
another aspect of our culture, and that is religion. As a matter of
fact, children who come from religious households do score better on
test scores. It is something that improves all of our lives, at least I
believe. So why do we not appropriate $100 million a year to religion?
It does all of the same things that this particular amendment does or
that the National Endowment for the Arts says they do, but, of course,
we do not appropriate money to religion because we would then argue
about whose religion should be centered and identified and given the
money. You are right. We should not do that. We should not appropriate
money for religion. We should not appropriate money for the arts
because it is in the eye of the beholder as to what is art. And to take
money away from somebody in my district to determine what somebody in
your district thinks is art is, I think, unfair.
This amendment is, of course, unfair. The National Endowment for the
Arts, as far as I am concerned, should not be funded at all. Certainly
it should not be given the opportunity to have another grab at the
apple.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, think about where we stand in
the world today with our concentration of wealth and power. It is
comparable almost to the great Greek and Roman civilizations.
But what do we remember about those civilizations? It is their art,
their striving for their greatest aspirations of the human spirit. We
want to leave that to our future generations. Sure, the private sector
could do it. But let me tell you about Denyce Graves, one of the
greatest opera singers we have today. She grew up in Washington, D.C.,
a few blocks away from the Kennedy Center. But if she could, if we
allowed it, she would be on the floor today telling us the Kennedy
Center might as well have been a world away because she could never
have gotten to the Kennedy Center if she had not gotten an NEH grant to
be able to perform. It was that grant that was invested in the District
of Columbia that gave her the opportunity to show what she was capable
of. There are thousands, maybe millions, of people all over the country
that have benefited from this ability to leverage money in arts
throughout America, in our smallest communities and our largest
communities. This is something we will be proud of for generations to
come.
Let us better fund the arts. Vote for the Slaughter-Dicks amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time. I have listened intently to this argument, to
this debate, and to this discussion.
I represent a district that is rich in diversity, rich in pluralism,
rich in people from different walks of life, different backgrounds.
What this program activity does is provide for people to understand
each other better, to know what is going on with other people, to know
what is in their thoughts and minds and ideas. And so we are not
talking about funding a program. We are talking about funding a way of
life, to help keep America the diverse, understanding, pluralistic
Nation that it is and that is what happens.
The Illinois Humanities Council does an outstanding job of bringing
people together throughout our State. I guarantee you that my
residents, the people I represent, would want us to fund this
amendment. I am pleased to stand and speak in favor of it and urge its
passage.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter amendment to
increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Mr. Chairman, as the country becomes more diverse and more
pluralistic it is important, necessary, as a matter of fact, it is
absolutely essential that we find ways to acquaint each other with
cultural contributions, mores and folkways of different groups within
our society and although we recognize the economic plight of our
nation, we know that inordinate resources must be devoted to anti-
terrorism and homeland security measures but we also know that
education and the transference of understanding are necessary to
maintain and grow our democracy.
Mr. Chairman, I represent an area rich in diversity and rich in
understanding of the need to pay attention to not just programs; but
also to a way of life, a way of life that keeps alive the American
dream and a way of life that keeps music, art, culture and hope ever
present in our lives.
[[Page H4810]]
Mr. Chairman, the Illinois Humanities Council and others like them
throughout the nation do outstanding jobs of dividing and allocating
these resources, they spread them around and we get the biggest bang
for our bucks; therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of this amendment, the Slaughter-Dicks amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. All
of the civilizations throughout history which we want our children to
study and which we admire, every one of them subsidized the arts at the
national level. We should do no less. If we have any respect for
ourselves and respect for our place in history, we ought to have an
understanding of the importance of art in the development of our
culture and the expression of ourselves as a people around the world.
A gentleman recently on that side of the aisle said that there was
art here in the United States prior to the National Endowment for the
Arts. To an extent, that is true. But that art was limited. It was
limited to the elites, to small groups of the wealthiest and best
situated people. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National
Endowment for the Humanities brings the humanities and the arts to
people all across this country. The funding that is in this bill and
that which would be increased by this amendment goes out to virtually
every congressional district across America, thereby benefiting the
people, in elementary schools, in secondary schools, and communities
all across this Nation.
Finally, if this amendment is passed, the amount of money that it
adds to this bill will still not bring us to the level of support that
the arts and humanities enjoyed in 1993-1994. We need to pass this
amendment. We need to express ourselves as a people in this positive
way. We need to show Americans across this country that we appreciate
arts, the arts and artists, and show people around the world that we
are a human country and appreciate and expound this great expression of
ourselves as a people.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to refute what was said by a previous speaker, that the NEA
does not have a distribution formula. It is very important, I think,
that we get this information out to the populace here. As we have said,
the NEA serves every nook and cranny of the United States. Forty
percent of the total budget is distributed to all of the 50 States
through the State arts agencies and distributed at the State level.
That is 40 percent of it. The remaining 60 is awarded from the NEA at
the Federal level and the distribution formula says that no individual
State can get more than 15 percent of the NEA's budget.
I wish that people could understand that because this again comes up
year after year.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 2\1/4\
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think this has been a very lively debate
today. I want to commend all the speakers who have spoken on support
for the arts and I want to even commend the positive attitude of the
people who have reservations about this amendment but who also say that
they strongly support the arts in our country. I have been on this
subcommittee a long time, this is my 26th year. Before that, I worked
on the staff of Senator Warren Magnuson, and have followed the National
Endowment for the Arts almost from its inception.
The point that I want to make is that this investment has caused a
tremendous explosion in private funds in support of the arts. Now we
see with this newest study that this has become a $134 billion
industry, providing 4.5 million jobs in this country, at a time when we
are in a recession. I think this is a very prudent investment. We are
increasing the funding here by $15 million, $10 million for the arts,
$5 million for the humanities. It is completely offset by a very
innocuous reduction in administrative expenses. If my friend from
Washington finds that onerous, we will fix it in conference, okay? So
just to make sure, nobody is being hurt here. This is a positive
amendment that will do a lot for our country.
I was at the opening of the Museum of Glass in Tacoma, Washington, a
facility constructed at the leadership of George Russell. I saw young
children in the glass art center creating glass art. We have had kids
in Tacoma who used to be juvenile delinquents now are leading a program
in creating glass art. This is something that is important for every
young person in this country. Education is enhanced by the arts and
humanities.
This is a very modest amendment. It is a chance for us to say to the
endowments that they have done a good job, have listened to the
Congress, have adopted the reforms that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) and I and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) have
proposed over the years to correct the problems. They are emphasizing
quality. This is an administration that is also strongly committed to
the arts. I think this is a small amendment but a good one. Let us
approve it and let us move on.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to close on this debate.
It has been a good debate. I appreciate the tone from all parties who
spoke very fervently about their belief in the arts and their support
of the arts.
