[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15905-16011]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 243 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. 2466.

                              {time}  1039


                     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. 2466) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July 
13, 1999, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley) had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment from 
page 19, line 10, through page 21, line 6.
  Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read, as follows:


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the National Park Service shall be 
     available for the purchase of not to exceed 384 passenger 
     motor vehicles, of which 298 shall be for replacement only, 
     including not to exceed 312 for police-type use, 12 buses, 
     and 6 ambulances: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated to the National Park Service may be used to 
     process any grant or contract documents which do not include 
     the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated to the National Park Service may be 
     used to implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the 
     southern end of Ellis Island until such agreement has been 
     submitted to the Congress and shall not be implemented prior 
     to the expiration of 30 calendar days (not including any day 
     in which either House of Congress is not in session because 
     of adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day 
     certain) from the receipt by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President of the Senate of a full and 
     comprehensive report on the development of the southern end 
     of Ellis Island, including the facts and circumstances relied 
     upon in support of the proposed project.
       None of the funds in this Act may be spent by the National 
     Park Service for activities taken in direct response to the 
     United Nations Biodiversity Convention.
       The National Park Service may distribute to operating units 
     based on the safety record of each unit the costs of programs 
     designed to improve workplace and employee safety, and to 
     encourage employees receiving workers' compensation benefits 
     pursuant to chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to 
     return to appropriate positions for which they are medically 
     able.

                    United States Geological Survey


                 surveys, investigations, and research

       For expenses necessary for the United States Geological 
     Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research 
     covering topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the 
     mineral and water resources of the United States, its 
     territories and possessions, and other areas as authorized by 
     43 U.S.C. 31, 1332, and 1340; classify lands as to their 
     mineral and water resources; give engineering supervision to 
     power permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     licensees; administer the minerals exploration program (30 
     U.S.C. 641); and publish and disseminate data relative to the 
     foregoing activities; and to conduct inquiries into the 
     economic conditions affecting mining and materials processing 
     industries (30 U.S.C. 3, 21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and 
     related purposes as authorized by law and to publish and 
     disseminate data; $820,444,000, of which $60,856,000 shall be 
     available only for cooperation with States or municipalities 
     for water resources investigations; and of which $16,400,000 
     shall remain available until expended for conducting 
     inquiries into the economic conditions affecting mining and 
     materials processing industries; and of which $137,674,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2001 for the 
     biological research activity and the operation of the 
     Cooperative Research Units: Provided, That none of these 
     funds provided for the biological research activity shall be 
     used to conduct new surveys on private property, unless 
     specifically authorized in writing by the property owner: 
     Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be 
     used to pay more than one-half the cost of topographic 
     mapping or water resources data collection and investigations 
     carried on in cooperation with States and municipalities.


                       administrative provisions

       The amount appropriated for the United States Geological 
     Survey shall be available for the purchase of not to exceed 
     53 passenger motor vehicles, of which 48 are for replacement 
     only; reimbursement to the General Services Administration 
     for security guard services; contracting for the furnishing 
     of topographic maps and for the making of geophysical or 
     other specialized surveys when it is administratively 
     determined that such procedures are in the public interest; 
     construction and maintenance of necessary buildings and 
     appurtenant facilities; acquisition of lands for gauging 
     stations and observation wells; expenses of the United States 
     National Committee on Geology; and payment of compensation 
     and expenses of persons on the rolls of the Survey duly 
     appointed to represent the United States in the negotiation 
     and administration of interstate compacts: Provided, That 
     activities funded by appropriations herein made may be 
     accomplished through the use of contracts, grants, or 
     cooperative agreements as defined in 31 U.S.C. 6302 et seq.: 
     Provided further, That the United States Geological Survey 
     may hereafter contract directly with individuals or 
     indirectly with institutions or nonprofit organizations, 
     without regard to 41 U.S.C. 5, for the temporary or 
     intermittent services of students or recent graduates, who 
     shall be considered employees for the purposes of chapters 57 
     and 81 of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
     compensation for travel and work injuries, and chapter 171 of 
     title 28, United States Code, relating to tort claims, but 
     shall not be considered to be Federal employees for any other 
     purposes.

                      Minerals Management Service


                royalty and offshore minerals management

       For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and 
     environmental studies, regulation of industry operations, and 
     collection of royalties, as authorized by law; for enforcing 
     laws and regulations applicable to oil, gas, and other 
     minerals leases, permits, licenses and operating contracts; 
     and for matching grants or cooperative agreements; including 
     the purchase of not to exceed eight passenger motor vehicles 
     for replacement only;

[[Page 15906]]

     $110,082,000 of which $84,569,000 shall be available for 
     royalty management activities; and an amount not to exceed 
     $124,000,000, to be credited to this appropriation and to 
     remain available until expended, from additions to receipts 
     resulting from increases to rates in effect on August 5, 
     1993, from rate increases to fee collections for Outer 
     Continental Shelf administrative activities performed by the 
     Minerals Management Service over and above the rates in 
     effect on September 30, 1993, and from additional fees for 
     Outer Continental Shelf administrative activities established 
     after September 30, 1993: Provided, That to the extent 
     $124,000,000 in additions to receipts are not realized from 
     the sources of receipts stated above, the amount needed to 
     reach $124,000,000 shall be credited to this appropriation 
     from receipts resulting from rental rates for Outer 
     Continental Shelf leases in effect before August 5, 1993: 
     Provided further, That $3,000,000 for computer acquisitions 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2001: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated under this Act shall be 
     available for the payment of interest in accordance with 30 
     U.S.C. 1721(b) and (d): Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $3,000 shall be available for reasonable expenses related to 
     promoting volunteer beach and marine cleanup activities: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, $15,000 under this heading shall be available for 
     refunds of overpayments in connection with certain Indian 
     leases in which the Director of the Minerals Management 
     Service concurred with the claimed refund due, to pay amounts 
     owed to Indian allottees or Tribes, or to correct prior 
     unrecoverable erroneous payments.


                           oil spill research

       For necessary expenses to carry out title I, section 1016, 
     title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, and title VIII, 
     section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $6,118,000, 
     which shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
     Fund, to remain available until expended.

          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement


                       regulation and technology

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public 
     Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not to 
     exceed 10 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only; 
     $95,693,000: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior, 
     pursuant to regulations, may use directly or through grants 
     to States, moneys collected in fiscal year 2000 for civil 
     penalties assessed under section 518 of the Surface Mining 
     Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1268), to 
     reclaim lands adversely affected by coal mining practices 
     after August 3, 1977, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That appropriations for the Office of 
     Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement may provide for 
     the travel and per diem expenses of State and tribal 
     personnel attending Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement sponsored training.


                    abandoned mine reclamation fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out title IV of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87, 
     as amended, including the purchase of not more than 10 
     passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, $196,458,000, 
     to be derived from receipts of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation 
     Fund and to remain available until expended; of which up to 
     $8,000,000, to be derived from the Federal Expenses Share of 
     the Fund, shall be for supplemental grants to States for the 
     reclamation of abandoned sites with acid mine rock drainage 
     from coal mines, and for associated activities, through the 
     Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative: Provided, That grants 
     to minimum program States will be $1,500,000 per State in 
     fiscal year 2000: Provided further, That of the funds herein 
     provided up to $18,000,000 may be used for the emergency 
     program authorized by section 410 of Public Law 95-87, as 
     amended, of which no more than 25 percent shall be used for 
     emergency reclamation projects in any one State and funds for 
     federally administered emergency reclamation projects under 
     this proviso shall not exceed $11,000,000: Provided further, 
     That prior year unobligated funds appropriated for the 
     emergency reclamation program shall not be subject to the 25 
     percent limitation per State and may be used without fiscal 
     year limitation for emergency projects: Provided further, 
     That pursuant to Public Law 97-365, the Department of the 
     Interior is authorized to use up to 20 percent from the 
     recovery of the delinquent debt owed to the United States 
     Government to pay for contracts to collect these debts: 
     Provided further, That funds made available to States under 
     title IV of Public Law 95-87 may be used, at their 
     discretion, for any required non-Federal share of the cost of 
     projects funded by the Federal Government for the purpose of 
     environmental restoration related to treatment or abatement 
     of acid mine drainage from abandoned mines: Provided further, 
     That such projects must be consistent with the purposes and 
     priorities of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act: 
     Provided further, That, in addition to the amount granted to 
     the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under sections 402(g)(1) and 
     402(g)(5) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
     (Act), an additional $300,000 will be specifically used for 
     the purpose of conducting a demonstration project in 
     accordance with section 401(c)(6) of the Act to determine the 
     efficacy of improving water quality by removing metals from 
     eligible waters polluted by acid mine drainage: Provided 
     further, That the State of Maryland may set aside the greater 
     of $1,000,000 or 10 percent of the total of the grants made 
     available to the State under title IV of the Surface Mining 
     Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 
     1231 et seq.), if the amount set aside is deposited in an 
     acid mine drainage abatement and treatment fund established 
     under a State law, pursuant to which law the amount (together 
     with all interest earned on the amount) is expended by the 
     State to undertake acid mine drainage abatement and treatment 
     projects, except that before any amounts greater than 10 
     percent of its title IV grants are deposited in an acid mine 
     drainage abatement and treatment fund, the State of Maryland 
     must first complete all Surface Mining Control and 
     Reclamation Act priority one projects.

                        Bureau of Indian Affairs


                      operation of indian programs

       For expenses necessary for the operation of Indian 
     programs, as authorized by law, including the Snyder Act of 
     November 2, 1921 (25 U.S.C. 13), the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450 et seq.), as amended, the Education Amendments of 1978 
     (25 U.S.C. 2001-2019), and the Tribally Controlled Schools 
     Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), as amended, 
     $1,631,050,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001 
     except as otherwise provided herein, of which not to exceed 
     $93,684,000 shall be for welfare assistance payments and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, including but not 
     limited to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as 
     amended, not to exceed $115,229,000 shall be available for 
     payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract 
     support costs associated with ongoing contracts, grants, 
     compacts, or annual funding agreements entered into with the 
     Bureau prior to or during fiscal year 2000, as authorized by 
     such Act, except that tribes and tribal organizations may use 
     their tribal priority allocations for unmet indirect costs of 
     ongoing contracts, grants, or compacts, or annual funding 
     agreements and for unmet welfare assistance costs; and up to 
     $5,000,000 shall be for the Indian Self-Determination Fund, 
     which shall be available for the transitional cost of initial 
     or expanded tribal contracts, grants, compacts, or 
     cooperative agreements with the Bureau under such Act; and of 
     which not to exceed $400,010,000 for school operations costs 
     of Bureau-funded schools and other education programs shall 
     become available on July 1, 2000, and shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2001; and of which not to exceed 
     $58,586,000 shall remain available until expended for housing 
     improvement, road maintenance, attorney fees, litigation 
     support, self-governance grants, the Indian Self-
     Determination Fund, land records improvement, the Navajo-Hopi 
     Settlement Program: Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, including but not limited to the Indian 
     Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, and 25 U.S.C. 
     2008, not to exceed $42,160,000 within and only from such 
     amounts made available for school operations shall be 
     available to tribes and tribal organizations for 
     administrative cost grants associated with the operation of 
     Bureau-funded schools: Provided further, That any forestry 
     funds allocated to a tribe which remain unobligated as of 
     September 30, 2001, may be transferred during fiscal year 
     2002 to an Indian forest land assistance account established 
     for the benefit of such tribe within the tribe's trust fund 
     account: Provided further, That any such unobligated balances 
     not so transferred shall expire on September 30, 2002.


                              construction

       For construction, repair, improvement, and maintenance of 
     irrigation and power systems, buildings, utilities, and other 
     facilities, including architectural and engineering services 
     by contract; acquisition of lands, and interests in lands; 
     and preparation of lands for farming, and for construction of 
     the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project pursuant to Public Law 
     87-483, $126,023,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such amounts as may be available for the 
     construction of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project may be 
     transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed 6 percent of contract authority available 
     to the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Federal Highway 
     Trust Fund may be used to cover the road program management 
     costs of the Bureau: Provided further, That any funds 
     provided for the Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 
     13 shall be made available on a nonreimbursable basis: 
     Provided further, That for fiscal year 2000, in implementing 
     new construction or facilities improvement and repair project 
     grants in excess of $100,000 that are provided to tribally 
     controlled grant schools under Public Law 100-297, as 
     amended, the Secretary of the Interior shall use the 
     Administrative and Audit Requirements and Cost Principles for 
     Assistance Programs contained in 43 CFR part 12 as the 
     regulatory requirements: Provided further, That such

[[Page 15907]]

     grants shall not be subject to section 12.61 of 43 CFR; the 
     Secretary and the grantee shall negotiate and determine a 
     schedule of payments for the work to be performed: Provided 
     further, That in considering applications, the Secretary 
     shall consider whether the Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization would be deficient in assuring that the 
     construction projects conform to applicable building 
     standards and codes and Federal, tribal, or State health and 
     safety standards as required by 25 U.S.C. 2005(a), with 
     respect to organizational and financial management 
     capabilities: Provided further, That if the Secretary 
     declines an application, the Secretary shall follow the 
     requirements contained in 25 U.S.C. 2505(f): Provided 
     further, That any disputes between the Secretary and any 
     grantee concerning a grant shall be subject to the disputes 
     provision in 25 U.S.C. 2508(e): Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, collections from 
     the settlement between the United States and the Puyallup 
     Tribe concerning the Chief Leschi school are to be 
     immediately made available for school construction in fiscal 
     year 2000, and thereafter.


 indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to 
                                indians

       For miscellaneous payments to Indian tribes and individuals 
     and for necessary administrative expenses, $25,901,000, to 
     remain available until expended; of which $25,030,000 shall 
     be available for implementation of enacted Indian land and 
     water claim settlements pursuant to Public Laws 101-618 and 
     102-575, and for implementation of other enacted water rights 
     settlements; and of which $871,000 shall be available 
     pursuant to Public Laws 99-264 and 100-580.


                 indian guaranteed loan program account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $4,500,000, as authorized 
     by the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as amended: Provided, 
     That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize total loan principal, any part of 
     which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed $59,682,000.
        In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan programs, $508,000.


                       administrative provisions

       The Bureau of Indian Affairs may carry out the operation of 
     Indian programs by direct expenditure, contracts, cooperative 
     agreements, compacts and grants, either directly or in 
     cooperation with States and other organizations.
       Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (except the 
     revolving fund for loans, the Indian loan guarantee and 
     insurance fund, and the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program 
     account) shall be available for expenses of exhibits, and 
     purchase of not to exceed 229 passenger motor vehicles, of 
     which not to exceed 187 shall be for replacement only.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for central office 
     operations or pooled overhead general administration (except 
     facilities operations and maintenance) shall be available for 
     tribal contracts, grants, compacts, or cooperative agreements 
     with the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the provisions of the 
     Indian Self-Determination Act or the Tribal Self-Governance 
     Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-413).
       In the event any tribe returns appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for 
     distribution to other tribes, this action shall not diminish 
     the Federal government's trust responsibility to that tribe, 
     or the government-to-government relationship between the 
     United States and that tribe, or that tribe's ability to 
     access future appropriations.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau, other than the amounts provided 
     herein for assistance to public schools under 25 U.S.C. 452 
     et seq., shall be available to support the operation of any 
     elementary or secondary school in the State of Alaska.
       Appropriations made available in this or any other Act for 
     schools funded by the Bureau shall be available only to the 
     schools in the Bureau school system as of September 1, 1996. 
     No funds available to the Bureau shall be used to support 
     expanded grades for any school or dormitory beyond the grade 
     structure in place or approved by the Secretary of the 
     Interior at each school in the Bureau school system as of 
     October 1, 1995.

                           Department Offices

                            Insular Affairs


                       ASSISTANCE TO TERRITORIES

       For expenses necessary for assistance to territories under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, 
     $66,320,000, of which: (1) $62,326,000 shall be available 
     until expended for technical assistance, including 
     maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, insular 
     management controls, and brown tree snake control and 
     research; grants to the judiciary in American Samoa for 
     compensation and expenses, as authorized by law (48 U.S.C. 
     1661(c)); grants to the Government of American Samoa, in 
     addition to current local revenues, for construction and 
     support of governmental functions; grants to the Government 
     of the Virgin Islands as authorized by law; grants to the 
     Government of Guam, as authorized by law; and grants to the 
     Government of the Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by 
     law (Public Law 94-241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $3,994,000 
     shall be available for salaries and expenses of the Office of 
     Insular Affairs: Provided, That all financial transactions of 
     the territorial and local governments herein provided for, 
     including such transactions of all agencies or 
     instrumentalities established or used by such governments, 
     may be audited by the General Accounting Office, at its 
     discretion, in accordance with chapter 35 of title 31, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That Northern Mariana Islands 
     Covenant grant funding shall be provided according to those 
     terms of the Agreement of the Special Representatives on 
     Future United States Financial Assistance for the Northern 
     Mariana Islands approved by Public Law 104-134: Provided 
     further, That Public Law 94-241, as amended, is further 
     amended (1) in section 4(b) by deleting ``2002'' and 
     inserting ``1999'' and inserting after the words 
     ``$11,000,000 annually'' the following: ``and for fiscal year 
     2000, payments to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands shall be $6,000,000, but shall return to the level of 
     $11,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. In 
     fiscal year 2003 the payment to the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands shall be $5,000,000''; (2) deleting 
     the word ``and'' at the end of subsection (4)(c)(2); (3) 
     deleting the period at the end of subsection (4)(c)(3) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``and''; and (4) in section (4)(c) 
     by adding a new subsection as follows: ``(4) for fiscal year 
     2000, $5,000,000 shall be provided to Guam.'': Provided 
     further, That of the amounts provided for technical 
     assistance, sufficient funding shall be made available for a 
     grant to the Close Up Foundation: Provided further, That the 
     funds for the program of operations and maintenance 
     improvement are appropriated to institutionalize routine 
     operations and maintenance improvement of capital 
     infrastructure in American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, 
     the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 
     Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and 
     the Federated States of Micronesia through assessments of 
     long-range operations maintenance needs, improved capability 
     of local operations and maintenance institutions and agencies 
     (including management and vocational education training), and 
     project-specific maintenance (with territorial participation 
     and cost sharing to be determined by the Secretary based on 
     the individual territory's commitment to timely maintenance 
     of its capital assets): Provided further, That any 
     appropriation for disaster assistance under this heading in 
     this Act or previous appropriations Acts may be used as non-
     Federal matching funds for the purpose of hazard mitigation 
     grants provided pursuant to section 404 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5170c).


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the language beginning on page 37, line 23 and ending on page 38, line 
13, as follows:
  Provided further, that Public Law 94-241, as amended, is further 
amended (1) in section 4(b) by deleting ``2002'' and inserting ``1999'' 
and inserting after the words ``$11,000,000 annually'' the following: 
``and for fiscal year 2000, payments to the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands shall be $6 million, but shall return to the 
level of $11,000,000 annually for fiscal year 2001 and 2002. In fiscal 
year 2003 the payment to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands shall be $5,000,000''; (2) deleting the word ``and'' at the end 
of subsection (4)(c)(2); (3) deleting the period at the end of 
subsection (4)(c)(3) and inserting in lieu thereof ``and''; and (4) in 
section (4)(c) by adding a new subsection as follows: ``(4) for fiscal 
year 2000, $5,000,000 shall be provided to Guam.''
  This language clearly amends an underlying statute, Public Law 94-
241, by reducing mandatory payments to be made to the Northern Mariana 
Islands and authorizes funds for another entity not contemplated in 
Public Law 94-241. This constitutes legislation on an appropriations 
bill in violation of clause 2(b) of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives.
  I ask that the Chair sustain my point of order.
  Guam is due the $5 million that is in the present bill for compact 
impact. This administration should work to fund Guam for this unfunded 
mandate but not penalize Mariana's covenant funds.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Chairman, I ask to sustain my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?

[[Page 15908]]


  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Any other Member wish to be heard?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we concede it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Alaska, the point of 
order is sustained and the unprotected proviso is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                      compact of free association

       For economic assistance and necessary expenses for the 
     Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 
     232, and 233 of the Compact of Free Association, and for 
     economic assistance and necessary expenses for the Republic 
     of Palau as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 232, and 
     233 of the Compact of Free Association, $20,545,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as authorized by Public Law 
     99-239 and Public Law 99-658.

                        Departmental Management


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for management of the Department of 
     the Interior, $62,864,000, of which not to exceed $8,500 may 
     be for official reception and representation expenses and of 
     which up to $1,000,000 shall be available for workers 
     compensation payments and unemployment compensation payments 
     associated with the orderly closure of the United States 
     Bureau of Mines.

                        Office of the Solicitor


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, 
     $36,784,000.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         Salaries and Expenses

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $26,086,000.

             Office of Special Trustee for American Indians


                         federal trust programs

       For operation of trust programs for Indians by direct 
     expenditure, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and 
     grants, $90,025,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That funds for trust management improvements may be 
     transferred, as needed, to the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     ``Operation of Indian Programs'' account and to the 
     Departmental Management ``Salaries and Expenses'' account: 
     Provided further, That funds made available to Tribes and 
     Tribal organizations through contracts or grants obligated 
     during fiscal year 2000, as authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), shall 
     remain available until expended by the contractor or grantee: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the statute of limitations shall not commence to run on 
     any claim, including any claim in litigation pending on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, concerning losses to or 
     mismanagement of trust funds, until the affected tribe or 
     individual Indian has been furnished with an accounting of 
     such funds from which the beneficiary can determine whether 
     there has been a loss: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the Secretary shall not be 
     required to provide a quarterly statement of performance for 
     any Indian trust account that has not had activity for at 
     least eighteen months and has a balance of $1.00 or less: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall issue an annual 
     account statement and maintain a record of any such accounts 
     and shall permit the balance in each such account to be 
     withdrawn upon the express written request of the account 
     holder.


                    indian land consolidation pilot

                       Indian Land Consolidation

       For implementation of a pilot program for consolidation of 
     fractional interests in Indian lands by direct expenditure or 
     cooperative agreement, $5,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended, of which not to exceed $500,000 shall be available 
     for administrative expenses: Provided, That the Secretary may 
     enter into a cooperative agreement, which shall not be 
     subject to Public Law 93-638, as amended, with a tribe having 
     jurisdiction over the pilot reservation to implement the 
     program to acquire fractional interests on behalf of such 
     tribe: Provided further, That the Secretary may develop a 
     reservation-wide system for establishing the fair market 
     value of various types of lands and improvements to govern 
     the amounts offered for acquisition of fractional interests: 
     Provided further, That acquisitions shall be limited to one 
     or more pilot reservations as determined by the Secretary: 
     Provided further, That funds shall be available for 
     acquisition of fractional interest in trust or restricted 
     lands with the consent of its owners and at fair market 
     value, and the Secretary shall hold in trust for such tribe 
     all interests acquired pursuant to this pilot program: 
     Provided further, That all proceeds from any lease, resource 
     sale contract, right-of-way or other transaction derived from 
     the fractional interest shall be credited to this 
     appropriation, and remain available until expended, until the 
     purchase price paid by the Secretary under this appropriation 
     has been recovered from such proceeds: Provided further, That 
     once the purchase price has been recovered, all subsequent 
     proceeds shall be managed by the Secretary for the benefit of 
     the applicable tribe or paid directly to the tribe.

           Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration


                natural resource damage assessment fund

       To conduct natural resource damage assessment activities by 
     the Department of the Interior necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 
     et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 
     U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public 
     Law 101-380), and Public Law 101-337; $5,400,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                       administrative provisions

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

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or 
     office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the 
     emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft, 
     buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment 
     damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other 
     unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until funds specifically made 
     available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies 
     shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds 
     used pursuant to this section are hereby designated by 
     Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, and must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible.
       Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or 
     transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in 
     addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of 
     the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency 
     prevention of forest or range fires on or threatening lands 
     under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for 
     the emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its 
     jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or 
     actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other 
     unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to 
     actual oil spills; for response and natural resource damage 
     assessment activities related to actual oil spills; for the 
     prevention, suppression, and control of actual or potential 
     grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the authority in 
     section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 Stat. 1658); for 
     emergency reclamation projects under section 410 of Public 
     Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year funds 
     available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit 
     assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy 
     State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in 
     this title for fire suppression purposes shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding 
     fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies 
     for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in 
     connection with their use for fire suppression purposes, such 
     reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently 
     available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further, 
     That for emergency rehabilitation and wildfire suppression 
     activities, no funds shall be made available under this 
     authority until funds appropriated to ``Wildland Fire 
     Management'' shall have been exhausted: Provided further, 
     That all funds used pursuant to this section are hereby 
     designated by Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and must be 
     replenished by a supplemental appropriation which must be 
     requested as promptly as possible: Provided further, That 
     such replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro 
     rata basis, accounts from which emergency funds were 
     transferred.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for operation of warehouses, garages, shops, and 
     similar facilities,

[[Page 15909]]

     wherever consolidation of activities will contribute to 
     efficiency or economy, and said appropriations shall be 
     reimbursed for services rendered to any other activity in the 
     same manner as authorized by sections 1535 and 1536 of title 
     31, United States Code: Provided, That reimbursements for 
     costs and supplies, materials, equipment, and for services 
     rendered may be credited to the appropriation current at the 
     time such reimbursements are received.
       Sec. 104. Appropriations made to the Department of the 
     Interior in this title shall be available for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the 
     Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment 
     of dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library 
     membership in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members.
       Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of the 
     Interior for salaries and expenses shall be available for 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902 and D.C. Code 4-204).
       Sec. 106. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for obligation in connection with contracts issued 
     for services or rentals for periods not in excess of twelve 
     months beginning at any time during the fiscal year.
       Sec. 107. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore 
     oil and natural gas preleasing, leasing and related 
     activities placed under restriction in the President's 
     moratorium statement of June 12, 1998, which includes the 
     areas of: northern, central, and southern California; the 
     North Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; the eastern Gulf of 
     Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude and east of 86 
     degrees west longitude and any lands located outside Sale 
     181, as identified in the final Outer Continental Shelf 5-
     year Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 1997-2002; the North 
     Aleutian Basin planning area; and the Mid-Atlantic and South 
     Atlantic planning areas.
       Sec. 108. Advance payments made under this title to Indian 
     tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia pursuant 
     to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) or the Tribally Controlled Schools 
     Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) may be invested by the 
     Indian tribe, tribal organization, or consortium before such 
     funds are expended for the purposes of the grant, compact, or 
     annual funding agreement so long as such funds are--
       (1) invested by the Indian tribe, tribal organization, or 
     consortium only in obligations of the United States, or in 
     obligations or securities that are guaranteed or insured by 
     the United States, or mutual (or other) funds registered with 
     the Securities and Exchange Commission and which only invest 
     in obligations of the United States or securities that are 
     guaranteed or insured by the United States; or
       (2) deposited only into accounts that are insured by an 
     agency or instrumentality of the United States, or are fully 
     collateralized to ensure protection of the funds, even in the 
     event of a bank failure.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  Mr. SANDERS. Point of information, Mr. Chairman. What page does that 
go up to?
  Mr. DICKS. Fifty-six.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  Mr. REGULA. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, what is the 
request?
  Mr. DICKS. Just to open up the rest of title I.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, after checking, we have no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the bill through title I will be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title I through page 56, line 2 is as 
follows:

       Sec. 109. (a) Employees of Helium Operations, Bureau of 
     Land Management, entitled to severance pay under 5 U.S.C. 
     5595, may apply for, and the Secretary of the Interior may 
     pay, the total amount of the severance pay to the employee in 
     a lump sum. Employees paid severance pay in a lump sum and 
     subsequently reemployed by the Federal Government shall be 
     subject to the repayment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5595(i)(2) 
     and (3), except that any repayment shall be made to the 
     Helium Fund.
       (b) Helium Operations employees who elect to continue 
     health benefits after separation shall be liable for not more 
     than the required employee contribution under 5 U.S.C. 
     8905a(d)(1)(A). The Helium Fund shall pay for 18 months the 
     remaining portion of required contributions.
       (c) The Secretary of the Interior may provide for training 
     to assist Helium Operations employees in the transition to 
     other Federal or private sector jobs during the facility 
     shut-down and disposition process and for up to 12 months 
     following separation from Federal employment, including 
     retraining and relocation incentives on the same terms and 
     conditions as authorized for employees of the Department of 
     Defense in section 348 of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1995.
       (d) For purposes of the annual leave restoration provisions 
     of 5 U.S.C. 6304(d)(1)(B), the cessation of helium production 
     and sales, and other related Helium Program activities shall 
     be deemed to create an exigency of public business under, and 
     annual leave that is lost during leave years 1997 through 
     2001 because of 5 U.S.C. 6304 (regardless of whether such 
     leave was scheduled in advance) shall be restored to the 
     employee and shall be credited and available in accordance 
     with 5 U.S.C. 6304(d)(2). Annual leave so restored and 
     remaining unused upon the transfer of a Helium Program 
     employee to a position of the executive branch outside of the 
     Helium Program shall be liquidated by payment to the employee 
     of a lump sum from the Helium Fund for such leave.
       (e) Benefits under this section shall be paid from the 
     Helium Fund in accordance with section 4(c)(4) of the Helium 
     Privatization Act of 1996. Funds may be made available to 
     Helium Program employees who are or will be separated before 
     October 1, 2002 because of the cessation of helium production 
     and sales and other related activities. Retraining benefits, 
     including retraining and relocation incentives, may be paid 
     for retraining commencing on or before September 30, 2002.
       (f) This section shall remain in effect through fiscal year 
     2002.
       Sec. 110. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     including but not limited to the Indian Self-Determination 
     Act of 1975, as amended, hereafter funds available to the 
     Department of the Interior for Indian self-determination or 
     self-governance contract or grant support costs may be 
     expended only for costs directly attributable to contracts, 
     grants and compacts pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination 
     Act and hereafter funds appropriated in this title shall not 
     be available for any contract support costs or indirect costs 
     associated with any contract, grant, cooperative agreement, 
     self-governance compact or funding agreement entered into 
     between an Indian tribe or tribal organization and any entity 
     other than an agency of the Department of the Interior.
       Sec. 111. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
     National Park Service shall not develop or implement a 
     reduced entrance fee program to accommodate non-local travel 
     through a unit. The Secretary may provide for and regulate 
     local non-recreational passage through units of the National 
     Park System, allowing each unit to develop guidelines and 
     permits for such activity appropriate to that unit.
       Sec. 112. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     fiscal year 2000 and thereafter, the Secretary is authorized 
     to permit persons, firms or organizations engaged in 
     commercial, cultural, educational, or recreational activities 
     (as defined in section 612a of title 40, United States Code) 
     not currently occupying such space to use courtyards, 
     auditoriums, meeting rooms, and other space of the main and 
     south Interior building complex, Washington, D.C., the 
     maintenance, operation, and protection of which has been 
     delegated to the Secretary from the Administrator of General 
     Services pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949, and to assess reasonable charges 
     therefore, subject to such procedures as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate for such uses. Charges may be for the space, 
     utilities, maintenance, repair, and other services. Charges 
     for such space and services may be at rates equivalent to the 
     prevailing commercial rate for comparable space and services 
     devoted to a similar purpose in the vicinity of the main and 
     south Interior building complex, Washington, D.C. for which 
     charges are being assessed. The Secretary may without further 
     appropriation hold, administer, and use such proceeds within 
     the Departmental Management Working Capital Fund to offset 
     the operation of the buildings under his jurisdiction, 
     whether delegated or otherwise, and for related purposes, 
     until expended.
       Sec. 113. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Steel Industry American Heritage Area, authorized as part of 
     Public Law 104-333, is hereby renamed the Rivers of Steel 
     National Heritage Area.
       Sec. 114. Refunds or rebates received on an ongoing basis 
     from a credit card services provider under the Department of 
     the Interior's charge card programs may be deposited to and 
     retained without fiscal year limitation in the Departmental 
     Working Capital Fund established under 43 U.S.C. 1467 and 
     used to fund management initiatives of general benefit to the 
     Department of the Interior's bureaus and offices as 
     determined by the Secretary or his designee.

[[Page 15910]]

       Sec. 115. Appropriations made in this title under the 
     headings Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special 
     Trustee for American Indians and any available unobligated 
     balances from prior appropriations Acts made under the same 
     headings, shall be available for expenditure or transfer for 
     Indian trust management activities pursuant to the Trust 
     Management Improvement Project High Level Implementation 
     Plan.
       Sec. 116. All properties administered by the National Park 
     Service at Fort Baker, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 
     and leases, concessions, permits and other agreements 
     associated with those properties, hereafter shall be exempt 
     from all taxes and special assessments, except sales tax, by 
     the State of California and its political subdivisions, 
     including the County of Marin and the City of Sausalito. Such 
     areas of Fort Baker shall remain under exclusive Federal 
     jurisdiction.
       Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior is authorized to negotiate and 
     enter into agreements and leases, without regard to section 
     321 of chapter 314 of the Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 
     303b), with any person, firm, association, organization, 
     corporation, or governmental entity for all or part of the 
     property within Fort Baker administered by the Secretary as 
     part of Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The proceeds of 
     the agreements or leases shall be retained by the Secretary 
     and such proceeds shall be available, without future 
     appropriation, for the preservation, restoration, operation, 
     maintenance and interpretation and related expenses incurred 
     with respect to Fort Baker properties.
       Sec. 118. Where any Federal lands included in the boundary 
     of Lake Roosevelt National Recreational Area for grazing 
     purposes, pursuant to a permit issued by the National Park 
     Service, the person or persons so utilizing such lands shall 
     be entitled to renew said permit. The National Park Service 
     is further directed to manage the Lake Roosevelt National 
     Recreational Area subject to grazing use in a manner that 
     will protect the recreational, natural (including water 
     quality) and cultural resources of the Lake Roosevelt 
     National Recreational Area.
       Sec. 119. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     grazing permits which expire during fiscal year 2000 shall be 
     renewed for the balance of fiscal year 2000 on the same terms 
     and conditions as contained in the expiring permits, or until 
     the Bureau of Land Management completes processing these 
     permits in compliance with all applicable laws, whichever 
     comes first. Upon completion of processing by the Bureau, the 
     terms and conditions of existing grazing permits may be 
     modified, if necessary, and reissued for a term not to exceed 
     ten years. Nothing in this language shall be deemed to affect 
     the Bureau's authority to otherwise modify or terminate 
     grazing permits.
       Sec. 120. For the purpose of reducing the Indian probate 
     backlog in the Department of the Interior, the Secretary may, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, including the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code pertaining to 
     competition in the appointment process and actions covered by 
     section 7521 of title 5, appoint administrative law judges 
     for such periods of time as the Secretary considers to be 
     necessary.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
  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, $204,373,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                       state and private forestry

       For necessary expenses of cooperating with and providing 
     technical and financial assistance to States, territories, 
     possessions, and others, and for forest health management, 
     cooperative forestry, and education and land conservation 
     activities, $181,464,000, to remain available until expended, 
     as authorized by law.


                         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, and for 
     administrative expenses associated with the management of 
     funds provided under the headings ``Forest and Rangeland 
     Research'', ``State and Private Forestry'', ``National Forest 
     System'', ``Wildland Fire Management'', ``Reconstruction and 
     Maintenance'', and ``Land Acquisition'', $1,254,434,000, 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 2000 shall be displayed 
     by extended budget line item and region in the fiscal year 
     2001 budget justification.


                        wildland fire management

       For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression 
     activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency 
     fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands 
     under fire protection agreement, and for emergency 
     rehabilitation of burned-over National Forest System lands 
     and water, $561,354,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such funds are available for repayment of 
     advances from other accounts previously transferred for such 
     purposes: Provided further, That not less than 50 percent of 
     any unobligated balances remaining (exclusive of amounts for 
     hazardous fuels reduction) at the end of fiscal year 1999 
     shall be transferred, as repayment for past advances that 
     have not been repaid, to the fund established pursuant to 
     section 3 of Public Law 71-319 (16 U.S.C. 576 et seq.): 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, up to $4,000,000 of funds appropriated under this 
     appropriation may be used for Fire Science Research in 
     support of the Joint Fire Science Program: Provided further, 
     That all authorities for the use of funds, including the use 
     of contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, available 
     to execute the Forest Service and Rangeland Research 
     appropriation, are also available in the utilization of these 
     funds for Fire Science Research.


                     reconstruction and maintenance

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, $396,602,000, to remain available until 
     expended for construction, reconstruction, maintenance and 
     acquisition of buildings and other facilities, and for 
     construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance of 
     forest roads and trails by the Forest Service as authorized 
     by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205: Provided, 
     That up to $15,000,000 of the funds provided herein for road 
     maintenance shall be available for the decommissioning of 
     roads, including unauthorized roads not part of the 
     transportation system, which are no longer needed: Provided 
     further, That no funds shall be expended to decommission any 
     system road until notice and an opportunity for public 
     comment has been provided: Provided further, That any 
     unobligated balances of amounts previously appropriated to 
     the Forest Service ``Reconstruction and Construction'' 
     account as well as any unobligated balances remaining in the 
     ``National Forest System'' account for the facility 
     maintenance and trail maintenance extended budget line items 
     at the end of fiscal year 1999 may be transferred to and 
     merged with this ``Reconstruction and Maintenance'' account.


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4 through 11), including administrative expenses, 
     and for acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, 
     in accordance with statutory authority applicable to the 
     Forest Service, $1,000,000, to be derived from the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That subject to valid existing rights, all 
     Federally owned lands and interests in lands within the New 
     World Mining District comprising approximately 26,223 acres, 
     more or less, which are described in a Federal Register 
     notice dated August 19, 1997 (62 F.R. 44136-44137), are 
     hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropriation, and 
     disposal under the public land laws, and from location, entry 
     and patent under the mining laws, and from disposition under 
     all mineral and geothermal leasing laws.


         acquisition of lands for national forests special acts

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


            acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges

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


                         range betterment fund

       For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection, 
     and improvement, 50 percent of all moneys received during the 
     prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock on 
     lands in National Forests in the sixteen Western States, 
     pursuant to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as 
     amended, to remain available until expended, of which not to 
     exceed 6 percent shall be available for administrative 
     expenses associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation, 
     protection, and improvements.

    gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research

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

[[Page 15911]]




               administrative provisions, forest service

       Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal 
     year shall be available for: (1) purchase of not to exceed 
     110 passenger motor vehicles of which 15 will be used 
     primarily for law enforcement purposes and of which 109 shall 
     be for replacement; acquisition of 25 passenger motor 
     vehicles from excess sources, and hire of such vehicles; 
     operation and maintenance of aircraft, the purchase of not to 
     exceed three for replacement only, and acquisition of 
     sufficient aircraft from excess sources to maintain the 
     operable fleet at 213 aircraft for use in Forest Service 
     wildland fire programs and other Forest Service programs; 
     notwithstanding other provisions of law, existing aircraft 
     being replaced may be sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in 
     value used to offset the purchase price for the replacement 
     aircraft; (2) services pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2225, and not to 
     exceed $100,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; (3) 
     purchase, erection, and alteration of buildings and other 
     public improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4) acquisition of land, 
     waters, and interests therein, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 428a; (5) 
     for expenses pursuant to the Volunteers in the National 
     Forest Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 558a note); (6) 
     the cost of uniforms as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and 
     (7) for debt collection contracts in accordance with 31 
     U.S.C. 3718(c).
       None of the funds made available under this Act shall be 
     obligated or expended to abolish any region, to move or close 
     any regional office for National Forest System administration 
     of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, or to 
     implement any reorganization or other type of organizational 
     restructuring of the Forest Service without the advance 
     consent of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of 
the Forest Service section through page 65, line 15 be considered as 
read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through page 68, line 15 is as 
follows:
       Any appropriations or funds available to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may be transferred to the Wildland Fire 
     Management appropriation for forest firefighting, emergency 
     rehabilitation of burned-over or damaged lands or waters 
     under its jurisdiction, and fire preparedness due to severe 
     burning conditions if and only if all previously appropriated 
     emergency contingent funds under this heading have been 
     released by the President and apportioned.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for assistance to or through the Agency for International 
     Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service in 
     connection with forest and rangeland research, technical 
     information, and assistance in foreign countries, and shall 
     be available to support forestry and related natural resource 
     activities outside the United States and its territories and 
     possessions, including technical assistance, education and 
     training, and cooperation with United States and 
     international organizations.
       None of the funds made available to the Forest Service 
     under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the 
     provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b unless 
     the proposed transfer is approved in advance by the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in House Report 105-163.
       None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be 
     reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
     procedures contained in House Report 105-163.
       No funds appropriated or otherwise available to the Forest 
     Service shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund of 
     the Department of Agriculture without the advance approval of 
     the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
       Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to 
     conduct a program of not less than $1,000,000 for high 
     priority projects within the scope of the approved budget 
     which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps as 
     authorized by the Act of August 13, 1970, as amended by 
     Public Law 93-408.
       Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $1,500 is 
     available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official 
     reception and representation expenses.
       Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
     593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, up to 
     $1,000,000 may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial 
     assistance to the National Forest Foundation, without regard 
     to when the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative 
     expenses or projects on or benefitting National Forest System 
     lands or related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That 
     of the Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no 
     more than $200,000 shall be available for administrative 
     expenses: Provided further, That the Foundation shall obtain, 
     by the end of the period of Federal financial assistance, 
     private contributions to match on at least one-for-one basis 
     funds made available by the Forest Service: Provided further, 
     That the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a non-
     Federal recipient for a project at the same rate that the 
     recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching funds: 
     Provided further, That hereafter, the National Forest 
     Foundation may hold Federal funds made available but not 
     immediately disbursed and may use any interest or other 
     investment income earned (before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act) on Federal funds to carry out the 
     purposes of Public Law 101-593: Provided further, That such 
     investments may be made only in interest-bearing obligations 
     of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both 
     principal and interest by the United States.
       Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244, 
     $2,650,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall 
     be available for matching funds to the National Fish and 
     Wildlife Foundation, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3701-3709, 
     and may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial 
     assistance, without regard to when expenses are incurred, for 
     projects on or benefitting National Forest System lands or 
     related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That the 
     Foundation shall obtain, by the end of the period of Federal 
     financial assistance, private contributions to match on at 
     least one-for-one basis funds advanced by the Forest Service: 
     Provided further, That the Foundation may transfer Federal 
     funds to a non-Federal recipient for a project at the same 
     rate that the recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching 
     funds.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for interactions with and providing technical assistance to 
     rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 80 percent of 
     the funds appropriated to the Forest Service in the 
     ``National Forest System'' and ``Reconstruction and 
     Construction'' accounts and planned to be allocated to 
     activities under the ``Jobs in the Woods'' program for 
     projects on National Forest land in the State of Washington 
     may be granted directly to the Washington State Department of 
     Fish and Wildlife for accomplishment of planned projects. 
     Twenty percent of said funds shall be retained by the Forest 
     Service for planning and administering projects. Project 
     selection and prioritization shall be accomplished by the 
     Forest Service with such consultation with the State of 
     Washington as the Forest Service deems appropriate.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge 
     National Scenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and (2), 
     and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
       The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to enter into 
     grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements as appropriate 
     with the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, as well as with 
     public and other private agencies, organizations, 
     institutions, and individuals, to provide for the 
     development, administration, maintenance, or restoration of 
     land, facilities, or Forest Service programs, at the Grey 
     Towers National Historic Landmark: Provided, That, subject to 
     such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture may 
     prescribe, any such public or private agency, organization, 
     institution, or individual may solicit, accept, and 
     administer private gifts of money and real or personal 
     property for the benefit of, or in connection with, the 
     activities and services at the Grey Towers National Historic 
     Landmark: Provided further, That such gifts may be accepted 
     notwithstanding the fact that a donor conducts business with 
     the Department of Agriculture in any capacity.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be 
     available, as determined by the Secretary, for payments to 
     Del Norte County, California, pursuant to sections 13(e) and 
     14 of the Smith River National Recreation Area Act (Public 
     Law 101-612).
       No employee of the Department of Agriculture may be 
     detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by this 
     Act to any other agency or office of the Department for more 
     than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or 
     office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office 
     for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of 
     assignment.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service not 
     to exceed $500,000 may be used to reimburse the Office of the 
     General Counsel (OGC), Department of Agriculture, for travel 
     and related expenses incurred as a result of OGC assistance 
     or participation requested by the Forest Service at meetings, 
     training sessions, management reviews, land purchase 
     negotiations and similar non-litigation related matters. 
     Future budget justifications for both the Forest Service and 
     the Department of Agriculture should clearly display the sums 
     previously transferred and the requested funding transfers.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.

[[Page 15912]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                         clean coal technology


                               (deferral)

       Of the funds made available under this heading for 
     obligation in prior years, $190,000,000 shall not be 
     available until October 1, 2000: Provided, That funds made 
     available in previous appropriations Acts shall be available 
     for any ongoing project regardless of the separate request 
     for proposal under which the project was selected.

                 fossil energy research and development

       For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy 
     research and development activities, under the authority of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), 
     including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 
     and equitable interests in any real property or any facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for 
     conducting inquiries, technological investigations and 
     research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and 
     disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social 
     and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 
     performed under the minerals and materials science programs 
     at the Albany Research Center in Oregon, $359,292,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which $24,000,000 shall 
     be derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the 
     Biomass Energy Development account: Provided, That no part of 
     the sum herein made available shall be used for the field 
     testing of nuclear explosives in the recovery of oil and gas.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for 
constructing a bill on the interior that all of us are very gratified 
to support. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) knows that last 
session I talked to him about a monument preserving the legacy of 
Soujourner Truth, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to raise 
that issue, although we have not raised it this time around, that we 
will continue to keep that vision before us. There is certainly debate 
as to what kind of monument that should be, but I believe that we will 
ultimately come to a resolution of that.
  I rose and rise in particular to indicate that I had intended to 
offer an amendment in Title I, but I look forward to working with the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and as well the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and, of course, the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations on refocusing on many of our historic 
areas in urban communities.
  For example, in the City of Houston, the fourth largest city in the 
Nation, we have a community in the 18th Congressional district that is 
called Town. That is a town that was founded by freed slaves, and I 
would hope that the parks and recreation provisions would allow us to 
be able to enhance culturally diverse, historic communities. That is 
found in Town in Houston and as well in Fifth Ward in Houston.
  Fifth Ward in Houston happens to be the birthplace of two of our 
former colleagues, the esteemed and honored Barbara Jordan and Mickey 
Leland, now deceased. Those particular communities in the 18th 
Congressional District have active historic preservation activists who 
are trying with their own resources to preserve the legacy of our 
history, in Fourth Ward in particular, Jack Yates, his son, the many 
historic churches, and as well the legacy of those who fought for the 
freedom of slaves in America.
  In Fifth Ward, in particular, it is characterized as an area where 
the early entrepreneurs and artisans of the African American community 
in the State of Texas lodged and resided and in fact developed the 
first intellectual base and the first middle class. I think it is 
extremely important that we use the resources Federally to conserve and 
to protect the history of this Nation.
  In addition, let me thank the committee for its work with the 
National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for 
the Arts. It is certainly gratifying not to have an NEA fight this year 
or an NEH fight this year, although all of us would have liked to have 
seen more money.
  I would hope, and may I just, although the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks), I am surprising him a little bit with this, but may I just 
inquire, if he would? He has done such a good job, and the same thing 
with the chairman, and I am not intending to surprise them, but we have 
had previous conversations on whether or not we have a commitment to 
preserving our historic communities and working with our historic 
communities in this Nation. They both have done a good job.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have always been a strong proponent of 
historic preservation and preserving our communities. I would like to 
think that in my district, Tacoma, Washington, has been a hallmark of 
that with the Union Station restoration project and many others. We 
believe in this, and we are very supportive of it
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very 
much.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to put the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) on the spot, but we have had conversations before. I know the 
commitment of his wife; I know the commitment that the gentleman has 
coming from the historic community that he comes from, and I just like 
to inquire whether this bill reflects, and maybe, as we move into the 
next fiscal year, we will be able to engage more of our communities.
  But anyhow, reflects a commitment to preserving the historic regions 
and communities here in the United States.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas and 
would say that we will continue to communicate. We do not know what we 
will have next year in the way of resources. This year was a pretty 
tight budget, but obviously we will be very receptive to continued 
discussion.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and 
let me close by simply encouraging the constituents of my district to 
work with me as I work with them both particularly in the Fourth Ward 
and Fifth Ward to secure resources to compliment their efforts in 
preserving the historic communities of Fourth Ward and the efforts of 
the Texas Trailblazers that have been so vital to treating the historic 
places in our community properly and educating our youth and giving 
respect to those who have gone on before us who have worked so hard for 
our freedom.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                      alternative fuels production

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Moneys received as investment income on the principal 
     amount in the Great Plains Project Trust at the Norwest Bank 
     of North Dakota, in such sums as are earned as of October 1, 
     1999, shall be deposited in this account and immediately 
     transferred to the general fund of the Treasury. Moneys 
     received as revenue sharing from operation of the Great 
     Plains Gasification Plant and settlement payments shall be 
     immediately transferred to the general fund of the Treasury.

                 naval petroleum and oil shale reserves

       The requirements of 10 U.S.C. 7430(b)(2)(B) shall not apply 
     to fiscal year 2000: Provided That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, unobligated funds remaining from prior 
     years shall be available for all naval petroleum and oil 
     shale reserve activities.

                      elk hills school, lands fund

       For necessary expenses in fulfilling the second installment 
     payment under the Settlement Agreement entered into by the 
     United States and the State of California on October 11, 
     1996, as authorized by section 3415 of Public Law 104-106, 
     $36,000,000 for payment to the State of California for the 
     State Teachers' Retirement Fund from the Elk Hills School 
     Lands Fund.

                          energy conservation

       For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation 
     activities, $718,822,000, to remain available until expended, 
     of which $25,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from 
     unobligated balances in the Biomass Energy Development 
     account: Provided, That $153,000,000 shall be for use in 
     energy conservation programs as defined in section 3008(3) of 
     Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507): Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public Law 99-509, such 
     sums shall be allocated to the eligible programs as follows: 
     $120,000,000, contingent on

[[Page 15913]]

     a cost share of 25 percent by each participating State or 
     other qualified participant, for weatherization assistance 
     grants and $33,000,000 for State energy conservation grants.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 70, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $13,000,000)''.
       Page 70, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $13,000,000)''.
       Page 71, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $13,000,000)''.
       Page 71, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $13,000,000)''.

  Mr. SANDERS. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments that I will 
be offering today on what I consider to be one of the very, very 
important issues dealt with in this appropriation bill, and that is the 
issue of weatherization.

                              {time}  1100

  It is no secret that all over this country when the weather gets 20 
below zero, as in my State, or when the weather gets 120 degrees, as in 
some of our southern States, that a lot of people, including many 
senior citizens, suffer terribly because they do not have the resources 
to adequately warm their homes or, when the weather gets too hot, 
adequately cool their homes.
  A number of years ago, I know the chairman will remember that in the 
city of Chicago, for example, in a hot weather period we had a terrible 
disaster where hundreds of senior citizens in that city actually died 
from heat exhaustion. We are seeing that problem right now as the hot 
weather hits various parts of our country.
  Certainly in the northern States there is no question that cold 
weather is not only a problem in terms of potentially hurting people, 
but what the weatherization program deals with is creating a cost-
effective approach so lower-income people can have good insulation, 
good storm windows, good roofing.
  Historically what has been shown is the weatherization program is 
enormously cost-effective and environmentally sound. What sense is it 
that we have low-income people see their energy go out their windows, 
go out their doors, go out their roofs, because those homes are not 
adequately insulated?
  Similarly, what sense is it that in those States where the weather 
becomes very hot and seniors have air conditioners, they lose the 
coolness in their homes because their homes are not adequately 
ventilated and adequately insulated?
  Unfortunately, the subcommittee has cut funding for weatherization by 
$13 million beyond where it was last year. The first amendment that I 
am offering would require that we at least level fund the program.
  This amendment that I am offering, as cosponsored by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Boucher), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), this 
amendment is simple and it is straightforward. It would simply increase 
the highly successful and cost-effective weatherization assistance 
program by $13 million to its fiscal year 1999 level, and reduce the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve account by the same, $13 million.
  The Senate level-funded this program at $133 million. The President 
had requested $154 million for this important and much needed program. 
Unfortunately, as I just mentioned, the committee chose to cut funding 
for last year by $13 million, from $133 million to $120 million. This 
amendment level funds the program and brings it up to the level 
provided by the Senate. That is all we are asking to do.
  Let me quote from a letter of July 13 from Bill Richardson, Secretary 
of Energy:

       In this time of economic prosperity, it is questionable for 
     Congress to target a program that helps a population with the 
     greatest need and the least resources. We are also disturbed 
     that Congress would act,

and now I am talking about the next amendment that I am going to offer, 
which we are really concerned about, as well,

     That Congress would act without being provided a more 
     thorough analysis of the impact of the proposed action, 
     without public hearings, and without the opportunity to hear 
     from the States and the people affected.

  What Mr. Richardson and the Energy Department are talking about is 
another amendment that came from the committee which I think has 
disastrous consequences which would require a 25 percent matching fund 
from the States.
  Let me go back to the letter from the Secretary:

       The administration is strongly opposed to a reduction in 
     weatherization assistance program funding and to the 
     legislative language that would change the distribution 
     criteria for the program by requiring about $30 million in 
     State cost share. Under the committee language, no State 
     would receive its formula share of the weatherization 
     assistance program's appropriation in fiscal year 2000 unless 
     it provided 25 percent in State matching funds.

  So Mr. Chairman, the two amendments that we are dealing with are, 
number one, to restore funding for the very successful weatherization 
program to the level fund that it had last year, to be put where the 
Senate is.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the second amendment would question and 
challenge what the committee has done in requiring that the States 
provide a 25 percent match.
  The bottom line here in terms of the weatherization program is that 
it is cost-effective. It is environmentally sound. What sense does it 
make to have low-income people put money into their heating bills, into 
their electric bills, and see the energy go right out the door?
  So what the weatherization program has done, which has been very 
successful, is allow lower-income homes all over the United States of 
America to have decent insulation, storm windows, decent roofing to 
retain the heat or to keep their homes cool.
  So this is a sensible program. It is a program that has worked. What 
we are asking in this particular amendment is to restore the funding 
that has been cut, to raise the funding by $13 million, and to allow us 
to have the level funding that we had from last year and the funding 
that the Senate has provided.
  This is not as much as the President has asked for, but, at the very 
least, we should level fund this very important program, which is very 
important to so many lower-income families throughout the United 
States.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Regula, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, has he checked 
with Secretary Richardson as to whether or not he agrees that this 
money should be taken out of SPR? Because I know that he has advised us 
that he wants to add oil to SPR, rather than to take it out.
  The gentleman's money deals with the operation of the SPR account, 
but we are already short there. The pumps are not working properly. My 
question is, has Secretary Richardson endorsed the idea of taking money 
out of SPR?
  Mr. SANDERS. To the best of my knowledge, he has not. On the other 
hand, let us be very clear that Secretary Richardson in this letter 
makes it very clear that he does not want any cuts in the 
weatherization program, and he is very strongly opposed to the

[[Page 15914]]

matching 25 percent proposal that came out of the committee.
  So I am not here to tell the gentleman that he has endorsed taking 
money from SPR. On the other hand, what this letter tells us is that he 
does not support the cuts that the committee has brought forth.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, and I will mention 
this on my own time, but what we are trying to do is get more money 
into weatherization, but we feel the States ought to participate in 
this program.
  Mr. SANDERS. I understand. That is the second amendment that we have. 
This amendment deals with the $13 million.
  The gentleman would not be kind enough to agree with my amendment and 
restore the $13 million so we could begin with the next debate, would 
he?
  Mr. REGULA. Not at the moment, no.
  Mr. SANDERS. The bottom line here on this amendment, and there should 
not be confusion, there are two separate amendments, this one simply 
restores the House's contribution to level fund where it was last year, 
to match where the Senate is, and all of this does not go as far as the 
President appropriately wanted to go.
  The bottom line is that we should not be cutting back on a very much 
needed program, on a cost-effective program that keeps many Americans, 
including senior citizens, warm in the wintertime and cool in the 
summertime. We do not want to see another occurrence of where elderly 
people are dying because they cannot afford to maintain their 
apartments to be cool or to be dying when it gets to be 20 below zero.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Regula, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. As the gentleman understands the costs, and I think this 
would be part of what the gentleman outlined, the costs are in LIHEAP. 
They would only be addressed with LIHEAP.
  Mr. SANDERS. Not really, I would say to the gentleman.
  Here is the problem. I understand LIHEAP very well, and am a strong 
supporter of LIHEAP. But here is the problem, Mr. Chairman. As I am 
sure the gentleman knows, LIHEAP helps people pay their energy bills. 
But what is the sense of helping somebody pay their energy bills if 
their energy costs are going to be much higher because their homes are 
poorly insulated? So the two issues really are very directly related.
  Mr. REGULA. I would point out to the gentleman that in the LIHEAP 
program, 15 percent of that goes for the weatherization programs, in 
addition to paying the bills. So it is a double dip in a sense, the 
weatherization program.
  Mr. SANDERS. I know the chairman has financial constraints. I do know 
that. The gentleman has to balance a whole lot of priorities. I 
appreciate that very much.
  However, I think the gentleman would not disagree with me that if we 
help the lower-income senior citizens with LIHEAP to adequately heat 
their homes, their electric bills are going to go up because their 
energy is going out the door and out the roof, would the gentleman not 
agree with that?
  Mr. REGULA. That is true. What we are trying to do, and would agree 
to, in a way, to help these people, would be to agree to level funding 
but keep the requirement that the States put in the 25 percent, which 
of course would mean that there would be another $28 million available 
for the program.
  It would seem if the States believe in this, and they administer it, 
and they are all in a budget surplus position, that they would want to 
do this.
  Mr. SANDERS. That takes us to the next amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. I understand.
  Mr. SANDERS. I appreciate where the gentleman is coming from. The 
problem is, without getting into that argument right now, that the 
gentleman I think will acknowledge that there have been no hearings, no 
real discussion, no input from the States.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SANDERS. I think we have heard from a number of the States that 
say, we have not heard about this. We do not know if we can participate 
in the program.
  So at the very least, I would have thought that there needed to be 
hearings and input from the States that were going to be affected by 
this.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have not heard from the States. It has 
been on the table for quite some time. I do not think it is something 
that is being brought up at the last minute.
  I think it is certainly in keeping with the State-Federal 
partnership, and again, I would emphasize that under what I have 
proposed here, which would be to accept the gentleman's first 
amendment, level fund it, and keep the 25 percent requirement, which 
would give them another $28 million, and when the States are in surplus 
and the needs are, as the gentleman outlined, very substantial, and 
since they administer the programs, they should know where they can 
best use that funding.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman for his kind offer. I cannot 
accept it at this time because I think the administration is correct in 
expressing very serious questions about that 25 percent at this point. 
I am going to have to go forward with both amendments.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman, I understand the 
gentleman's concerns. We likewise have a concern. We feel that we have 
a responsible way to address this situation by saying that in view of 
the fact that we have so little money to work with in terms of our 
responsibilities under this bill. As I mentioned yesterday, we had over 
400 letters, more than 2,000 requests, and we have had tried to balance 
it out in every way possible.
  So what we have proposed was a very small reduction, relatively, in 
the weatherization program and give the States the ability to match 
with a 25 percent amount on their part. I think that is a very 
responsible way to do this. They match in Medicaid. They match in a 
number of the other programs that are part of our social support 
system. I see no reason they could not match on this one at least 25 
percent. I think the percentage in Medicaid is higher than that.
  Plus, if the States were putting money in, I think they would do a 
more efficient job of administering the program. They would be 
stakeholders, and they would perhaps make a greater effort to ensure 
that the monies would be spent wisely.
  On balance, what we have proposed in the combination of a slight 
reduction plus the 25 percent match would increase the program $17 
million over level funding, and this would be an increase of about $28 
million or more over the bill number.
  So I hope that the Members will give this some thought, because I 
know that States always want to get in, and it is nice to get the free 
money. But we have a Federal responsibility. We have a responsibility 
to a whole host of things, parks and forests and just dozens of things. 
Therefore, I think the States should certainly take some measure of 
responsibility in this.
  Mr. Chairman, I would have to oppose the amendment, in the absence of 
making an agreement to not offer the second amendment on the 25 percent 
match, because I think the two fit together.
  Overall we are saying, in effect, we want the States to have more 
money to spend in weatherization, to increase the program, but that 
they at least take a reasonable share of the cost. I do not think that 
is asking too much of the States.

[[Page 15915]]

  In the absence of that, we would have to oppose this amendment 
because, of course, to take the money out of the administration of the 
SPR account does not make good policy at this juncture. Right now we 
are in good shape on energy, but a few of us remember the late 
seventies when we were not so good. We have created SPR, Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, to give us energy independence.
  To take money out of that account which is designed to administer the 
SPR program, to make sure the pumps are working, it is not much value 
to have these millions of barrels of oil in the ground if we cannot 
pump it out in the event of a crisis or in the event of a shortfall.

                              {time}  1115

  In my judgment, the fact there is an SPR has probably helped avoid 
another OPEC blackmail because those who would do something of that 
type of action again know that we do have a means of responding. We do 
have a reserve. Something like 60 days worth of oil. And I think it 
would be a grievous policy mistake to not allow us to keep those 
facilities in operating condition.
  Secretary Richardson advised our subcommittee that he wants to put 
more oil in the SPR reserve to give us a greater energy independence. 
We see how volatile the events are in the Balkans where, of course, as 
well as the Middle East; and I hope the Members will weigh carefully 
taking money out of an account that is very important to our energy 
security.
  We are spending $265 billion to have security with airplanes and 
tanks and so on. But if we do not have petroleum, we do not have much 
security; and, therefore, I would urge Members to vote against this 
amendment unless we can work something out to establish a requirement 
for the States to participate.
  Let me point out again that the States at this point, 50 States, it 
was 49 last year, have surplus balances and $28 million would be a very 
small amount spread over the 50 States for them to contribute. And I 
again have to emphasize that if the States are administering the 
program, they are responsible for it, at the very minimum they should 
be participating.
  We hear a lot about partnerships today. That word is used repeatedly 
on the floor of this House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, this is a classic example of making the 
States partners. We are not saying 50 percent. We are saying 25, so we 
can preserve the security of SPR which is very important to all the 
States and very important to all the people of this Nation.
  I can remember in the late 1970s when I had businesses that closed 
their doors because they did not have hydrocarbons. I can remember the 
long lines at the gasoline stations. That is why we have a SPR. Let us 
not tamper with that when the States could very easily contribute to 
weatherization to help people with these problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and 
against the subsequent amendment that would take out the provisions 
that the States contribute 25 percent.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, just for clarification purposes, there are 
two separate amendments. The amendment that we are discussing now is 
the cut of $13 million below level funding. The next amendment is what 
the gentleman was talking about, this 25 percent. And I know the 
relationship between the two.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
correct. It would be two votes unless it is worked out. Regardless, it 
would be two votes. One is to restore the $13 million to bring it to 
fiscal year 99 level. The other vote will be on the question of whether 
States should contribute 25 percent of the costs.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a strong supporter and a sponsor of 
this amendment.
  First, I would like to thank my colleagues and especially the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), my good friend, for the work that 
they have done on this measure for continued support of the 
weatherization assistance program.
  Mr. Chairman, my district in western Wisconsin experiences some of 
the coldest winters and some of the hottest summers in our Nation. 
Oftentimes, the poor, elderly and disabled cannot afford the high home 
energy costs associated with these conditions. It is critical that we 
help them withstand the seasons by reducing these costs through various 
home improvements. The weatherization assistance program does just 
that.
  The program is of particular interest to me, since the first 
weatherization assistance program in the Nation was launched in western 
Wisconsin back in 1974. Mr. Chairman, 25 years later, between April, 
1998, and March, 1999, 505 households in my district, or roughly 13 
percent of the entire State's total, were weatherized.
  To give this issue a human face, this means roughly 1,600 of my 
constituents no longer have to choose between buying food and buying 
fuel.
  To humanize this a little bit further, I would like to read a letter 
that was sent recently in regards to the weatherization program from a 
person from Boyd, Wisconsin, a constituent of mine, and I quote:

       I want to take this opportunity to thank each and every one 
     of you for your part in the wonderful blessings that I 
     received this year. What a change in luck for someone 
     disabled. My heating and cooling bills immediately went down 
     quite noticeably. This in turn made quite an impact on my 
     ability to live on my budget, and a noticeable effect on my 
     health! I am now able to better afford enough warmth to 
     alleviate some of my chronic pain. Also, I think this 
     infusion of goodwill aided me in escaping the grip of serious 
     depression, which I had battled with for many years. Now I 
     have even been able to handle some part-time work.
       This is what you did for me: Insulated the entire attic to 
     a high R value; installed numerous outdoor vents: Roof vent, 
     a bathroom fan/light and vent, dryer vent, and a cook top 
     vent; replaced my gas furnace and added a fresh air intake 
     for it; insulated the basement box sill and filled the cement 
     block tops with foam.
       All this was done, and more. And was done with a smile. Now 
     I have a smile, too. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

  Mr. Chairman, here is another letter that was sent from a 75-year-old 
woman back in western Wisconsin in which she writes:

       A million thanks to Roger and the other young fellows who 
     helped snug up our 100 year old house. It was toasty warm 
     last winter and is improved in many other ways, too. This 80 
     acre farm was given to an 1812 war veteran and the deed was 
     signed by Abraham Lincoln, so we appreciate the history of it 
     and treasure our old house, but it used to be pretty cold in 
     the winter. But now I believe it is good for another hundred 
     years thanks again to Westcap.

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply levels funding for the 
weatherization assistance program at the fiscal year 1999 level. In 
fact, the Senate appropriation committee has already taken the lead on 
this matter, reporting $133 million in the weatherization fund for the 
next fiscal year.
  Finally, I am pleased that this amendment is fiscally responsible. My 
colleagues and I have identified an offset that transfers $13 million 
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I understand there is some 
controversy in regards to that reserve program and last year Congress 
agreed to build our Nation's oil reserve. But this offset would merely 
slow down the purchase of less than 2 hour's worth of oil supply in 
that strategic reserve.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment 
which has been endorsed by the Department of Energy. And I happen to 
agree with the gentleman from Vermont that without hearings and input 
from the States in regards to the 25 percent cost share we are going to 
be taking many of those States by surprise. And, unfortunately, I think 
the ultimate adverse impact is going to fall on people like the two who 
just wrote letters expressing their appreciation for the program.

[[Page 15916]]

  I would encourage my colleagues to think seriously before agreeing to 
this cost share with the States. Without extensive hearings and without 
more in-depth input from the States on whether to move to a 25 percent 
cost share, which I am not philosophically opposed to, but doing so 
with the speed that is being contemplated, may leave some people who 
need this assistance out in the lurch in the coming fiscal year. So I 
would ask my colleagues to support both of the amendments offered.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that this amendment does 
not go to the question of filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It 
goes to the question of operating it, to keep the pumps operating. It 
is very expensive to be ready to go if there is a need.
  And I would also point out that the supply goal we set in the 1970s 
when we created SPR would be a 90-day supply. It is down to 60 days at 
this time. To the credit of Secretary Richardson, he has worked out I 
think a rather imaginative solution whereby he is taking the 
government's share of revenues in oil and putting it in SPR. And part 
of this is to replace what was sold in order to meet a crisis.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Regula, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kind was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield. I 
think that we should not be tampering with SPR because, if we have 
another crisis, that is going to be a vital part of our energy 
independence and, therefore, our Nation's defense. If we cannot pump it 
because we have not provided the money to keep the equipment operating, 
one can understand the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also point out that Wisconsin has a $6 million 
surplus this year, and I would think that they would want to help take 
care of the needs that the gentleman has outlined.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not philosophically 
opposed to the cost sharing. I am a supporter of SPR as well. If the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) would be willing to help us find other 
offsets to get the funding up to fiscal year 1999 levels, we would be 
happy to work with him on that.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have an offset. It is the 25 percent the 
State will put in.
  Mr. KIND. We have been around that block already.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to share my concern of the impact of this 
amendment. I share the goal of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for funding this program. I 
support full funding of this program. And I personally think we need to 
step back and look at the big picture.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and those who came up with this 
idea, and we will give the credit to the staff, are pretty creative. I 
come from State government, 19 years. I served in Pennsylvania State 
government up to 3 years ago. My own State currently has a $750 million 
surplus from last year and over a billion dollars in their rainy day 
fund. I would prefer to see them there than where they were a few years 
ago with a billion in the hole under different leadership.
  States will step up and I think it is ingenious to bring them into 
this issue because State governments in the areas that use this 
program, lobby us very effectively. If they are really serious about 
this issue, they will pay one-fourth of the fund; and they should. They 
administer the program.
  I have had the privilege of serving in local government, in State 
government, and now in Washington. I have always found that we serve 
people best when we work as a team. And when we can put the State 
government together with the Federal Government on this issue, in my 
view we have strengthened the program long term.
  I find it quite confusing that the first amendment we have is to 
bring it up to level and then the second amendment says take away the 
25 percent the States should give. Now, that will reduce the total 
number available. If the same gentlemen are successful twice, we will 
have 15 percent less money for weatherization and for fuel assistance 
than we do if we defeat them both.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I think we both recognize that the problem 
that we have is we do not have enough money to do all of the things 
that we would like to do. The gentleman is not hearing me argue against 
SPR. We are arguing priorities.
  The gentleman will not deny that there were no hearings on this 
important issue. And I know that the gentleman cannot tell us with 
certainty, because it is not the case, that all 50 States are prepared 
to put in their 25 percent. And the gentleman cannot tell us, I know he 
cannot because nobody can, that there are not perhaps a number of 
States who for a variety of reasons will not participate and that a lot 
of low-income people will be hurt as a result.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my 
experience in State budgets, when we can get $3 for every $1 we spend, 
we seldom miss that opportunity, no matter what issue we are dealing 
with. When I was at the State level for 19 years, when we could get $3 
for $1 of investment, we make that investment. And it is in the States 
where it is needed. It is where the public pressure is, where these 
same groups that are lobbying us will be lobbying them and they will be 
successful.
  This is an ingenious idea. We should go forth.
  But I want to go back to the issue of where we are taking the money, 
and that is even of greater concern. This Congress in my view has been 
far too uninterested in the energy future of this country. And when the 
rubber hits the road, again we will have energy prices to heat our 
homes that will double and triple. Then we will be looking for all 
kinds of LIHEAP money.
  We need to get our focus on our future energy needs for this country, 
and we need to sort out the environmental issues and all the reasons 
why we cannot drill for oil and dig for coal, and we do not have a 
secure in-house energy solution for down the road. And I believe we 
have blinders on because of cheap energy prices. We are only going to 
have a 60-day supply. The oil that is being put in the reserve, the 
money that we are taking is not for buying oil. It is for replacing the 
pump. It is for the maintenance of a very complicated system of 
storage. And we have cut them 30 to 40 percent in the last 4 years. Now 
we are cutting them again because we do not understand what they do and 
what it costs.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is vital that we do not take $13 million 
from the reserve and for the operation of the reserve. If Congress was 
doing what it ought to be doing, we would be filling the reserve for 
the future of American citizens, having at least a 90-day supply of oil 
that we are so dependent on to get us through the next crisis. I think 
it is a tragedy.

                              {time}  1130

  I was shocked when I came here 2 years ago and found out we were 
selling from the reserve $30 oil for $12 to fund the reserve. That has 
stopped, and I commend those who stopped that. But cutting this program 
is one of the most inappropriate programs for the future of energy 
availability and affordability. Long-term, we are going to lose.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to restore funding 
to the Department of Energy Weatherization program.
  The Interior appropriations bill calls for a reduction in $13 million 
in this program. What is worse, it calls for a 25 percent State 
matching share in order for them to receive weatherization grants in 
the future.