I would argue that there is not one person in the House of
Representatives who does not support the arts. Period. The question is,
does everyone support a $10 million increase in the National Endowment
for the Arts? I think we have to make sure everybody understands that
this is an issue of how much can we afford. How much can we spend on
different accounts in this particular bill? I would argue, Mr.
Chairman, that we have got $116 million in this bill, about a $1
million increase over last year, which last year was about an $11
million increase over the year before. I guess my thinking is, it can
never be enough. If you really want to take the arguments of the
proponents of this amendment to their logical extension, it will never
be enough. I would argue that this is enough at this time, at this
place, given the circumstances of this bill, given the circumstances of
our economy and our national priorities.
Much has been made of Members saying, well, we have to treat the
Federal Treasury like our family budget. I would argue to you that if
you got your mortgage and you got your food and your transportation and
all the other necessary accounts to run your family, that maybe you say
at some point, ``Until things get a little better, I'm not going to go
to the movies this weekend. In fact, I'm going to stay home and read a
book.'' I think that is what we have to do with this amendment. We have
to say, $116 million is enough. It is enough. And we do not need at
this point to spend another $10 million just to demonstrate our
commitment to the arts in this country.
Very few speakers today spoke of the direct relationship between the
NEA and their love of the arts. We can love the arts, and we all do. We
all appreciate the value of music and artistic expression. It is
valuable. But I hasten to point out, we spend 20 percent of the $116
million on the administrative cost of the NEA. I know this amendment
speaks to that, but still we are spending 20 cents, 25 cents out of
every dollar spent on the NEA in administrative cost. My argument is in
this amendment let us stick to the balance that has been provided by
the chairman, by the ranking member, by the entire full Committee on
Appropriations when we reported this bill out.
The gentleman from Washington said it is an innocuous reduction in
the Department of Interior accounts. I would argue that reduction in
land management for fires, for Indian Health Service, for BIA education
or other accounts that this will come out of in the land management
agencies for us in the West is not the right time to spend more money
on arts and less money on the administration of fire suppression and
other accounts that this is likely to be taken out of. So I would argue
that this is not innocuous. It is not an innocuous addition. It is $10
million of addition to this account that already has $116 million.
[[Page H4811]]
I would just say this. We can be relatively assured, I will say
almost positively assured, that the other body will want to add even
more than this. I know that satisfies some Members who want more money.
But if we are going to be fiscally responsible and if we are going to
keep the balance in this bill and we have relatively, even most likely,
the assurance that the money is going to go in in even greater amounts
when we get with the other body in conference, I say hold the line.
{time} 1430
On this day, at this moment, with these pressures on our economy,
with these pressures on our homeland security, on our post-September 11
activity, with the recession that we are trying to come out of in this
country, let us not spend money to go to the movies; let us say, let us
stay home and read a book. I argue that these Department of Interior
accounts that are being cut today are going to have a greater impact on
reducing spending and administration of existing accounts for Members
of the House of Representatives than will this particular $10 million
increase affect Members in a similar manner.
So I would just say I think again, the argument has been in favor of
the arts and we all favor the arts. The challenge that the proponents
have to exercise is, is this NEA distribution, the money going to the
Federal agency, going to have the same impact that $10 million might
have in other accounts of the interior agencies that are affected by
the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from
Washington.
I respect their commitment, let there be no mistake. I know they feel
strongly about this. But I think the rest of us must feel strongly
about protecting the Federal purse, protecting the integrity of the
appropriations process, protecting the integrity of the challenge, the
pressure that is going to be on the land management agencies as we have
droughts and natural disasters and challenges to Indian health service
and Indian education and all of the other accounts that are part of the
interior bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the defeat of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Nethercutt was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Legislative Program
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the Chair and the
Members that after this series of votes, we will continue with
amendments to title I under regular order. Then we will proceed to
title II under regular order. Members are asked that if they have
amendments to title I and the remainder of the bill, to come to the
floor and submit their written amendments to the desk.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to support
this critical amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment
for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
A similar amendment passed on the House floor last year and I hope we
are again able to demonstrate clear congressional support for arts and
humanities funding today.
From the beginning of my political career, I have worked to increase
funding for the arts and appreciation for the public value they add to
our communities.
As a local county commissioner I crafted the first local government
``percent for art'' program and saw first-hand the multiplier effect it
had on investment in the arts.
In Oregon, the arts and cultural industry has a tremendous economic
value. The non-profit arts industry alone employs more than 28,000
people and generates $64 million annually.
Nationally, the nonprofit arts industry pumps $134 billion into our
economy every year and provides a huge economic return on our small
federal investment.
This industry provides 4.85 million jobs; $89.4 billion in household
income; $10.5 billion in federal income tax revenues; $7.3 billion in
state government tax revenues; and $6.6 billion in local government tax
revenues.
The arts and humanities have more than an economic impact--they
enrich our neighborhoods, our schools and our cities;
Each year, NEH grants are awarded in every U.S. state and territory,
going to non-profit cultural institutions such as museums, archives,
libraries, colleges, universities, research centers, and state
humanities councils; to film, television and radio producers; and to
individual scholars.
Providing strong federal funding is also what the majority of the
American public expects from Congress.
79 percent of Americans believe that ``there should be federal,
state, and local councils for the arts to . . . provide financial
assistance to worthy arts organizations.''
Unfortunately Since 1995, when funding for the NEA was reduced by 40
percent, the NEA has had to cut most grants to individual artists,
funding for seasonal support, and has had to limit the scope of their
focus dramatically.
Yet this is about far more than money and public opinion. The arts
and humanities are what make a community vibrant, unique and lively.
Today's modest yet effective increase in the Interior Appropriations
bill will help improve our federal commitment and is vital to promoting
livable communities where our families are safe, healthy and more
economically secure.
I urge my colleagues to support the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson
amendment to increase arts funding.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in support
of the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson-Morella amendment to the fiscal
year 2003 Interior Appropriations bill. This amendment will give $10
million to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and $5 million to
the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
Funding from the NEA and NEH leverage millions of dollars each year
in private support for arts projects all across the country. We also
know that arts education has been proven to increase skills in math,
reading, language development and writing.
While New Mexico proudly proclaims itself as the State of many
cultures--some call it a melting pot, others a mosaic--we all have at
least one thing in common, and that is keeping together our strong
connection to the history and traditions of our State through the arts.
Funding through the NEA and NEH have showcased numerous Native
American, Spanish, Mexican, and Anglo cultures by artists young and
old.
Mr. Chairman, the NEA has approved thousands of dollars in federal
funding for several arts organizations located in my Congressional
District and throughout New Mexico. I would like to highlight a few of
those organizations:
Santa Fe Opera--$50,000. Funding will support the American premiere
of the opera L'amore de loin by Finnish composer Kaija Saariaho with
libretto by French-Lebanese author Amin Maalouf. Approximately 6,000
persons are expected to attend three performances of the opera at the
Santa Fe Opera Theater.
New Mexico CultureNet, Santa Fe--$30,000. Funding will support a
project called InterLAC which links local arts councils throughout New
Mexico via web-based services, workshops, and an annual conference.
Taos Talking Pictures--$7,500. Funding will be used to support the
Taos Talking Picture Film Festival. The spring event showcases films by
independent filmmakers working in all genres.
Pueblo of Zuni--$20,000. Zuni Fish and Wildlife Department. Funding
will support an architectural design for an eagle aviary compound. In
this second phase of the project an eagle breeding ground, visitor
facilities, orchards, and landscape features will be added to the
existing facility.
When it comes to private partnerships between private, state and
federal funding of the arts by requiring that these grant recipients
match federal monies dollar for dollar, the NEA set an outstanding
example. According to the NEA, one federal dollar attracts $12 or more
from state and regional arts agencies as well as corporations,
businesses and individuals.
These are just a few of the many projects that funding through the
NEA and NEH go to support. I'm sure that every member of this chamber
could share similar project successes in their respective districts. I
would like to remind my colleagues that a similar amendment passed the
House on June 21, 2001 by a bipartisan margin of 221-193 in last year's
Interior bill.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-
Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment to increase funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
I support this modest amendment and believe increased funding would
have an enormous impact by bringing the arts to under-served
communities, like our inner-cities and rural areas, and by encouraging
more support for preserving and promoting our cultural heritage.
Federal funding helps symphonies, theaters, musical productions,
ballet and educational programs.
I grew up in an arts family. My mom and dad, both performing actors,
met in the theater. I know the arts make a significant contribution to
our lives.
The arts improve the lives of many people, including children, the
elderly and those on a
[[Page H4812]]
limited budget, who might not otherwise have the opportunity to see
some very beautiful and enriching performances. And federal funding
helps enable talented individuals to pursue careers in the arts.
Besides the cultural benefit, the economic impact of the arts is
staggering.
I urge you to support the amendment and increase funding for the NEA
and NEH.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today for this modest
bipartisan amendment offered by Representatives Slaughter, Dicks, Horn,
Johnson and Morella to increase funds for the National Endowment for
the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
As a Member of the Congressional Arts Caucus, I value the tremendous
role arts funding and arts education programs play in the lives of our
citizens.
Several academic studies demonstrate the connection between music,
dance, visual arts, and the development of the human brain. It is well
known among researchers that arts education cultivates critical
thinking skills so important in our information age economy.
Let me tell you about some of the programs in my community that
received NEA and NEH funds this past year.
Artist-in-residence programs in elementary schools to encourage
student and teacher involvement. A program in my district that
incorporates traditional music and dance from diverse cultures to
improve student relations, coordination and memory. An amateur chamber
orchestra. A fellowship program at a library and museum for art
instructors who will, in turn, teach our artists of tomorrow.
But this debate is not simply about the arts alone. Children who
learn to read music or play an instrument show improved proficiency in
math.
This increase of $15 million under the Interior Appropriations for
the NEA and NEH will go to fund so many rich programs offered and so
many opportunities for us all.
Last month, an economic study, Americans for the Arts, found that
America's nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion in annual
economic activity. This number includes full time jobs, household
income and local, state and federal tax revenue. This study includes
more than $80 billion in event-related spending by audiences. This is
additional clear evidence that opportunities funded through NEA and NEH
continue to bring us to new levels in our economy, culture, language,
music, art and life.
By supporting the arts and the humanities, the Federal Government has
the ability to partner with state and local efforts to bolster the arts
and educational opportunities in our communities.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, today we debate the level of
our federal commitment to arts and humanities programs. We have an
opportunity to ensure that the children who today dip their hands in
pots of fingerprints and sit listening to storybooks will grow up to be
active members of a creative nation, rich and beauty and ideas.
We all deserve arts and humanities.
All children and adults deserve the opportunity to learn to create,
to express their ideas and their visions. They deserve the opportunity
to learn history, languages, philosophy, painting, sculpture, music,
and dance.
We all need arts and humanities.
Arts and humanities do more than just offer us entertainment and
distraction from turmoil in our lives, they provide insight and
perspective, they offer comfort and hope.
Arts and humanities give us ways to understand and find meaning in
what is happening in our nation, and what has happened centuries ago.
They give us ways to share that meaning with our children.
Last September, we witnessed some use their ability to destroy
against our nation. We have endeavored to find ways to honor those who
lost their lives in the destruction. I think one way to do so today is
to support our nation's ability to create.
I proudly support the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson-Morella amendment
to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities, and I ask my colleagues to do
same.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter,
Dicks, Horn, Johnson amendment. Funding for the arts is one of the best
investments our government makes. In purely economic terms, it
generates a return that would make any Wall Street investor jealous.
For just a fraction of one percent of the entire federal budget, the
National Endowment for the Arts supports a thriving non-profit arts
industry which generates more than $134 billion annually, nearly 5
million full-time jobs and returns $10.5 billion in federal taxes each
year.
With grants that touch nearly every Congressional district in the
country, the NEA supports educational programs that teach children
valuable life-long skills; allows new and innovative art to find an
audience; helps bring the arts to under-served communities; enables
organizations to share their exhibitions and performances with the rest
of the nation through national tours; and most important, provides
crucial seed money for organizations to leverage private donations.
Yet the NEA continues to suffer from the shortsighted decision by
Congress to slash its funding back in 1996, after attempting outright
elimination. It has been forced to do more with less and despite
consistent under-funding, it has been an efficient and productive
agency. However, we should at least restore the NEA to its pre-1996
levels and we should be considering an increase over that level, not
the paltry funding it has had since then. Only through increased public
support can the arts continue to be so vibrant throughout the nation.
The NEH, too, is a crucial agency but without additional funding, the
important work of interpreting and preserving our nation's heritage
will go unrealized. The NEH is at the forefront of preserving
endangered recordings of folk music, jazz and blues; bringing
Shakespeare to inner-city youth; promoting research into immigrant life
and culture; and helping disseminate this information into communities
through technology with the Internet and CD-Rom.
The arts and humanities also provide the emotional and spiritual lift
that we have all needed since September, helping us heal in profound
ways. In the wake of the attacks on our nation, people flocked to
theaters, music halls, and museums for a sense of community and
emotional release. The arts and humanities are also a critical tool in
promoting cultural understanding, something that is sorely needed in
the world today.
In the wake of September 11th, I convened a discussion of the many
arts organizations in lower Manhattan that had been devastated after
the attacks. At that meeting, an artist named Brookie Maxwell gave a
powerful testament to why additional arts funding is needed. She said,
``We need funding for the arts so we can process what happened. Art
addresses the meaning between the words, and it addresses the mystery
of life.''