[[Page 15917]]

  As has already been mentioned, I am not aware of any legislative 
hearings that have been held on this. It is a rather unique approach 
and first-time-ever approach to this type of funding.
  A State matching share for obtaining Federal weatherization grants 
has never been required in the past and, in my opinion, should not be 
required in the future. One of the amendments that the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is offering today will strike that provision from 
the Interior appropriations bill.
  Including this mandate in H.R. 2466 is legislating on an 
appropriations bill and should be stricken from the bill.
  The President has requested increased funding for weatherization, not 
a cut.
  This is a program that delivers energy savings of 30 percent and 
returns $2.40 for every Federal dollar spent in energy, health, safety, 
housing, and related benefits. More important, these weatherization 
funds go mostly to low and moderate income senior citizens and to 
families to help them lower their heating bills in dead winter.
  Mr. Chairman, fewer than 10 States currently appropriate funds for 
weatherization purposes. But a vast majority of States have worked hard 
over the years to leverage other funding, including substantial private 
contributions, as their share of the energy conservation 
responsibility, assisting the poorest of our populations.
  If the States are now required to match Federal weatherization grants 
by 25 percent, more than 40 States, including my home State of West 
Virginia, will lose substantially.
  Weatherization grant funds save energy, and they provide a safe and 
healthy environment for low income, elderly, and poor families with 
children.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for these amendments. Vote to restore 
the $13 million in funding, and vote to strike the 25 percent State 
match requirement being added to the national weatherization program.
  Let me close by reiterating, Mr. Chairman, that these weatherization 
grants serve the elderly and the poor, enabling those who live in 
substandard housing to reap the benefits of energy-efficient homes and 
life-saving warmth in cold weather months.
  I say support the Sanders amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rahall) for yielding to me, and just concur with everything he 
said.
  I simply make a point that I think it is important to hear this. 
Number one, there were no hearings on this idea, so we do not know what 
the long-term implications are. It is one thing to say, oh, all the 
States will jump on to this program, but that is not the case.
  In fact, what we do know is that the National Association of State 
Energy Officials did a survey in response to a July 1, 1999 survey. 
Most States have indicated for a variety of reasons, given the short 
notice that they received, that they cannot meet this new 25 percent 
State match requirement. I have a list of those States that said that 
they cannot.
  So I would say this, the major argument, whatever the long-term 
wisdom or lack of wisdom is, that to just suddenly go ahead without 
informing the States I think will be a disaster. I think the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) is absolutely right.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for his 
comments, and I want to commend him for the leadership he has shown on 
both of these amendments and hope that the House in its wisdom will 
accept both of his amendments.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not expect to take issue with the 
benefits of weatherization. As a member of the subcommittee, I can 
assure my colleagues, we all support the benefits of weatherization.
  But what I would like to point out is that, over the course of 
yesterday and today, there seems to be a propensity here in the process 
on the floor to somewhat override this process of our subcommittee and 
full committee reporting a bill out to the House, and then every single 
amendment that comes up, enormous lobbying takes place from the 
outside.
  Winston Churchill once said, ``This is the worst form of government 
imaginable except for every other.'' What he meant was that it is 
sometimes messy and sloppy, but this business of electing people to 
represent us, sending them up here to educate themselves on the issues 
and participate in this committee process is a beautiful thing.
  The members of our subcommittee have studied these issues 
extensively. From the parks to the lands to these energy issues, 
extensively, these subcommittee members have studied these issues. Not 
once did this issue come up at the subcommittee with Democrats and 
Republicans or at the full committee as the Committee on Appropriations 
reported these bills out to the floor.
  I understand that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) believes a 
hearing could have been held. But I know what the States are going to 
say, and I know that the States will constantly say: we cannot do it. 
We cannot do it. We cannot do it.
  But then they come to us and say we want every dime of the tobacco 
money, and I am all for saying so. I know they want a variance here and 
they want a variance there and they want to be able to come up with new 
programs and initiatives. Most of the time, we accommodate them. But 
the States have had a really good run.
  Our subcommittee and our full committee took a hard look at this 
issue, and I would suggest that what happened yesterday here in this 
body is not good for the American people.
  Here is what happens: members come across the parking lot or through 
the halls, and they are inundated by these outside groups who have an 
agenda of their own. Most of the time, it is to raise more money for 
their groups.
  These groups hire these people, most of the time. They are attractive 
young people that will appeal to the Members coming to the floor to 
vote; and they hand out all this propaganda, ``This is how we want you 
to vote.''
  Members come down here, and they vote based on the propaganda that 
was just handed to them instead of recognizing the subcommittee studied 
the issues. We did have hearings. We did have markups. We have been 
meeting all year. We have traveled to the parks. We studied these 
issues. By george, this did not just come out of the sky. This is a 
complicated puzzle.
  We have got $14.1 billion and a whole bunch of priorities, and we 
have got to somehow make it work. This is not arbitrary. It is very 
scientific.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAMP. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I happen to be a supporter of the 
subcommittee and committee process. I know that they do a whole lot of 
work. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) is not suggesting, of 
course, that we should eliminate the amendment procedure in the House. 
He is not suggesting that. He is not suggesting, for example, that 
there is a problem when a radical change to an effective program takes 
place and we do not involve the States in the process.
  It is not fair, I think, in all due respect, to say, oh, we know what 
the States would say. Let them say it. Let them tell us what will 
happen if we require a 25 percent input next year. I think they should 
have been having that discussion.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is not a radical idea 
that the States and the Federal Government should participate and both 
meet an obligation to the people. It is a radical idea that the Federal 
Government has to do everything in this country. It is a radical idea 
that all decisions are made in Washington, all the money is collected 
from Washington, and the States cannot meet their respective 
obligation.
  I appeal to Members, recognize that we have done our job, we put this 
puzzle together, and quit cutting it into

[[Page 15918]]

little pieces based on what propaganda is handed to them on the floor.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment. I agree 
with those who have debated and those who have discussed that it is 
very difficult to get too many things out of too little money. But I 
have always been told that the greatness of a society is known by how 
well it treats its old, how well it treats its young, and how well it 
looks after those who have difficulty looking after themselves.
  When we talk about restoring the $13 million to the weatherization 
program, we are actually talking about providing resources, in many 
instances, to the neediest members of our society.
  I come from a congressional district where there are 175,000 people 
who live at or below the poverty level. I come from a congressional 
district where there are large numbers of elderly, where there are 
large numbers of children. I also come from Chicago, the home of the 
hawk, the Windy City, one of the coldest areas that one will experience 
during winter, one of the hottest areas that one will experience during 
summer, and an old city, a city where many of the buildings were 
constructed, many of the homes were built 100 years ago, and so the 
energy easily escapes the building.
  The weatherization program has been one of the most effective 
programs that we have had. It has provided an opportunity for people to 
experience warmth in the winter and for senior citizens to have a 
little bit of relief during the summer.
  I know the difficulty, and I will agree with those who suggest that 
we have to balance small amounts of money. But I would implore this 
body to follow the dictates of the idea that, when we help those most 
in need, we are doing the work of the Master.
  I urge support for the Sanders amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would make a couple of points. One, this 
is not a LIHEAP. LIHEAP provides the financing for the programs and 
also provides 15 percent of the money, and LIHEAP goes to 
weatherization.
  Number two, this amendment would take money out of SPR. I want to 
emphasize that because we have SPR to give us energy independence. 
There will not be any heat for anybody if we do not have oil. Having 
oil, I believe, prevents OPEC blackmail.
  I think it is a big mistake to erode the SPR program at this point by 
not providing the money to properly maintain the equipment. That is 
exactly what would happen if this amendment were to pass. We will have 
less money. We already are on the low side on the maintenance of the 
SPR, and this would be very damaging to that fund.
  So I think that Members, in making their decisions on this vote, 
ought to remember that they have to look at the total picture. It may 
sound good to put money back into the weatherization program, but in 
the process, we are denying this Nation a greater potential for energy 
independence.
  Some of us here remember the 1970s, probably quite a few. We do not 
want to repeat that. We want to have a sense of security that SPR gives 
us. Again, I thank Secretary Richardson's program. He wants to bring 
the supply up to 90 days. That is all the more reason that this 
equipment has to be maintained in first-class condition.
  A vote ``yes'' will be very damaging to the SPR equipment. A vote 
``no'' will preserve the program we have to maintain and keep it up to 
first-class conditions.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Vermont is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify again what might be 
a complicated issue to the Members. There are two separate amendments. 
This amendment would restore the $13 million that the committee cut and 
would bring funding to the same level that has been proposed by the 
Senate and to significantly less than the administration proposed. That 
is what this amendment is about.
  The next amendment we will debate is the proposal to provide a 25 
percent offset from the States.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Vermont will agree, 
though, as a point of clarification, that the $13 million will come out 
of SPR.
  Mr. SANDERS. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 71, beginning on line 5, strike ``, contingent on a 
     cost share of 25 percent by each participating State or other 
     qualified participant.''

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, in many ways we have already touched on 
this particular amendment. This is a second amendment. What this 
amendment deals with is a new proposal that came out of the committee 
that would do the following: what this proposal would do is say to any 
State in the country that wants to participate in the very successful 
weatherization program that they must come up with a 25 percent match.

                              {time}  1145

  And if they do not come up with that match, they will not participate 
in the program. There is no debate that that is what the committee is 
proposing.
  Now, the objections to this are many. For a start, the very serious 
objection is that this proposal comes before us today without any 
hearings. We have not heard from the States. We talk about trying to 
improve Federal-State relations and yet we are imposing a significant 
mandate on the States which they have never had in the history of this 
program, and yet no one has bothered to ask the governors or the people 
who are in charge of the energy departments of the various States what 
the impact will be.
  Within that regard, let me mention to my colleagues that in July of 
1999, recently, a survey was done by the National Association of State 
Energy Officials, these are the people that implement this particular 
program, and what they found was that most States have indicated that 
they cannot meet this new 25 percent State match which has suddenly 
been imposed on them. The following 23 States have said that they will 
not be able to match 25 percent of the weatherization funds and that 
they will not be able to apply for the fiscal year 2000 funds.
  This is the result of a survey done by the States, and I presume they 
are trying to develop and improve Federal-State relations: Arizona, 
Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, 
Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New 
York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah 
and West Virginia. They have said, for a variety of reasons; maybe 
their legislature is out of session; maybe they are unable to debate 
this at the appropriate time.
  Now, it seems to me to be extremely unfair to those States and other 
States, to the lower-income people, to the senior citizens in those 
States, that suddenly out of nowhere this very cost-

[[Page 15919]]

effective, successful program will not be able to be implemented in 
their States. And this is my fear, and nobody can answer this question, 
because there have been no hearings on this question, what happens, for 
a variety of reasons, when 10 States say we choose not to participate 
in that program? The chairman cannot tell me that that is an 
impossibility. Nobody can because we do not know.
  Now, my fear is twofold. If 5 States or if 10 States say we cannot 
participate in the program, tens of thousands of low-income people will 
not be eligible to participate in this cost-effective program.
  Secondly, this is what will happen in years to come, and I think the 
gentleman understands this, that if 10 States do not participate in the 
program, somebody will come before the Congress and say, ``Listen, why 
are we funding a program when we have 10 or 15 States who are not 
participating? Who needs this program? Let us end this program.''
  I believe this is a good, cost-effective and important program. Low-
income people spend a substantial part of their limited income on 
energy. It makes no sense to our State as a whole and to the 
individuals to see energy dissipate through the windows, through the 
doors, through the roofs because homes are not adequately insulated. 
And in some cases, and people may not recognize this, this is a life 
and death issue.
  Our friend and colleague from Chicago got up here and talked 
passionately about the issue. He will remember, as we will all 
remember, that a number of years ago hundreds of elderly people in the 
City of Chicago died from heat exhaustion. They died from heat 
exhaustion. The President has made mention that people are dying today 
from that problem. This is not a program we want to cut.
  So I simply say to my good friend, I do understand the difficult 
problems we have balancing this program with that program. But we have 
a program that has worked, that has been cost-effective, and we have 
not gone out to the States.
  And let me read something, if I might, to the gentleman. This is a 
letter that comes to me from the Governor of West Virginia, and he 
states that, ``With the considerable demands for the limited State 
funds available, I doubt that West Virginia would be able to meet the 
match requirement.''
  In the State of Oregon, the energy program manager writes, ``If the 
United States House of Representatives is successful in requiring a 25 
percent match in order for States to be awarded low-income 
weatherization assistance program funds, then Oregon, and perhaps many 
other States, will not be able to assist the economically disadvantaged 
with Department of Energy WAP funds.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. SANDERS. In a July 9, 1999, letter, the Georgia Environmental 
Facilities Authority writes, ``The record shows we already are making a 
significant commitment to this program and an additional 25 percent 
match is unnecessary.''
  We are hearing this from States all over the country. If my colleague 
thinks this is a good idea, then I think it should go through the 
normal process. My friend over there talked about the normal process. 
Take it through the authorization committee, debate it, have input from 
the States, and if people feel that it works, then we may want to go to 
it. I have my doubts about it. But to suddenly spring this on the 
States, with the result I think a number of States will not be able to 
participate in this important program, is wrong; and I would strongly 
ask for support of the Sanders amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Just let me say there is never a right time for anything, but if 
there is a right time, this is it. I think it is about time that the 
States take some responsibility.
  We have federal-state partnerships. We have partnerships in Medicaid; 
we have partnerships in the welfare programs. This is very consistent 
with that. And to say the States cannot handle it, let me just point 
out that every State, every State, all 50, project a surplus for 1999. 
Forty-nine States had a surplus in 1998; 13 States had surpluses in 
excess of $1 billion; 21 States had surpluses in excess of 10 percent 
of their annual budget.
  So when we look at these numbers, the States are perfectly capable of 
doing this. And if they believe in the program, that is the key, if 
they believe as much as the gentleman from Vermont said, they are going 
to come through.
  Now, it is not something that will happen next week. This program has 
a lag time. The money for the 1999 budget will be distributed at the 
end of the year. So the States have plenty of time to accommodate to 
this program. Obviously, the legislatures, as they meet this year or 
next year will be able to address this if they believe in the program. 
That is the key. If they believe in it, they are going to come up with 
their 25 percent. And just as important, I think they are going to do a 
better job of administering the funds.
  If we want to help the people who need this program, as pointed out 
by the gentleman from Chicago, we should vote against this amendment 
because, as the language in the bill reflects, that will result in 
people having more weatherization money. True, the States will have to 
contribute, but there is no reason in the world, with the kind of 
balances they have, that they cannot be a partner with the Federal 
Government in providing and meeting the needs of those people who are 
beneficiaries of the weatherization program.
  Now, let me emphasize again, this is not LIHEAP. LIHEAP is in the 
Health and Human Services budget. That money will be dealt with at a 
different time. We are talking about putting on storm doors and storm 
windows and fixing the roofs of those homes that need weatherization 
programs. I think it is imperative that this Congress, this body, 
address a problem of ensuring that there is more money available for 
those who need help, and certainly with the kind of balances that the 
States have, there is no reason they cannot share in serving the people 
of their State along with the Federal Government.
  We are still talking about 75 percent of this being Federal 
taxpayers' money, and certainly the States can meet their share. So I 
would urge my colleagues to not vote for this amendment. Vote against 
the second Sanders amendment. Let us make the States a partner in a 
program that is very important to the people of this Nation. Let us 
ensure that there will be more funding available for weatherization 
than we presently have.
  This amendment is structured in a way that the States will have 
plenty of time to accommodate. I have not heard one word from a 
governor, neither have my colleagues on the subcommittee, and yet this 
has been in our subcommittee mark for several weeks. We had no comment 
in the subcommittee markup; no comment, as the gentleman from Tennessee 
pointed out, in the full committee. It is not a surprise. We are 
talking about something that is historically part of the Federal-State 
partnership. We all serve the same people.
  Here is an opportunity, by voting against this amendment, to give the 
people in all our States more help for their weatherization problems.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect the comments of the gentleman who preceded me 
in the well, but I would like to make a rejoinder on behalf of the 
States and on behalf of this program which provides vital services for 
low-income Americans to meet their heating and cooling needs in the 
different parts of the country.
  One point I would make first would be it is fine to say many States 
are running a surplus, but are they running a surplus because they have 
met all their needs and obligations or are they running a surplus 
because of cuts in

[[Page 15920]]

programs that serve many of these same people? That is one point.
  The second point is, have we done away with all of the unfunded 
mandates? There are so many things that the Federal Government requires 
of our States which do not have Federal dollars attached, and now we 
are going to impose essentially here a new mandate by saying if they 
want to participate in this program they have to put up 25 percent of 
the money. That, I think, is very problematic.
  It is particularly problematic logistically for many States. My State 
legislature is about to adjourn, having completed the budget. They do 
not know about this. They have not anticipated it. So I guess next 
winter, unless we have an emergency session of the legislature to come 
up with more money in order to meet this match, Oregonians will not get 
this low-income weatherization assistance.
  States are also, of course, by law, most States are required to have 
balanced budgets. They have had balanced budgets for decades. That is 
why, in fact, I was a very early person on this side to support a 
balanced budget amendment for the United States. And we are headed 
towards a balanced budget, supposedly a theoretical surplus here. So 
what are we doing? Why are we gouging the States now? Why are we 
hitting at the little people and the low-income weatherization? This is 
something that is going to cause a lot of disruptions in the next year. 
Yes, some States could probably accommodate it. Many will not be able 
to logistically. Many may not be able to financially.
  I really believe that this is an ill-intentioned amendment. It has 
not come from the authorizing committee. It is being proposed by the 
Committee on Appropriations. And if this is meritorious, it should go 
back to the Committee on Commerce and they should have a discussion in 
making changes in the authorization for this program.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Oregon just 
made a very important point, and maybe somebody can correct me if I am 
wrong here. My understanding is that this particular program is up for 
reauthorization next year. If that is so, and I cannot swear to it, but 
that is my understanding, then that is the time to discuss this issue.
  Now, the truth of the matter is what we are doing here, and maybe the 
chairman wants to deny it, is we are legislating in an appropriations 
bill. I guess there is a rule that allows the chairman to do it, but 
that is what he is doing. We are making a profound change in a bill 
that should be dealt with in an authorizing committee, that should have 
serious debate, that should involve the States.
  The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) raised some very important 
issues. Some of the States have balanced budgets precisely because they 
have cut back on programs like that, and we are now going to go to the 
States and expect that they are going to add more money to programs 
that they have already cut? I doubt it.
  What is the impact? Have we really studied the impact of what it 
would mean for a number of States, maybe some of the poorest States in 
this country, not to have this program? How many people might die?
  I would refer my colleagues to The Washington Post of last Friday. 
``Officials said that those who died in the heat wave may have not had 
air conditioners on because they worried about payment of the 
electricity bills or kept their windows closed.'' Those are exactly the 
people that we are trying to help out in this very successful, cost-
effective program.
  So I would hope that if the chairman believes in this idea, he will 
bring it back next year when this bill is reauthorized and we can have 
a serious debate on it, but I would ask for support for the Sanders 
amendment, which has widespread support.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, to support this amendment, we are voting to have less 
resources available for the poor to assist them with their heat and 
their cooling needs.
  I said earlier, having just spent 19 years in State government, we 
never missed the chance, and for 9 or 10 years I was an appropriator, 
we never missed the chance to get $3 for $1. Never. States do not walk 
away from money when they spend $1 and end up with $4.
  And States should be a partner. One of the strongest lobbyists for 
this program has been the States, so they believe in it. Well, when we 
believe in something, we ought to be a partner, and we are a partner 
when we invest.
  Now, who lobbies us and who lobbies the States? The utilities lobby 
us, and they are very effective at lobbying the States. Utilities in my 
district all have a program where every time I pay one of my electric 
or gas bills, I or my wife can decide to give a couple bucks to their 
energy fund, because they have one that works along with ours to help 
poor people who cannot pay their bills.

                              {time}  1200

  They talked about the problem of next winter. Next winter we are 
dealing with last year's money. Next winter we will be dealing with 
this year's money. This is not a time problem. It is not a time 
problem. The States have more than adequate time to deal with it.
  I urge all of our colleagues to be futuristic. Let us make the States 
the partners. Let us let them stand up and support what they so 
adequately lobby for.
  I want to tell my colleagues, there is no State that cannot afford to 
support this program. Every State is in surplus. The State I come from 
has a $750 million surplus. They can fund the whole program nationally 
themselves and not ruin the State budget.
  I believe it is vital that we move forward and be futuristic with 
this proposal. I think it is an ingenious proposal. It will strengthen 
the program. It will make States be partners with us and not just 
asking us for something. They will be partners. It will make the 
program stronger. The program will be more likely to remain, not less 
likely. This is good public policy.
  I oppose the amendment that destroys one of the better ideas I have 
seen since I have been here.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just say that this is a change not 
in terms of the policy with the program but a change in the funding 
formula; and that is much more simple than a change in the actual 
program itself, which the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) wanted 
hearings on. It is simply a funding issue.
  One thing I believe has happened in the last 4\1/2\ years is we have 
given back flexibility and authority to the States on a host of issues 
across the country. And the governors let us know about it. We have, in 
fact, given them more money than they had in the past and a whole lot 
of flexibility.
  Frankly, I hear from a lot of people that the best job in Government 
in America today is to be a governor. They get to make all the 
decisions. They get to dole out the money. They now have more 
flexibility. It is a better job.
  Well, right now it is a tough job to serve in Congress because we 
have got a balanced budget framework to live with and we have got 
difficult decisions to make and we have to somehow balance these 
priorities.
  I have not heard the hue and cry from the States on this particular 
issue, and one reason I think we have not heard that is because they 
know they have had a real good run for the last 4\1/2\ years getting 
more flexibility, getting more power, getting more authority back so 
they can make the decisions locally.
  I say to my colleagues, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot 
have States' rights, Tenth Amendment kind of State control where they 
collect the money and make the decisions and not have sometimes a 
partnership cost-share type approach. That is what this is about, a 
reasonable partnership between the States and the Federal Government.

[[Page 15921]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on both amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  I want to make a point that the same people who have cried out for 
this country to have energy independence are, in the first Sanders 
amendment, trying to take that money elsewhere, take it from some other 
from energy independence over to Federal programs. And they cannot have 
that both ways, either.
  With all due respect, vote ``no'' on both amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment.
  We have all talked about and the committee agrees with the importance 
of the weatherization program, helping to improve the energy efficiency 
of low-income families throughout the country, reducing energy costs 
for those who are least able to afford them.
  There are 29 million households eligible for weatherization programs. 
The program, since 1976, has weatherized 4.7 million homes.
  Clearly, there remains a great need for these programs. We are not 
disputing that at all. It has positive impact also on energy savings. 
The average American household spends 3.5 percent of its income on home 
energy. The typical low-income households spend approximately $1,100 
per year on energy. That is 14.5 percent of their annual incomes.
  This weatherization program ensures that our neediest households 
receive the crucial benefits of energy efficiency technologies. Two-
thirds of those who are served by the program have annual incomes of 
under $8,000. Nearly all have incomes under $15,000. Many of the 
weatherization recipients are families with small children, disabled, 
or the elderly.
  Under the current committee language, no State would receive its 
formula share of the Weatherization Assistance Program's appropriation 
in FY 2000 unless it provide 25 percent in State matching funds.
  I recognize the difficult situation the committee has been placed in 
and I know what they are trying to do.
  I have heard from my jurisdiction, from my State, and from my county. 
The belief is that this is a step backwards at this point away from our 
cost-effective investments in our communities, in our neediest 
households, the investment that the Federal Government has made.
  As the bill now stands, it would deprive 40 States of critical 
weatherization funding. Only 10 States report that they could provide 
the required 25-percent match for their projected Weatherization 
Assistance Program grant. Many States have been able to successfully 
leverage other Federal and non-Federal funds to weatherize about 
200,000 homes per year. These are States in which a formal match for 
DOE weatherization funds would be impossible. This means that for these 
States there would be no weatherization services for low-income 
families.
  Well, this program, the weatherization program, has helped thousands 
of low-income families living in my district, Montgomery County, 
Maryland; and the loss of this funding would be a major blow to such 
low-income households.
  So although I recognize what the committee and subcommittee and full 
committee have done, I do ask my colleagues to support this amendment 
to strike the required State match for the low-income weatherization 
program.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, weatherization is without question one of the most 
important programs that this country has. We have a finite amount of 
natural resources on this planet. It is not likely that we are going to 
continue to find new North Slopes, that we are going to find new hits 
off of Mexico, that we are going to find new sources of energy in 
Kazakhstan.
  Yes, there will be additional discoveries. But the reality is that, 
as much as we want to see additions to the overall supply of natural 
gas and oil in the world, that the real North Slopes, the new Gulfs of 
Mexico, the new Kazakhstans are in each one of our homes, in each one 
of our automobiles.
  The more efficient that we make each home, the more efficient that we 
make each automobile, each refrigerator, each stove is the more energy 
that we are able to live without because we do not have to import that 
oil, we do not have to discover that new natural gas strike.
  That is what the weatherization program is all about at its heart. It 
is ensuring that we reduce as much as possible the amount of energy 
which we consume in this country.
  Those are the great new strikes that we are going to make, the new 
wells that we are going to dig. They will be in each home in America, 
in each automobile, in each appliance.
  So this program which has been without question an unmitigated 
success over the last generation is something which is critical.
  The Sanders amendment ensures that this program continues, that we do 
not run into the technical difficulties, the funding difficulties which 
clearly are going to manifest themselves if the underlying language in 
this bill is allowed to stand.
  It is critical for our country that we have a clear understanding of 
our path to energy independence. It is largely going to be because we 
become more energy efficient, because we understand that there was an 
artificially high consumption of energy which was in fact indulged in 
by our Nation when we believed that there were unlimited sources of 
energy at that point into the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. But we 
have learned our lesson.
  Now, in this era in which we have found that we are going to run a 
$5-trillion surplus over the next 15 years, I think that this is one 
program that we should keep intact. It is relatively modest. It deals 
with a segment of the population which is not responsive to larger 
economic forces because of the income level in the families. It clearly 
is a last place discretionary expenditure which families would make in 
the absence of some kind of Federal program.
  I think that, for us, we would be wise to continue this program as it 
has been put on the books and to support the Sanders amendment today.
  This is basically working smarter, not harder. It is understanding 
that by using our minds, giving resources to the poorer people in our 
society that we can reduce our overall dependence upon imported oil in 
our country.
  I urge a very strong ``aye'' vote on behalf of the Sanders amendment 
here on the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The Weatherization 
Assistance Program serves a dual purpose. It provides health and 
economic benefits to the poor, by assisting in keeping low-income homes 
warm. And it improves the environment by reducing energy loss from 
those homes. The program achieves these benefits in an efficient and 
effective manner in cooperation with local groups experienced in on-
the-ground work. Funding from the Weatherization Assistance Program is 
used along with other funds to weatherize roughly 200,000 homes each 
year. This work is especially important in Massachusetts and other 
states that face harsh winters; last year $3.8 million went to assist 
low-income homes in Massachusetts.
  Yet this bill would attack this program by requiring all states to 
match the federal funds with specific contributions. Most states 
already use Weatherization Assistance Program funds to leverage variety 
of other federal, state, and private funding. However, many states 
could not meet the additional requirements in the bill, leaving no 
weatherization services available for the poor in those states. The 
amendment sponsored by Mr. Sanders would restore the program to its 
current status and allow it to continue in all states.
  I strongly support this amendment to continue to promote energy 
efficiency and assist low-income areas, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote for it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page 15922]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, further proceedings 
on Amendment No. 15 offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
will be postponed.


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: Amendment No. 14 offered by the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders); and amendment No. 15 offered by the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for an electronic vote on 
the second vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Sanders

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 14 offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 243, 
noes 180, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No 284]

                               AYES--243

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--180

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fowler
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Kasich
     Lewis (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Thurman
     Wynn

                              {time}  1235

  Messrs. GOSS, BONILLA, VITTER, SHAW and COBLE changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GALLEGLY, Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Mr. REYNOLDS and Mr. HALL of 
Ohio 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 House Resolution 243, 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 the next amendment 
on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered By Mr. Sanders.

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on Amendment No. 15 offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198, 
noes 225, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No 285]

                               AYES--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)

[[Page 15923]]


     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--225

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Kasich
     Lewis (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Thurman
     Wynn

                              {time}  1244

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

                              {time}  1245

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                          economic regulation

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Office of Hearings and Appeals, $2,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                      strategic petroleum reserve

       For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facility development and operations and program management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $159,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


               Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

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

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Ms. Slaughter: 
       Page 71, line 19, insert ``(reduced by $20,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar figure.
       Page. 87, line 19, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar figure.
       Page 88, line 18, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar figure.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will 
give badly needed relief to both the National Endowment for the Arts 
and the National Endowment for the Humanities. In particular, it would 
provide $10 million in additional funding for each agency.
  For the past 4 years this body has missed a golden opportunity to 
benefit millions of Americans by choosing to level fund these two most 
important agencies. In fiscal year 1996 both received 40 percent 
reductions to their budgets, cuts from which very few agencies could 
possibly recover.
  As a Member who has seen firsthand the positive and lasting effects 
of both the arts and humanities on Americans across the country, this 
is simply unacceptable. My amendment would take a small but important 
step towards reinvigorating the NEA and the NEH.
  As we head into a new millenium, these modest increases will allow 
the agencies to spread the wonderful work that they do for people in 
every city, town, village, and Hamlet in America. The NEA and NEH have 
the power to change lives, and I firmly believe that now is the time to 
help them to do it.
  With the intent of broadening its reach to more Americans, the 
National Endowment for the Arts recently proposed a $50 million 
Challenge America initiative. If fully funded, this program would allow 
the agency to make a thousand small- to medium-sized grants to 
communities that have previously been underserved by the agency.
  Some of our colleagues have raised concerns that the NEA ignores 
numbers of our districts. While the arguments they made were extremely 
flawed, they did succeed in highlighting the need for this important 
program.
  From the fields of rural America to the streets of our inner cities, 
the National Endowment for the Arts plans to spread the power of art. 
In addition, the agency has spent the past few years implementing 
reforms to make itself more accountable to the American people. I 
strongly believe that they have earned the opportunity to pursue this 
plan.
  The arts are supported by such entities as the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, the National Association of Counties, by the National 
Conference of State Legislatures, by the National Governors 
Association, the National League of Cities, and all State legislatures. 
It is time for the House of Representatives, Mr. Chairman, to get with 
the program.
  Let me quote from the last paragraph of the chart here. It says, by 
these undersigned, the people I have just mentioned, ``We commit 
ourselves and encourage all elected and appointed officials at the 
Federal, State, and local level, mayors, county commissioners, city and 
county managers, Governors, legislators at the Federal, State, and 
local levels, and the President of the United States to strengthen 
leadership and increase support for a sustainable cultural economy 
which unselfishly provides a measure of public service, defining our 
ultimate legacy as a Nation.''
  It seems that everyone in the United States is supporting this 
program. In addition, this agency, as I point out,

[[Page 15924]]

has reorganized itself. These reorganizations that I spoke of earlier 
support the arts because they provide the economic benefits to our 
communities.
  Last year, and this is very important, last year the $98 million 
allocated to the NEA provided the leadership and backbone for a $37 
billion industry. For the price of 100th of 1 percent of the Federal 
budget, we help to create a system that supports 1.3 million full-time 
jobs in States, cities, towns, and villages across the country, 
providing back to the Treasury the $98 million, back into the Treasury. 
We got $3.4 billion in income taxes.
  We also know the academic benefit and the academic impact that the 
arts have on children. As we learn more and more about the development 
of the human brain, it is becoming clear that instruction in the arts 
leads to improved scholastic achievement. In fact, a study conducted by 
the College Entrance Examination Board showed that students with 4 or 
more years of art classes raised their SAT scores by 53 points on the 
verbal and 35 points on the math portions of the exam.
  In addition, we are now starting to learn about the positive effects 
of the arts on troubled youth. I am extremely impressed by a recent 
initiative known as the Youth Arts Development Project. This program is 
a collaboration between local arts agencies in Portland, San Antonio, 
and Atlanta, along with the Americans for the Arts, the United States 
Department of Justice, and the NEA.
  The three cities involved evaluated current youth arts programs to 
determine their effectiveness in working with youth at risk, and the 
results were remarkable. Children in these programs gained valuable 
anger management skills and learned how to communicate their feelings 
without having to resort to violence. They developed self-esteem, and 
showed improvements in their attitudes toward their schools. They 
learned how to discipline themselves, Mr. Chairman, so they could 
successfully finish what they had started. As a result, evidence showed 
the children involved in these programs experienced fewer court 
referrals and less crime than children who were not in the program.
  As impressive as they are, these results are not surprising when we 
understand the simple reason behind them: The arts provide children 
with the opportunity to express their fears, angers, and hopes, in a 
constructive manner that does not involve guns, drugs, or violence.
  I urge my colleagues please to support these amendments.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). I know they worked very hard on 
the bill, and I appreciate everything they have done. However, we find 
that this is so important that we are going to ask this one time that 
we try to give these agencies some more so they can help every hamlet, 
everybody from the front porch to the auditorium in every city in the 
country.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) that we owe a great debt to the chairman of this committee, 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks), the ranking Democrat. They have done a splendid job and I 
have voted with them on every item, but I am going to vote against the 
Members on this one.
  The reason is simple. We have a new day in the National Endowment for 
the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Bill Ivey has 
come in and has been a superb administrator. He is a great 
communicator. The endowments are focused on peoples' real needs.
  I grew up on a farm in rural America in a county that only had 13,000 
people and was 60 miles long. I shall never forget that when I was 6 
years old and my parents took me to a concert at the county high 
school. On the stage there was a beautiful symphony. It was the WPA 
symphony orchestra. The Works Progress Administration, funded 
musicians, artists, and writers during the Great Depression. The WPA 
put people to work in the thirties when one-third of Americans were 
unemployed.
  Did that change my life? Absolutely. In high school, I became a music 
major and still maintain a deep interest in that field--an interest 
that I will never let go.
  Even though I come from urban America, I want to see the arts and the 
humanities in every precinct, in every city and in every councilmanic 
district in America, be it urban or rural. Every one of our students 
should have an understanding of the arts, as the gentlewoman from New 
York has noted so often in her role as chairman of the Arts Caucus. The 
effect on the brain of music is amazing, and how people do a lot better 
when they have had that type of education.
  What I want to stress today, however, is that there has been a change 
at NEA and NEH and we should increase their budget. We are taking the 
money from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, that $20 million would 
provide $10 million to the arts endowment and the other $10 million to 
the National Endowment for the Humanities. All of these additional 
funds will go for projects. Not one penny would go for administration. 
That is a commitment from the administrator, Bill Ivey. We agree with 
that. These funds will mean additional opportunities throughout 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress one aspect in particular, it is 
the results of the youth arts, youth at risk program, which was 
compiled by Caliber Associates under contract to the Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the Department of Justice. It has 
shown clearly and positively the impact on the skills, the attitudes, 
and the behaviors of the program participants. This helps demonstrate 
the constructive efforts of arts-based juvenile delinquency prevention 
and intervention programs.
  The additional $10 million would go specifically to fund these 
important youth at risk programs. I think that is very important. That 
is prevention. We can help save individuals before they go down the 
wrong path again.
  Opponents argue that not enough congressional districts receive 
funding from the NEA. That just is not true. NEA's grants in support 
allow orchestras, dance companies, performers to travel out of the 
major cities and reach the small towns and communities of this land. 
The new Challenge America initiative will go even further to address 
those concerns by continuing to expand the NEA's reach in underserved 
areas.
  As for the humanities, what are they are doing? They are saving 
precious manuscripts, newspaper runs that go into the 19th century and 
into the 20th century. This material, because of the acid in the paper 
since the 1830s. That newsprint is very combustible and easily 
destroyed. It is important that the Nation's heritage be saved in every 
part of the country.
  Every American has made our history as a nation. All of us are 
immigrants or sons and daughters of immigrants. That is where the $10 
million is going, including the 50 States and the the six United States 
trust territories. We need to catalog and preserve the newspapers that 
have been in America since the 1690s.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this Slaughter amendment, and the 
$10 million for the arts endowment and the $10 million for the 
humanities. It is a drop in the bucket, given our heritage, given the 
need, given the response and the new type of administration we have 
there. I have not heard a complaint in 6 months on anything about 
either of those endowments.
  It is long overdue that we increase their funds. This is simply an 
adjustment for inflation. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of 
this worthwhile amendment.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of this amendment. I would call the attention of my colleagues to Mr. 
Ivey's new program called Challenge America, because he is committed to 
doing exactly what this body has wanted the National Endowment for the 
Arts to do all along. He is challenging America at the neighborhood 
level to develop the arts in our schools, in our neighborhoods; to make 
partnerships between

[[Page 15925]]

neighborhoods and old established art museums and symphony orchestras 
on a level and with a variety of creative approaches that simply is 
unprecedented.
  Little tiny bits of money can leverage partnerships between 
businesses, schools, and outstanding art museums that are simply 
unprecedented.
  Some have had the idea that the NEA does not affect them. I got a 
letter citing my district as one of the ones that did not get one brown 
cent from the NEA, and I want to tell the Members, that was so far off 
base it was really tragic. I have walked into schools in my home town 
and seen fifth graders with their shiny faces looking up at me and 
saying, you know, we are a HOT school. So what is a HOT school? A HOT 
school is a higher order of thinking school.
  As we walk through these HOT schools, an NEA idea, NEA money, local 
money, school money, do Members know what they have to do to get a HOT 
school grant? The principal, the teachers, and the parents have to go 
to a summer education program that is at least a week and some years 2 
weeks. When we get this approach in place, our kids have an opportunity 
to integrate the arts and every other aspect of learning that is 
unprecedented.