Mr. Chairman, I can think of no better words to sum up why this
amendment is so sorely needed and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which
provides for a modest increase of funding for the National Endowment
for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
Mr. Speaker, this year we have spent much time and energy improving our
education system with the No Child Left Behind Act. I am proud of the
work we have done. Yet we cannot leave the arts behind--exposure and
understanding of the arts is vital to our children's development and we
must properly fund the NEA and NEH to accomplish this.
The NEA supports local communities in our states and creates many
educational outreach programs which enrich the cultural world of our
children. The NEH serves to advance the nation's scholarly and cultural
life by providing humanities education to America's school children and
college students, offers lifelong learning opportunities through a
range of public programs and supports projects that encourage Americans
to discover their American heritage.
The most important function of the NEA and NEH is their role in
education our children. Studies continue to illustrate the positive
impact that exposure to arts has on a child's development. A recent
study released by the Arts Education Partnership entitled Critical
Links, provides hard evidence that the arts improve critical skills in
math, reading, language development, and writing. The arts nourish a
child's imagination and creativity and help develop collaborative and
teamwork skills.
But arts in education is not only important for student achievement.
Arts have also been shown to deter delinquent behavior of at-risk
youth. The U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention found that arts programs that were geared toward
at-risk youth dramatically improved academic performance, reduced
school truancy, and increased skills of communication, conflict
resolution, completion of challenging tasks, and teamwork.
In a time when we are searching for innovative ways to combat
violence in our schools, studies such as the one I just cited
demonstrate the positive effects that arts education can have on
behavior.
Congress affirmed the critical role of arts education when it passed
the No Child Left Behind Act. This landmark education reform
legislation recognizes the arts as one of the core subjects that all
schools should teach. We must ensure that arts remain a part of our
children's educational development. Investing in our children's future
is necessary. I commend the NEA and other fine programs for their work
to improve the quality of education in America.
A good deal is being said (and circulated) about what some consider
the sponsorship of questionable art by the National Endowment
[[Page H4813]]
of the Arts. I do agree that the federal government has no business
subsidizing works of ``art'' that are lewd or that depict our religious
figures or symbols in an objectionable manner.
But let me remind you that Congress has taken the necessary steps to
ensure that the NEA is precluded from funding such offensive projects.
For example, in 1996 Congress eliminated most individual grants and
prohibited the use of NEA funds for projects that depict sexual
activities or denigrate religious objects. In 1990, I served as
Republican leader of the subcommittee that re-wrote NEA regulations to
establish a new, decency standard and outlawed NEA support for projects
with controversial sexual and religious themes.
We have this debate every year. The NEA we debate about today is the
reformed NEA--not the NEA of the past. The NEA of today supports good
programs that use the strength of the Arts and our nation's cultural
life to enhance communities in every state in the nation. However, the
NEA is still being punished for its past and is still funded at levels
that are significantly lower than the funding levels of a decade ago.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and ensure that arts
remain a part of our children's educational development.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-
Dicks amendment to provide increased funding for the National Endowment
for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
These agencies 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 Congress have said that
preserving our national heritage, and bringing the arts into the lives
of more Americans, is a goal worthy of our support.
For the past two years, we have made an important investment in the
NEA's Challenge America program. This program focuses on arts education
and enrichment, after-school arts programs for youth, access education
and enrichment, after-school arts programs for youth, access to the
arts for underserved communities, and community arts development
initiatives. This initiative has helped strengthen America's
communities and foster new relationships between communities, state and
federal agencies, and national organizations. We make sure that these
vital agencies have the resources they need to continue and expand the
impact of the arts.
Many years ago, I spent seven years as the chair of the Greater New
Haven Arts Council back in Connecticut. I know first hand that the arts
not only enrich lives, but contribute to the economic growth of the
community.
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. This industry creates jobs,
increases travel and tourism, and generates thousands of dollars for a
state's economy.
In addition, the NEA is an important partner in bringing arts
education to more American students. Arts education is critical in
planting seeds of art appreciation and in cultivating the talent that
may have yet to be discovered in these young minds. The Endowment, in
partnership with state arts agencies, provides $37 million of annual
support for Kindergarten through 12th grade arts education projects in
more than 2,600 communities across the country. It also funds
professional development programs for art specialists, classroom
teachers, and artists.
Recent studies have shown that the arts have real value in restoring
civility to our society and providing our children and communities real
alternatives. Participation in arts programs helps children learn to
express anger appropriately and enhance communication skills with
adults and peers. Students who have benefitted from arts programs have
also shown better self-esteem, an improved ability to finish tasks,
less delinquent behavior, and a more positive attitude toward school.
We must continue to support this effort to bring the arts and
humanities into the lives of our young people.
We know that the arts build our economy, enrich our culture, and feed
the minds of adults and children alike. The NEA and NEH need this
increase to fulfill their missions, and it's time we gave them this
support. Vote for this amendment. Preserve our heritage and make it
accessible to all.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Slaughter-
Dicks-Horn-Johnson-Morella Amendment to increase funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for
Humanities. 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. They gain not only a better cultural appreciation but
are able to translate their positive experiences into skills that are
essential for their academic future and 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 art programs. In correlation, seventy-nine percent of businesses
believe it is important to have an active cultural community in the
locale in which they operate. Businesses in Delaware work hand-in-hand
with the arts and humanities communities. This partnership makes my
State a stronger community than it otherwise would be.
I have witnessed in Delaware firsthand how rewarding arts and
humanities programs can be to our Nation's youth. For example, the
Possum Point Players in Georgetown, Delaware, is funded through the
NEA's Challenge American Program. This organization provides positive
alternatives for youth in Sussex County high schools through the
creation of theater programs for rural and low-income students. Many of
these students would not have the opportunity to participate in such
programs without the Challenged American Program. These students have
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.
Furthermore, the Delaware Humanities Forum, through NEH funding, has
played an essential role in bringing humanities to all corners of the
state with programs available or schools, businesses, and other
community groups. Each year the Humanities Forum presents an annual
living history event bringing education and entertainment together.
Past events have centered around the Old West and the Gilded Age in
American History.
It is important for us to remember, the collective benefits gained by
not only our districts but also by the Nation as a whole and that is
why I rise today in strong support of increased funding for the NEA and
the NEH.
Mr. GILMAN. I rise in support of the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson-
Morella amendment which calls for increases of $10 million for the
National Endowment for the Arts and $5 million for the National
Endowment for the Humanities.
Throughout the last 30 years our Nation has been enriched by the
Arts. Sophocles wrote: ``Whoever neglects the arts when he is young has
lost the past and is dead to the future.'' When Congress supports and
appropriates Federal funding for the NEA and the NEH, our Nation's
commitment to the future and the freedom of expression if reinforced
and reinvigorated.