                              {time}  1300

  The kindergartners were doing self-portraits in the style of Miro. He 
is a very abstract painter, but when we see how he paints a head, think 
of the discussion among kids of communication, of self-concept, of 
cultural issues, of history, of our times.
  So this little fifth grader was showing me how on the hallway these 
were the kindergartner's self-portraits in the style of Miro. And then 
she showed me in another hallway the fifth grader's renditions of 
Lascaux cave drawings as if they were in a Connecticut hillside in 
contemporary America.
  Mr. Chairman, these kids are learning history, they are learning the 
arts, they are drawing themselves. Every 2 weeks they have an assembly 
at which kids perform. They read their poetry and their stories; and 
throughout this curriculum they are integrating the arts, the 
performing arts, communications.
  When we came to the school, the kids were lined up. There were two 
people who followed me around all day drawing everything I did, two 
taking notes to write up everything that went on and so on and so 
forth.
  These kids are in a public school system in a city with the old kind 
of inner city where the jobs have flown, the difficulty of property 
taxes supporting our education system is just a struggle every single 
year. And yet these kids's scores are going up like we would not 
believe because they are a HOT school in every sense of the word. And 
the idea that this kid would look at me and say, ``We are a Higher 
Order of Thinking school'' really blew me away.
  The arts matter in our lives. The arts are not just about symphony 
orchestras and art museums, as important as they are. They do help our 
kids grow. They do help our kids learn, and the evidence, the research 
shows it. If a kid is exposed to the arts when they are young, they do 
better as an adult because their intuitive thinking has developed along 
with their logical thinking.
  HOT schools, if our kid came home from school all excited because now 
his trumpet playing, his trombone, whatever it was, he has had the 
chance to learn to play with those who are experts in the music of Duke 
Ellington and compete in a high school jazz band competition and 
festival, we would not ask him who paid for it. He would not tell you 
it was the NEA because he probably did not know, but that is exactly 
what happened in the high school in the town next to me.
  The New York City Ballet Hispanico was up at Plainville High School 
in my district. How else would they have an opportunity unless someone 
could help, that is, the Federal Government could help share that 
tremendous resource of New York City with the small towns around?
  I urge support for this bill. It is just $10 million more for the 
NEA, $10 million more for the NEH, and we owe it to our kids.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Slaughter 
amendment to make important increases to the NEA and the NEH. I do so 
not only as a proponent of Federal support for the arts and the 
humanities but also as one who has seen firsthand the inner workings of 
the NEA.
  Along with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), I have 
the privilege of serving as one of five congressional Members on the 
National Council on the Arts, which basically serves as the board of 
directors. In reviewing and voting on NEA grant applications, the 
members of the National Council take their responsibilities to United 
States taxpayers very seriously. They are united by their commitment to 
making the arts accessible to all Americans, which is what this debate 
is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that the arts are crucial to the development of 
our culture and our economy and beneficial to all our citizens.
  This year, NEA Chairman Ivey unveiled a major new initiative called 
Challenge America which would further arts education outreach and 
organizational initiatives, particularly in underserved areas. At this 
bill's current funding level for the NEA, this worthy and creative 
initiative will remain unfunded.
  We need to support this amendment to provide a Federal commitment to 
this program and the other important activities the NEA offers in our 
communities. Likewise, we know that the National Endowment for the 
Humanities provides funding for student essay contests, teacher 
seminars, museum exhibitions, documentary films, research grants, 
public conferences and speakers and library-based reading and 
discussion programs. Through all of these programs, the NEH helps to 
provide a greater understanding of our Nation's history and culture.
  One of the standards by which we judge a civilized society is the 
support it provides for the arts and the humanities. In comparison to 
other industrialized nations, the United States falls woefully behind 
in this area, even with a fully funded NEA. In a Nation of such wealth 
and cultural diversity it is a sad commentary on our priorities that 
year after year we must continue to fight about an agency that spends 
less than 40 cents per American each year and in return benefits 
students, artists, teachers, musicians, orchestras, theaters, dance 
companies, and their audiences across the country.
  Polls overwhelmingly show that the American public supports Federal 
funding for the arts. And if those reasons are not compelling enough 
for some, let us just talk dollars and cents. For every one dollar the 
NEA spends it generates more than 11 times than that in private 
donations and economic activity. That is a huge economic return on the 
government's investment, and we certainly do not have to be from New 
York to see the impact of the arts on a region's economy.
  Mr. Chairman, let us use this opportunity to begin to provide a level 
of resources to the NEA and the NEH which we can all be proud of. And I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment and funding for cultural 
expression, celebration.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey) for yielding to me. It is very difficult for a southern-
born woman to speak fast enough to get everything into 5 minutes, and 
so that I can finish the rest of my speech, if any of my colleagues 
would be generous enough to throw me 30 seconds or a minute, I would be 
grateful.
  I need to talk about the National Endowment for the Humanities 
because it plays an important role in our society. For the past 35 
years, that agency has been at the forefront of efforts to improve and 
promote education at the humanities level in school. At a time when our 
State and local governments

[[Page 15926]]

are struggling to hire new teachers, this small amount of money goes a 
very long way towards making sure that teachers are well-trained in 
history, government, literature, civics and social studies.
  Through its summer seminars and institutes for teachers, the NEH is 
working to enhance and expand the knowledge of our educators on such 
topics as the Lewis and Clark expedition and Homer's Iliad. Prior to 
the 36 percent cut in 1996, the NEH was able to offer close to a 
hundred of these seminars. This year, that number will be closer, 
unfortunately, to 29.
  In addition, the NEH is using its Teaching With Technology Initiative 
to bring the humanities to life in the Information Age. Through the use 
of computers, educational software, and the World Wide Web, the NEH is 
ensuring that none of our students are left behind.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I completely understand the budgetary 
constraints that our chairman and ranking member are under and to that 
extent I applaud them for the wonderful work they have done. I 
particularly applaud their efforts to increase the budgets for the 
Smithsonian Institution, the Woodrow Wilson Center, the National 
Gallery of Art and the Kennedy Center. However, not all of our citizens 
have the ability to work or to travel to the Nation's Capital.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Lowey, was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to 
yield, my amendment would simply expand our commitment to bringing the 
arts and humanities to the streets, the theaters, the schools and the 
front porches of all Americans. It does so by reducing the $20 million 
fund for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a program I also support, but 
I feel that it is vitally necessary that we do more for these agencies 
because they do so much for us.
  Mr. Chairman, it is finally time in the House of Representatives to 
close the door on the tactics which have made the arts and humanities a 
political hostage for far too many years. The benefits that we receive 
for our economy, for our children, for our communities far outweigh the 
small financial investment that we are making. This amendment would 
simply provide a modest increase for two programs that have been 
ignored and antagonized for nearly 5 years. It is time now to correct 
this injustice.
  I believe this is a reasonable amendment, a fair amendment, and a 
responsible amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to support it and 
add simply one thing and that is we have been assured that every cent 
of money, if this amendment passes, will be used for new grants.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise first to acknowledge the fact that for the last 
4 years Congress has funded the NEA at $98 million and the NEH at 
$110.7 million. There has not been a change in this funding in 4 years. 
I feel extraordinarily compelled to come and speak in support of a 
modest amendment, really, offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Horn) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) to change this 
funding level by adding $10 million to the NEA for a total of $108 
million and $10 million to the NEH for a total of $120.7 million. We 
are talking about an increase of only $10 million in each.
  I rise in support of the Horn-Slaughter amendment because it's a very 
modest amendment which will have a large impact by bringing the arts to 
more communities previously underserved, like our inner-cities and 
rural areas, and by encouraging more support for preserving and 
promoting our cultural heritage.
  Mr. Chairman, national support of the arts is a measure of the 
success of a thoughtful Nation. Funding for the NEA and the NEH helps 
thousands of performers who may not be celebrities but who enrich their 
lives by performing and who enrich the lives of everyone who enjoys 
their performance. They contribute, I think, to the soul of the 
community. Arts and humanities improve the lives of so many people, 
including children, the elderly and those on limited budgets who might 
not otherwise have the opportunity to see very beautiful art and enjoy 
enriching performances.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said before, the NEA and the NEH have not received 
an increase in funding in 4 years, and I urge us to wake up and begin 
to fund sufficiently these two important government programs.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say also a few words in support of this 
amendment which allows the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
National Endowment for the Humanities to expand their outreach and 
educational efforts. What the endowments want to do and what we want 
them to do is support education and extend the excellent programs that 
they provide to all Americans.
  For example, NEH has programs to provide training for elementary and 
high school teachers to help them update and improve their curriculum, 
they are popular, but NEH would like to reach more teachers and, 
therefore, obviously more students. NEH is developing web sites as well 
to provide material that teachers can use in their course work.
  NEA is reaching out to minorities and getting children at risk in our 
cities interested in and excited about art. We have heard from Justice 
Department officials that these programs are enormously effective in 
reducing delinquency as well as an appreciation for the art itself.
  Those are practical effects, but there are also intangible values as 
well. NEA and NEH help to build and develop our culture. They also help 
to democratize it, to demonstrate that art and music are not the 
property of the wealthy and the elite alone but something that can 
enrich the lives of all of us.
  In that sense, they belong in the Interior bill since it is the 
Interior bill that protects our beautiful places simply because they 
are beautiful and that offers recreation to our citizens because 
enjoyment and recreation is in and of itself a good.
  Mr. Chairman, the increases we are requesting in this amendment are 
small, too small in my judgment, but they are an excellent investment. 
It is the culture we foster now that will be remembered for the next 
100 years. This is a good amendment. I hope it has the support of the 
Members of the House.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Slaughter-Horn 
amendment to add $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts 
and the National Endowment for the Humanities. There are many reasons 
to support Federal funding for the NEA and the NEH. When the arts are 
allowed to put down roots in the culture of the community, they create 
jobs and they stimulate the economy. The nonprofit arts industry 
generates more than $36 billion annually. It generates $1.3 million 
jobs and returns more than $3 billion to the Federal Government in 
income taxes.

                              {time}  1315

  Arts programs are basic to a thorough education, improving students' 
communication skills, self-discipline and self-concept. Studies show 
that young people who study music indicate an increased ability in 
math. According to a study conducted by the College Entrance 
Examination Board in 1995, students who studied the arts more than 4 
years scored 59 points higher than those with no arts background. That 
is pretty incredible.
  Arts in education produces the kind of resourceful and creative 
problem solvers that employers prefer. The arts inspire creativity in 
all aspects of a person's life regardless of whether his or her career 
path leads to technology or engineering.

[[Page 15927]]

  The humanities are a foundation for getting along in the world, for 
thinking and for learning. The NEH spends about 70 cents per person on 
the humanities, on history, English, literature, foreign languages, 
sociology, anthropology, and other disciplines.
  I know that each of us in Congress can point to worthwhile projects 
in our districts that are aided by the NEA and the NEH.
  In my district, Montgomery County, Maryland, the NEA funds the puppet 
theater at Glen Echo Park, just a few miles from the Capitol. It is a 
200-seat theater created out of a portion of a historic ballroom at 
Glen Echo Park. The audience is usually made up of children accompanied 
by their families and teachers, representing the cultural and economic 
diversity of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
  An NEA grant allows the puppet company to keep the ticket prices low 
so that many young families can attend the performances.
  In my district, the NEH has provided Montgomery College with a 
$500,000 challenge grant to help create the Montgomery College 
Humanities Institute. This institute is a permanently endowed college-
wide center for scholarly activity and public programming in the 
humanities.
  In addition, the college is working in partnership with the 
Smithsonian Institute, using the resources that are available at the 
Smithsonian and providing internships for students who are interested 
in the humanities.
  Both the arts and the humanities teach us who we were, who we are, 
and who we might be. Both are critical to free and a democratic 
society. It is important, even vital, that we support and encourage the 
promotion of the arts and humanities so that the rich and cultural 
story of our past can be made available to future generations.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Slaughter-Horn amendment.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I want to ask my 
colleagues, look around us. Look at the room we are in and think about 
how much art has touched our lives, our daily lives. Art is our flag. 
Art is this Chamber. Around this Chamber is sculptured relief of 23 law 
givers who represent the humanities which we are trying to support.
  This whole Capitol, the Nation's Capitol, is filled with art. It is 
one of the most attractive tourist places in America.
  The engine of America's creativity is based in our arts and centered 
in our humanities. America's technology and leading technological 
advances are based on creativity.
  Fortune 500 companies support the National Endowment for the Arts 
because they know that, if we are going to be the engine of creativity 
in the world, we are going to have to nurture our schools and our 
children and the populous of this great Nation in understanding how to 
express themselves in art form.
  We need to remain the center of creativity, and we are only going to 
do that by nurturing the arts. We can do it in two forms. We can do it 
by private sector contributions, and we can do it by public sector 
contributions.
  This issue is about public sector contributions. Why is that so 
important? Because there needs to be a leader in being able to 
determine how to best invest one's monies. That is why so many of the 
Fortune 500 companies support the National Endowment for the Arts 
because they put up corporate money to match that. And they want the 
leadership of the National Endowment to point out the direction that 
money ought to go. So we need to increase and keep that funding.
  Frankly, the amount of money we put into the National Endowment for 
the Arts for the function it serves is absolutely embarrassing for this 
country. Many other countries in the world put more money into art 
creativity than this Nation does.
  So I ask my colleagues, join us in supporting this amendment. I 
challenge my colleagues to think about it in their own lives. Think 
about it, whether my colleagues are walking around this Capitol, 
whether they are watching their children at play, about how this Nation 
was founded, and see the important role that arts and humanities play 
in the everyday theater of our own lives.
  Support funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
National Endowment for the Humanities. Support America. Make it 
stronger.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, it is time for our infamous and often 
contentious debate on the funding for the National Endowment for the 
Arts.
  In the years past, I supported cuts of the NEA based upon budget 
realities and concerns over questionable NEA funding choices. However, 
I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the funding level 
included in the Fiscal Year 2000 Interior Appropriations Act.
  Some people would like to see this funding level increase, while 
others would like to see the level decrease or NEA eliminated 
altogether. But I suggest that, in the light of the tight budget caps 
enacted by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the needs of our Nation 
in terms of the arts, the funding level is on target.
  Over the last few years, Congress has helped to make NEA into a 
better organization. The NEA has instituted its own reforms to ensure 
that taxpayer money is used efficiently and wisely. Six Members of 
Congress now sit as nonvoting members on the National Council on the 
Arts, the governing board of the NEA, acting as an added check on the 
endowment's activities. I am one of these Members and have found 
significant and positive changes have been made in the NEA to address 
past concerns.
  There has been much controversy in the past over grants to individual 
artists whose work has offended the sensibilities of many of us. I am 
glad to report that these individual grants, except the literature 
fellowships, have been eliminated. Also, the practice of allowing third 
parties to gain access to NEA funds through subgrants has been 
terminated to ensure that the agency keeps control over the projects 
being funded.
  Applicants, like local museums and arts centers, must apply for 
specific project support, and changes to the project cannot be funded 
unless the agency approves such changes.
  In North Carolina, the NEA funds, in whole or in part, projects that 
I believe are beneficial to our citizens, like the North Carolina 
Symphony Society or the Opera Carolina or the North Carolina Museum of 
Art Foundation, just to name a few.
  Let us give the recently enacted reforms a chance to work so that NEA 
can help fund meaningful projects in our States.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed as a Member of 
Congress. I am embarrassed for this House of Representatives. I am 
embarrassed for our country. Because, once again, this House is 
inadequately funding the arts and the humanities.
  This is the fourth year in a row where funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for Humanities has 
been held level. We all know that what that means is that it is a cut 
in the funding.
  Opponents of NEA cry fiscal discipline as if the richest nation in 
the world needs to be culturally impoverished.
  I fear that money is not what this is all about, because we know, we 
absolutely know that every dollar we invest in the arts leverages 
matching grants and multiplies the same dollar many, many times, 11 
times for every dollar that is spent on the arts through the NEA.
  With flat funding and with the proposed cuts in the NEA that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) will propose later today, I fear 
that we could be witnessing an assault again on free expression, a war 
on culture. It is a battle as old as the stockades in Puritan times, 
and it is a battle that is wrong headed.

[[Page 15928]]

  The arts teach us to think. The arts encourage us to feel, to see in 
a new way, and to speak. The arts help us to grow.
  I hope that all of my colleagues will support the Slaughter-Horn 
amendment to increase funds for the NEA and the NEH. It is a very small 
investment. The returns are vast. They are vast in many, many ways, 
including being as vast as our imagination.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to, I guess, maybe throw a wet 
blanket over a love fest that we have been listening to for the last 
hour, 45 minutes.
  This will be the fifth amendment that cuts energy programs for 
America. I find it interesting and troubling. We found that 
weatherization was ahead of having a strategic oil reserve. This will 
be the second amendment that strikes at the funds that are needed to 
manage the future energy supply for this country.
  A few hours ago or yesterday, we provided that State parks were more 
important than energy research. We also yesterday said payment in lieu 
of taxes, an issue that I have always fought for, was more important 
than energy. I was forced to not support the PILT amendment.
  Now we are having a very impassioned argument for NEA and NEH. But 
this will be almost $100 million taken from the future of America's 
energy needs. Have we forgotten 1973 and 1974? Have we forgotten the 
lines in this country? Have we forgotten what it did to our economy? 
Have we forgotten what it did to job opportunities and growth in this 
Nation? Have we forgotten how it made us vulnerable?
  This country does not have an energy policy. We have drifted to where 
we are more than 50 percent dependent on foreign oil. Are we 
comfortable with Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria, Kuwait, Iraq, Indonesia, and 
Russia as our source of energy?
  We have been fortunate to have Saudi Arabia, our friend. But remember 
when Iran was our friend, how quick that can change. If Saudi Arabia 
leadership would change and we lose that cheap source of oil, this 
country would be in jeopardy. Our future and all of these things that 
we are talking about would seem minuscule to the energy resources that 
are important to this country.
  The energy resource that we have cut here previously is about clean 
air. It is about better use of our energy.
  The Strategic Oil Reserve that was to give us a 90-day supply in case 
of one of these foreign countries turning against us has never been 
filled because Congress and the current administration has not had the 
will to fill it. In fact, a few short years ago, we were selling $30 
oil for $12 to run it because we did not fund it. That has been 
changed.
  This is the second cut. I am not arguing what the money is used for. 
But is the future energy needs of this country so insignificant that 
everybody is going to target energy to fund their program?
  I think the future energy needs of this country are far more 
important than collectively all the programs we funded by taking the 
money.
  We need to continue clean coal research. We need to continue to get 
more oil out of the ground more efficiently and more cost effectively 
so that we have to import less. All of those things are important to 
clean air, to clean water, and to the safety and future of this 
country.
  I just find it incredible that amendment after amendment attacks the 
energy line items that are about our future for something that may be 
nice, that may be good. But is it more important than the future 
economy of this country, the future energy needs of this country?
  We see oil prices double, and we will see weatherization needs 
skyrocket. We see oil prices double, we will see our economy go in the 
tank real quick. And we will not have money for anything here. We will 
be cutting all kinds of programs.
  The future of this country's military might depends on a sufficient 
supply of energy, and it appears we have somehow swept that aside, and 
this is the year to attack energy, a budget that is underfunded in its 
own right.
  I guess I have to stress that, collectively, in my view, these 
amendments have a negative impact on our environment.

                              {time}  1330

  Because the research that we are cutting, the oil reserve that we are 
cutting is so vital to our economic future and for the clean and more 
efficient use of fuels and the realization that we have planned for our 
children's future by providing an energy source when something goes 
wrong in this world that destabilizes our current sources, to not have 
the reserve full is a tragedy, to cut its budget is a mistake.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would acknowledge that it is no small feat that we 
have arrived at today, an opportunity to have a positive discussion on 
the Nation's cultural investments and our priorities without the 
acrimony that we have seen in recent years. And I tip my hat to the 
members of the committee for their leadership in guiding this forward, 
in taking a deep breath and sort of exhaling to make sure that we can 
be clear about what we are trying to achieve, rather than making it an 
opportunity to score partisan political points on a philosophic basis.
  I think the next step is for us to see how our cultural investments 
fit with the committee's marker that they have set down in terms of 
beginning the discussion for this important budget and what is going to 
happen over the course of the next 50 years. I think in that context we 
ought to be looking at the direction of the budget, and it is why I 
support the amendment that has been offered up by the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
  The investment that we have made in cultural activities in my 
community that have served as a catalyst by Federal investment has been 
a key to the partnerships that have characterized what we have seen 
around the country. It has leveraged, as has been referenced on the 
floor, many times over the resources from the private sector, from 
philanthropic undertakings, and it has inspired people to be more 
entrepreneurial in the delivery of services. These partnerships are key 
in all of our communities but, unfortunately, the Federal Government 
has been lagging in terms of its involvement with these partnerships. 
It has not been keeping pace.
  The Federal Government, ironically, would end up making more by 
investing in arts activities because we can see in every one of our 
districts cultural investments that have provided a spark economically 
for local festivals, arts districts, for community events that have 
made a huge difference and that are a significant and growing economic 
presence across the country. It enables us to coax more out of our 
educational investments, as has been referenced by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. 
Morella). I have seen it in the school districts in my community where 
these dollars have leveraged spectacular results from young people.
  It has made a difference in terms of how people regard their 
communities, in the activities and the way that they invest themselves. 
Indeed, in a number of communities, we have seen arts organizations 
provide regional cohesion in a way that governments have been unable 
to. And we have seen artificial boundaries that have divided our 
solutions for things like storm water runoff or watershed or air 
pollution come together as a result of arts organizations putting 
together voluntary regional approaches that really can be a pattern to 
show how we can solve problems generally.
  It is not a subsidy for those who are well off. In all of our 
communities, most of the people of means would actually be money ahead 
if they would not spend their time and energy that they do in making 
these partnerships work but simply buy their tickets to go to San 
Francisco, New York or Seattle. But what we are doing is we are

[[Page 15929]]

coaxing them to make the investments locally so that they can share the 
resources in terms of symphonies and in terms of museums. It is not for 
the wealthy and the well-positioned, it is for the young, the old, and 
the poor.
  I strongly urge support of this amendment and hope that it will begin 
our efforts to reinvest in a wiser fashion in the future. It is time 
for us, for America, to catch up with where our citizens want us to be 
and how the rest of the world is treating their arts and cultural 
resources.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Slaughter-Horn-Johnson 
amendment to increase funding for both the National Endowment for the 
Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities by $10 million each.
  Being from Westchester County, New York, my neighbors and I have the 
benefit of our proximity to New York City, which provides us access to 
the premiere cultural center in this country. However, we do not take 
the impact of our exposure to the arts for granted. If anything, it has 
highlighted for us the important role that the arts can play in all of 
our lives. Without the NEA and their aid, the private sector is 
unlikely to replace Federal funding; and this, Mr. Chairman, would be a 
great tragedy.
  There are thousands, literally thousands of people employed in the 
arts in my district, authors, painters, applied arts conservationists, 
TV production people. As a matter of fact, the City of Peekskill has 
been able to encourage and engage in real urban renewal based around 
the arts.
  For the last 4 years, we have not given the NEA and the NEH any 
substantial increase in funding. We have asked, however, that the NEA 
institute reforms in their grant process and reduce the size of 
infrastructure. The proposed $10 million increase to each, the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, 
is much needed. These are jobs we are talking about.
  As a former teacher, I can attest to the fact that the impact of the 
arts on our children is instrumental in their education. And with this 
small increase, the NEA will be able to reach more teachers and more 
students. They cannot do this alone. They need our support.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Slaughter-Horn-
Johnson amendment and support this modest increase for the NEA and the 
NEH. As we work to create a solid foundation for our children, we need 
to ensure that they have the opportunity to understand and appreciate 
all of the arts.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment to increase funding 
for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for 
the Humanities by $10 million each. It is about time we had a fair, 
open debate on increasing funding for the arts.
  In the past, we have funded NEA as high as $167 million. But, since 
1995, Congress has consistently cut funding for the NEA to below $100 
million. This amendment is a very modest increase, and it is still far 
less than the President's request of $150 million. We should do more 
for our artists and cultural institutions, not less. We should remember 
that, because NEA funding is matched by private dollars, for every 
dollar we have cut from the NEA's budget at least double that amount 
has been cut from organizations that receive NEA funding; and for every 
dollar we restore now, at least double that will be restored for NEA 
recipients.
  In addition to budget reductions from the Federal Government, private 
funding for the arts has been slipping as well. This has been occurring 
at a time when more and more Americans are seeking out the arts and 
benefiting from our cultural institutions. Recent reports are that 
museum attendance nationwide is at an all-time high, yet museum 
visitors are finding higher entrance fees from Philadelphia to Seattle 
and from Portland to Chicago. Visitors to New York's Metropolitan 
Museum of Art recently have been jolted by a suggested admission price 
of $10. The world-famous Metropolitan Opera finds itself with a deficit 
expected to be more than $1.5 million just for the year. The Met, long 
a favorite of private and corporate donors, will survive, but the 
survival of other institutions, especially smaller, less well-known 
institutions, is much more problematic, especially since many of them 
have been hit by cuts in government support at every level. Many have 
already been forced to close their doors or to scale back their 
programs dramatically. We should increase the funding to keep these 
arts institutions alive and well in America.
  It is important to realize how the funds distributed by the NEA 
intrinsically connect the entire country. For example, last year, the 
NEA, working in association with the New York-based Chamber Music 
America, made a $300,000 grant to underwrite the development of a 
special project celebrating the millennium. In carrying out the 
project, Chamber Music America is working with more than 300 
organizations and artists around the Nation to produce a 3-year musical 
celebration. The NEA's $300,000 grant has been leveraged into more than 
$4 million in support for the projects widely distributed throughout 
the country. This is just one example of how the effort which began at 
the NEA at the Federal level soon blossomed into musical programs all 
over the country.
  It is particularly unfortunate that this bill places an artificial 
limit on funding to areas that have a concentration of arts 
institutions. We in New York are proud that New York City attracts the 
best and the brightest artists from around the country, but this 
legislation places an artificial cap on funds to New York City and to 
other such areas. It is unfair. It is time to stop punishing and start 
rewarding States and localities that nurture the arts. We send our 
agriculture subsidies to agricultural States, and New York City does 
not complain for not getting any part of the wheat subsidy, and that is 
entirely appropriate. But it is also appropriate to send support for 
the arts to the regions that produce the most arts and culture. We 
should acknowledge that certain regions offer products and services 
that benefit all of us, even though they originate, in some cases, from 
concentrated areas.
  The NEA is a good investment for American taxpayers. It helps improve 
our economy, educate our children, enrich our every day lives and, 
therefore, should receive increased Federal funding, especially since 
it leverages a lot of private funding.
  The National Endowment for the Humanities complements the work of the 
NEA and provides critical Federal support to the Nation's educational 
and cultural life. The humanities are critical to any free and 
democratic society. The study of history, philosophy, literature and 
religion are critical to creating an informed public, which is the 
bedrock of democracy. How can we expect people to make intelligent 
decisions and govern themselves well without the study of the 
humanities?
  The NEH is crucial to our efforts to preserve the writings and ideas 
of American culture. In fact, the endowment plays a critical role in 
efforts to preserve the writings of American presidents such as George 
Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Dwight Eisenhower. We should support 
the increase in funding for a program whose primary purpose is to 
preserve American history and culture.
  What happened to the Met--and what has affected hundreds of cultural 
institutions nationwide--is that the Reader's Digest Association, 
facing stagnant sales in 1997, began a retrenchment that included a cut 
in its stock dividends. The handsome annuity from the company's 
dividends, that had found its way to cultural institutions nationwide 
through the Lila Acheson Wallace Foundation, was slashed. The Met, long 
a favorite of private and corporate donors, will survive, but the 
survival of other institutions is much more problematic, especially 
since many of them have been hit by cuts in government support at every 
level. Many have been forced to close their doors or dramatically scale 
back their programs.
  In fact, the NEA has specifically worked to expand the geographical 
reach of its programs. IN 1994, the NEA provided $300,000

[[Page 15930]]

to start the Rural Residency Program, which is designed to enrich the 
musical life of under-served rural communities. Since its inception the 
program has placed 98 musicians with 23 different rural host 
organizations in 11 states. They have worked in schools, visited 
nursing homes, performed outreach concerts, and taught individual 
students. NEH is to promote research, education, and the preservation 
of our cultural heritage. We should demonstrate our support for these 
goals by increasing funding for this agency.
  The NEH promotes the study of the humanities in numerous ways. The 
endowment has funded professional development for 50,000 teachers in 
its summer seminars, and they have reached in turn 7\1/2\ million 
students. Due to the severe cuts in funding sustained since FY 1996, 
the NEH is now able to fund only about one-third the number of summer 
seminars and institutes for teachers as they had before. They are 
seeking additional funds this year to reverse that trend and to expand 
on the educational mission of the agency. They will continue to support 
the premier Internet resource for humanities teachers, EDSITEment, 
which provides links to and lesson plans for 50 top-quality humanities 
websites.
  The NEH also funs multimedia database programs on the Supreme Court, 
the Civil War, and the philosophies and civilizations of ancient Greece 
and Rome. The NEH plans a special initiative that will bring online 
tens of thousands of digital images of manuscripts, maps, photographs, 
and artifacts. The NEH also provides national leadership for efforts to 
digitize and make more accessible such important tests as the Dead Sea 
Scrolls, ancient Egyptian papyrus fragments and the works of 
Shakespeare. The endowment has preserved 750,000 brittle books and 55 
million pages of American newspapers. The NEH is planning a new program 
of awards to small libraries and museums to support staff attendance at 
preservation training sessions, on-site consultations by preservation 
experts, and the purchase of preservation supplies and equipment.
  Mr. Chairman, these two programs, the NEA and the NEH, with the very 
modest $10 million increases in this amendment, will still be funded at 
levels 40 percent less than that 5 years ago. We should restore them to 
at least what they got 5 years ago, but, failing that, this amendment 
is a small first step in that direction. I congratulate the sponsors, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter-Horn-Johnson 
amendment. I will say at the outset that I am a little reluctant, 
because it takes funding from the strategic petroleum reserve, but I am 
going to go ahead and support the amendment. I hope that it passes, and 
I hope when this bill goes into conference with the other body that it 
is worked out and the SPR funding can be worked out as well because it 
has an impact on industry in my State.
  But I also think this adjustment in the funding for both the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities is 
terribly important. Over the last 15 to 17 years this body has had a 
number of very controversial debates over whether or not the Federal 
Government should be involved in the funding of these activities. I 
strongly believe that we should.
  The gentleman before me just spoke about wheat subsidies and whether 
or not that affects people in New York City. I would argue, in effect, 
that it does because it involves stabilizing the price of food that 
ends up on the shelves of grocery stores in New York City and every 
city and every town across this country. In the same respect, funding 
for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for 
the Humanities affects every sector of American society.
  And what it really is about is preserving and collecting and 
preserving our heritage, the American history, American arts, American 
culture. And when we compare what we have done in this great country in 
the last 218 years and the heritage we have, the amount of resources 
that we provide to it compared to other industrialized nations is 
really woefully lacking.

                              {time}  1345

  I think that it is important that we do provide these resources. I 
think it is important that, as part of growing the American experiment 
and showing what it has been and how it has worked, that we provide 
some resources through the NEA and the NEH.
  I would also add, over the last years of this debate, and I had the 
opportunity to watch them both as a Member of this body and as a member 
of the staff to this body in the 1980s, we have seen through both the 
previous Bush administration and the Clinton administration safeguards 
put into effect to deal with the question of controversial funding. And 
I think that those have worked.
  We have also seen the funding through the administrators of the 
agencies, particularly the NEA, spread more evenly across the country, 
in my opinion. The funding does not just go to artists in New York City 
or Los Angeles. There is a lot of funding that comes to my area, in the 
greater Houston area, and it does not just go to the arts. Yes, the 
Houston Symphony gets funding. The Museum of Fine Arts in Houston gets 
funding. The Contemporary Arts Museum in Houston gets funding. But so 
does San Jacinto Community College get funding through the NEA. I think 
it has been a successful program.
  I think it is important for the United States to invest in our 
cultural heritage, and I strongly support making this adjustment, which 
I think is fair in the context of a balanced budget to do.
  I do hope that we can work out the funding in the long-run so we are 
not taking it outside of the SPR funding. But I do support the 
amendment of the gentlewoman.
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from California.
  The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for 
the Humanities provide opportunities for Americans to experience art, 
culture, and humanities far beyond the small amount of Federal money we 
invest each year. The money serves as a catalyst that is used in my 
State of Utah for programs such as the Mother Read/Father Read, which 
is a family reading project combining parenting and reading skills. It 
targets at-risk elementary school children and teenage parents and 
shows them the importance of reading to their children and helps them 
improve their own parent and reading skills.
  Our small Federal investment is combined with State, local, and 
private funds to provide grants to organizations like the Utah 
Symphony, the Salt Lake Opera, the Ryrie Ballet, and Utah Arts 
Festival. It makes possible the annual Living Traditions Festival, 
which brings together artists, native and folk craftsmen. The Great 
Salt Lake Book Festival is a gathering of readers and writers and 
anyone who loves books. The Utah Arts Councils offer free summer 
concerts that allow urban and inner-city residents the exposure to 
forms of music they otherwise would never hear.
  Arts programs have helped reach children who have difficulty learning 
to become more interested in school. The Art Access program partners 
artists and teachers to help teach disabled and special education 
children learn through visual arts, dance, and storytelling.
  If my colleagues talk to their local arts councils, they will tell 
them story after story of children who were disinterested in school who 
through art and music programs learned self-worth, confidence, and 
gained a renewed interest in their studies.
  A film project for rural children in Monument Valley in Utah allowed 
them to learn the art of filmmaking while studying mineral deposits on 
their land. The resulting film has gained national recognition. A 
similar project in northern Utah lets children film and study a local 
bird refuge, and the resulting film is now being used by the Utah 
Department of Parks and Wildlife.
  I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for his 
recognition of the fine work in support of the NEA and NEH. But I 
believe this small additional funding will allow its fine work to be 
even more effective.

[[Page 15931]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of this amendment.
  I have done my very best to be faithful to what the subcommittee did, 
but I made it very clear in this process that I favored some increase 
in the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities.
  I have served on this subcommittee for 23 years. I can remember in 
the early days when Livingston Biddle was chairman of the National 
Endowment for the Arts, we had three major challenge grants out in 
Seattle, and in those days Seattle was just emerging in the arts. And 
those three challenge grants led to a tremendous Pacific Northwest 
Ballet, to the Seattle Art Museum, the Seattle Symphony. All of those 
institutions have become major performing arts institutions in our 
Nation. But particularly in the Northwest, it brought the arts at a 
very high level to these communities. And it also created jobs.
  Sometimes we forget that the arts and the humanities create jobs in 
our country, particularly when we think about the performing arts. I 
can remember the days when we had to fight to preserve this budget even 
at a 50-percent reduction. But I am pleased today to hear the 
bipartisan support that there is on this floor and the understanding 
about the importance of the arts and humanities to the American way of 
life.
  I can tell my colleagues, in my own hometown of Bremerton, 
Washington, our local community came together to restore the Admiral 
Theater, and our local symphony performs there and other arts 
institutions; and we have the touring arts groups that go over all our 
State. I believe that the Federal participation here, even though it is 
meager, is still very significant because it demonstrates to the 
American people and to the private sector that we in the Congress and 
at the executive branch support the performing arts, support the 
National Endowment for the Humanities.
  We have a school in Tacoma, Washington, Jason Lee School. Dale 
Chihuly is one of the world's renowned glass artists. There is an 
after-school program now where literally dozens of kids who would 
otherwise be on the streets or have nothing to do after school are 
involved in creating glass art. And these kids love it. I went up and I 
participated with them to see them actually involved in the creation of 
pots and various items that are important in terms of producing glass 
art. These kids enjoyed these programs.
  I think the police are correct when they say that, if we have 
programs like this for kids, they will not get in trouble. And these 
are things that the Endowment has supported, and youth education.
  I can remember being out with Jane Alexander in Garfield High School 
in Seattle and seeing the kids in the after-school program there 
involved in the creation of art and have them explain what they have 
created. It gave them something positive in their lives. I believe that 
these programs are very important. And I believe that for 4 years now 
we have not had any increase whatsoever.
  I am glad that we have reached a point where we are not trying to 
eliminate these programs, which would be dreadful. But my hope is that 
today we can show that we have gotten beyond this kind of reactive 
anti-approach to the arts and humanities and that we now support them.
  I want to compliment our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula). He and I worked on language in several instances to try to get 
the Endowment to focus on quality, recognizing that we cannot fund 
everything, that we had to focus on quality to fund those projects 
which reach the highest levels of artistic and human expression. And by 
doing that, we have gotten away from some of the more controversial 
areas. That will always be a debate in the arts.
  But I think the committee has succeeded, and I think it has met some 
of the criticisms; but I think now it is time to show that there is 
still in this Congress a majority that will support this modest 
increase for the arts and humanities. They deserve it. The country 
deserves it. It will be wisely spent. Our kids will benefit from it. 
Our communities will benefit from it. And the American people support 
it.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the speeches, and I think, of 
course, that they have some positive merits. I think that the National 
Endowment for the Arts, under the rule changes that we have made, has 
been much more effective.
  I believe that Mr. Ivey, as chairman of the NEA, has done a good job 
of trying to reach out across the Nation to ensure that the money is 
used to stimulate art activity in small villages, small cities, as well 
as in the large cities. I think the program has done some very positive 
things.
  I have to point out that this bill is flat funded. We did not have 
any increases. We did have increases in the parks, but we had to 
decrease elsewhere. By and large, we have only been able to flat fund 
all of the programs.
  For these reasons, I think that what we have in the bill is a 
responsible number. It is not an increase, but it is not a decrease. 
And there are different shades of opinion in the House as to increasing 
and decreasing the arts number and more so with the arts than with the 
humanities.
  It would be nice if we had a lot of money to provide for some 
increases. But in the absence of having a larger allocation, I think 
what we have tried to do is fair to the NEA and the NEH.
  I am pleased that the conditions that we have put in in the last 
several years have worked well in ensuring that the money spent does 
not go to projects that are offensive to the American people. I give 
credit to Mr. Ivey, as well as others who have worked to ensure that 
that happens.
  I think our representatives on the board, and I might say this was a 
suggestion of Mr. Yates, as a matter of fact, that we have three 
members from the House and three from the Senate to be on the NEA 
board. I would say, and I hope Mr. Yates is watching this because he 
was the champion of the arts and the humanities, and his suggestion, 
which we adopted, of having six of our Members and of the other body 
has worked out well. I think if my colleagues would talk with them, 
they recognize that the programs have worked as we would hope they 
would.
  I have to say that I would oppose this amendment simply because I 
think what we have done is fair in light of the allocation that was 
made to our committee. Right now, we are about a million dollars under 
last year. And what we have done with the arts and the humanities have 
kept them at last year's level, so that I would like to see it stay at 
that level.
  I would also point out that if we take more money out of SPR, we have 
already taken $13 million out of SPR in a recent amendment, this would 
add to that another $20 million and we are talking about $33 million 
coming out of SPR. I do not think it is good policy for our country to 
take that much money out of SPR, because this is our insurance policy 
that we are not going to be trapped in another embargo that was so 
difficult and created so much in the way of problems in the 1970s.
  Still, as I said earlier, the fact that it is there, I believe, is a 
deterrent to an embargo such as OPEC imposed on the United States.
  So, for all of those reasons, I hope that we will maintain the level 
of funding that is in the bill. There will be some amendments to cut 
NEA and NEH funding. I will oppose those, also.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned the name of Sid 
Yates, who for many years was chairman and then ranking member of this 
subcommittee. I have had the honor of trying to fill those very big 
shoes.
  I just wanted my colleague to know that, if Sid were looking at the 
TV today, Mr. Chairman, he would be in support of this amendment.

[[Page 15932]]


  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, he would probably 
already have a larger amount in the bill. I understand.
  But, as the staff just reminded me, Mr. Yates is also a strong 
supporter of SPR, so he might have some concerns about where the offset 
is located.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, what 
he would say, Mr. Chairman, is that we will find a better source in the 
conference for this.
  Mr. REGULA. Well, the conferences have some pluses I must say. But I 
hope the Members will maintain the level that we have in the bill. I 
think it is a responsible amount.
  Again, I commend the chairman of NEA and also the chairman of NEH. 
Both have provided excellent leadership for the programs, and that is 
very important in maintaining public acceptance and Congressional 
support.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-Horn 
amendment to the Interior appropriations bill to increase funding for 
the NEA and the NEH by $10 million each. In doing so, I too want to pay 
tribute to our former colleague, Sid Yates. Everyone who enjoys the 
arts in America owes a great debt of gratitude to Sid Yates. We miss 
him.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is doing a good job in 
managing his first bill and of course it is with great admiration and 
respect for the chairman of the subcommittee that I respectfully 
disagree with him and in support of this amendment.
  Next I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for her leadership as head of the Arts Caucus in the 
Congress. This is a very, very important part of our congressional 
agenda and it is one that deserves a great deal of attention from 
Members. We are all in her debt for the time and the commitment she has 
given to the arts on behalf of everyone in America and on behalf of her 
colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, the poet Shelley once wrote that the greatest force for 
the moral good is imagination. In the challenges that our young people 
face today, they need all the imagination that they can get. The 
exposure to the arts that they get through the NEA helps them build 
confidence in their classwork, honors their creativity and it is just 
good for their personal enrichment as well as their ability to earn a 
living later.
  The increase that is requested in the President's budget for the NEA 
will enable the NEA to implement its Challenge America initiative. 
Challenge America would ensure that increased funding would go directly 
to underserved populations in order to increase participation and 
exposure to the arts by focusing on arts education and broadening 
access to the arts, afterschool programming for young people at risk, 
preservation of cultural heritage, and building strong community-based 
arts partnerships. Again, encouraging imagination.
  Bringing the arts to the center of community life through 
partnerships with arts organizations, school districts, chambers of 
commerce, social service agencies, city parks departments, tourism and 
convention bureaus and State arts agencies is a crucial part of the 
agency's mission and of the Challenge America initiative.
  Federal support for the arts is necessary to ensure that broad access 
is possible for people of all economic backgrounds and in all regions 
of the country. Today, arts agencies in 50 States and six territories 
receive Federal funding through the NEA to support the arts. Over the 
last three decades, the NEA has substantially increased arts activities 
in every State in this country.
  We have talked about building confidence, we have talked about the 
arts being a bridge to greater academic achievement and what that means 
in a young person's life. The gentleman from Washington cited some 
examples in his experience. I just wanted to convey to my colleagues my 
experiences, I will just do one example, though, of town meetings I 
have had in areas of our community which would fall into the category 
served by Challenge America, underserved populations. In those 
communities where crime is a big issue and unemployment is a fact of 
life, the parents who come to my town meetings say to me, ``Please, 
please, please do not cut the arts programs in our schools.'' This is 
the one source of encouragement, the one place where our children gain 
confidence, the one place where they express themselves freely. We must 
retain it. It is interesting, because one would think that these 
parents would start talking about other issues relating to crime or to 
joblessness or other concerns that challenge the community. But they 
see and recognize how fundamental the arts are to the self-fulfillment 
of their children and how indeed through imagination they can attack 
some of the problems that they face in society and that they will face 
as they grow older.
  Again echoing the words of the poet Shelley, imagination is the 
greatest force for moral good. Let us support imagination. Support the 
Slaughter-Horn amendment.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the good work of the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) and to support the Slaughter-Horn amendment to increase the 
funding for the NEA/NEH.
  Americans in communities all across the country benefit from the 
small Federal investment in the arts and humanities.
  In Maine, NEA funds have been used for a statewide training program 
to help identify traditional artists and build partnerships to promote 
local culture in Maine communities; to allow students to participate in 
the national ``Essentially Ellington High School Jazz Band Competition 
and Festival'' and to support appearances of nationally recognized 
dance companies, among other things.
  NEH funds have allowed the Maine Humanities Council to implement the 
Born to Read family literacy program which this year will provide more 
than 3,000 Maine families with high quality children's books that they 
can keep as well as tips and techniques for having fun interacting with 
their babies and children around the books.
  These are just a few examples of the high quality programs that are 
available to rural Maine families that without this Federal funding 
would not otherwise be able to be provided.
  Our investment in the arts and humanities provides seed money for 
private development. For every dollar of NEH money that goes into 
Maine's Born to Read program, it has generated three additional dollars 
of private dollars, a good match between the Federal Government and the 
private sector working together to make sure that rural communities 
throughout Maine and the country have these advantages for their 
families and children and for our future. Our long-standing Federal 
investment also ensures access for all families to these rich cultural 
resources. I strongly support this amendment which will provide a very 
modest increase in Federal support for the arts and humanities.
  To paraphrase President John Adams in a letter to his wife Abigail, 
``I must study politics and war so that my sons and daughters may have 
the liberty to study mathematics, natural history and agriculture, in 
order so that their sons and daughters may have the right to study 
painting, poetry, music and architecture.''
  Since that time, we have been able to be fortunate to have the 
humanities and arts education become an important part of our 
children's overall education. The arts and humanities are also 
important in and of themselves. They enrich our children's lives and 
the world around us. This amendment represents a very small but a 
significant investment in our national culture. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for my colleagues'

[[Page 15933]]

amendment to increase the funding for the National Endowment of the 
Arts and the National Endowment of the Humanities. For the 4th straight 
year, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment 
for the Humanities have not received any increase in funding. As a 
result, my colleagues, Representatives Slaughter and Horn, have offered 
an amendment to increase the budget of both agencies by $10 million.
  The National Endowment for the Arts helps bring the arts to millions 
of young people through classes and after school programs. Recently, 
both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for 
the Humanities have launched major new initiatives to reach out to more 
Americans. The Endowment has been criticized for not reaching out to 
enough people in every congressional district. That argument is without 
merit, but an increase in funding for the National Endowment for the 
Arts will provide more small to medium sized grants that will help 
bring arts programs into areas that had been previously under served by 
the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Increased funding for the arts is about improving the quality of life 
for communities by allowing families to come together to learn and 
experience the arts. The National Endowment for the Arts is trying to 
address congressional requests that priority be given to providing 
services or awarding financial assistance to populations historically 
underserved by the National Endowment for the Arts. By increasing the 
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, we can help ensure a 
nationwide access to the arts.
  An education through the arts improves a student's overall ability to 
learn, it instills self-esteem and discipline, and provides creative 
outlets for self expression. A recent study by the endowment has 
concluded that participating in the arts leads to improved academic 
performance, increased ability to communicate, a commitment to 
finishing tasks and a decrease in frequency of delinquent behavior. 
Young people who are involved in the arts are more likely to become 
involved with positive people who can help steer them in the right 
track. Participating in the arts can be the constructive influence that 
helps ignite children's imaginations, making a difference in their 
lives that will help keep away from drugs and violence.
  The National Endowment for the Arts is committed to strengthening 
America's families and communities through the special powers of the 
arts. The $10 million increase in funding that this amendment provides 
is specifically targeted to fund arts programs for at risk youth. The 
increase of funding by $10 million for both agencies will help create 
stronger, more creative outlets for our children, as well as stronger, 
more creative people for our communities. Accordingly, I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-
Horn amendment to provide a desperately needed increase for the 
National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for 
the Arts. Since 1995, serious funding cuts have endangered the work of 
the NEA and the NEH across the country. Today, we have the opportunity 
to provide the first meaningful increase for these programs that are so 
deserving of our support.
  The cuts on Humanities programs have fallen disproportionately on 
programs which bring Humanities into our communities, for example, 
library based reading programs, lecture series, historical exhibits and 
radio and television programming.
  Some of my colleagues would have you believe that the NEA only 
supports projects in a select few cities, and that it is not worth our 
time or money to make the arts and humanities a national priority. But 
the NEA's new Challenge America program is designed so that nearly 
1,000 communities nationwide would receive modest arts program grants, 
and 150 communities across the country would benefit from larger 
grants.
  One of the most exciting aspects of the Challenge America program is 
its potential to help at-risk youth--children who are slipping through 
the cracks and need exposure to a constructive new way of self-
expression and self-esteem.
  Recent studies have shown that 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 an improved ability to finish tasks, less 
delinguent behavior, and a more positive attitude toward school. The 
results are in: we must support these programs now, while their 
benefits are just beginning to be realized.
  The NEH and NEA make up just a tiny portion of our budget--and that 
investment pays off in so many ways, spurring jobs and private 
investment and preserving our heritage for generations to come. Who 
knows how many children have had their interest sparked in a whole new 
subject thanks to an NEA or NEH sponsored program. Don't put out that 
spark. Don't destroy our heritage. Vote for this amendment, support the 
NEA and the NEH.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this critical 
amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts 
and the National Endowment for the Humanities. This funding would 
support grants for arts education, access to underserved areas and 
other outreach projects proposed under the NEA's Challenge America 
Initiative.
  The arts represent the finest that American culture has to offer. 
Funding for the arts provides a life line for many arts organizations 
in communities throughout our country. In Santa Barbara and San Luis 
Obispo Counties, which I am proud to represent, the NEA supports 
programs such as the Children's Creative Project, the Cal Poly Arts 
Program, the Cuesta College Public Events Program and the Santa Barbara 
Museum of Art. The seed money provided by the NEA allows these programs 
to flourish and contribute to their respective economies.
  The NEA broadens Americans' access to the arts and promotes lifelong 
learning. Arts education improves the lives of young people by teaching 
them self-esteem, teamwork, motivation, discipline and problem solving 
skills that will assist them later in life. Research has shown that 
students who studied the arts scored an average of 83 points higher 
than non-arts students on the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT). Yet 
sadly, many students today do not have access to arts education in our 
schools.
  Mr. Chairman, working in our local schools for over twenty years, I 
have seen first-hand the benefits of arts education. I have also seen 
arts programs stripped from schools and unfortunately our children have 
suffered the consequences. Arts education demands discipline and 
perseverance, requires critical judgment and self-reflection, and 
teaches decision making, problem solving and teamwork. We all know that 
these are necessary skills for success in today's workplace--and more 
importantly, success in life.
  The arts boost our national economy as well. The nonprofit arts 
community generates an estimated $37 billion in economic activity, 
employs a work force of nearly three million people, increases tourism, 
and generates new business in communities. An investment in the arts is 
not only an investment in culture and community, but also in the 
economic vitality of our country.
  Mr. Chairman, the NEA budget accounts for less than one tenth of 1 
percent of the federal budget and provides invaluable services to our 
communities and students. I strongly support this amendment and 
encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this pragmatic investment 
in our nation's future.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Slaughter 
amendment to strengthen our commitment to the National Endowments for 
the Arts and Humanities (NEA/NEH). It is extremely important that we do 
what we can to support the artists, educators and students in our 
communities.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of the First Congressional District have 
directly benefited from NEA and the NEH. Without the support of these 
groups, many of our children would not have access to the arts and 
humanities that are a vital component of their education.
  The NEA and the NEH reach out to underserved communities--communities 
that traditionally do not have access to our cultural treasures. The 
Slaughter amendment would allow the NEA and the NEH to provide more 
grants to our underserved communities so that all of our children 
receive important exposure to the arts.
  The Slaughter amendment will go a long way to provide the NEA and the 
NEH with the means to offer greater participation in our cultural 
heritage. The NEA and the NEH were created with the intention to help 
preserve and foster the culture of America. Our communities deserve to 
continue to be exposed to the rich cultural legacy of the United 
States.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Slaughter amendment.
  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.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) will be postponed.

[[Page 15934]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   energy information administration

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Energy Information Administration, $72,644,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


            administrative provisions, department of energy

       Appropriations under this Act for the current fiscal year 
     shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase, 
     repair, and cleaning of uniforms; and reimbursement to the 
     General Services Administration for security guard services.
       From appropriations under this Act, transfers of sums may 
     be made to other agencies of the Government for the 
     performance of work for which the appropriation is made.
       None of the funds made available to the Department of 
     Energy under this Act shall be used to implement or finance 
     authorized price support or loan guarantee programs unless 
     specific provision is made for such programs in an 
     appropriations Act.
       The Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings, 
     equipment, and other contributions from public and private 
     sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other 
     agencies, Federal, State, private or foreign: Provided, That 
     revenues and other moneys received by or for the account of 
     the Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of 
     products in connection with projects of the Department 
     appropriated under this Act may be retained by the Secretary 
     of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for 
     plant construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-
     sharing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing 
     contracts or agreements: Provided further, That the remainder 
     of revenues after the making of such payments shall be 
     covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided 
     further, That any contract, agreement, or provision thereof 
     entered into by the Secretary pursuant to this authority 
     shall not be executed prior to the expiration of 30 calendar 
     days (not including any day in which either House of Congress 
     is not in session because of adjournment of more than three 
     calendar days to a day certain) from the receipt by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of 
     the Senate of a full comprehensive report on such project, 
     including the facts and circumstances relied upon in support 
     of the proposed project.
       No funds provided in this Act may be expended by the 
     Department of Energy to prepare, issue, or process 
     procurement documents for programs or projects for which 
     appropriations have not been made.
       In addition to other authorities set forth in this Act, the 
     Secretary may accept fees and contributions from public and 
     private sources, to be deposited in a contributed funds 
     account, and prosecute projects using such fees and 
     contributions in cooperation with other Federal, State or 
     private agencies or concerns.
       The Secretary of Energy hereafter may transfer to the SPR 
     Petroleum Account such funds as may be necessary to carry out 
     draw down and sale operations of the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve initiated under section 161 of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6241) from any funds available to 
     the Department of Energy under this or previous 
     appropriations Acts. All funds transferred pursuant to this 
     authority must be replenished as promptly as possible from 
     oil sale receipts pursuant to the draw down and sale.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                         Indian Health Service


                         Indian Health Services

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5, 
     1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of 
     the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian 
     Health Service, $2,085,407,000, together with payments 
     received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b) 
     for services furnished by the Indian Health Service: 
     Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal 
     organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any 
     other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the 
     grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available 
     to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year 
     limitation: Provided further, That $12,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic Health 
     Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $395,290,000 for 
     contract medical care shall remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2001: Provided further, That of the funds 
     provided, up to $17,000,000 shall be used to carry out the 
     loan repayment program under section 108 of the Indian Health 
     Care Improvement Act: Provided further, That funds provided 
     in this Act may be used for one-year contracts and grants 
     which are to be performed in two fiscal years, so long as the 
     total obligation is recorded in the year for which the funds 
     are appropriated: Provided further, That the amounts 
     collected by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 
     the authority of title IV of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act shall remain available until expended for the 
     purpose of achieving compliance with the applicable 
     conditions and requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the 
     Social Security Act (exclusive of planning, design, or 
     construction of new facilities): Provided further, That 
     funding contained herein, and in any earlier appropriations 
     Acts for scholarship programs under the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2001: Provided further, That 
     amounts received by tribes and tribal organizations under 
     title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act shall be 
     reported and accounted for and available to the receiving 
     tribes and tribal organizations until expended: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, of 
     the amounts provided herein, not to exceed $238,781,000 shall 
     be for payments to tribes and tribal organizations for 
     contract or grant support costs for fiscal year 2000 
     associated with contracts, grants, self-governance compacts 
     or annual funding agreements between the Indian Health 
     Service and a tribe or tribal organization pursuant to the 
     Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, of which 
     $5,000,000 is for new and expanded contracts, grants, self-
     goverance compacts or annual funding agreements and such new 
     and expanded contracts shall receive contract support costs 
     equal to the same proportion of need as existing contracts: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, no new or expanded contract, grant, self-goverance 
     compact or annual funding agreement shall be entered into 
     once the $5,000,000 has been committed.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
language beginning on page 76, line 16 that reads:
  ``And such new and expanded contracts shall receive contract support 
costs equal to the same proportion of need as existing contracts: 
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
new or expanded contract, grant, self-governance compact or annual 
funding agreement shall be entered into once the $5,000,000 has been 
committed.''
  Mr. Chairman, this language clearly violates clause 2(b) of House 
rule XXI against legislating on an appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Michigan, the point of 
order is sustained and the provision is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        indian health facilities

       For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and 
     equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities, 
     including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans, 
     specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase 
     and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers; 
     and for provision of domestic and community sanitation 
     facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act 
     of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
     Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and 
     titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with 
     respect to environmental health and facilities support 
     activities of the Indian Health Service, $312,478,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated for the planning, design, construction or 
     renovation of health facilities for the benefit of an Indian 
     tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land for sites to 
     construct, improve, or enlarge health or related facilities.

            administrative provisions, indian health service

       Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service 
     shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109 but at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent 
     to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under 
     5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; 
     purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints; 
     purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and 
     renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms 
     or allowances therefore as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are 
     concerned with the functions or activities for which the 
     appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved 
     conduct,

[[Page 15935]]

     supervision, or management of those functions or activities: 
     Provided, That in accordance with the provisions of the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act, non-Indian patients may 
     be extended health care at all tribally administered or 
     Indian Health Service facilities, subject to charges, and the 
     proceeds along with funds recovered under the Federal Medical 
     Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651-2653) shall be credited to 
     the account of the facility providing the service and shall 
     be available without fiscal year limitation: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other law or regulation, 
     funds transferred from the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development to the Indian Health Service shall be 
     administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian Sanitation 
     Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service 
     in this Act, except those used for administrative and program 
     direction purposes, shall not be subject to limitations 
     directed at curtailing Federal travel and transportation: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, funds previously or herein made available to a tribe or 
     tribal organization through a contract, grant, or agreement 
     authorized by title I or title III of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450), may be deobligated and reobligated to a self-
     determination contract under title I, or a self-governance 
     agreement under title III of such Act and thereafter shall 
     remain available to the tribe or tribal organization without 
     fiscal year limitation: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds made available to the Indian Health Service in this Act 
     shall be used to implement the final rule published in the 
     Federal Register on September 16, 1987, by the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, relating to the eligibility for 
     the health care services of the Indian Health Service until 
     the Indian Health Service has submitted a budget request 
     reflecting the increased costs associated with the proposed 
     final rule, and such request has been included in an 
     appropriations Act and enacted into law: Provided further, 
     That funds made available in this Act are to be apportioned 
     to the Indian Health Service as appropriated in this Act, and 
     accounted for in the appropriation structure set forth in 
     this Act: Provided further, That with respect to functions 
     transferred by the Indian Health Service to tribes or tribal 
     organizations, the Indian Health Service is authorized to 
     provide goods and services to those entities, on a 
     reimbursable basis, including payment in advance with 
     subsequent adjustment, and the reimbursements received 
     therefrom, along with the funds received from those entities 
     pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act, may be 
     credited to the same or subsequent appropriation account 
     which provided the funding, said amounts to remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, hereafter any funds appropriated to 
     the Indian Health Service in this or any other Act for 
     payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract or 
     grant support costs for contracts, grants, self-governance 
     compacts or annual funding agreements with the Indian Health 
     Service pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 
     1975, as amended, shall be allocated and distributed to such 
     contracts, grants, self-governance compacts and annual 
     funding agreements each year on a pro-rata proportionate 
     basis regardless of amounts allocated in any previous year to 
     such contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or annual 
     funding agreements: Provided further, That reimbursements for 
     training, technical assistance, or services provided by the 
     Indian Health Service will contain total costs, including 
     direct, administrative, and overhead associated with the 
     provision of goods, services, or technical assistance: 
     Provided further, That the appropriation structure for the 
     Indian Health Service may not be altered without advance 
     approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young), I make a point of order against the language beginning on 
page 80, lines 11 through 23 that reads:

       Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, hereafter any funds appropriated to the Indian Health 
     Service in this or any other Act for payments to tribes and 
     tribal organizations for contract or grant supports costs for 
     contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or annual funding 
     agreements with the Indian Health Service pursuant to the 
     Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, shall be 
     allocated and distributed to such contracts, grants, self-
     governance compacts and annual funding agreements each year 
     on a pro-rata proportionate basis regardless of amounts 
     allocated in any previous year to such contracts, grants, 
     self-governance compacts or annual funding agreements.

  This language clearly violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI against 
legislating on an appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, for the reasons stated by the gentleman from Idaho, the 
point of order is sustained and the provisions referred to are stricken 
from the bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we conceded on this point of order because obviously it 
is legislative language, but I would point out that it is a basic 
fairness issue. Unfortunately, we do not have enough money to do 100 
percent of contract support costs. The result is that if the funding is 
not distributed on a pro rata basis, it ends up that some tribes will 
get 100 percent of what they should and others will get less or 
nothing. The Bureau of Indian Affairs uses the pro-rata distribution of 
contract costs, and we would hope that the Indian Health Service could 
do the same. I think our position is fair, and we recognize that the 
limited funding results in some tribes getting very little or nothing. 
However, that is a policy issue that should be addressed by the 
authorizing committee and we recognize that. I hope that the 
authorizers will take a look at it and perhaps we could get more money 
so that we could provide funding for everybody that has need of health 
services.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. In 
response to the gentleman from Ohio, I am pleased that he accepted the 
point of order. We had this discussion last year. We have started the 
process of the hearings. We have had a report back from the GAO. We are 
looking into this issue. But I would like to stress one thing for those 
that may not be aware of this. Just disbursing moneys to all the tribes 
does not solve the health issue. One of the problems that I have had 
with the BIA, and especially this present administration, is that in my 
State they recognize 227 tribes. We do not have 227 tribes in my State. 
We have probably 11 tribes in my State. Those 11 tribes supply very 
good health services to all the members of those tribes because they 
have enough money to do the job correctly. And because of 
administrative costs, I would suggest all the smaller tribes would 
apply for money but yet not provide the health care.
  I have no one in my State that is asking for this type of pro-rata 
formula be used in my State. They think it would destroy a very 
efficient, very high class health system. And so for that reason, we 
are going to look at this. But I hope we are not trying to give 
everybody a little piece of the apple when there is not enough apple 
left to make a pie. Really that is what we are attempting to do.
  I want to thank the gentleman for his accepting the point of order, 
but this issue goes far beyond just supposedly being fair. This goes to 
the basics of good health care. We have the Yukon-Kuskokwim area which 
has one of the finest health care systems, it provides health care for 
basically 58 tribes. If we were to split that up in 58 small groups, we 
would have no health care for the recipients. So this is a health care 
issue which I feel very strongly on. We are going to work on it and try 
to get more money so that we can do it for everyone.

                              {time}  1415

  But just to spread it out does not solve the problem of good health 
care.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is satisfied that all of the 
Native Americans in Alaska that need health care will have access. 
There may be great distances involved, but they will have access in the 
points where we are now providing funding.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. They will have access; they will have good 
health care; they will have the ability to take and receive the health 
care as they have in the past, in fact, improve upon it. But if we 
disburse it in very small areas, they will not have that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

[[Page 15936]]


  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that both the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) are deeply concerned about Indian health care. They have 
demonstrated that time and time again. I think the question that the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and I have and the problem we have is 
so diluting and spreading these funds so thin that they become 
meaningless; and we have to address this, and we can address it perhaps 
in the authorization process or appropriate more money for this 
service.
  But I think this would dilute and make money ineffective, the money 
that is available right now, and I certainly commend both the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for 
their concern here, but I think this provision in the appropriations 
bill, which has been stricken, would spread too thin the money.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

              Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531, 
     $13,400,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act 
     are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups 
     including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands 
     residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and 
     all others certified as eligible and not included in the 
     preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the 
     Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any 
     single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985, 
     was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi 
     Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such 
     household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be 
     provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided 
     further, That the Office shall relocate any certified 
     eligible relocatees who have selected and received an 
     approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a 
     replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the 
     land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.

                        Smithsonian Institution


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as 
     authorized by law, including research in the fields of art, 
     science, and history; development, preservation, and 
     documentation of the National Collections; presentation of 
     public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation, 
     dissemination, and exchange of information and publications; 
     conduct of education, training, and museum assistance 
     programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for 
     terms not to exceed 30 years), and protection of buildings, 
     facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to 5 replacement 
     passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and cleaning of 
     uniforms for employees; $371,501,000, of which not to exceed 
     $48,471,000 for the instrumentation program, collections 
     acquisition, Museum Support Center equipment and move, 
     exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum of the 
     American Indian, the repatriation of skeletal remains 
     program, research equipment, information management, and 
     Latino programming shall remain available until expended, and 
     including such funds as may be necessary to support American 
     overseas research centers and a total of $125,000 for the 
     Council of American Overseas Research Centers: Provided, That 
     funds appropriated herein are available for advance payments 
     to independent contractors performing research services or 
     participating in official Smithsonian presentations: Provided 
     further, That the Smithsonian Institution may expend Federal 
     appropriations designated in this Act for lease or rent 
     payments for long term and swing space, as rent payable to 
     the Smithsonian Institution, and such rent payments may be 
     deposited into the general trust funds of the Institution to 
     the extent that federally supported activities are housed in 
     the 900 H St., N.W. building in the District of Columbia: 
     Provided further, That this use of Federal appropriations 
     shall not be construed as debt service, a Federal guarantee 
     of, a transfer of risk to, or an obligation of, the Federal 
     Government: Provided further, That no appropriated funds may 
     be used to service debt which is incurred to finance the 
     costs of acquiring the 900 H St. building or of planning, 
     designing, and constructing improvements to such building.


            repair, restoration and alteration of facilities

       For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and 
     alteration of facilities owned or occupied by the Smithsonian 
     Institution, by contract or otherwise, as authorized by 
     section 2 of the Act of August 22, 1949 (63 Stat. 623), 
     including not to exceed $10,000 for services as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109, $47,900,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for environmental 
     systems, protection systems, and repair or restoration of 
     facilities of the Smithsonian Institution may be negotiated 
     with selected contractors and awarded on the basis of 
     contractor qualifications as well as price: Provided further, 
     That funds previously appropriated to the ``Construction and 
     Improvements, National Zoological Park'' account and the 
     ``Repair and Restoration of Buildings'' account may be 
     transferred to and merged with this ``Repair, Restoration, 
     and Alteration of Facilities'' account.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses for construction, $19,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


           administrative provisions, smithsonian institution

       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     initiate the design of any expansion of current space or new 
     facility without consultation with the House and Senate 
     Appropriations Committees.
       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     prepare a historic structures report, or for any other 
     purpose, involving the Holt House located at the National 
     Zoological Park in Washington, D.C.
       The Smithsonian Institution shall not use Federal funds in 
     excess of the amount specified in Public Law 101-185 for the 
     construction of the National Museum of the American Indian.

                        National Gallery of Art


                         salaries and expenses

       For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of 
     Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and 
     administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by 
     the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the 
     public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9, 
     Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the 
     treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum, 
     and art associations or societies whose publications or 
     services are available to members only, or to members at a 
     price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 
     5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for 
     protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance, 
     alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches, 
     and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and 
     repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by 
     contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms, 
     or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms 
     and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $61,538,000, 
     of which not to exceed $3,026,000 for the special exhibition 
     program shall remain available until expended.


            repair, restoration and renovation of buildings

       For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and 
     renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or 
     occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or 
     otherwise, as authorized, $6,311,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded for 
     environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior 
     repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of 
     Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded 
     on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.

             John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts


                       operations and maintenance

       For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and 
     security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
     Arts, $12,441,000.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses for capital repair and 
     rehabilitation of the existing features of the building and 
     site of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, 
     $20,000,000, to remain available until expended.

            Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of 
     the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356) 
     including hire of passenger vehicles and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $7,040,000.

           National Foundation on the arts and the Humanities

                    National Endowment for the Arts


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $83,500,000 shall be available to the National Endowment for 
     the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the 
     arts through assistance to organizations and individuals 
     pursuant to sections 5(c) and 5(g) of the Act, for program 
     support, and for administering the functions of the Act, to 
     remain available until expended.


[[Page 15937]]

                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Stearns:
       Page 87, line 19, insert ``(reduced by $2,087,500)'' after 
     the dollar figure.

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the NEA funding 
by about $2 million, and, Mr. Chairman, this is about 2\1/2\ percent of 
the budget. And I noticed earlier that a lot of Members coming down to 
the well and my good colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), who indicated that we need to increase the funding. I think 
it is appropriate that I come forward also. So there are many of us do 
not think we need to increase the funding for NEA; and in fact over the 
years I have been in the House, the funding for the NEA has always been 
in question.
  There was a colleague of ours, Tim Penny from Minnesota. I think a 
lot of Members on that side will remember him, a Democrat who was an 
outstanding distinguished Member. He used to come on the House floor 
and always have an amendment to reduce funding of every appropriation 
bill by about 2\1/2\ percent. Sometimes it would be 5 percent. I think 
we remember that.
  Mr. Chairman, his thinking was to get the budget under control, we 
could take a modest reduction in every government program, and so the 
huge amount of savings that comes from across-the-board cut of 2\1/2\ 
percent or 5 percent is enormous. It is just this little small trim, 
modest amount, has a major impact on the budget.
  So I think this particular agency is obviously one of the agencies 
that I think that we could trim. So my amendment takes a very modest 
step in beginning a process of reduction; and of course, budget 
reduction requires discipline, and I think it is important that we look 
at the NEA. This is an agency that many of us question whether it 
should be in existence; but, as my colleagues know, the sentiment 
today, a lot of the pro NEA folks have won out, and when Congressman 
Sid Yates was here we used to debate, he and I, all the time. But it 
appears that a lot of sentiment is on my side to increase the funding 
for the NEA. I am still one of those who think that we can do a modest 
across-the-board cut of 2\1/2\ percent.
  I am not here to argue the merits of the NEA; we have had that 
discussion together with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and 
I and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter). We have taken that question of merit of the NEA 
and pounded it into the ground, and I am not necessarily hoping that 
the folks are going to get up and argue the merits of the NEA. But I am 
here to say that I think even though we have a surplus, it would not 
hurt to have a little fiscal responsibility here; and so I think on 
this side of the aisle there are many people who say, yes, we can 
reduce the Federal agency, no matter what agency in question. We can 
reduce it by 2 percent or 2\1/2\ percent.
  The NEA is not necessarily an agency that is absolutely mandatory. It 
does not shield us from economic hardship. It is not there to defend us 
against invasions. It does not guarantee Medicare. It does not 
guarantee Social Security. It does none of the things that one would 
say, well, the government programs should do this. This is simply a 
program that provides government funding for the arts.
  But I say to my colleagues, the Federal Government currently supports 
over 200 programs for the arts and humanities. Let me just give my 
colleagues a couple of examples so when my colleagues think, well, the 
NEA is the only agency that does it, there is over 200 of these 
programs. These programs just sort of fan out like minnows: the 
Commission on Fine Arts, the JFK Center for the Performing Arts, the 
National Gallery of Arts, the Indian Arts and Crafts Board, just to 
name a few.
  So my colleagues here tonight get very sensitive about the NEA, but, 
I mean, there are over 200 of these programs. It is not the sole source 
of art funding in America i.e. the NEA. If we decrease the NEA funding, 
the art community is not going to fall apart. So I do not think we have 
to throw up our hands and say this is an emergency, a dire crisis.
  It only accounts for only less than 1 percent, 1 percent of the 
approximately $10 billion we spend in this country for art work, and 
there is going to be a new charitable revolution in America as a result 
of the stock market and the good economics times we have today. This 
revolution is going to come about because of private investment and not 
because of the United States Government. And that is why I am really 
puzzled to see this side of the aisle and a few Members on that side 
say we have got to increase the funding for the NEA.
  As my colleagues know, I would like to conclude by just putting this 
in perspective for some of my colleagues. Let us go back in history now 
to the framers of our Constitution in 1787. During the Constitutional 
Convention, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina offered a motion to 
authorize and ``establish seminaries for the promotion of literature 
and the arts and sciences.''
  The motion was overwhelmingly defeated because the framers of our 
Constitution did not want the Federal Government to promote the arts 
with Federal funds. It did not want to tax Americans and say we are 
going to take your money, send it to Washington D.C. and then we are 
going to hand out all this money to the artists, the elite groups that 
the government thinks are the talented artists of the day.
  So from that point on, we never had the Federal Government involved 
with supporting the arts. We let the private sector do it. But around 
1967, as my colleagues know, that all changed with President Lyndon 
Johnson.
  I am reminded of a remark by the noted American artist, John Sloan.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Stearns was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, the American artist John Sloan, this is 
what he said:
  ``It would be fine to have a ministry of fine arts. Then we would 
know where the enemy is.''
  So, I mean, this is an American artist talking about the government 
taking over the arts program. Even artists today recognize that the 
government bureaucracy today cannot create art. As my colleagues know, 
when we put this in perspective, we are spending $10 billion in the 
private sector for art. Surely we have to question the value of this 
little program. But I will grant that the program is getting more 
support in Congress, and I accept that fact.
  So we have a modest cut of 2\1/2\ percent, and if the amendment 
earlier that all of my colleagues supported, i.e. increasing $10 
million, goes forward, then this reduction will even be less. It will 
probably be about a 1 percent reduction in the NEA budget.
  So I say to my colleagues, and they have been kind enough to give me 
2 additional minutes, that they have many on their side advocating more 
spending on the NEA. As my colleagues can see, I am pretty much 
defending the leak of more spending in the wall here with my thumb. So 
I am glad to have this additional 2 minutes.
  As my colleagues know, I think the NEA is a luxury. Let us face it, 
it is a luxury; and my colleagues want to continue this luxury, and I 
think at this point there is lots of us who say we can cut this program 
by 2\1/2\. If it is increased by $10 million, like my colleagues wanted 
to do earlier, then my amendment will eventually provide a cut of only 
1 percent. Let's keep Congress on budget.
  So in honor of Tim Penny, who used to come on the House floor and try 
and cut 2\1/2\ percent, I think we should pass the Stearns amendment. I 
think the bottom line is simple. We need to eliminate excess. We need 
to trim all Federal programs across the board, because this surplus is 
not going to go on

[[Page 15938]]

forever. I mean, the President is projecting surpluses for the next 10 
to 15 years, but all of us know this is not going to happen. We have 
never seen a country go forward with its economy without any recession 
in 10 to 15 years.
  So ultimately this surplus is going to be gone, and we are going to 
have to start reducing Federal spending, I think this is one program, 
if we are serious about reducing government, I think this is a good 
place to start; and I thank my colleagues for the 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will remember in fiscal year 1995 there 
was $170 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. 
Today, it is $98 million. The National Endowment for the Arts has been 
cut back dramatically by this Congress, by previous Congresses. I think 
that was a terrible mistake.
  The gentleman is right. There are many of us on this side who 
strongly support the National Endowment for the Arts, and we have today 
heard many more than just one on the other side who stood in this well 
and supported the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities.
  Now we are faced with the prospect of a cutting amendment, of .49 
percent, which would mean a cut here of $470,000. So there is another 
chance if people feel compelled, and I will be opposing that amendment 
to make some modest cuts, but I also would say to the gentleman, since 
the revolution of 1994 this budget has been on hold, and inflation has 
already cut it by at least 8 or 9 percent over that 4-year period; and 
I think the gentleman understands how that works. Inflation, as my 
colleagues know, and then we keep it at a fixed level, and so the 
purchasing power of the money has eroded by at least 8 to 10 percent 
since 1994.
  So I think what we have heard today I think in this House is that 
there is strong support for the Endowment because it is doing a fine 
job, and it is helping bring the arts all over this country and there 
may have been a day when the arts were focused in New York and Chicago 
and some of the large cities. That is not true today.
  Get the list of the National Endowment grants in all of the 
communities of this country and my colleagues will see that the arts 
have proliferated. We have literally hundreds of ballets, hundreds of 
symphonies, hundreds of orchestras. I mean, there has been a 
revolution, and I would argue that that revolution was moved forward 
dramatically in 1965 when this Congress created the National Endowment 
for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