The NEA and NEH create programming that cultivates and fosters
achievement in the arts throughout our Nation. If this funding is not
allocated to these important endowments, the freedom of expression
enjoyed by every citizen will be jeopardized and inhibited. Progress in
the Arts will be imperiled.
We all take pride in America's contributions in the Arts; however, it
is important and essential that we secure the promise of future
achievements. In addition to applauding our American spirits, and
observing that an energetic life contributes to a strong democracy, we
must take action to make the arts a priority. This is what is necessary
to maintain and improve upon past standards. As integral as the Arts
have been to our American heritage, the younger generations must make a
sustained effort to support and aid in maintaining this essential facet
of our culture and society.
If we reduce funding for the Arts, our Nation would be the first
among cultured nations to remove the Arts as a priority. In my role as
Chairman Emeritus of the International Relations Committee, I recognize
the importance of the Arts on an international level, as they help
foster a common appreciation of history and culture that are so
essential to our humanity. If we do not meet the needs of the NEA, we
would be erasing part of our civilization and breaking possible bonds
to others.
Moreover, I understand 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 provide children with an
opportunity to express themselves in a positive environment, removed
from the temptations of drugs and violence. Empowering children with
pride and passion, they are better able to 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 school are cutting arts programming or not
offering it altogether. We need to ensure that this does not continue
to happen. Increasing children's access to the Arts only benefits our
Nation and its future.
It is our responsibility to ensure that our children have access to
the Arts. Accordingly, I strongly support increased funding for the NEA
and NEH. I urge my colleagues to oppose any amendments which seek to
decrease NEA funding, and to support the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson-
Morella amendment.
[[Page H4814]]
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of increased
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National
Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Public investment in arts and
humanities benefits society in countless ways, including enhancing
individual creativity, increasing skills in math, reading, language
development and writing, and expanding global relationships and
understanding.
President Bush has recommended FY 2003 funding for NEA and NEH at
$116 million and $126 million, respectively. It is important to note
that NEA's amount is $46 million below its 1995 level. However, the
payoff from even this meager public investment is still enormous. In
addition to the aforementioned benefits of public funding for arts and
humanities, a recent study found that arts groups generate at least
$134 billion in economic activity each year, 4.85 million full-time
equivalent jobs, $89.4 billion in household income, and $24.4 billion
in government taxes. Although NEA and NEH are the sole source off arts
funding in some communities, in others, grants from NEA and NEH
leverage millions of dollars each year in private support for arts
projects.
Last year in Michigan's 16th District alone, NEA awarded two grants
totaling $40,000. One of the grants was awarded to the Sphinx
Competition in Dearborn, Michigan, an outstanding program that gives
young, primarily African American and Latino students, the opportunity
to improve their craft, and perform with their peers and professional
musicians. I can think of few programs that are more deserving of NEA
funding, or that have been as effective in expanding access to
classical music opportunities for minority students. Last year, NEH
funding was awarded to 13 organizations in my district, mostly to
elementary schools which brought live cultural presentations to the
students. These programs consisted of a wide diversity of cultural
programs from school assembly musical performances to library
storytellers. Without these funds, many of these students would not
have had the opportunity to be exposed to these culturally enriching
activities.
Currently, Americans pay about the cost of a postage stamp to fund
these two important programs. Given the important and measurable
benefits of exposure to arts and cultural activities, Congress must
step up and increase public funding for NEA and NEH.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill to increase funding for
the Endowment of the Arts and the National Endowment of the Humanities.
Increased funding for NEA and NEH is essential to the Government's
role in ensuring the beauty and diversity of the arts are accessible to
all our citizens. The arts help children to develop fundamental skills
and provide the opportunity for students to excel in academic and
social areas. More specifically, the effects of early arts exposure can
help to increase a child's motivation to learn about all subjects.
In Venice, CA, which I represent, the Los Angeles Theatre Works
stands as an example of what NEA funding can accomplish. The LA Theatre
Works not only produces plays but also takes an active role in the
Venice community to bring the arts to children in need. Their ``Arts
and Children'' program provides hands-on workshops to at-risk youth,
encouraging them to develop their talents and channel their energies
into the arts.
It is through the funding from NEA and NEH that organizations such as
the Los Angeles Theatre Works are able to reach out into communities
and touch the lives of children and, in turn, the lives of the rest of
us.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment to
ensure that the NEA and NEH continue to provide enrichment to citizens
across the country.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my
strong support for this amendment to the FY03 Interior Appropriations
bill (H.R. 5093), which would reaffirm our commitment to enriching the
education of our children. The Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment
would increase funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities by
$5 million and the National Endowment for the Arts by $10 million.
These small increases in funding will have a tremendous impact on the
quality of education for all children.
As a member of the Congressional Arts Caucus and a former teacher, I
understand the importance of the arts and humanities in our education
system. More than two-thirds of our Nation's K-12 curriculum is
dedicated to the humanities. As the largest supporter of the humanities
in the country, the Federal Government, through the NEH, provides
access to high-quality educational programs and resources through
grants to non-profit cultural institutions such as museums,
universities, and State humanities councils. These grants strengthen
teaching, facilitate research, and provide opportunities for lifelong
learning. It is incumbent upon the Federal Government to maintain its
commitment to the humanities if we are to maintain a high level of
excellence in our public schools.
The arts create an environment of creativity, expression, and success
for children. The NEA nurtures the growth and artistic excellence of
thousands of arts organizations all over the country by making the
performing, visual, literary, media and folk arts available to millions
of Americans. Programs, such as the Arts Learning grants, support
projects for children and youth, in school and outside the regular
school day and year, in pre-K through grade 12 and in youth arts areas.
This project, which partners public education and nonprofit arts
organizations, helps to contribute to the incredible economic success
of the arts industry. The nonprofit arts industry generates $36.8
billion annually in economic activity and supports 1.3 million jobs.
In my district, the Connecticut's Commission on the Arts uses NEA
funding to support its Higher Order Thinking (HOT) Schools Program. The
HOT Schools Program is designed to transform entire school communities.
The arts, especially writing, play a central role in this change
process. School culture focuses on student needs and celebrates each
child's accomplishments by sharing them with the larger school
community. The program began in 1994 with only six schools and has
grown to include over twenty-four schools from across Connecticut
involving over 5,000 students and 500 educators.
In recent years, funding for the NEA and the NEH has been slashed--
leaving many arts and cultural programs scrambling for funding. For
example, in my state of Connecticut, Federal grants dropped from $10
million in 1994 to an average of only $3 million. Such reductions serve
as an impediment to accessing and unearthing the country's rich
cultural and educational infrastructure. The modest increases proposed
in this amendment would help to close the gap created by revenue
shortfalls in many states.
The Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment will serve to only improve
the NEA and the NEH. With additional funding, we will be able to
preserve programs already in place like the HOT Schools Program, and
build upon their successes to create new programs, which will enhance
the education of more children.
The NEA and the NEH are integral to our children's educational
development. The NEA and the NEH have already suffered from cuts and
reductions over the years. It is time to reinvest in these extremely
successful agencies and provide America's children with a complete
cultural and artistic education. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to
join me in voting in favor of this amendment.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson Amendment to the Department of Interior
Appropriations bill to increase funding for the National Endowment for
the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities by fifteen million
dollars.
The value of supporting the arts is widely accepted. Art provides a
venue for expression and understanding of human thought and emotion.
Educators have argued that there are many educational benefits to
students enrolled in the arts. Some institutions looking to bridge the
gap of understanding between different cultures use art as a universal
means of communicating concerns and developing understanding.
The National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the
Humanities consistently work to give artists across the country the
opportunity to participate in the arts. In fact, forty percent of the
money allocated to the national endowment is transferred directly to
states so that they are able to fund local programs. In Colorado, money
from the National Endowment of the Arts is used to fund the Arts and
Education Learning Network which teaches arts organizations how to work
with schools, and the Online Poetry Project to help schools address
poetry related questions on standardized CSAP exams. The bulk of
funding requested in the amendment will go to the Challenge America
Program that works to start arts and humanities programs in communities
that have yet to receive funding from the Endowment.
Along with the immeasurable value of the contribution of the arts and
the humanities as an expression of our culture and of the individual,
the arts have proven to have a quantifiable value as well. A study
recently conducted by an economist at the University of Georgia of
ninety-one communities nationwide showed that communities that spend
money on the arts, make money from the arts.
One of the communities in the study was Boulder, CO. It was
calculated that just over nineteen million dollars in spending by the
nonprofit arts industry in Boulder generated over thirteen million
dollars in revenue and income for Boulder businesses, residents and
local government, and supported five hundred and ninety-four full time
jobs. The arts and humanities bring money and jobs to communities in
today's difficult economic environment.
This amendment would allocate necessary funding to a grossly
underfunded national arts
[[Page H4815]]
program. Support of the amendment is necessary so that arts can
continue to bring all of the benefits that come from encouraging and
supporting development of the arts.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, today's vote by the House to increase
funding for the NEA and NEH is a victory of imagination over ideology.
In recent years, we have worried a great deal about the digital
divide--a lack of access to technology that could limit opportunity for
lower-income Americans. We should be equally concerned about a
creativity crisis.
Studies have proven that arts education is not just a frill tacked on
to the vital work of learning reading, writing and arithmetic. Art
education increases skills in all of these subjects, as well as in
language development and writing and spatial reasoning.
Grants from the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities
leverage millions of dollars each year in private support for arts
projects. In many communities, they are the sole source of arts
funding.
This amendment would provide an additional $10 million for the NEA's
``Challenge America'' initiative, which is specifically designed to
provide access to the arts for underserved communities. According to
the Georgia Institute of Technology, the arts industry generations
millions of jobs and $134 billion in economic activity every year.
The amendment also provides $5 million for the NEH--the nation's
largest source of support for research and scholarship in the
humanities.
I want to make it very clear that this amendment is not an increase
in funding, but an attempt to recoup some of the cuts that NEA faced in
1995 when its budget was slashed by 40 percent. There is strong,
bipartisan consensus now that those cuts were felt too deeply by some
of our most vulnerable young people.
Exposure to the arts through the NEA helps children build confidence
in their class work, honors their creativity, and unleashes the power
of their imagination. The poet, Shelley, once wrote that the greatest
force for moral good is imagination. With the challenges that we face
today, we need all the imagination we can muster.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment
offered by Congresswoman Slaughter to increase funding for the National
Endowment for the Humanities by $5 million and for the National
Endowment for the Arts' Challenge America Initiative by $10 million.
The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) provides grants to
every state and territory in the United States to support programs in
our museums, libraries, colleges, research centers, and state
humanities councils, and to support the work of individual scholars. I
have been extremely impressed by the products of the grants awarded in
my State, particularly support for Hawaii History Day and National
History Day.
NEH grants help to bring the humanities to Americans throughout our
nation. NEH grants are also used to improve teaching, support research
and scholarship, preserve our nation's historical and cultural heritage
through conservation of precious documents and artifacts, and provide
access to the humanities through public programs.
The Challenge America Initiative of the National Endowment for the
Arts is specifically designed to provide underserved communities with
access to the arts. The Initiative supports arts education, youth-at-
risk programs, cultural heritage preservation, and community arts
partnerships.
Student involvement in the arts has been proven to increase skills in
mathematics, reading, language development, and writing. And students
who play certain musical instruments demonstrate enhanced development
of spatial reasoning skills. The arts have also shown success in
improving outcomes for at-risk youth.
Grants from NEH and NEA leverage millions of dollars in private
support for the arts and humanities. America's nonprofit arts industry
generates some $134 billion in economic activity each year, including
4.85 million full-time equivalent jobs, $89.4 billion in household
income, $6.6 billion in local government tax revenues, $7.3 billion in
state government tax revenues, and $10.5 billion in federal income tax
revenues.
These valuable programs help to promote the arts, humanities, and
education in our communities. The relatively small investments made by
the federal government in these programs greatly enrich the lives of
all Americans.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-
Dicks Amendment, to make important increases to the NEA and NEH.
Before I continue, I must relay my hesitation to use the term
``increase'' when referring to the modest funding this amendment would
provide. After all, the NEA and NEH have yet to fully recover from the
more than 40 percent cut they suffered in 1995.
We know that the arts are crucial to the development of our culture
and our economy, and beneficial to all our citizens. In fact, a recent
study showed that the nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion in
economic activity and $24 billion in tax revenue in the U.S. annually.
The arts are especially important to New York.
As a former 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.'' It is vital that we continue to
fully support these extraordinary programs.
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 to them. A $10 million
increase to the NEA budget would not only support magnificent artistic
work, but would also generate federal revenue and foster local economic
activity. Let's use this opportunity to get back to 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 amendment.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill offered by my colleagues,
Representatives Slaughter and Dicks, to increase funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts by $10 million and the National
Endowment for the Humanities by $5 million. There is no question that
education about the arts and humanities not only creates well-rounded
human beings, but more responsible citizens who contribute to the
richness of our cultural heritage.
For many years, under the wise guidance and leadership of my
predecessor, Congressman Sydney Yates, Congress understood the cultural
and economic importance of federal funding for arts. Yates almost
single-handedly protected the arts, and was awarded for his tireless
efforts by President Clinton in 1993 with the Presidential Citizens
Medal.