                              {time}  1430

  I think those were incredibly bold acts, and the private sector 
growth in funding has paralleled the creation of the endowments. The 
private sector looks at the National Endowment for the Arts as kind of 
the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.
  We do not pick these things, by the way. The government does not 
pick. We have panels that review all the applications. The panel system 
has worked brilliantly, I think, to help in supporting the arts around 
the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand here today and tell the Members that I think 
this is a mistake. Let us have a vote on the Slaughter amendment. Let 
us try to do the right thing, which is to increase funding for the 
arts, not decrease it. I think that there is a strong consensus in the 
House that because we have had no increase in 4 years, that the 
Slaughter-Horn $10 million increase is the appropriate direction. Let 
us not confuse this with the Stearns amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friend 
and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). First, I would 
like to speak in support of the underlying bill.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), have put forward a very balanced 
and thoughtful bill. I commend them for keeping the horrible anti-
environmental riders and many other commercial riders that were 
attached to the Senate version off, and I commend them on putting 
forward this product.
  I would like very much to be associated with many of the comments of 
my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who 
pointed out that the National Endowment for the Arts and the National 
Endowment for the Humanities has been cut dramatically since 1994 and 
is now at a mere $98 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, 
and that I strongly support my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), who has come forward with a thoughtful amendment, a 
very modest one, to increase the funding to the NEA and NEH by $10 
million each.
  Right now, Mr. Chairman, we spend more on the Marine Corps Band than 
we do on the NEA and NEH. In fact, we give less to the arts than any 
other Western country. Even during the Middle Ages, the arts were 
something to be protected. The humanities were supported and preserved. 
Their importance was understood.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard many testimonies from my good friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) on the other side of the aisle 
that the arts are good for the public. He is a former professor, and he 
cited study after study that shows that children who are exposed to the 
arts and humanities do better in school and have higher self-esteem.
  Mr. Chairman, the money for the National Endowment for the Arts and 
the National Endowment for the Humanities touches the lives of millions 
of Americans. In my own home district, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
thousands and thousands of people flood in and out of their doors each 
day. The American Ballet Company travels around the country bringing 
the grace of ballet to every area of our country.
  Before the NEA was created in 1965, there were only 58 orchestras in 
the country. Today there are more than 1,000, and I am building on the 
comments of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) on how the seed 
money from the NEA spurs the arts in communities clear across the 
country.
  Before the NEA, there were 37 professional dance companies in 
America. Now there are over 300. Before the NEA, only 1 million people 
attended the theater each year. Today over 55 million attend regional 
theaters. Mr. Chairman, many of these institutions that have grown are 
there because of the support from the NEA, which then attracts private 
dollars.
  I would like to mention that the new director of the NEA, Mr. Ivey, 
has come forward with an innovative program that my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) spoke on called Challenge 
America, which reaches out to neighborhoods across America through 
community-driven grants.
  I would like to be associated, really, with the fine analysis that my 
colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) 
gave about the economic benefits of the arts to communities, and how 
the investment grows to more dollars in our economy, more tax dollars 
coming back to the Federal treasury.
  She also pointed out very forcefully that all of the additional 
monies that she included in her amendment are direct grant monies. None 
of it will be used for administration in either the NEA or the NEH, but 
will be going to community groups through the challenge grant across 
America.
  In closing, in addition to the economic benefits, the impact the arts 
have on our culture and the development of our children and our society 
is priceless. It is a small part of our budget. I fully support the 
Slaughter amendment, I support the underlying bill, and I am opposed to 
the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, President John F. Kennedy said of the arts, a nation

[[Page 15939]]

without the arts has nothing to look backward to with pride nor look 
forward to with hope.
  In the Middle Ages it was the archdukes, the doges, the princes, who 
selected out of their treasures the arts to be supported; who set the 
tone, who set the quality, and decided what was art.
  We do not have doges or princes or kings in our pluralistic society 
today, but we do have the public trust, a public that understands that 
it is the arts, that it is the neighborhood theaters, that it is the 
small community concerts that express the conscience of a Nation, the 
spirit of a people.
  These small amounts of public funds that have stimulated neighborhood 
theater, that have encouraged social commentary, that have lifted the 
spirit of a people have come out of the National Endowment for the Arts 
and National Endowment for the Humanities.
  To say that the arts and this small amount of funding are a luxury is 
to misunderstand the spirit of a Nation. I think it is unreasonable to 
propose such a petty amount of cut in a program that has such a broad 
social appeal and that serves to lift the spirit of a people, a 
community, such as Moose Lake in my district, which put on a marvelous 
performance, written locally, produced locally, with local 
participants, about the ethnic history of that area, about the 
devastating fire at the turn of the century that destroyed communities 
but which were rebuilt, and the story was told through this 
neighborhood community theater.
  These are the kinds of things that the National Endowment for the 
Arts can and does and should continue to support. The small amount, as 
portrayed, of cut is big for those small communities. We should be 
generous enough to support the arts through the public means, through 
the public support that we offer the National Endowment for the 
Humanities. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) just left the Chamber. I wish he was here. He 
was quoting President Kennedy. I think this quote by President Kennedy 
is more appropriate. He stated his opposition to government involvement 
in the arts.
  Let me repeat that, President Kennedy, a Democrat president, voiced 
his opposition to the government's involvement in the arts with this 
quote: ``I do not believe public funds should support symphonies, 
orchestras, or opera companies, period.''
  Now, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) talked about the 
increased attendance at all these different functions, arts festivals 
and operas and ballets. The NEA provides less than 1 percent of the 
overall amount that is spent in the arts, $10 billion in the private 
sector and under $100 million in the government. So surely all this 
attendance is not because of the NEA. It is because of the increased 
funding in the private sector.
  I would point out to my colleagues that before 1967 there was not an 
NEA, so for 200 years in this country we functioned without the 
government involved. Surely we had priceless artwork, we had activities 
available for our constituents without government funding. As I pointed 
out earlier, the Framers never intended that the government should get 
involved with supporting the arts.
  The last point I would make, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), 166 congressional districts get 
no money, and mine is included. So when the gentleman talks about 
fairness, the fairness is that the large cities get the money, but 
there are 166 congressional districts that get zero.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the numbers are very good, though, because 
that means that 269 districts do get money. And I do not believe those 
numbers are correct, and we will check on them for the gentleman from 
Florida. But even under the gentleman's math, a vast majority of these 
districts do get funding and support.
  Remember this, if we have the ballet in Seattle but it tours all over 
the State of Washington, it is benefited by that. So I would just 
suggest to the gentleman that there are some positive implications of 
this.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, 
statistics are clear, the education and labor provided those statistics 
that 166 congressional districts get no funding. So it is not something 
I made up. I think if the gentleman is talking about real democracy, 
then every Member of Congress should benefit from a government-funded 
program by taxpayers, and it is not happening. There is an elite group 
it goes to. It does not go to a lot of congressional districts. That is 
just a point.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I might just add to that. 
I represent 20 percent of Pennsylvania, which includes State College, a 
fast-growing suburban type area. My district has historically received 
no NEA funding.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentlewoman from New 
York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Bushnell, in Florida, I believe in the 
gentleman's district, I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns), is a participating school. Ocala, Florida, does the gentleman 
represent Ocala? Orange Park, the Orange Park High School. Those three 
had NEA grants last year.
  Mr. STEARNS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, 
what happens is that money is given to the State and then the State 
gives it to them, but it is not given from the Federal government to 
these agencies.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania will yield further, 
Mr. Chairman, I would say, this is NEA money.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as I was sitting and waiting my turn to speak, I 
happened to glance straight over the Chairman's head at that quote 
there from one of the great members of the other body, Daniel Webster.
  The quote says, ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call 
forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great 
interests, and see whether we also in our day and generation may not 
perform something worthy to be remembered.''
  What do we remember nations for? What do we remember 16th century 
Italy for? Can we name her kings? Can we name her doges? Can we name 
her wars, her conquests? No, but we can name her artworks. We can name 
da Vinci. We remember Leonardo da Vinci. We still treasure the Mona 
Lisa. We remember Erasmus and his contributions to the humanities.
  What do we remember of ancient Greece? Can we name her generals? Can 
we name the dictators of Sparta, the leaders of Athens? Very few of 
them, but we remember the Iliad and Odyssey. We remember her 
philosophers, we profit from them. We remember the humanities and the 
arts. This is ultimately much of what a nation is remembered for, and 
what gives us much of our value and our humanity.
  The Federal budget this year is about $1.7 trillion, $1.7 trillion. 
The budget for the arts is about one ten thousandths of 1 percent, if I 
have my decimal places right, about $100 million, and we are debating 
whether to increase that by one one hundred thousandths of 1 percent, 
$10 million, or to decrease it by two-tenths of one one hundred 
thousandths of 1 percent of the budget, $2 million.
  Of course, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) does not really 
care about the $2 million. What he really objects to, as he said 
himself, is we should not be funding the arts in the first place. That 
is what this really is. It is a symbolic amendment against funding for 
the arts.

[[Page 15940]]



                              {time}  1445

  But the fact is before the NEA. Yes, the NEA is only $100 million. It 
ought to be $150 or $160 million. And it is only a small part of all 
the arts funding in the country. But we have heard the speakers say 
before, we know the facts, that for every NEA dollar that an 
institution gets it leverages a lot of private money, that it brings 
forth private money into the arts.
  We have heard people speak about the economic value, that it is worth 
billions and billions of dollars for the economy of this country. We 
have also heard some bogus arguments against it. We have heard that 166 
districts get no funding, no funding directly. But the fact of the 
matter is that, first of all, it is not even true, because the money is 
given to the State Arts Council which is going to those districts. But, 
second of all, there are plenty of institutions in New York, in Los 
Angeles, and many other places which may be headquartered in those 
places but which have traveling arts shows, traveling dance troupes 
which go to all of these other places around the country.
  One of the real worths of the NEA is that it has spread the arts and 
made it available. Before the NEA 30 years ago, citizens could be 
exposed to the arts if they lived in New York or Los Angeles or 
Chicago. But if citizens lived in a small town in rural America, there 
were no symphonies, no plays, no traveling arts troupes to go to. The 
NEA provides the funding for that to spread the arts all through this 
great Nation of ours. That is really what it is. That is really what it 
does.
  And then we hear again the same bogus argument: Too few places get 
too much of the money. That is absurd. Do we ever hear representatives 
from New York complain that the district of the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns) or districts in Indiana get too much of the wheat 
subsidy, too much of the agricultural subsidy? Manhattan does not get a 
dime in agricultural subsidies.
  Mr. Chairman, it would be ridiculous to say that. We do not have 
agriculture in Manhattan. We give the subsidies and the aid where the 
industry we are aiding or subsidizing is. And if agriculture is in 
Indiana and Illinois and wherever, that is where the money should go. 
And if the arts and arts institutions are headquartered in New York or 
L.A. or wherever, that is where more of the money should go, especially 
if they spread their benefits all through the breadth of this land as 
they do.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been said the Framers never intended subsidy of 
the arts. The Framers never intended Social Security or Medicare 
either. The Framers never intended a lot of things that most people in 
this country support. We advance. Times change. The people of this 
country decide through their representative institutions what the 
Federal Government should be doing. It is not simply limited to what an 
18th century people thought it should be doing at that time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York if 
he thinks the Federal Government should discriminate based on who they 
give their artwork to?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I did not understand the question.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
in his speech here he has indicated that the government should have the 
right to decide what cities it is going to put the art in, which 
indicates they are deciding, which means they are discriminating 
against people who are not getting the art. So would the gentleman 
allow the Federal Government to discriminate?
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do believe that in 
any grant program we have provisions to make sure that it is broadly 
spread and should not all go to a few places. But, obviously, it cannot 
be exactly evenly spread.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman well knows, we have a panel 
system and all the people send in their applications and a group of 
distinguished panelists review those applications and pick those of the 
highest quality. That is about the best way to do it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would simply add we 
do it the same way in medical research. Maryland gets a 
disproportionate share of our medical research dollars because the 
National Institutes of Health is there. Is that unfair? No, it is 
simply the way the world operates. We have a good research institution. 
We subsidize research. We have wheat fields. We subsidize wheat. And we 
have arts institutions, and we subsidize art.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) to reduce funding 
for the National Endowment for the Arts. NEA has not had a funding 
increase since 1992 when their budget was almost $176 million. In fact, 
in the 104th Congress when I arrived, efforts were made to eliminate 
the NEA. The funding level in this bill, $98 million, is inadequate; 
and another cut of $2 million is unacceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said in my remarks during general debate 
yesterday, we need additional funds to support grants for arts 
education which we know is key to reducing youth violence and enhancing 
youth development. If we are serious about curtailing youth violence, 
cutting funds to an agency that is getting positive results with its 
youth arts project is counterproductive.
  Three years ago, the NEA and the U.S. Department of Justice took the 
lead in jointly funding this national project so that local arts 
agencies and cultural institutions across the Nation would be able to 
design smarter arts programs to reach at-risk youth in their local 
communities.
  One of the primary goals of this project is to ascertain the 
measurable outcomes of preventing youth violence, preventing them from 
getting involved in delinquent behavior by engaging them in community-
based arts programs. This program has had a dramatic impact across the 
Nation, and we must preserve adequate funding for NEA to continue it 
and to expand it.
  We should also be requesting additional funds to expand NEA's summer 
seminar sessions to provide professional development opportunities to 
our Nation's teachers who are on the front lines in our efforts to 
reach out to our children. Mr. Chairman, arts education programs extend 
back to the Greeks who taught math with music centuries ago. And 
current studies reaffirm that when music such as jazz is introduced by 
math teachers into the classrooms, those half notes and quarter notes 
become real live examples for students to use to learn.
  In my district, NEA is currently funding the 1999 Ailey Camp of the 
Kansas City Friends of Alvin Ailey, which is a national dance troupe. 
This 6-week dance camp has a 10-year history and has provided 
opportunities for more than 1,000 children. This camp provides a 
vehicle, through art, for children to grow and enjoy the experience of 
success. Beyond the dancing, they also have creative writing, personal 
development, antiviolence and drug abuse programs.
  The Second Company of the Alvin Ailey dance troupe will be doing 
outreach this fall to children who will ultimately perform in the Gem 
Theater in Kansas City. The statistics confirm the success of this 
program on behavior and learning of these at-risk children.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the Stearns amendment 
and send a message that art and music in the classroom increase 
academic achievement and decrease delinquent behavior and that it is a 
critical component in reducing youth violence.

[[Page 15941]]


  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Stearns amendment and in 
support of the Slaughter-Horn amendment to add $10 million to the 
National Endowment for the Arts and $10 million for the National 
Endowment for the Humanities.
  Mr. Chairman, these are small sums of money in actuality, but the 
reality is that the arts and humanities are such important components 
of American life that in ways that oftentimes it is difficult to see 
they perform invaluable services, bringing people together who 
otherwise would never interact with each other, giving people an 
opportunity to share history and culture, bringing people from 
different sectors of communities and walks of life into the same 
setting.
  I could imagine what it would be like without the arts and humanities 
bridging some of the gaps that exist in our society. I know very minor 
sounding programs like Imagine Chicago, which brings people from all 
over the city into groups, are programs that are so simple but yet so 
complex, yet so effective and yet so cost-conscious.
  I would urge us to recognize the tremendous value of the arts and 
humanities, recognize the value of a Peace Museum, the value of just a 
little bit going a long way. I urge support for the Slaughter-Horn 
amendment and urge that we reject the Stearns amendment to cut funding 
for these invaluable programs.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand here as the follower to Representative Sidney 
Yates who was our Nation's most articulate, passionate, and outspoken 
advocate for the arts and humanities. He was in this body for nearly 
half a century and never gave up on the fight to protect the arts.
  As his successor I feel a particular obligation to stand here today 
in opposition to an amendment that would reduce what I think is a too-
small budget of the National Endowment for the Arts by $2 million, an 
amount that may mean little in other agencies and other aspects of 
government but means so such to the National Endowment for the Arts.
  I hope that my colleagues will honor Sidney Yates's long tradition of 
advocacy by voting against this amendment and in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) 
which promotes a larger role for the arts and humanities in our 
community.
  Budgets are about priorities, and if any of us were to talk to 
ordinary people in our districts and ask them what was important in 
their life they would begin to talk about things that they may not 
classify so much as the arts but really are.
  In Chicago, particularly in the summer, it is just pulsing with 
different kinds of events and festivals that allow us to celebrate our 
diversity together in song and in dance and in cultural performances. 
This is all art. And in fact, in our city, more people are engaged in 
arts and cultural events and more money is generated by those than all 
of our sports franchises put together, and that includes even the days 
when Michael Jordan was playing for the Chicago Bulls.
  When we look at what the gentlewoman's amendment would do by adding 
$10 million to the NEA and $10 million to the NEH, who can say that 
these are not valuable and important things that we as a Nation should 
be spending money on? For example, the NEA would use its money for a 
program called Challenge America; and that new funding would help 
improve arts education. Educators now understand that the key to 
learning for many children, particularly at-risk children, is through 
the arts, through music, through performance, through dance, through 
the visual arts. That is how we can reach so many of our children that 
cannot learn any other way.
  It helps increase access to the arts for all communities, not just a 
select few. We are talking about an estimated 1,000 communities 
nationwide that would receive small- to medium-sized art project 
grants. It would fund cultural and heritage preservation, establish 
community arts partnerships.
  In my State, the Illinois Arts Council has proposed an initiative 
that could be financed through Challenge America. They could 
collaborate with arts and education organizations to develop programs 
that encourage parents to attend and discuss arts events with their 
children, Parents and Children Together. That is what we have all been 
talking about as a solution for learning problems and for violence and 
for the culture of violence.
  The program would include event-specific material to assist parents 
and children in sharing their arts experiences. They would also include 
ticket subsidies to assist parents. The initiative would specifically 
target generations of parents who receive little or no arts education 
themselves in the schools.
  And the NEH's additional money would fund Teaching with Technology 
programs. One part of the program has already begun to research and 
highlight the best humanities sites on the web.
  Right now in my community someone who learned about hate through the 
web killed a person and shot six Jews on their way to synagogue.

                              {time}  1500

  What we need to do is to be encouraging our children how to seek out 
Web sites that provide them with positive inspiration. That is what 
this money would do. It would fund schools, with the consortia of 
community organizations, local colleges, parents, or businesses to 
design and implement professional development activities for teachers 
throughout the school around a given humanities team.
  Using technology will also be a focal point. Some examples of the 
program being developed include the Navaho Heritage and Culture, 
Steinbeck's California, the Immigrant Experience, and Shakespeare. This 
is where we should be directing kids on the Web, and that is what this 
money is about.
  How can we even think about cutting programs that are going to be 
doing so much for all of us? I urge a no vote on this amendment and a 
``yes'' vote on the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter).
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a brief colloquy with the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Interior.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) knows, I 
planned to offer an amendment today to the Interior appropriations bill 
that would have allocated funding and directed the United States 
Geological Survey to install and continue to operate new water gauges 
on the Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa, and Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, 
Flint River Basins. This is an issue of high priority for me and the 
people impacted by the water allocation on the ACT and ACF River 
Basins.
  In 1997, Congress enacted the Water Compacts between Alabama, 
Georgia, and Florida. Currently, we are in the process of negotiating 
water allocation formulas for the ACT and the ACF River Basins. The 
States only have until the end of the year to reach an agreement and 
obtain the Federal Government's concurrence to the allocation formulas.
  It is my strong belief that, in order to ensure both water quantity 
and quality compliance for the allocation formulas entered into by the 
States, those gauges must be installed and made operational as soon as 
possible.
  I would appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) to work with me to ensure the funding of these water gauges and 
that it is made a top priority.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for 
yielding to me.
  I want to commend the gentleman for his efforts and note that the 
committee is equally committed to ensuring that additional and much-
needed water monitoring gauges are installed on the ACT and the ACF 
River Basins.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for his leadership on

[[Page 15942]]

this issue and assure him that I will continue to work with him to 
address the need for the installation and continuous operation of the 
water gauges.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform our colleagues who are watching 
in their offices that, after we have completed the next Stearns 
amendment, we will have two votes. One will be on the amendment from 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) raising the amount of 
funding for the arts and the humanities, and then a vote on the 
amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) cutting the arts 
and humanities.
  I would say to my colleagues I will vote no on both of those. I say 
that because I think we have a balance that we have achieved here. Our 
bill is slightly under last year's number overall, and yet we kept both 
the arts and the humanities at last year's level. I think it recognizes 
a balance that we hope would be acceptable to all the Members. 
Therefore, I urge Members to vote no on both of the amendments.
  I am particularly concerned that the amendment to raise the arts and 
humanities by $10 million each would come out of SPR. We have already 
taken $13 million out of SPR. I believe that would be a mistake in 
terms of our energy security.
  I would say to the supporters that the opponents did not raise the 
point of order, which they would be entitled to do without a waiver, 
and they are giving us an opportunity to add to or take away. But in 
the final analysis, I would urge the Members to vote no on both.
  I would also say that both Mr. Ivey and Mr. Ferris have made a real 
effort to reach out. We had the issue of congressional districts not 
getting any programs. Part of the reason is they do not apply. I would 
hope that in their newsletters, and however else, the Members would say 
to the small schools, the small communities around this Nation, that 
they should apply for these programs. I know Mr. Ferris at the National 
Endowment for Humanities and Mr. Ivey at the National Endowment for the 
Arts would like to spread the programs across a broader spectrum.
  The language that is in the bill urges this result that we put in a 
couple of years ago. So here is an opportunity for Members to provide 
assistance to their constituents by letting them know that these grants 
are available.
  Again, I appreciate the very good way we have handled this. I have 
been here when it has not been quite as easy or as amicable in terms of 
the debate. I think parties on both sides of this issue have been very 
positive in the way they have presented their cases. But I do hope we 
can maintain the amount in the committee. I think it is a fair 
resolution of these programs.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to echo what the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Regula) said. This has been an enormously wonderful debate this 
afternoon, but it would not be complete without the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns) and I having our little do over the NEA. Despite 
that, I consider him a friend.
  I point out with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) he has NEA 
in three projects in his district. I would like to tell the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), who spoke previously, that he got no 
NEA money, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) would pay 
attention a moment, that he got money at St. Marys, Russellton, 
Franklin, Lewisburg, Lock Haven and Philipsburg, again, and State 
College. The State College band was in the national finalist 
competition with NEA money.
  This NEA money, Mr. Chairman, is exclusive of what their State gets. 
So many Members simply do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether or not they 
get the NEA money or not.
  One of the things that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) had 
said was that this money goes out of here like little minnows 
skittering around. That is what I like best about it. If we get the $10 
million, if we are lucky enough to add that to both of these agencies 
this afternoon, more money will be going skittering into places that 
have not had that advantage before.
  The best part about it is it leverages local money and makes it 
possible for people to see and do and be exposed to things that they 
might never have seen before.
  Once again, we have used these two agencies as whipping boys for the 
past 5 years, taking out some kind of anger on them that was totally 
unjustified for the kind of work that they do. I hope that all of my 
colleagues in their offices now will recognize that the National 
Endowment for the Arts is important to us.
  There has to be a reason why the Conference of Mayors, why the 
National League of Cities, why the Governors Association, why the State 
legislatures, all 50 of them, why all of them say that, at every level 
of government, Federal, State, and local, we must increase the money 
that we are putting in the arts.
  We get nothing bad from good. In addition to the good that we get 
back, $3.5 billion to the Treasury is not bad.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to all of our colleagues who 
are back in their offices watching us on television that the first vote 
is going to be on the Slaughter-Horn amendment, and I very strongly 
urge them to support that.
  The second vote would be on the Stearns amendment, and I urge them to 
oppose that.
  I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for 
her leadership of the Arts Caucus and her tremendous advocacy for the 
arts. I hope today we can turn around a tradition here that has been 
anti-art for several years and show the people of this country that 
Congress supports the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me close, Mr. Chairman, with just saying that the 
Founding Fathers, whatever they felt about art, we are certainly 
blessed they gave us a work of art to work in. Again, I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on the Slaughter amendment and a ``no'' vote on the Stearns 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 18 Offered By Mr. Stearns

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

       Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Stearns:
       Page 87, line 25, insert the following before the period:

     , except that 95 percent of such amount shall be allocated 
     among the States on the basis of population for grants under 
     section 5(g) notwithstanding sections 5(g)(3) and 
     11(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of order.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington reserves a point of 
order.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) reserving a point of order so that I could at least have an 
opportunity to present my amendment to my colleagues.
  This amendment is an enlightening new idea for us in this debate 
dealing with the NEA. I think my amendment would take a questionable, 
controversial program and place it in the hands of the States.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) indicated that the

[[Page 15943]]

States are providing money, and somehow this dribbles on down to 
congressional districts. My amendment would simply say that 95 percent 
of the funding of the NEA would go directly to the States. We just 
block grant it, bingo, it would all go to the States. That way, we 
would ensure that the State of Florida, the State of Ohio, the State of 
California, the State of Wyoming, and all the States in the union would 
get funding proportional to the population of their State. So we would 
not have a Federal bureaucracy deciding where this money is going to 
go.
  As I mentioned earlier, 166 districts, including mine, never see this 
NEA funding. These are not my statistics. This information came from 
the Education and Labor Committee.
  I also point out to my colleagues, one in every three direct NEA 
dollars went to just six cities, only six cities: New York City, 
Baltimore, Boston, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, the District of Columbia, 
and of course San Francisco.
  That is nearly over $30 million of this roughly $99 million that is 
only going to six cities. It is not going to Ocala, Florida, Leesburg, 
Jacksonville, Paluka, and some of the cities in any district.
  In 1996, the number one recipient of NEA funding was the Metropolitan 
Opera of New York. The NEA is a government subsidy for many cultural 
elite groups. I suggest and I hope my colleagues will, maybe perhaps 
not this time, but at a later time, help me with this idea of block 
granting 95 percent of the funding of NEA to the States. We will leave 
about 5 percent up here just to have the U.S. government able to have 
an opportunity to direct the money to the States.
  In this way, the States would have freedom to distribute this money 
throughout their State, and we would not see this large amount of money 
going to six major cities.
  I also want to bring up something just lightly here, and I think we 
have talked about this before. There was an audit of the NEA. These 
audits occurred from 1991 to 1996 by the inspector general of the NEA. 
These are statistics that were provided during the hearing of the NEA 
at the Subcommittee on Education, and Labor.
  During this audit, they audited 79 percent of the projects, in 63 
percent of the cases, the books did not even add up; 53 percent of the 
grant recipients failed to seek help from outside auditors; and 21 
percent of the grants had absolutely, absolutely no accounting 
whatsoever. Those are not my figures. Those basically came from the 
inspector general at the NEA.
  Again, these figures would show that we have a Federal bureaucracy 
that does not have a good accounting on their own programs. So why do 
we not just block grant this whole program to the States?
  As a side note in 1951, a poll of the American Symphony League found 
that 91 percent of the members disapproved of Federal subsidies.
  As was pointed out, we both agree, it was not until the 1970s that 
this whole NEA agency came into being. So I suggest to my colleagues, 
did we not have good art before the 1960s in fact for 200 years of 
history of this Republic we had great artistic works.
  I am not going to give graphic examples from the NEA, which we would 
all disapprove of, that are antithetical to our cultural values, to the 
tradition of this country. We have had that debate.
  But I would suggest that the amendment that I have, by block 
granting, actually increases to the States more money for the arts 
program than the present situation. So if my colleagues supported my 
amendment, they would be actually supporting more money for the States.
  In fact, this amendment would increase by approximately 55 percent 
the money given to the States. We should not have the District of 
Columbia receiving enormous amounts of money relative to some of the 
other cities and States. The awards should all be proportional in terms 
of population.
  So I suggest to my colleagues that the debate on this amendment is 
for another day. Obviously, my colleagues have been kind enough to 
reserve a point of order so I can make my point, and I will not belabor 
the point out of courtesy to them.

                              {time}  1515

  I suggest somewhere down the line that this body should block grant 
95% of the NEA funds because more money will go to the States. It is a 
fairer way to do it and, in the end, it eliminates the Federal 
bureaucracy.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. REGULA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's amendment is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                            matching grants

       To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the 
     National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
     1965, as amended, $14,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to the National Endowment for the Arts: Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall be available for obligation 
     only in such amounts as may be equal to the total amounts of 
     gifts, bequests, and devises of money, and other property 
     accepted by the chairman or by grantees of the Endowment 
     under the provisions of section 10(a)(2), subsections 
     11(a)(2)(A) and 11(a)(3)(A) during the current and preceding 
     fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been 
     appropriated.

                 National Endowment for the Humanities


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $96,800,000, shall be available to the National Endowment for 
     the Humanities for support of activities in the humanities, 
     pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for administering 
     the functions of the Act, to remain available until expended.


                            matching grants

       To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the 
     National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
     1965, as amended, $13,900,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $9,900,000 shall be available to the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of 
     section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal 
     to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of 
     money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by 
     grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections 
     11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding 
     fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been 
     appropriated.

                Institute of Museum and Library Services

                       office of museum services:


                       grants and administration

       For carrying out subtitle C of the Museum and Library 
     Services Act of 1996, as amended, $24,400,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                       administrative provisions

       None of the funds appropriated to the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities may be used to process any 
     grant or contract documents which do not include the text of 
     18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
     to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities may 
     be used for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That funds from nonappropriated sources may 
     be used as necessary for official reception and 
     representation expenses.

                        Commission of Fine Arts

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a 
     Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $935,000: Provided, 
     That the Commission is authorized to charge fees to cover the 
     full costs of its publications, and such fees shall be 
     credited to this account as an offsetting collection, to 
     remain available until expended without further 
     appropriation.

               national capital arts and cultural affairs

       For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 99-190 
     (20 U.S.C. 956(a)), as amended, $7,000,000.

               Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $3,000,000: 
     Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for 
     compensation of level V of the Executive Schedule or higher 
     positions.

                  National Capital Planning Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National 
     Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40

[[Page 15944]]

     U.S.C. 71-71i), including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, $6,312,000: Provided, That hereafter all appointed 
     members of the Commission will be compensated at the daily 
     equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay for positions at 
     level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of 
     title 5, United States Code, for each day such member is 
     engaged in the actual performance of duties.

                United States Holocaust Memorial Council

                       holocaust memorial council

       For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Council, as 
     authorized by Public Law 96-388 (36 U.S.C. 1401), as amended, 
     $33,286,000, of which $1,575,000 for the museum's repair and 
     rehabilitation program and  $1,264,000 for the museum's 
     exhibitions program shall remain available until expended.

                             Presidio Trust

                          presidio trust fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out title I of the Omnibus 
     Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, $24,400,000 
     shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available 
     until expended, of which up to $1,040,000 may be for the cost 
     of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section 104(d) of the 
     Act: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize total loan principal, 
     any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed 
     $200,000,000. The Trust is authorized to issue obligations to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 104(d)(3) 
     of the Act, in an amount not to exceed $20,000,000.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, 
in the following order: Amendment No. 16 offered by the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), and amendment No. 17 offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic 
vote in this series.


               Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment No. 16 offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207, 
noes 217, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 286]

                               AYES--207

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--217

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Ehrlich
     Kasich
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Rivers
     Thurman
     Wynn

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. GILCHREST and Mr. LEWIS of California changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period within which a 
vote by electronic device will be taken on the additional amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Stearns

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

[[Page 15945]]




                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 124, 
noes 300, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 287]

                               AYES--124

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shows
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wolf

                               NOES--300

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Ehrlich
     Granger
     Kasich
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Rivers
     Thurman
     Wynn

                              {time}  1551

  Mr. DEUTSCH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 287, I pushed the ``no'' 
button but it did not register. I would have voted ``no.''


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Florida

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in 
order by the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment printed in House Report 106-228 offered by Mr. 
     Young of Florida:
       On page 6, line 13, strike ``$20,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$15,000,000''.
       On page 68, line 20, strike ``$190,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$256,000,000''.
       And at the end of the bill insert the following:
       ``Sec.   . Each amount of budget authority for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2000, provided in this Act for 
     payments not required by law, is hereby reduced by 0.48 
     percent: Provided, That such reductions shall be applied 
     ratably to each account, program, activity, and project 
     provided for in this Act.''

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, before I begin on the amendment, 
I want to say a strong congratulations to the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the ranking 
member on the subcommittee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), 
and all of the members of the subcommittee and the staff for having 
produced an outstanding appropriations bill, especially outstanding 
considering all of the budgetary restraints and all of the changes that 
had to be put in place during the consideration of the bill in the 
markups. They have done an outstanding job as usual. I would hope that 
all Members would be supportive of this bill.
  The amendment that I offer is the manager's amendment that most of us 
have been accustomed to so far on appropriations bills this year. The 
amendment has three parts:
  First, the amendment decreases land acquisition in the Bureau of Land 
Management by $5 million. This will eliminate the acquisition at the 
Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River in Montana. It is our 
understanding and the committee understands that there is local 
opposition to the acquisition at this time. We believe this amendment 
is compatible with the wishes of the people of that region.
  Second, the amendment increases the deferral of clean coal funding in 
the Department of Energy by $66 million, for a total clean coal 
deferral of $256 million. This, Mr. Chairman, conforms to the 
administration's budget request which proposed a $256 million deferral 
of clean coal funding.
  Third, Mr. Chairman, in order to get to the number, the bottom line, 
that we have all been determined to arrive at on this bill, maybe I 
should not say all of us but some of us, the amendment provides for 
something that I really am uncomfortable with but I am not sure of any 
other way to get where we have to be, and, that is, a 0.48 percent 
across-the-board reduction to domestic discretionary programs in this 
bill. The result of this will be a reduction of approximately $69 
million, which will be assessed on a pro-rata basis against each 
account and each individual project in the bill.
  In total, the amendment will reduce the bill by approximately $140 
million. In combination with the amendments that have already been 
adopted thus

[[Page 15946]]

far, this amendment will result in a final total for the bill which is 
approximately $100 million below the freeze level as identified by the 
Congressional Budget Office for domestic discretionary programs in this 
bill.
  In a year of very tight budget restraints with the 1997 budget 
agreement that placed our budget cap at $17 billion below last year's 
spending, there are things that we might have to do that we do not like 
to do in order to get where we have to be. This amendment is part of 
that process.
  And so I offer this amendment, Mr. Chairman, for the Members of this 
House to work their will to determine if they want to bring this bill 
down below the freeze level which is where we would ask them to come.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it sounds nice, just 0.48 percent across the 
board. But let me just give my colleagues an idea of some of the things 
that this does to our bill.
  If the across-the-board reduction is taken from the uncontrollable 
cost increase requested in the President's budget, there is a 24 
percent reduction. The budget request was $139 million. This would 
eliminate a significant amount of funding needed for mandatory pay and 
benefit increases and other uncontrollable costs which will otherwise 
be funded by reductions in program levels.
  Funding will be below the 1999 enacted level for the Solicitor and 
the Office of the Secretary, impacting the ability of the Solicitor to 
support programs including habitat conservation plan implementation, 
trust management improvement.

                              {time}  1600

  Funding available to the Office of Insular Affairs will be reduced by 
$226,000 impacting the capability of the Department to support its 
responsibilities in four U.S. territories and three affiliated 
autonomous nations. Funding for the Office of the Special Trustee will 
be reduced by almost $.5 million, slowing efforts in trust management 
reform. Funding increases for BIA elementary and secondary school 
operation provided by the House are cut by almost one half. The across-
the-board reduction to school operations is $2.4 million. This reduces 
the $5 million increase provided by the House for school operations 
despite anticipated increases in enrollment and needed improvements to 
education programs. This reduces tribal priority allocations by $3.6 
million. This reduces the increase provided by the House by over one-
half. The House provided an increase of $5 million over 1999 enacted 
levels to fund basic necessities in programs critical to improving the 
quality of life and economic potential on reservations.
  Park operations. The chairman of the committee has made a major 
effort to add $99 million to improve park operations. This amendment 
will reduce that by $7 million, eliminating $7 million of the $99.4 
million increase provided in the House mark. This will reduce the 
capability of the parks to handle increased visitation and cultural and 
natural resource conservation needs.
  Seven million would fund the annual operation costs for the Big 
Cypress National Preserve and the Biscayne National Park in Florida. 
This reduces funding for the National Wildlife Refuge by $1.3 million. 
This reduces the amount the House provided for refuge operation below 
the President's budget request and eliminates 7 percent of the $18.1 
million increase provided by the House for refuge operations.
  Endangered species funding will be reduced by half a million dollars 
below the House level. This increases the cut the House made to the 
President's budget request for candidate conservation listing 
consultation and recovery activities to $10.5 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I will put the rest of these in, but I think one here 
is very important. Funding for abandoned mine land reclamation will be 
reduced by $1.3 million. This is a 12 percent reduction to the $11 
million provided by the House to increase environmental restoration of 
abandoned mine lands.
  Efforts by the Minerals Management Service in royalty reengineering 
will be slowed as a result of the $.5 million reduction, and I am 
particularly disturbed by this cut in the Upper Missouri National 
Wildlife and Scenic River. The Upper Missouri River retains the 
historical character of the Lewis and Clark expedition of 1805 and 1806 
and offers a diversity of natural and cultural resources including 
timber and fish species habitat and riparian and recreational 
resources.
  It supports a wide variety of wildlife: raptors, songbirds and 
waterfowl, sports fish and the endangered pallid sturgeon, a wide 
variety of predators and prey and big-game animals. The acquisition 
includes several historic sites as well as large inholdings of the 
Judith River, one of the last free-flowing rivers along the Missouri 
and a fully functioning riparian ecosystem.
  There are a lot of people who have been supporting this: Pheasants 
Forever, the Conservation Fund, the River Network and the Trust for 
Public Lands, and the most important thing is this is done by a 
voluntary seller and is very, very unusual for us to on the floor of 
the House overrule a decision of the committee on a subject of this 
importance.
  And then of course the whole idea here is that somehow by making this 
across-the-board cut that we will comply with the budget caps of 1997 
and that somehow this will move us down the road to enacting all 13 
appropriations bills and under these caps.
  And I would just say with all due respect that this cut is so 
infinitesimal, so small, that it will have very little, if anything, to 
do with dealing with the size of the budget gap that exists when we 
look at the important bills on HUD, VA, Health and Human Services and 
State, Justice, and Commerce which are coming down the road.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to indulge the chairman, who is 
my friend and who I admire and was a former chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Defense, one of the finest Members of this body. I know 
he did not want to do this, but he had to do it, and he is doing his 
duty.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I would just like to ask the gentleman a question.
  If this cut is so small and so infinitesimal, how does it do so much 
damage as the gentleman spelled out in the earlier part of his 
comments?
  Mr. DICKS. It is small and infinitesimal in terms of solving the 
overall problem. That is why it is kind of like, as my colleagues know, 
in the sea; and I would just say to the gentleman that it does hurt a 
number of specific programs, and it overturns the committee's work. But 
it does not help solve the big problem. It is just a very small step, 
and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is going to give 
further explanation to the committee about that fact.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield 
further, I want to say to the gentleman that he and I have worked 
together for so many years on the Subcommittee on Defense, as he has so 
ably pointed out. The gentleman from Washington is one of the most 
outstanding Members of this House, and he is totally dedicated to the 
principle of a strong national defense, totally honest, while sometimes 
a little abrasive, but totally honest and sincere; and I look forward 
to continuing our great relationship.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and the chairman and I 
also appreciate the gentleman's kind remarks about our work on this 
bill. I just wish that we could have left our work alone.

             Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River

       The upper Missouri River retains the historical character 
     of the Lewis and Clark expedition of 1805-1806 and offers a 
     diversity of

[[Page 15947]]

     natural and cultural resources, including T&E species habitat 
     and riparian and recreational resources. It supports a wide 
     variety of wildlife: raptors, songbirds and waterfowl; sports 
     fish and the endangered pallid sturgeon; a wide variety of 
     predators and prey; and big game animals. The acquisitions 
     include several historic sites, as well as a large inholding 
     of the Judith River, one of the last free-flowing rivers 
     along the Missouri and a fully functioning riparian 
     ecosystem.

                                                          BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT--NARRATIVE
                                                      Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Chauteau and Fergus Counties             Congressional District
                                                                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Estimated out
                                                           Montana (to date)                                          year costs/yr      Total (over 10
                                                                                   FY 2000       Acquisition total    (development,           yrs)
                                                                                                                        O&M, etc.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost.....................................................         $2,694,000         $5,000,000        $15,000,000            $80,000        $15,800,000
Acres....................................................              6,096             12,848             32,850                N/A             32,850
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Location: Central Montana, on the Missouri River, 65 miles 
     northeast of Great Falls.
       Purpose: Inholding acquisitions within the Upper Missouri 
     National Wild and Scenic River (UMNWSR) corridor, offers T&E 
     species habitat, opportunities for historic interpretation 
     and a variety of recreational opportunities.
       Acquisition Opportunities: Five historic ranches within the 
     UMNWSR corridor threatened with conversion from agricultural 
     use to rural residential subdivision.
       Other Cooperators: Pheasants Forever, The Conservation 
     Fund, The River Network, and the Trust for Public Land.
       Project Description: The major means of transportation for 
     Lewis and Clark's Corps of Discovery, the Wild and Scenic 
     portion of the Missouri River remains largely unchanged since 
     their time, with the exception of some abandoned homesteads 
     and working ranches along its banks. With the enormous 
     popularity of Stephen Ambrose's book ``Undaunted Courage'', 
     interest in the explorations of the Lewis and Clark 
     Expedition is at an all time high.
       The 149 miles of free-flowing UMNWSR offer a diversity of 
     resources: T&E species habitat; scenic, ecological, 
     historical, cultural, riparian and recreational resources, as 
     well as key access points. It supports a wide variety of 
     wildlife: birds, including raptors, songbirds and waterfowl; 
     fish, including sports fish and the endangered pallid 
     sturgeon; mammals, from predators to prey. These acquisitions 
     would support both BLM's Recreation and Fish & Wildlife 2000 
     initiatives.
       These acquisitions contain the last seven miles of the 
     Judith River, as well as it's confluence with the Missouri, 
     allowing the Judith River to become eligible for Wild and 
     Scenic River status. One of the last free-flowing rivers on 
     the Great Plains, the Judith contains a fully functioning 
     riparian ecosystem described by the Montana Riparian 
     Association as a ``gem''. A subsequent land exchange with the 
     Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 
     would remove all state-owned land within the UMNWSR corridor 
     in exchange for agricultural wheat fields. These acquisitions 
     would acquire historic sites such as the ruins of Camp Cooke, 
     Montana's first military post, Fort Clagett, the original 
     townsite of Judith Landing (with several intact original 
     buildings) and the PN Ranch Headquarters. These sites are 
     extremely important to Native Americans as many village 
     sites, buffalo jumps and burial grounds are found here. A 
     Lewis and Clark campsite and the 1851 Stevens Treaty Site, 
     which was attended by every major tribe in the northern Great 
     Plains, lie across the river. These acquisitions would also 
     bring the Fortress Rock landmark under public ownership, 
     would provide additional bighorn sheep, elk and mule deer 
     habitat in the White Cliffs portion of the river corridor and 
     eliminate threats of resource development within the UMNWSR 
     landscape.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there are some actions in this House that should be 
taken seriously, and there are others that should not, and with all due 
respect to my good friend from Florida this is one of those actions 
that should not be taken seriously.
  Mr. Chairman, the leadership of this House has two choices in trying 
to run the House this year, especially when it comes to finishing our 
appropriations bills. The first choice is to try to pass our 
legislation with a great bipartisan coalition of the middle, with the 
majority of members of both parties finding nonpartisan or bipartisan 
solutions to our budget problems. That is the choice I profoundly would 
prefer.
  But the leadership seems to have chosen a different path. They have 
decided that because they have a hard-core of right-wing Members in 
their caucus who are largely term limited, who detest government and 
who want to have one last swing before they walk out the door, and 
evidently the Republican party leadership in the House has decided that 
to satisfy that group they need a budget strategy and an appropriation 
strategy which will pass all of these bills only on the Republican side 
of the aisle, or at least with 90 percent of their votes and 10 percent 
of ours.
  That is too bad because that polarizes the House, and it also causes 
a lot of what I call political as opposed to substantive actions, and 
this amendment is a perfect example; and it is the fifth time that this 
has happened.
  If my colleagues take a look at the history of appropriation bills so 
far this year, what do they see? They see that my good friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), produced on the Republican side of 
the aisle earlier in the year a decision in the committee to go forward 
on a bipartisan basis. And he produced a supplemental appropriation 
bill which had great bipartisan support. And then instructions came 
from on high from their leadership in his party that the bill had to be 
changed. And so that bill was changed. It was made into a much more 
partisan document; they walked away from the bipartisan agreement we 
had. That was Episode One.
  Then on the agriculture appropriation bill, again the same thing. 
Because of the demands from that small cadre of Members, a bipartisan 
bill was turned into a partisan slugfest because the majority party 
unilaterally decided to change that bill. The same was true on the 
legislative appropriations bill; the same thing happened on Treasury 
Post Office; and now we have it happening on the Interior bill today.
  What is this all about? What it is about is simply this: the 
allocations that the majority party has provided to the committee to 
pass our bills this year are about $35 to $40 billion short to where 
they need to be if we are to have passable bills in the end which are 
signed by the President. So we have a $40 billion gap. We have got to 
find some way to close that $40 billion gap between the budget caps and 
the amount of demand that we have for appropriations.
  So what we have here is a series of amendments on the cheap. They 
give the impression of trying to reach the $40 billion goal when, in 
fact, they are simply token mini-cuts, and if we take them altogether 
out of a total $40 billion gap, including this amendment, we have less 
than $600 million to fill up the fund-raising cookie jar or the fund-
raising thermometer, to put it in a different vernacular.
  So I would simply say to that side of the aisle if they are satisfied 
with political tokenism, if it helps them to cover their ``fizaga'' to 
go ahead, but the fact is we all know this is not real when all they 
have done is saved enough money to fill this small amount of the gap 
between promise and performance.
  They are not doing anything real. They are taking up the House's 
time, they are going through the motions, they are perhaps fooling some 
of the Members in their own caucus. I would say it is bad enough to 
fool the taxpayers; that should never happen. But an even more amazing 
thing is when they fool themselves.
  So, go ahead, pass it; but they should not think that they fooled 
anybody on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page 15948]]

  I appreciate very much the hard work through the years the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has done in terms of the appropriation 
process, but I would remind the gentleman that we are going to work 
hard towards that goal and that he voted for a motion to recommit not 
to spend $1 of Social Security money; and if in fact we do not save 
that money, what he is saying is that it is okay to spend the Social 
Security money.
  And as my colleagues know, one of the things about Washington, and I 
want to give our chairman of our Committee on Appropriations his full 
due, they have worked hard. For the first time in a long time we will 
have passed five bills that are essentially at a hard freeze out of the 
House, and the appropriators have done that, and to accuse them of 
playing a game; it is not a game.
  $150 million is not a game to anybody in this country, and if we can 
make it 700 million after this bill, and we can make it 2 billion after 
the next two or three bills, then we are well on our way of meeting and 
living up to the commitment that every Member of this body made to the 
seniors of this country and their children who are going to pay for 
Social Security.
  So although his position may be that it is a facade and that we are 
trying to fool people, the fact is it is hard not to spend money in 
Washington. That has been proven by the last 50 years of the Congresses 
up here, and our appropriation leadership and our leadership has said 
we are going to try to do the best we can to keep the commitment to the 
American public.

                              {time}  1615

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  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 House Resolution 243, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 301. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, expect where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that remainder of 
the bill through page 108, line 14 be considered as read, printed in 
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through page 108, line 14 is as 
follows:

       Sec. 302. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or 
     distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote 
     public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on 
     which congressional action is not complete.
       Sec. 303. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 304. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency shall be obligated or expended to 
     provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal 
     servants to any officer or employee of such department or 
     agency except as otherwise provided by law.
       Sec. 305. No assessments may be levied against any program, 
     budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by this Act 
     unless advance notice of such assessments and the basis 
     therefor are presented to the Committees on Appropriations 
     and are approved by such Committees.
       Sec. 306. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act 
     of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the 
     ``Buy American Act'').
       (b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement 
     made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (d) The provisions of this section are applicable in fiscal 
     year 2000 and thereafter.
       Sec. 307. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified 
     as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located 
     on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands 
     in a manner different than such sales were conducted in 
     fiscal year 1999.
       Sec. 308. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended by the National Park Service to 
     enter into or implement a concession contract which permits 
     or requires the removal of the underground lunchroom at the 
     Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
       Sec. 309. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for the AmeriCorps program, 
     unless the relevant agencies of the Department of the 
     Interior and/or Agriculture follow appropriate reprogramming 
     guidelines: Provided, That if no funds are provided for the 
     AmeriCorps program by the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
     Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000, then none of the funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for the 
     AmeriCorps programs.
       Sec. 310. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used: (1) to demolish the bridge between Jersey City, New 
     Jersey, and Ellis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian use of 
     such bridge, when it is made known to the Federal official 
     having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such 
     pedestrian use is consistent with generally accepted safety 
     standards.
       Sec. 311. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to accept or process 
     applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim 
     located under the general mining laws.
       (b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not 
     apply if the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for 
     the claim concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with 
     the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all 
     requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the 
     Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode 
     claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised 
     Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and 
     section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill 
     site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by 
     the applicant by that date.
       (c) Report.--On September 30, 2000, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a report on actions taken by the 
     Department under the plan submitted pursuant to section 
     314(c) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
       (d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent 
     applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the 
     request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party 
     contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to 
     conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill 
     sites contained in a patent application as set forth in 
     subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the 
     sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party 
     contractor in accordance with the standard procedures 
     employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of 
     third-party contractors.
       Sec. 312. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     amounts appropriated to or earmarked in committee reports for 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service by 
     Public Laws 103-138, 103-332, 104-134, 104-208, 105-83, and 
     105-277 for payments to tribes and tribal organizations for 
     contract support costs associated with self-determination or 
     self-governance contracts, grants,

[[Page 15949]]

     compacts, or annual funding agreements with the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs or the Indian Health Service as funded by such 
     Acts, are the total amounts available for fiscal years 1994 
     through 1999 for such purposes, except that, for the Bureau 
     of Indian Affairs, tribes and tribal organizations may use 
     their tribal priority allocations for unmet indirect costs of 
     ongoing contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or annual 
     funding agreements.
       Sec. 313. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     fiscal year 2000 the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 
     Interior are authorized to limit competition for watershed 
     restoration project contracts as part of the ``Jobs in the 
     Woods'' component of the President's Forest Plan for the 
     Pacific Northwest to individuals and entities in historically 
     timber-dependent areas in the States of Washington, Oregon, 
     and northern California that have been affected by reduced 
     timber harvesting on Federal lands.
       Sec. 314. None of the funds collected under the 
     Recreational Fee Demonstration program may be used to plan, 
     design, or construct a visitor center or any other permanent 
     structure without prior approval of the House and the Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations if the estimated total cost of 
     the facility exceeds $500,000.
       Sec. 315. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     or any other Act providing appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, the Forest Service or the Smithsonian 
     Institution may be used to submit nominations for the 
     designation of Biosphere Reserves pursuant to the Man and 
     Biosphere program administered by the United Nations 
     Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
       (b) The provisions of this section shall be repealed upon 
     enactment of subsequent legislation specifically authorizing 
     United States participation in the Man and Biosphere program.
       Sec. 316. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act for any fiscal year may be used to designate, or to 
     post any sign designating, any portion of Canaveral National 
     Seashore in Brevard County, Florida, as a clothing-optional 
     area or as an area in which public nudity is permitted, if 
     such designation would be contrary to county ordinance.
       Sec. 317. Of the funds provided to the National Endowment 
     for the Arts--
       (1) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an 
     individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a 
     literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or 
     American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
       (2) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure 
     that no funding provided through a grant, except a grant made 
     to a State or local arts agency, or regional group, may be 
     used to make a grant to any other organization or individual 
     to conduct activity independent of the direct grant 
     recipient. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit payments 
     made in exchange for goods and services.
       (3) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group, 
     unless the application is specific to the contents of the 
     season, including identified programs and/or projects.
       Sec. 318. The National Endowment for the Arts and the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities are authorized to 
     solicit, accept, receive, and invest in the name of the 
     United States, gifts, bequests, or devises of money and other 
     property or services and to use such in furtherance of the 
     functions of the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities. Any proceeds from such 
     gifts, bequests, or devises, after acceptance by the National 
     Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities, shall be paid by the donor or the representative 
     of the donor to the Chairman. The Chairman shall enter the 
     proceeds in a special interest-bearing account to the credit 
     of the appropriate endowment for the purposes specified in 
     each case.
       Sec. 319. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be expended or obligated to fund new revisions of 
     national forest land management plans until new final or 
     interim final rules for forest land management planning are 
     published in the Federal Register. Those national forests 
     which are currently in a revision process, having formally 
     published a Notice of Intent to revise prior to October 1, 
     1997; those national forests having been court-ordered to 
     revise; those national forests where plans reach the fifteen 
     year legally mandated date to revise before or during 
     calendar year 2000; national forests within the Interior 
     Columbia Basin Ecosystem study area; and the White Mountain 
     National Forest are exempt from this section and may use 
     funds in this Act and proceed to complete the forest plan 
     revision in accordance with current forest planning 
     regulations.
       Sec. 320. (a) In providing services or awarding financial 
     assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
     Humanities Act of 1965 from funds appropriated under this 
     Act, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts 
     shall ensure that priority is given to providing services or 
     awarding financial assistance for projects, productions, 
     workshops, or programs that serve underserved populations.
       (b) In this section:
       (1) The term ``underserved population'' means a population 
     of individuals who have historically been outside the purview 
     of arts and humanities programs due to factors such as a high 
     incidence of income below the poverty line or to geographic 
     isolation.
       (2) The term ``poverty line'' means the poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a 
     family of the size involved.
       (c) In providing services and awarding financial assistance 
     under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act 
     of 1965 with funds appropriated by this Act, the Chairperson 
     of the National Endowment for the Arts shall ensure that 
     priority is given to providing services or awarding financial 
     assistance for projects, productions, workshops, or programs 
     that will encourage public knowledge, education, 
     understanding, and appreciation of the arts.
       (d) With funds appropriated by this Act to carry out 
     section 5 of the National Foundation on the Arts and 
     Humanities Act of 1965--
       (1) the Chairperson shall establish a grant category for 
     projects, productions, workshops, or programs that are of 
     national impact or availability or are able to tour several 
     States;
       (2) the Chairperson shall not make grants exceeding 15 
     percent, in the aggregate, of such funds to any single State, 
     excluding grants made under the authority of paragraph (1);
       (3) the Chairperson shall report to the Congress annually 
     and by State, on grants awarded by the Chairperson in each 
     grant category under section 5 of such Act; and
       (4) the Chairperson shall encourage the use of grants to 
     improve and support community-based music performance and 
     education.
       Sec. 321. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     support government-wide administrative functions unless such 
     functions are justified in the budget process and funding is 
     approved by the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 322. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds in this Act may be used for the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration (Spectrum), 
     GSA Telecommunication Centers, or the President's Council on 
     Sustainable Development.
       Sec. 323. None of the funds in this Act may be used for 
     planning, design or construction of improvements to 
     Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House without the 
     advance approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 324. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 1999 in the 
     roads and trails fund provided for in the fourteenth 
     paragraph under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' of the Act of 
     March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 843; 16 U.S.C. 501), shall be used by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, without regard to the State in 
     which the amounts were derived, to repair or reconstruct 
     roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands or 
     to carry out and administer projects to improve forest health 
     conditions, which may include the repair or reconstruction of 
     roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands in 
     the wildland-community interface where there is an abnormally 
     high risk of fire. The projects shall emphasize reducing 
     risks to human safety and public health and property and 
     enhancing ecological functions, long-term forest 
     productivity, and biological integrity. The Secretary shall 
     commence the projects during fiscal year 2000, but the 
     projects may be completed in a subsequent fiscal year. Funds 
     shall not be expended under this section to replace funds 
     which would otherwise appropriately be expended from the 
     timber salvage sale fund. Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to exempt any project from any environmental law.
       Sec. 325. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to establish a national wildlife refuge in the 
     Kankakee River watershed in northwestern Indiana and 
     northeastern Illinois.
       Sec. 326. None of the funds provided in this or previous 
     Appropriations Acts or provided from any accounts in the 
     Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of 
     fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     transferred to or used to support the Council on 
     Environmental Quality or other offices in the Executive 
     Office of the President, or be expended for any headquarters 
     or departmental office functions of the agencies, bureaus and 
     departments covered by this Act, for purposes related to the 
     American Heritage Rivers program.
       Sec. 327. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     operate telephone answering machines during core business 
     hours except in emergency situations.
       Sec. 328. (a) Enhancing Forest Service Administration of 
     Rights-of-Way and Land Uses.--During fiscal year 2000 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall deposit into a special account established in the 
     Treasury all administrative fees collected by the Secretary 
     pursuant to section 28(l) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 
     U.S.C. 185(l)), section 504(g) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43

[[Page 15950]]

     U.S.C. 1764(g)), and any other law that grants the Secretary 
     the authority to authorize the use and occupancy of National 
     Forest System lands, improvements, and resources, as 
     described in section 251.53 of title 36, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (b) Use of Retained Amounts.--Amounts deposited pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall be available, without further 
     appropriation, for expenditure by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to cover costs incurred by the Forest Service for 
     the processing of applications for special use authorizations 
     and for inspection and monitoring activities undertaken in 
     connection with such special use authorizations. Amounts in 
     the special account shall remain available for such purposes 
     until expended.
       (c) Reporting Requirement.--In the budget justification 
     documents submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture in 
     support of the President's budget for a fiscal year under 
     section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary 
     shall include a description of the purposes for which amounts 
     were expended from the special account during the preceding 
     fiscal year, including the amounts expended for each purpose, 
     and a description of the purposes for which amounts are 
     proposed to be expended from the special account during the 
     next fiscal year, including the amounts proposed to be 
     expended for each purpose.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect October 
     1, 2000 and remain in effect through September 30, 2005.
       Sec. 329. The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall:
       (1) prepare the report required of them by section 323(a) 
     of the Fiscal Year 1998 Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-83; 111 Stat. 1543, 1596-
     7);
       (2) distribute the report and make such report available 
     for public comment for a minimum of 120 days; and
       (3) include detailed responses to the public comment in any 
     final environmental impact statement associated with the 
     Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.
       Sec. 330. Hereafter, and notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a woman may breastfeed her child at any 
     location in a building or on property that is part of the 
     National Park System, the Smithsonian Institution, the John 
     F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the United States 
     Holocaust Memorial Museum, or the National Gallery of Art, if 
     the woman and her child are otherwise permitted to be present 
     at the location.
       Sec. 331. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or 
     orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation 
     for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted 
     on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan at the Third Conference 
     of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on 
     Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate 
     for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article 
     II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution, 
     and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25 
     of the Protocol.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the remainder of the bill?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rahall

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rahall:
       On page 108, after line 14, insert the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 332. None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     shall be used to process applications for approval of 
     patents, plans or operations, or amendments to plans of 
     operations in contravention of the opinion dated November 7, 
     1997, by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior.''.

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. The greatest giveaway this Nation has 
ever experienced should end right now. Here today, on this floor of the 
House of Representatives, we should join in a resounding voice in 
saying that enough is enough.
  The Mining Law of 1872, enacted with Ulysses S. Grant as the 
President of the United States while Union troops still occupied the 
South, and when the invention of the telephone and Custer's stand at 
the Little Bighorn were still 4 years away, that Mining Law of 1872 
still stands. Did it serve to help settle the West, as it was intended? 
Yes, it sure did. Has it worked to produce valuable minerals for our 
economy? Indeed it has. But today, I submit, it stands as the Jurassic 
Park of all Federal laws.
  Today, in this day and age, the Mining Law of 1872 still allows 
valuable minerals found on Western public lands to be mined for free: 
No royalty, no return to the American taxpayer. It is our names that 
are on the deed to these lands. Today, in this day and age, this law 
allows mining claimholders, for the most part multinational 
conglomerates, to actually obtain title to these public lands for as 
little as $2.50 an acre.
  I know some of my colleagues may find this hard to believe, but it is 
true. I looked to see if the Mining Law of 1872 was listed in Ripley's 
Believe It or Not. It was not, but it should be.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues that we have tried, we 
have tried long and hard to reform this law. The chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has been one of our 
friends along this way in trying to make these reforms. We have tried 
to comport the law with the values of our modern society as they exist 
today. We will still continue to try in this endeavor.
  But today we are seeking to address a single issue in this whole 
debate. That single issue is this: When one stakes a mining claim, the 
law says that one can obtain up to five acres of additional public 
lands, non-mineralized in character, for the purpose of dumping the 
mining waste. These lands are known as millsites. Indeed, the 
claimholder can also obtain a title to those lands for that $2.50 an 
acre price I spoke of earlier.
  Not content with this arrangement, some in the hardrock mining 
industry are seeking to gobble up unlimited quantities of public lands 
in association with their mining claims for waste dumps. The amendment 
we are offering today simply says no, they cannot do this. The existing 
law's ratio of mining claims to millsites will stand.
  The public domain is a public trust. There is an effort under foot to 
subvert that public trust. It is a land grab at the American taxpayers' 
expense, a pure land grab. Can they mine, can they mine ore under the 
existing arrangement? Of course they can. Will the industry continue to 
profit under the Mining Law of 1872? Certainly it will. But we are here 
to say that enough is enough.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from West Virginia knows, he and I 
have seen eye to eye on a number of the proposed mining law changes, 
and recognize that this is a matter that should be addressed by this 
body and the other body.
  My concern with this amendment is that we are letting one person in 
effect make law for the United States. I have always been of the 
opinion that the Constitution says that legislation should be passed by 
both houses and signed by the President. I think that is the proper way 
to do it. I do not believe that the Solicitor of the Department of the 
Interior should be given the privilege of making law, taking our 
responsibility. That to me would be a derogation of power that I think 
would be totally wrong.
  I would point out that the BLM manual, and the BLM has been under the 
control of the Democrat party and the presidency as part of the 
executive branch, says, ``A millsite cannot exceed 5 acres in size,'' 
which is what the attempt to do here is.
  It also goes on to say, ``There is no limit to the number of 
millsites that can be held by a single claimant.'' Further the United 
States Forest Service Manual provides, ``The number of millsites that 
may be legally located is based specifically on the need for mining or 
milling purposes, irrespective of the types or numbers of mining claims 
involved.''
  These are policies. I think the public is entitled to conform with 
what is the policy of this Administration as set forth in the BLM 
manual and the United States Forest Service Manual.
  I agree with the gentleman from West Virginia. There ought to be 
changes. We have joined in legislation in the past to do so. That is 
the proper way to do it, because these are policies that require a 
legislative solution and not a decision by the Solicitor that this 
should be the policy of the United States. That the Solicitor of the 
Department of the Interior should be making laws and not the Members of

[[Page 15951]]

this Chamber and the other Chamber is not acceptable.
  For these reasons, I oppose this amendment. I would hope that the 
gentleman from West Virginia would offer this as a legislative bill to 
be heard in the authorizing committees and achieve the changes. In some 
of those I would join him. But I just think it is the wrong policy to 
let one person in our government decide what the policies should be 
that are the responsibility of this legislative body.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman for yielding to me. The points he makes about the legislation, 
I would note, there was no point of order made against the amendment.
  In addition, while the Bureau of Land Management manual may have 
erroneously stated as the gentleman has accurately described it stated, 
the law and the regulations I believe do have this 5-acre limit.
  The statute, section 42, title 30, U.S. Code, imposes a limitation 
that no location for land for use as millsites shall exceed 5 acres in 
connection with each mining claim. So the manual from which the 
gentleman quotes accurately is in error, and the law and the statutes 
are correct.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think the issue is 
whether there is a multiplicity of 5-acre sites by one claimant. The 
gentleman's proposal is a limitation so it is not subject to a point of 
order, but I believe the gentleman's proposal would limit a claimant to 
one 5-acre site, and the BLM standard does not do that. That is where 
there is a difference in what the BLM requires versus what the 
gentleman would require in his amendment of limitation.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the record straight on part of the 
testimony that has been given on hardrock mining.
  First of all, I have to say that I have very, very little hardrock 
mining in my State, but I do know the history of what has gone on with 
the hardrock mining law.
  In my opinion, the Interior Department Solicitor and Vice President 
Gore are attempting to rewrite our mining laws without the benefit of 
congressional sanction nor public input. Why? Perhaps it is because the 
104th Congress passed significant amendments to the mining law.
  Let me say what some of those amendments were, the very things that 
my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia, complained about.
  The law that we passed in the 104th Congress imposed a 5 percent 
royalty on all the minerals that were extracted. It required fair 
market value payment for lands, including the millsites. Also it 
established an abandoned hardrock mine land fund which would reclaim, 
which would clean up and restore any of the mining lands that had been 
deserted, that anyone who currently is mining could be forced to clean 
up and to reclaim.
  However, the President vetoed it. Why did he do that? He did that 
because the Congress refused to give the Secretary of Interior 
unbridled authority to just say no to mining. This Solicitor has been 
wrong before when it comes to hardrock mining. As a matter of fact, 
there is a Supreme Court decision seven to one against the Solicitor on 
the way he has interpreted some of the regulations for hardrock mining.
  So Mr. Chairman, let me get to the specific issue. On the issue of 
millsites, he recently concluded that our mining laws contain a limit 
on the ownership of such millsites, despite the fact that no previous 
Solicitor ever nor any court ever has interpreted the law to limit the 
number of millsites, the number of 5-acre millsites that are available.
  The law is very, very clear. A mining claimant may only utilize non-
mineral-bearing lands as millsites, and only as much as is necessary in 
the conduct of one's mining and milling operation. If more than 5 acres 
is necessary, then they have to get another site.
  That is exactly what the Solicitor and the Vice President are trying 
to stop, which will basically truly impede hardrock mining, and in some 
cases, stop it. In no way is the miner limited to only as many 
millsites as he holds mining claims. No one ever has made that ruling 
except the current Solicitor. I challenge anyone to show me in the 
United States Code, title 30, section 42, where a mining claimant is so 
limited. It is not there, and the Solicitor knows it.
  He argues in his opinion that a 1960 amendment makes clear that 
Congress intended to limit ownership of millsites to one for one, but 
this law references placer mining, not lode claims.
  So in truth, Congress has had the opportunity not only in the 104th 
Congress, where they took the opportunity to reform the mining law, but 
in 1960 to legislate the very rule that this amendment would impose, 
and in 1960 they affirmatively chose not to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, the Rahall-Shays-Inslee amendment is an attempt to cede 
legislative branch authority to an unelected lawyer who is working for 
the Interior Department, and he is and has continued to work feverishly 
to impose his unorthodox views about mining before he and the Vice 
President leave office.
  But the property clause of the Constitution is very, very clear. I 
quote: ``The power to dispose of and make all needful rules and 
regulations respecting the territories and public property lies with 
the Congress.''

                              {time}  1630

  So I implore the Members of the House to not abandon our power, not 
abandon our responsibility. It is up to us. Yes, I believe that we need 
mining law reform. I believe that we need royalty. I believe that we 
need an abandoned mines fund. I believe that we need to get fair market 
value. Had the President not vetoed that, we would have that in place 
today.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am rising today to oppose this amendment offered by 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee), and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
because it seeks to ratify a decision by the Solicitor of the 
Department of the Interior which restricts the acreage available for 
mining under the existing mining law and the existing interpretation of 
the metals mining law.
  This, pure and simple, is politics at its worst; and it is 
legislation being fomented by one person in the Department of Interior 
who seeks to manipulate the process of approval of mining claims and 
the conduct of mining in this country.
  Goodness knows that mining is under assault in any event. But the 
worst kind of assault is by one person in the Solicitor's Office who 
claims intellectual superiority over the Congress or anybody else in 
the country by his sole interpretation of the mining law relative to 
mining claims and millsites.
  Make no mistake about mining law in America today. It requires 
extensive environmental protection, analysis, review and approval both 
by Federal statute and by State statute. So what our friend down at the 
Department of Interior seems to want to do today is force this issue on 
this House and force the issue of his opinion on the mining interests 
and the mining jobs that are created all over this country but that are 
fast dwindling.
  In February of this year, the Solicitor issued an opinion, an opinion 
that would virtually overturn the 1872 mining law by allowing a miner 
one 5-acre millsite claim per mining claim plan to be developed. This 
is an unprecedented decision by the Solicitor and in over 100 years of 
analysis and interpretation of mining law the law has never been 
interpreted this way. In fact, our friend, the Solicitor, is expressing 
an opinion, and again it is an opinion, contrary to the long-standing 
Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service policy, which is 
directly contrary in the regulations of the Bureau of Land Management 
to the Solicitor's interpretation.

[[Page 15952]]

  So it is a nice try, but no sale because it is a misinterpretation 
and it is an aberration and it should be rejected by the House, by 
every one of us in the West who respect the mining interests that have 
been a tradition in the West for years. We ought to be offended by 
this. We are offended by it, and we ought to resist it. And the rest of 
the House should not be, shall I say, persuaded by the opinion, the 
opinion of one person downtown who wants to be dramatic in terms of 
affecting mining policy in this country.
  It is not an environmental issue, Mr. Chairman. Companies that are 
petitioning to operate mines and millsites must still go through, as I 
said a moment ago, strict environmental law. Stricter than they have 
ever been. Stricter today than ever in history. And goodness knows also 
that there needed to be some changes made in mining practices. But the 
sins of the past should not be presented here today in the present, 
because mining companies and the mining industry is an honorable 
business, and the mining companies and the small and large employees 
and employers who are affected by mining law comply to the strictest 
environmental requirements in history today. So what happened then is 
not now.
  But this Solicitor is living in the past. He has a bone to pick. He 
has a point of view. He has a particular persuasion relative to the 
goodness or badness of mining, and he is trying to persuade the rest of 
the country by one opinion, by an ill-advised opinion I must say, and 
persuade the House that he is right. Well, he is wrong, and the 
Solicitor is wrong, and the Department of the Interior is wrong, and it 
is outrageous that the Department would allow this to stand.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues all of us in the West 
and all of us across the country ought to be very concerned about one 
opinion trying to affect the industry of this country that has been an 
honest and honorable one and is currently a respectable environmental 
practice that is undertaken by companies across this country who are 
trying to mine the minerals and the resources of this country in a 
responsible way. We should reject this amendment.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment is 
not a giant leap forward for mankind, it is simply a step to make sure 
that we do not take a giant leap backward for the American taxpayers.
  Taxpayers actually have one and only one protection in the 1872 
mining law, and that protection says if someone is going to open a mine 
and pay nothing for it on public land, they cannot dump their mine 
waste on more than 5 acres of the public's land. This is common sense, 
existing, on the books, black and white law in the country.
  Now, to make sure, I have this blowup; and if my colleagues can see 
the blowup, what it says is simple. I think we as Members of Congress 
ought to take a look at it. It says miners can use offsite land for 
millsites, but no location made on and after May 10, 1872, of such 
nonadjacent land shall exceed 5 acres. Five acres.
  So why are we here? We are here because in the other Chamber's bill 
they order agencies to ignore the clear protection of this law. They 
argue that miners can have 5 acres here, 5 acres there, 5 acres over 
there, until maybe they get a thousand acres. That is no limitation. 
That is a nothing law. That is not a law. That would be a bad joke on 
the American taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, their argument reminds me of my son. One of my sons 
likes ice cream, so we imposed a two big-scoop limit on him for 
dessert. And after he finished he came back and said, ``I am done with 
those two scoops. Now I want my second dessert for the second two 
scoops.'' He thinks just like the mining industry, and he was wrong and 
that argument did not wash. He gets two scoops of ice cream and they 
get 5 acres to pile up their tailings on American taxpayers' land 
without paying a dime for it.
  Why is this important? It is important because there is no justice to 
the America taxpayers if we take their lands, give it to privately held 
corporations and give them nothing but 20, 50, 100, 1,000 acres of 
crumbled stone and cyanide. That is why the Taxpayers for Common Sense 
support this amendment.
  In 1872, Congress said 5 acres was the limit. In 1960, Congress 
passed a bill that would have given unlimited acreage but recognized 
the need for the 5-acre limitation and struck that language. And now in 
1999 we ought to put our foot down and say the same thing.
  In this case, the Solicitor General has rendered a opinion that 
agrees with our amendment, happens to agree with our position. But I 
really do not give a fig what the Solicitor General thinks about this. 
What matters is what the law of the country says and what Congress 
thinks and what Congress says and what the American public deserves. 
The worst thing Congress could do is take one provision of the 1872 
mining law protecting the public and then gut it, which will happen if 
we do not pass this amendment.
  Some say everything is hunky-dory in our mining industry, all the 
problems taken care of, miners can put their 5 acres or hundred acres 
anywhere they want. But that did not help the gold mine in Montana that 
closed in 1997 and now has ended up with cyanide in residents' drinking 
water. This law is a clear antiquity. It is broken. We need mining 
reform, not mining deform. We need to go forward on mining law, not 
backward.
  Pass this law and follow the law of 1872 to the extent that it gives 
Americans at least one protection.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Rahall amendment; and the 
reason for that is it overturns what is, in essence, a hundred years of 
practices in public land management. The issue here is whether or not a 
mine can use more than one 5-acre parcel for a millsite. And, as a 
matter of fact, both the BLM and Forest Service manuals say yes.
  The BLM manual says, quote, ``A millsite cannot exceed 5 acres in 
size. There is no limit to the number of millsites that can be held by 
a single claimant.''
  The BLM Handbook for Mineral Examiners says, quote, ``Each millsite 
is limited to a maximum of 5 acres in size and must be located on non-
mineral land. Millsites may be located by legal subdivision or by metes 
and bounds. Any number of millsites may be located, but each must be 
used in connection with the mining or milling operation.''
  And the U.S. Forest Service Manual says, quote, ``The number of 
millsites that may legally be located is based specifically on the need 
for mining or milling purposes, irrespective of the types or numbers of 
mining claims involved.''
  Mr. Chairman, this has been the practice for well over a hundred 
years. Basically, this issue is that the Clinton administration has 
decided it wants to wage war on mining on the public lands. The average 
hard rock mine employs about 300 people, more or less. In Seattle, 
Washington, or Bridgeport, Connecticut, or here in Washington, D.C., 
300 jobs is not a big deal. More than that number of people work in one 
floor of any of our office buildings. But in rural Montana it is a big 
deal. We need those jobs. And often they are the only jobs in those 
communities.
  The President just toured rural America and talked about the high 
poverty rate and the high unemployment rate that is out there. We need 
these jobs. Our communities need these jobs. Our families need these 
jobs. Our schools need these jobs. I think the 1872 mining law needs to 
be updated. It has been four or five dozen times, and I would support 
an effort to try to do that. But that reform is the responsibility of 
Congress. It is not the responsibility of one lawyer in the 
administration, and it should not be done by executive fiat.
  The Clinton-Gore new interpretation of this provision is done without 
any court oversight. It has been done without any public input. It has 
been done

[[Page 15953]]

without any hearings. There has been no consultation with the Congress. 
This is the wrong way to reform the 1872 mining law. It is a disaster 
for rural Montana, and I would urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Those who oppose 
this amendment would suggest that somehow one day the Solicitor in the 
Department of the Interior woke up and redefined the law. The fact is 
that the law is clear on its face and no location of a millsite shall 
exceed 5 acres. That is what it said in 1872, and that is what it says 
today.
  The history is, in 1872, a month later the General Land Office issued 
the regulations expressly limiting millsite locations to 5 acres.
  In 1891, the Secretary of the Interior rules that it limits it to 5 
acres.
  In 1903, the Acting Secretary of Interior rules in the Alaska Copper 
Company, the area of such additional tracts is by the terms of the 
statute restricted to 5 acres.
  In 1914, ``Lindley on Mines'' says it is restricted to 5 acres.
  And it goes on through this in 1960, when Congress looks at it and 
goes back and says, ``A millsite may, if necessary for the Claimant's 
mining or milling purposes, consist of more than one tract of land, 
provided it does not exceed 5 acres in the aggregate.''
  In 1968, the American Mining Congress says that it is 5 acres. They 
do not like it, but it is 5 acres.
  This is not about that. What this is about is the mining industry 
that has done everything they can to keep us from having a reform of 
the mining law. And the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) recited 
the pale effort of the other side to pass mining law reform with 
royalties that turned out to be phantom royalties that meant nothing. 
It was 5 percent of nothing is nothing when they got done, and the 
environmental protections and all the rest. And the President is 
absolutely right to protect the environment and to protect the 
taxpayers of this country by not going along with that legislation.
  But this is the law as it is today. And what the mining law companies 
have decided is they want to go out onto public land and dump their 
waste onto public land, to build their cyanide heap leaching pads out 
on public land, and when they are done extracting the ore, they will 
leave, and the public would be the steward of these waste sites.
  Well, they have already done that. We have seen this movie. This 
mining industry has left us with 12,000 miles of streams that suffer 
from toxic metals and wastes that dribble into those steams; 180,000 
acres of lakes where toxic metals are there loaded with lead, cadmium 
and arsenic.