Unfortuantely, NEA funding was cut by more than 40 percent in 1995
and, for the most part, has yet to recover, despite overwhelming
evidence that the arts contribute greatly to our society and culture. A
recent study released by the Arts Education Partnership provides hard
evidence that exposure to the arts improves students' critical skills
in math, reading, language development, and writing. Furthermore, other
studies suggest that for certain populations, including students from
economically disadvantaged circumstances, students needing remedial
instruction, and younger children, arts education is especially helpful
in boosting learning and achievement.
The humanities play an equally valuable role in the education of
children and adults. In particular, state humanities councils, which
receive NEH funding, have been working for nearly 30 years to educate
citizens about our history and culture and stimulate dialogue about
contemporary issues of concern. Collaborating with libraries, museums,
religious institutions, schools, senior centers, historical societies,
and community centers, state humanities councils have served as the
single most reliable source of local support for programs that educate
citizens for civic life, thereby strengthening the fabric of our
democracy.
My district in Illinois greatly benefits from NEA and NEH funding. In
2001, the 9th Congressional District received over $180,000 from NEA
through a wide variety of grants. That same year, Illinois received
$4.6 million in NEH funding, making Illinois the fourth largest
recipient of NEH funds in the country. My constituents reap the
benefits of this.
If we are to preserve these programs, and other similar programs all
over the country, it is critical that we provide adequate funding for
the NEA and NEH. I strongly support increasing the NEA and NEH funding
levels by a total of $15 million, and urge my colleagues to support the
amendment to do so.
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 ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this 15-minute vote
on the Slaughter amendment will be followed by 5-minute votes, if
ordered, on the Rahall and Hayworth amendments, in turn.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234,
noes 192, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 310]
AYES--234
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
[[Page H4816]]
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
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 (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--192
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
Everett
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McIntyre
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Blagojevich
Bonior
Ehrlich
Kaptur
Mascara
McHugh
Nadler
Traficant
{time} 1456
Messrs. SULLIVAN, CALVERT, COX, and PICKERING changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. ROTHMAN and Mr. PAYNE changed their vote 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 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.
Parliamentary inquiry
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington will state his point of
order.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, is this the Rahall amendment coming up?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would tell the gentleman that it is, yes.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rahall
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes 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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 281,
noes 144, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 311]
AYES--281
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frost
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Shows
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
[[Page H4817]]
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOES--144
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Barton
Bass
Biggert
Bilirakis
Boehner
Bonilla
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Cannon
Cantor
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Combest
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (FL)
DeLay
DeMint
Dicks
Doolittle
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Flake
Fletcher
Forbes
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kingston
Kirk
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Obey
Ose
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Platts
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Blagojevich
Bonior
Ehrlich
Holt
Kaptur
Mascara
McHugh
Nadler
Traficant
{time} 1505
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 311, I inadvertently
voted ``aye.'' I meant to vote ``no''.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hayworth
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 273,
noes 151, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 312]
AYES--273
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Morella
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Walden
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--151
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Barr
Barton
Bass
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Bonilla
Boozman
Boucher
Bryant
Burton
Cannon
Cantor
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Clement
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crenshaw
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Ehlers
Emerson
Eshoo
Everett
Ferguson
Fletcher
Forbes
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hart
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Langevin
Latham
Leach
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
Miller, Dan
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Osborne
Ose
Pence
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Regula
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Tancredo
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
NOT VOTING--10
Bachus
Blagojevich
Bonior
Ehrlich
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Mascara
McHugh
Nadler
Traficant
{time} 1514
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1515
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, at this point, we will proceed under regular order with
title I. Following that, we will turn to title II under regular order.
I ask that Members who have amendments to the remainder of the bill
bring them to the floor and file them at the desk if they have not done
so already.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the Chair of
the subcommittee and with the ranking member about an inequity that I
believe must be addressed.
In 1985, Congress passed PL 99-239, the Compact of Free Association
with the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of
Micronesia.
[[Page H4818]]
Under the terms of the compact, the United States gained critical
strategic access and exclusive military privileges in these Freely
Associated States, referred to as Micronesia. In return, the Compact
Nations received financial assistance and their citizens received the
right to freely migrate to the United States for purposes of education,
employment, and residence.
In recognition of the likely impact of this national policy, Congress
authorized appropriations to cover the costs that may be incurred by
the State of Hawaii, the territories of Guam, Samoa and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas.
In the 16 years between 1986 and 2001, Hawaii has incurred about $100
million in expenses in education and social services for the compact
migrants. Despite the intent of Congress, Hawaii has not received any
appropriations until last year, when we finally received $4 million. We
spend approximately $17 million on compact migrants each year.
My colleague from Hawaii is here and is certainly in support of this
request, and both of us sent a letter to the committee requesting an
appropriation of $10 million to be included in this bill. We know that
the situation is very tight and the needs are many, and therefore, the
amount of money that we requested was not included.
Our economy is suffering. It had been even before September 11, but
certainly after September 11 the situation has been very tight. So the
fact that we were able to reserve the request until last year should
not penalize the fact that the law entitles us to come under
consideration for reimbursement for the funds.
I would like to ask the chairman to consider Hawaii's case to support
the appropriations that we have requested and to reimburse Hawaii at
least part of the $100 million that we have spent thus far in this
national defense program.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. We
thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii and recognize the many years she has
worked to obtain this funding. We promise, the subcommittee, to give
the gentlewoman's request full consideration during our conference with
the Senate.
We also point out that the tiny territories of Guam and Northern
Marianas have a very similar financial impact from the compacts, and
they have far less ability to cover these expenses. In 2001, Guam had
about $20 million in expenses, Hawaii about $17 million, and the
Commonwealth of Northern Marianas about $9 million.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I know that this is a major concern in
Hawaii, and I want to work with the gentlewoman on this issue and will
work with our friends in the other body to seek a solution. I
appreciate the gentlewoman bringing this to our attention.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member.
I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for
their replies in this colloquy and thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii
(Mrs. Mink) for pointing this out.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that Members would note we are approaching
the membership for consideration under something that should actually
be taken up, in my judgment, in the Department of Defense and should be
included in that budget. Nonetheless, we are here today under the
present rules asking merely for the compensation that is due us under
the treaty obligation of the United States.
It is not fair to ask a State of the Union to undertake expenditures
that are engendered as a result of the actions of the United States of
America, nor is it fair to ask any of the territories or the
Commonwealth of Marianas to assume the same costs. This is particularly
true when the three entities are suffering from the decline in tourism
dollars and revenue that has come in. The fact that we have borne this
burden for this time should not give rise to any consideration or
thought that this has been something that is equitable.
So I would hope that the membership would understand, as we conclude
our deliberations on the bill, that this is an amount of money that is
but a minuscule portion of that which is due Guam, American Samoa, the
Marianas and the State of Hawaii.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read 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, $252,000,000 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
including treatments of pests, pathogens and invasive or
noxious plants, cooperative forestry, and education and land
conservation activities and conducting an international
program as authorized, $279,828,000, to remain available
until expended, as authorized by law, of which $60,000,000 is
for the Forest Legacy Program, to be derived from the land
and water conservation fund; $36,235,000 is for the Urban and
Community Forestry Program, defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)
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 provided under this heading for the
acquisition of lands or interests in lands shall be available
until the Forest Service notifies the House Committee on
Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Appropriations, in
writing, of specific acquisition of lands or interests in
lands to be undertaken with such funds: Provided further,
That each forest legacy grant shall be for a specific
project: Provided further, That a grant shall not be released
to a State unless the Secretary determines that the State has
demonstrated that 25 percent of the total value of the
project is comprised of a non-Federal cost share.
national forest system
For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise
provided for, for management, protection, improvement, and
utilization of the National Forest System, $1,370,567,000, 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 2003 shall be displayed
by budget line item in the fiscal year 2004 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.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Hoeffel
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Hoeffel:
Under the heading ``national forest service'', insert after
the dollar amount on page 76, line 13, the following:
``(reduced by $5,000,000)(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add $5 million to the
grazing management account of the forest service from the general
account of the forest service.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us would allow the forest service to
automatically renew expiring livestock grazing permits without
completing the required environmental assessments. I think that this
blanket waiver proposed under the terms of the bill is, from a policy
point of view, a bad idea; but I understand the practical reasons for
doing this waiver, for proposing this waiver.
The problem is the forest service does not have the resources to do
all of the environmental assessments that it should do when it renews
livestock grazing permits. Everybody agrees that abuse of grazing can
be bad for the land. It can jeopardize endangered species. It can
pollute streams and lakes, and it can lead to soil erosion; and
everybody understands the environmental assessments are a positive step
to working cooperatively with the ranching community and with the
environmental community through the
[[Page H4819]]
good offices of the forest service to protect the land, to allow it to
be used appropriately for grazing, which is a necessary activity in the
West, necessary for the economic stability of the West.
In our efforts to be good stewards of the land, the forest service
needs the resources to conduct these environmental reviews, and they
have at the forest service a huge backlog.
In 1995 in the rescissions act, Congress allowed them to waive these
environmental assessments, but they were supposed to follow a self-
determined schedule for trying to do those assessments as best they
could. By their own acknowledgment, they are 55 percent behind even
their own schedule of assessments.
The system is not working. I think a blanket waiver alone is not the
right answer, nor is it the right answer to oppose the waiver because
such a block of the waiver might also have unintended consequences, bad
for the ranching community and not helpful to environmental protection.
So I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the
chairman, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking
member, for already recognizing this problem. The underlying bill would
add $6 million to the grazing management account in the forest service.
My amendment would add an additional $5 million to the grazing
management account. It would help the forest service complete these
assessments; and I have received a commitment only verbally, I am
afraid, not in writing, from the forest service that it will use these
additional funds, the funds that the committee has already earmarked
and the additional funds represented by this amendment, to catch up on
the backlog of environmental assessments that go back to 1999 all the
way through 2002 and to work to do as many environmental assessments in
2003 as they possibly can.
The more money we give them, the better job they can do. I thank the
Chair and his staff and the ranking member and his staff for coming
together for this good idea in this cooperative way, and I hope we can
agree to do the proper oversight of the forest service to make sure
that they live up to their commitments to do the very best job with
these environmental assessments as possible.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, just a brief comment on this.
I have spoken with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel); and
first of all, I want to congratulate him on his leadership and his
looking out for forest service lands. I know that he cares a lot about
these lands and has worked on them and worked on these issues; and I
think that the $5 million additional in these accounts is really going
to make a difference in terms of moving us along.
It is a win-win situation for both of us, and so I look forward to
supporting the amendment and urge all of my colleagues to do so; and I
thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Hoeffel) on this and for their leadership.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to just commend the gentleman on his
creative work here. This is an important issue. I think the way he has
handled it will produce a real result, and we can help the gentleman if
the forest service does not keep its word. The gentleman needs to make
sure he lets us know. We will be following it, too.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his
kind words and for his support and his staff's support on this
important amendment.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the gentleman's
amendment. We commend his work. As he knows, the chairman of our
subcommittee is very committed to the ranchers and wants the grazing
plans to get updated more quickly himself. This is why our committee
mark did have the $5 million increase for grazing plans. We are willing
to increase this further in order to see that proper environmental
clearances get done and that ranchers are not harmed.
We commend all of the partners in a bipartisan way for doing what is
right.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, and I thank
the gentleman who spoke for their comments. I ask for support for the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Earlier under section 1, I had planned to offer an amendment to the
appropriations bill to increase by $5 million compact impact aid for
Guam. I commend the progress of the committee on this particular issue,
which is a very important issue to the people of Guam, in order to make
sure that there is adequate compensation for migration from the Freely
Associated States, mostly from the Federated States of Micronesia to
Guam.
{time} 1530
I am pleased to note that today's bill is a big step in the right
direction, as it includes a $1 million increase above the President's
budget, a proposal of $4.58 million in Compact Impact Aid, bringing
Guam's total amount to $5.58 million. This amount still does not reach
last year's final amount, and my amendment would have increased Compact
Impact Aid by $5 million.
Even the GAO recognizes that the actual impact to Guam is over $12
million. The Government of Guam thinks it is a little bit closer to $19
million. But in any event, it is clear that the Compact Impact
assistance that Guam is receiving under this Interior appropriations
bill is clearly inadequate.
It is particularly critical at this time because Guam has just
undergone the impact of two storms, Chata'an and Ha Long. As we speak
today, power and water have been out on Guam for nearly 3 weeks. So we
were hoping that if we could get some recognition of this fact, that we
would use the proposed increase in Compact Impact assistance to ready
the schools, which will be opening next month, and also to ensure that
the hospitals be open.
I know that there has been an effort here on the part of both the
majority and the minority to recognize that there is a need for some
increased funds for Guam.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, clearly this is another issue we plan to take
up in conference and we will give the gentleman and his constituents
the highest consideration in the conference. We appreciate his raising
this issue yet again today on the floor, and I am sure we will do all
we can within our power to address this satisfactorily.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman for his assurance on that, and I thank also the chairman, the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), for his understanding of this
issue during the course of his work.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we certainly appreciate the gentleman's
leadership, and we are very sympathetic to the problems that the
gentleman is facing in Guam. We know the gentleman has done a terrific
job in representing his area, and we will do everything we can to help
him as the process moves forward.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, once again reclaiming my time, I thank
the gentleman from Washington very much.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella) assumed the Chair.
____________________