                              {time}  1645

  There are more than 500,000 abandoned mines. Yes, this is a boom and 
bust industry. Right now it is not looking so good. Gold is down below 
$300. When they leave these facilities, yes, they leave us with the 
waste; they leave us with the toxics.
  Right now we expect that the government is going to have to pay 
between some $32 to $72 billion to try and reclaim these mines, to try 
to get rid of the toxics, to try to get the materials out of our 
streams, out of our lakes so that people in the West can enjoy the land 
that has been spoiled by these mining operations.
  To have them now come along and dump their waste on public lands in 
violation of law, the Solicitor was absolutely correct in his opinion. 
He was restating the law as it is today.
  The mining companies do not want to come into the authorizing 
committee and have a mining law reform and change this to make it 10 
acres or 20 acres or whatever they think it should be, under whatever 
conditions. No. They want to come into an appropriations bill like they 
did when we were worried about funding the war in Kosovo. They thought 
that would be a good vehicle to allow them to dump their waste onto 
public lands, and they got away with it.
  It turned out to be such a good deal in the Kosovo appropriations 
that here they are now back in the appropriations process in the 
Senate.
  These people do their best work in the middle of the night. They do 
their best work in the middle of the night. They do not want a debate 
on policy, about where the waste should be, and the size of these 
tracks for waste. They do not want a debate on royalties. They do not 
want a debate on rents. Why? Because since 1872, they have been 
fleecing the taxpayer. They have taken billions off of the lands that 
are owned by the people of the United States and paid nothing.
  Now, if they take it off of the land of a rancher next door, they pay 
him 7, 8 percent gross royalties. If they take it off State lands, they 
pay them a percent of royalties. It is just Uncle Sam that does not get 
paid.
  No wonder they are in here with a single shot amendment in the Senate 
bill to try to overturn the Solicitor's opinion, because they do not 
want this debate. They do not want the debate.
  So what are we left to? We are left to, on the appropriations bill, 
trying to stop them from continuing to fleece the taxpayer and take 
over these public lands for the purposes of dumping their waste.
  For those of my colleagues who were not familiar with this process, 
these leach pads are hundreds of feet high. They are huge. They are 
constantly sprinkled with cyanide to leach out the gold. We move 
hundreds of tons of dirt and rock and ore and waste to get an ounce of 
gold. That is this process.
  Technology has changed the nature of gold mining. Why do we not have 
a debate on modernizing the gold mining industry? Why do we not have a 
debate about this industry that now can go into such low grade ore to 
make this kind of profit? Can they not pay the people of the United 
States something for the use of the land? No. Their alternative is to 
come here in the middle of the night and try to strike another rider on 
the appropriations bill so that they will not have to have that debate.
  We ought to support the Rahall-Shays-Inslee amendment.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Rahall amendment. I want to 
bring it back into a little bit of focus, if I can. It has been a long 
time since I was in the third grade and when I learned basic volumetric 
analysis about what we can do and what we cannot do.
  One thing my parents always told me is, one cannot put 10 pounds in a 
5-pound bag. Here we have got a 20-acre load claim, 20-acre site, and 
now we are restricting it to 5 acres, attempting to take most of the 
material off of a 20-acre area and put it into a 5-acre parcel. That is 
an impossibility. It is physically impossible. It has to be understood.
  But other than that, let me say that I rise to oppose this amendment 
for several reasons, one of which, it is going to allow a Solicitor, it 
is going to put law behind an opinion that was not a final judicial 
opinion. There has been no debate on this. It did not come through the 
committees. There was no debate on the merits of this issue. There was 
no hearing on this. It suddenly appeared from the dark of night, as the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has said, and now it is 
before us. There has been no public input on this measure, all for the 
purpose of destroying a mining industry.
  I want to say that, in March of this year, the Solicitor at the 
Department of Interior reinterpreted a long-standing provision of the 
law, then relied on his new interpretation to stop a proposed gold mine 
in the State of Washington.
  Well, this proposed gold mine has gone through a comprehensive 
environmental review by Federal and State regulators which was upheld 
by a Federal district court.
  They had met every, and I repeat, every environmental standard 
required and secured over 50 permits to operate. The mine qualified for 
their permits after spending $80 million of their money and waiting 7 
years to get into operation.
  The local Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service officials 
informed this mine and their sponsors

[[Page 15954]]

that they, in fact, had qualified for the permit, and they should come 
to their office to receive it. It was then noted that the Solicitor in 
Washington who intervened used his novel interpretation of the law to 
reject the permit.
  The Rahall amendment is cleverly designed to codify this 
administrative reinterpretation. This interpretation has been 
implemented without any congressional oversight, as I have said, or 
rulemaking, which would be open for public review and input and comment 
on this proposal.
  This was a calculated effort to give broad discretion to the 
Solicitor to stop mining projects that met all environmental standards; 
and yet we are opposed by environmental extremists and special interest 
groups.
  This amendment should be defeated, and the Solicitor should be 
required to seek out a congressional change in the law or either a 
formal rulemaking, giving the impacted parties an opportunity to 
comment on the change.
  If allowed to stand, this Interior Department ruling will render the 
mining law virtually meaningless and shut down all hard-rock mining 
operations and projects, representing thousands of jobs and billions of 
dollars of investments throughout the West.
  This amendment will destroy the domestic mining industry, and with 
the price of gold at $257, not near $300, $257, which is a new 30-year 
low, the second largest industry in my State will cease to exist.
  I think Congress must pay attention if it is intending to put 
industries, valid industries, legal industries out of business. If the 
Secretary or his Solicitor has problems with the United States mining 
law, then they should take these problems to Congress to be debated in 
the light of day before the American public.
  Laws are not made by unelected bureaucrats. Bureaucrats administer 
those laws that we enact here in Congress. Congress has to approve 
whether or not they agree with the laws.
  It is the duty of the government in a democracy to deal honestly with 
its citizens, not cheat them.
  As the Wall Street Journal stated recently, and I quote: ``If the 
Solicitor's millsite opinion is allowed to stand, investment in the 
United States will be as risky as Third World Nations.''
  The International Union of Operating Engineers oppose the Rahall 
amendment on the basis that, if it passed, it will force the continued 
loss of high-paying jobs in the U.S. that are directly or indirectly 
related to the industry. These are many blue collar jobs in every 
congressional district we have in the United States.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the Constitution gives the people control 
over the laws that govern them by requiring that statutes be affirmed 
personally by legislators and the President elected by the people. 
Majorities in the House and the Senate must enact laws, and 
constituents can refuse to reelect legislators who have voted for a bad 
law. Many Americans no longer believe that they have government by and 
for the people.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment very strongly.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. It is 
important that the House take a stand on this mining issue in this bill 
because the Interior bill in the other body already contains a rider on 
this matter.
  Let me start with an assertion that probably would receive broad 
agreement across the ideological spectrum: the current state of 
American mining law is a travesty. Mining is governed by an outmoded 
law passed over a century ago, and Congress has not significantly 
modified it since 1960. One result is that taxpayers have been denied 
billions of dollars as mining rights are given away at rates that were 
probably even a cause for celebration back in 1872, when the law was 
originally written.
  So we have an outmoded law that cheats taxpayers, and what do some 
want to do? They want to override the one provision of the 1872 law 
that actually provides the taxpayers some protection. That is the 
effect of the language that was in the supplemental appropriation and 
the language that has been proposed in the other body. That language 
would, in effect, repeal the clear language of the 1872 act that 
prevents mining companies from despoiling unlimited amounts of Federal 
land, land they get at a bargain rate, destroying that land with 
hazardous waste.
  This amendment would put the House on record against efforts to give 
away more Federal land so that mining companies can use it as a waste 
site. It would block those efforts, not by doing anything radical, but 
simply by reaffirming long-standing Federal law. That is 
environmentally responsible and fiscally responsible.
  If we are going to revisit the 1872 mining law, we need to do it 
comprehensively. What we should not do is attack the 1872 act piecemeal 
as part of the appropriations process in ways that remove the few 
provisions that protect taxpayers and the environment.
  I urge support of this amendment which reaffirms current law and 
protects taxpayers.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding to me, and I appreciate very much his support. He has always 
been one that speaks with an even hand and wants to balance our 
environmental needs along with the needs to provide jobs in industry.
  Several comments were made by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) 
in regard to trying to stuff a 20-pound waste into a 5-pound bag, 
something to that effect, alluding to the fact that this particular 
provision needs to be changed, this 5-acre limitation that has existed 
even prior to 1872 actually when we consider the load claims and the 
Placer Act that were combined in the passage of the mining law of 1872.
  I am not adverse to looking at changes. That is what I have been 
trying to do since I have been in this body for 20 some years now is 
make amendments and make reform of this mining law of 1872 so that we 
can have jobs in the industry and have protection of the environment at 
the same time.
  So I say to the gentleman, I will be glad to look at the 
comprehensive reform of the mining law. We have tried that in this 
body. Unfortunately, it has not passed the other body. So I think, if 
we can have that type of reform, we can probably address some of these 
needs.
  I would say also to industry, many of whom when we have tried to 
reform in the mining law have been moderate and responsible and wanting 
to sit down at the table and work with us, including the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula), the subcommittee chairman.
  There is always, of course, as there is in any facet of society, that 
fringe out there that does not want to sit down at the table and wants 
to torpedo any effort at reform.
  So we have tried to reform this law. We have even passed a bill out 
of this House of Representatives in a bipartisan passion only to see it 
move nowhere in the other body.
  So what we are doing here in this particular amendment, while we 
cannot look at the entire reform in the mining law, and we are not 
doing that in this amendment, we are looking at that 5-acre limitation 
that has been current law that the Interior Department has decided of 
late to try to enforce, and that is what we are trying to do here with 
this 5-acre limitation.
  So I say to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), if that is not 
sufficient, I am willing to look at it in the context of overall 
reform.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the comment of the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), only because, if one looks 
at the law and one interprets it from a reasonable person's standard, 
it says a single 5-acre millsite. But it does not limit the number. 
Five acres was there

[[Page 15955]]

because they did not want to have more property used than was 
necessary. One can go out and get a number of 5-acre millsites if it 
needs more than one. That is the purpose and that is what the practice 
has been.
  To restrict it to a single 5-acre millsite, as the gentleman is 
attempting to do with his amendment, would say to them that they can no 
longer have the room to put the excess waste from a 20-acre claim on 
more than one 5-acre parcel, which then has the effect of shutting down 
every mine, because it is retroactive according to the language the 
gentleman has got. It will go back, and it will destroy an industry 
that has long been one that has produced the quality of life that we 
have today.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rahall-Shays-Inslee 
amendment. The Senate Committee on Appropriations has included an anti-
environmental, anti-taxpayer rider offered by Senator Larry Craig in 
its version of the Interior appropriations bill that would allow all 
hard-rock mines operating on public lands, retroactively and 
prospectively, to claim as much public land as a mining company deems 
necessary to store mining waste. The mining company decides how much 
land it needs, public land.
  Now, why do they call it a rider? Where does that come from? An anti-
environmental rider. What that means is that this is a vehicle, a 
horse, something that is moving.

                              {time}  1700

  And the rider jumps on board something that is legitimate, and it 
holds on. It is a rider on something it does not belong on. They should 
not be legislating, putting a rider on an appropriations bill, changing 
the 1872 Mining Law. That is a big legislative debate out here on the 
floor.
  God knows, the mining industry has known how to kill all mining 
reform in my 24 years in Congress. It must come as a shock to them that 
they are forced now, once there is one favorable interpretation of the 
mining law that helps the environment, that they are out here on the 
floor, not even going through the regular legislative process, but 
rather trying to put a rider on a bill that does not even belong on.
  So what we are trying to do here today is knock that anti-
environmental rider, knock that anti-taxpayer rider out of the 
appropriations process. It does not belong on this bill. We should not 
be debating such a fundamental change.
  What we are talking about here today is something called the Crown 
Jewel Mine at Buckhorn Mountain in eastern Washington State. We are 
talking about the Crown Jewel Mine as a rider, as something that does 
not belong on an appropriations bill. Something as central as that. And 
what will it allow to happen? It will allow tons of rock from the 
mountain, which would be placed on huge uncovered leach pads where 
cyanide would percolate down through the soil to remove the gold from 
the rock. Cyanide. That is what we are talking about.
  When the mining industry finally decides that it wants to legislate, 
since 1872, it picks one great subject to put the rider on, cyanide 
leaching into the land of our country.
  So, my colleagues, that is what the Craig rider is all about. The 
rider was attached to the Senate version of the bill after the 
Departments of Interior and Agriculture released a joint decision 
earlier this year denying the large open-pit cyanide-leach gold mine in 
Washington State. The government told the mining industry that it could 
not steal the public's crown jewels, its public lands and its public 
resources in order to dig the mining industry's Crown Jewel cyanide 
leach Pit Mine.
  The government has been able to lock up, to block the Crown Jewel 
Mine only because of the millsite waste dumping limitation, which is 
the only provision of the 1872 Mining Law which protects the 
environment. It is the only provision in the whole law which protects 
the environment. And, of course, it is the only provision over the last 
20 or 30 years that the mining industry wants to see any legislation 
considered here on the floor.
  In addition, the amendment would also effectively limit taxpayer 
liability for cleaning up the waste when and if mining companies go 
bankrupt, a not-too-infrequent occurrence, by the way, in the United 
States. There are 500,000 plus abandoned mines around the country, and 
the taxpayers' cleanup bill for these mines is $30 to $70 billion, $30 
to $70 billion to clean up these mines. The Rahall amendment protects 
against it.
  My colleagues, let us reject the mining industry's attempts to attach 
these anti-environmental riders to the Interior appropriations bill. 
Let us prevent our Nation's public lands from being turned into toxic 
waste dumps. Let us vote for the Rahall-Shays-Inslee amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes to 
be equally divided. And let me say that I am just trying to expedite 
things here. We want to finish this bill tonight, and we have a number 
of amendments yet to go.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do not know 
how many Members there are.
  Mr. REGULA. We have one more on our side.
  Mr. VENTO. We have two or three over here. So I think if the 
gentleman would consider, and I do not know if we need to proceed or if 
I am going to use all 5 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. How about 20 minutes?
  Mr. RAHALL. Each side?
  Mr. REGULA. No, total.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. RAHALL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman. I think we 
have several more speakers on our side; and I would ask that that time 
be expanded, please.
  Mr. DICKS. What about 30 minutes?
  Mr. REGULA. Well, obviously, the gentleman has the right to object, 
so he can call it. I was hoping we could get it for 20 minutes, but if 
30 is all I can get agreement on, then it has to be 30.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's unanimous consent request is that 
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto conclude in 30 
minutes equally divided 15 minutes to each side.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  Mr. SHAYS. Reserving the right to object, there are a number of 
speakers who support this amendment who would like to speak, and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is basically saying there is only 15 
minutes, and the gentleman also says he has one gentleman who wants to 
speak in opposition. So I am just having a little bit of trouble with 
that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman choose to object?
  Mr. DICKS. I think we should just proceed, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his request.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I do so 
following my friend from Massachusetts, who is always a joy to hear on 
the floor, although sometimes what he says is not entirely all the 
facts. So let me point out what the facts are in this particular case 
and why we are addressing this issue today.
  First of all, this gold mine that started all this process is indeed 
in my district. The plan of operation started in 1992. They went 
through the draft environmental process and the record decision was let 
after 5 years, in January of 1997. Nearly 2 years later, after going 
through a number of appeals, the Federal Court upheld the EIS that was 
arrived at going through that process.
  I might add going through this process the Crown Jewel Mine project 
secured over 50 permits to comply with State and national environmental 
laws. In fact, the director of the Washington State Department of 
Ecology said, and I quote, ``The most rigorous

[[Page 15956]]

environmental analysis the State has ever conducted on a project of 
this type,'' referring to the Crown Jewel Mine. ``No other proposal has 
received this level of environmental scrutiny.''
  Now, the reason that I bring this up is because what caused the 
amendment to be brought forth on the supplemental budget that we passed 
earlier this year is that in December of 1998 the Federal District 
Court upheld the EIS and the record decision. In other words, Battle 
Mountain Gold project could proceed forward. They were advised in 
January of 1999 by the BLM, the United States Forest Service, that the 
final formal approvals of the project were imminent and ready to go. 
Specifically, on February 4, the U.S. Forest Service advised Battle 
Mountain Gold to come in the next day, on February 5, for approval of 
the plan of operations.
  On February 5, a day later, they went in to talk to the Forest 
Service; and the Forest Service advised them that this decision was 
kicked up to Washington, D.C.
  And we heard a number of Members mention about the solicitor. That 
caused, then, the rider to be put on the supplemental bill to protect 
this project. Because they played by the rules, as was laid out when 
they went through this whole process.
  That is exactly what they did, is played by the rules. They have 
invested $80 million in this project. From the standpoint of employment 
in an area where unemployment is high in my district, this would 
provide somewhere between 150 and 250 jobs over the life of the 
project.
  So the response here is not something that deals, I think, as the 
debate has been going on, because in the short time I have been here, 
when I served on the Committee on Resources, there has been a lot of 
talk about reforming the 1872 Mining Law, and I think everybody wants 
to sit down and probably arrive at a reasonable accommodation. But the 
specific reason, I want to point out again, was because this company 
acted in good faith under existing rules and applications to go through 
with this project, and all of a sudden it was pulled out.
  Now, we do not always react positively in terms of how the Senate 
reacts. We have to do what we think is the right thing to do. I believe 
the Rahall amendment really is a step back from where we were when we 
passed that rider on the supplemental bill. As a matter of fact, as I 
mentioned, that rider was specifically for the Battle Mountain Gold 
Company. But if the Rahall amendment were to pass and there were 
further permits that were required of the Battle Mountain Gold it 
could, therefore, end that project again. And again, to reiterate, that 
project proceeded under existing rules.
  So I oppose the Rahall amendment, and I would certainly encourage 
Members of the respective authorization committee to work on the 1872 
Mining Law, because it has certainly been talked about enough. And 
perhaps this debate may be the emphasis to continue forward. I do not 
know. But I believe the Rahall amendment is ill-advised here, and I 
urge Members to vote against it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the other side here, 
because here we have a memorandum from the Office of the Solicitor of 
the Bureau of Land Management, I guess it is the Solicitor of the 
Department of the Interior, I would like to hear if anybody here 
disputes this. The Mining Law of 1872 provides that only one millsite 
of no more than 5 acres may be patented in association with each mining 
claim. Does anybody disagree with that?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hastings of 
Washington was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would like to hear somebody address the law here. What we have heard is 
a lot of rhetoric, but I would like to hear somebody address the 
statute and tell us, and is there a difference in language here? 
Because when I read this statute, it looks as if it does have this 
limitation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, my 
understanding is that that is an opinion and not specifically in law, 
but the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), who is on the committee 
and whose State has a great deal of mining law, may have a more 
elaborate response for the gentleman.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me 
and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) as well.
  It is true, if we look at the statute that was proposed by the 
gentleman from Washington up there, it is specific as to the size of 
it, but it does not restrict it to only a single claim. It allows for a 
millsite to be attached to and contiguous to a mining claim, but the 
millsite is only 5 acres.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. But as I understand it, if there are multiple claims, then 
there could be multiple millsites on each of 5 acres. Is that the 
understanding of the gentleman?
  Mr. GIBBONS. If the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) will 
continue to yield, that is not the understanding, not according to the 
law. And I will read to the gentleman from the BLM manual.
  Mr. DICKS. Wait a minute, not the manual.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Well, the manual interprets the law.
  Mr. DICKS. The statute here. Maybe this is where we hit the rut. 
Maybe the manual was wrong, but we have to go back to the statute. And 
I am asking the gentleman about the statute. As I read the statute, it 
appears to limit each millsite to 5 acres per claim. And that is the 
law.
  Mr. GIBBONS. What the gentleman is reading from is the opinion of the 
solicitor which limits it, versus the statute which is on the board. 
There is no limitation as to the number.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I would like the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) to put up his 
chart for me, and then I would like to enter into a colloquy. We can 
just go through this section.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. First off, this is the law. This is the statute from the 
United States Annotated Code. This is the law.

                              {time}  1715

  What the executive branch says in some manual or letter or memorandum 
or written on the back of an envelope, or they can say it every day 
until doom's day, but it does not make a difference. This is the law 
passed by the United States Congress, signed by the President in 1872. 
Anything else is quite meaningless, frankly.
  What it says, very clearly: ``Where nonmineral land not contiguous to 
the vein or lode is used or occupied by the proprietor of such vein or 
lode for mining or milling purposes, such nonadjacent surface ground 
may be embraced and included in an application for a patent for such 
vein or lode, and the same may be patented therewith, subject to the 
same preliminary requirements as to survey and notices as are 
applicable to the veins or loads; but no location made on and after May 
10, 1872, of such nonadjacent land shall exceed five acres.''
  Now, I understand that the argument is, well, they could have 5 acres 
here, and they can have 5 acres right next to it, and they could have 
another 5 acres right next to that; they could have 5

[[Page 15957]]

acres until they go all the way from Canada to Oregon and the State of 
Washington.
  Let me suggest to my colleagues, if the Congress in 1872, and we have 
some very articulate members, Daniel Webster, I cannot remember when he 
was around in 1872, these are intelligent people. But if they were 
intending to give the mine everything they wanted, they did not need 
any limitation.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to also quote 
from Section 2 from (30 U.S.C. 41) subsection (b) where it says again: 
``Where nonmineral land is needed by proprietor of a placer claim for 
mining, milling, processing, benefication, or other operations in 
connection with such claim,'' and then I will insert at the right time 
the rest of this. But when we get down to the bottom line it says: ``No 
location made of such nonmineral land shall exceed five acres and 
payment for the same shall be made at the rate applicable to placer 
claims which do not include a vein or lode.''
  So when we get to these two different types of claims, I understand 
what happened here. In the old days, they would go into the earth to 
get the minerals and would only need a small area, like 5 acres on top, 
in order to have a place to bring the minerals out and deal with them. 
But now with these open-pit mines, all of a sudden they have tremendous 
amounts of earth that have to be moved and they cannot possibly do it 
on 5 acres.
  So this limitation is a very serious one for this type of mining. But 
as I read the law, the law does limit them to 5 acres.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, it says here clearly, ``each location.'' 
Every millsite is a location. It is not the totality of it. Every 
mining claim is a location. So they can have five locations.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, they could have five 
claims; and for each claim, they could have a 5-acre millsite.
  Mr. GIBBONS. It does not restrict it.
  Mr. DICKS. But they have to have separate claims. They cannot have 
one claim and a 500-acre millsite unless this special legislation is 
enacted. That is the only way we can do this.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I am just going back to what has prompted all of this, and that was 
the Battle of Mountain Gold. The fact is they had multiple millsites 
within their claim. That is the distinction and the interpretation.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but they can only have 
one claim, 5 acres for a millsite for dumping the waste. That is what 
the law says.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, that is the gray area that we are talking about here 
and that is why probably this issue should probably be taken up in the 
proper committee.
  Again, I want to reiterate, the reason what prompted all of this was 
because of one company in my district that had multiple sites and were 
playing by the rules, as had always been applied, had always been 
applied, not with an exception, had always been applied; and then the 
Solicitor General came up with that one opinion, which, of course, 
changed the whole thing.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think that the constituent of my colleague 
may have a great claim in equity, but I am not sure that he has got 
much of a leg to stand on when we look at the actual underlying 
statute. It appears that the Department, for many years, had 
misinterpreted the statute.
  Now, I am still willing to listen to other points of view, but I 
think we have got to deal with this statute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to look at this underlying 
statute. I would love to hear from somebody on the side of my 
colleagues or have somebody show us where they think the statute says 
something different than I have just read on the placer claims or on 
this law under this particular provision.
  We have to have some basis for saying that somewhere it says they can 
have more than 5 acres of a millsite per claim. And that is what I do 
not see here in the law.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I point out to make sure people understand, 
the problem my friend from Washington has alluded to, the Crown Jewel 
Mine, has been solved, if we look at it that way, by the previous 
rider. That is a red herring. That problem has been solved. We are 
talking about the future, the year 2000 on.
  Just one closing point: if the interpretation placed on this by the 
industry is correct, there is no reason on this green Earth that the 
Congress in 1872 would have imposed any language as to any limitation 
as to any acreage. Because if the Congress wanted to give the industry 
all it wanted for free, it could have just said so, they can have all 
they want for free.
  There is no reason for this 5-acre limitation if we mean they can 
have 5 acres here, 5 acres there, 5 acres everywhere. This ought to be 
enforced.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, one final point. The 
millsite law, and this has been conceded, it does limit acreage to 5 
acres per millsite. But there is no limit on the number of millsites in 
a claim. That is the distinction.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the distinction 
is, for every claim they get a millsite with 5 acres. That is how I 
read this. So if they have multiple claims, they get multiple 
millsites, each of which is 5 acres.
  The problem here I think is that we have got a fewer number of claims 
than the size of the needed millsite to deal with the waste. So I just 
think we need to get this clarified.
  I appreciate what the gentleman is suggesting that the Committee on 
Resources might help us all out by taking this matter up.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a big deal. This is an important issue. And 
this land is your land, and it is my land. It is Government land that 
has been extraordinarily abused by a law we all know needs to be 
reformed. We all know it needs to be reformed. But instead of reforming 
the law, we are ignoring the law.
  The Lode Act of 1860 which dealt with veins and it contained the 20-
acre and the 5-acre millsite limits. The Placer Act of 1866 dealt with 
mineralized earth. It had 20 acre mining site and 5 acre millsite 
limits. And it was codified in 1872. We are not objecting to the law. 
If a mining claim has 100 acres, then a mining claimant has 25 acres 
they may use as a millsite. That is not our objection.
  In the case of Crown Jewel Mine, Battle Mountain Gold Company, has 
four patents approved and 11 unpatented claims. They have a total of 15 
mining claims, for a total of 300 acres. But they want 117 millsites. 
They want 585 acres when they are entitled under law to only 75 acres.
  We are seeing mining interests trying to ignore the law, and then we 
blame the Solicitor General, whose job it is to make sure the law is 
enforced. That is the law. The Soliciter General is going to make sure 
it is enforced. It was ignored. The other side may argue we have to 
amend the law and deal with some legitimate concerns. But we do not 
ignore the law. And that is what I believe is the attempt of these 
riders in the Senate Interior Appropriations bill.
  I have a gigantic problem with the fact that this is our land. Mining 
companies do not pay a dime for it unless

[[Page 15958]]

they are extracting oil or gas and then they pay a minimal royalty. But 
hard rock miners do not pay anything for the minerals they extract. 
They can destroy the land and leave it behind, and we are left to deal 
with an environmental disaster.
  Some can say, well, why should we care in New England? Because it is 
our land, it is our country, and we care about it and we want something 
to happen to deal with this outrage.
  So I wish the committee of jurisdiction would deal with this law, and 
I wish we would abide by the law that exists today. And that is 20 
acres and 5; and if a claimant wants 40, then the claimant gets 10. And 
if the claimant wants 100, the claimant gets 25. That is the law.
  We can criticize the Solicitor General all we want, but he is saying 
the law needs to be abided by. I'd like to add that if mining interests 
do not like the law as it is being interpreted by the Solicitor 
General, then they can go to court.
  I just hope we can pass this amendment, and then I hope the committee 
of jurisdiction can deal with this issue as it needs to be dealt with. 
It is a law that goes back to 1872. It is a law that needs changing. I 
hope we change it but not ignore it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rahall-Shays 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all start by commending the 
subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations for maintaining the 
1994 moratorium on the 1872 mining patents.
  I know we have got quite a few that proceeded that date, I think that 
their efforts here are helpful, I think, in trying to force the Senate, 
frankly, which has been the problem in terms of reforming the 1872 
mining law, to in fact face up to reality and try to deal with the 
problems that exist concerning this 1872 law, which is badly in need of 
modification and modernization.
  The fact is that the issue that we have before us today is because of 
actions on the part of the other body, the Senate, trying to circumvent 
the clear meaning of what this law is.
  The fact of the matter is that the Department of the Interior and 
those that are responsible for administrating this law have found a way 
to try to mitigate some of the damage that is being done by these 
mining claims and by the millsites that have propped up around them.
  It is not just the millsites. It is the access points, the roads that 
go in. There is a whole host of environmental problems and concerns 
that are affecting us with regards to public land. These are public 
lands, part of the public domain, often being located in maybe a 
national forest, maybe in terms of range lands which are being used for 
a variety of other purposes and become very important for recreation, 
and, of course, for maintenance of various types of wildlife, flora and 
fauna.
  But the major point I think that needs to be brought out here is 
that, obviously, mining practices have changed. And the American Mining 
Congress, the predecessor organization, pointed to this in some of the 
testimony we have from the Committee on National Resources, and they 
point out that instead of the 5 acres that typically would have been 
used for a tailing site near a 20-acre claim or patented claim, today 
the amount of land is 200 acres typically. It is 10 times the amount of 
land that is outlined from the configuration of the claim. Today it is 
10 times that amount of land that is used because of an industrial 
site, basically, that is being built alongside of the mine.
  And very often, as we looked at the hard-rock minerals, the cyanide 
leaching for gold and other types of valuable hard-rock minerals, in 
fact, are what are causing these serious problems. Now, besides which, 
of course, I think we could point out that, while we would like to 
think all of these entities that are making the patented claims and 
using these mill tailing sites responsibly, it has been estimated that 
anywhere from 30 to $70 billion's worth of damage in terms of 
restoration because of the toxic and other problems associated with 
cleanup have been abandoned on the Federal lands, on these lands.
  So not only does the taxpayer lose the initial impact, and when my 
friend said that they do not get a dime for these lands, he is almost 
right. I think we get about $2.50 to $5 an acre for these lands. But of 
course, the minerals that are extracted from them may actually be 
minerals that are into the hundreds of millions or even billions of 
dollars of value.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It does not 
go far enough. Frankly, on the appropriations bill we cannot reform and 
modify greatly the 1872 law. But what we can do is to send a signal and 
to arm our appropriators with an amendment that will in fact try to 
stop the type of raid that is going, on the type of riders, as it were, 
that are being put on often in the Senate and sometimes in the House 
when there is not consensus, where this is, in essence, trying to undo 
and unglue the existing precepts of the actual 1872 law, a weak law, a 
law that needs to be modified, that needs to be modernized, that the 
Senate refused to deal with. When we repeatedly sent language on 
various bills to them to deal with this, they have refused to do so.

                              {time}  1730

  I commend the subcommittee for maintaining the 1994 moratorium, but 
we have to deal with this issue because we are being challenged to do 
so by the actions of the body and by the work of the administration. 
They have done good work on this. We should leave the tool in their 
hand to limit the millsites. We ought to force the Senate to deal with 
modernizing this law, support the Rahall-Shays amendment, and I think 
we will have done a good deed both for the taxpayers and for the 
natural resources that are the legacy of all Americans, not just to 
benefit the special interests.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I had intended to stay out of this debate but it has 
dragged on and I feel it merits some additional points be made.
  I serve on the authorizing committee. I authored a number of 
amendments the last time we tried to modernize and amend the 1872 
mining law. This is an antiquated law which begs for change. In fact I 
think the committee, even though they are attempting to basically erode 
some provisions of the law here, recognizes that by continuing the 
moratorium on patents.
  Let us just understand what is ultimately at stake here. It is the 
ability of someone operating a mine for which if they have patented it 
they pay the government, and the taxpayers, $2.50 an acre. No 
royalties, no other fees are involved. $2.50 an acre. Many times these 
mines can return tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars on a 
relatively small number of acres. It is a very, very lucrative 
enterprise.
  Now, enter heap leach mining. It requires a lot more Federal land, a 
lot greater number of acres to extract a small amount of gold through 
the process of heaping up the land and dosing it with cyanide.
  Now, they say because we are having to extract from many, many more 
acres of land, which we paid $2.50 an acre for and make bigger and 
bigger piles, we need more places to process the ore and more acres of 
public land, for which they will pay $2.50 an acre if they patent it.
  Now, I just want to relate this to the debate we are going to have in 
a few moments over the issue of recreation fees and since the gentleman 
from Massachusetts did not bring Grandma, who he often brings up in 
these issues, into this, I want to bring Grandma in. He always talk 
about Grandma and the kids going out to the forest and doing this and 
doing that.
  Let us just envision Grandma today. She drives up to the national 
forest, she drives her car to the end of the road and wants to take the 
grandkids for a little hike to see the wildflowers. Guess what? There 
is a little metal box there that says you have got to pay $3 to park 
your car. And she does. Her car occupies maybe 200 square feet. She has 
got to pay three bucks to park the car.

[[Page 15959]]

The mining company wants to park wastes forever for $2.50 an acre.
  Now, Grannie would be better off if she filed a claim and got a 
patent and paid $2.50 for an acre, she could open a parking lot and 
other people could park there, she could charge them a buck and a half, 
they would save a buck and a half, and everybody would come out ahead.
  This is absurd. Because we are not asking people to pay their fair 
share, we are now sticking it to the little guy, and the fair share is 
an industry that makes hundreds of millions, billions of dollars a 
year, many of them foreign-owned and operated, operating on lands in 
the western United States, paying not a penny in royalties to the 
Federal Government and getting the land for $2.50 an acre.
  This law must be reformed. If by adopting this amendment we squeeze a 
little bit and it hurts a little bit and we get a rational debate in 
the committee of jurisdiction on which I serve and we then finally, 
finally bring this law into the 20th century and finally begin to 
protect the taxpayers and the environmental interests, this will be a 
very meritorious and historic moment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  (On request of Mr. Regula, and by unanimous consent, Mr. DeFazio was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to advise the gentleman that 
there has been a moratorium on patenting mining claims since fiscal 
year 1995. So Grannie has not been able to get a patent because of the 
appropriations riders. Please tell Grannie there are no more patents.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for that. I hope it becomes 
permanent or we extract a royalty in the future. I thank the gentleman 
for his clarification.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my very strong opposition to the 
Rahall amendment.
  This amendment to me is nothing more than a cheap attempt to impose 
on the Congress the anti-mining political agenda of unelected 
bureaucrats at the Department of the Interior, an agency with a proven 
track record of hostility towards mining and the industries upon which 
they depend.
  In November of 1997, the Solicitor of the Department issued an 
opinion which concluded that our mining laws contain a limit upon the 
patenting of millsites, despite the fact that no previous solicitor has 
ever interpreted the law to do so, nor has any court of law and nor has 
Congress.
  This opinion reinterprets a longstanding provision of law that would 
require mines to drastically reduce the size of their millsites 
connected to mining claims. The opinion was not based in reality and 
neither is this amendment.
  Like many in this body, I seek to reform the mining laws of this 
country. But the 104th Congress passed significant amendments to our 
mining laws, including the imposition of a 5 percent royalty, payment 
of fair market value for lands and establishment of abandoned hardrock 
mined land fund.
  But President Clinton vetoed that bill because Congress refused to 
give the Secretary of Interior unbridled authority to ``just say no'' 
to mining.
  Do not be fooled by its proponents. This amendment is not mining 
reform. The Rahall-Shays-Inslee amendment is an attempt to cede 
legislative branch authority to a small group of unelected bureaucrats 
and lawyers working feverishly to impose their unorthodox views on 
mining before they pack up and leave office. It is just that simple.
  Reject this amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for the 
bipartisanship they have shown in crafting this piece of legislation. 
All of our committees and subcommittees, I think, would be a lot better 
off if we worked in the bipartisan way that they have demonstrated in 
their subcommittee. I applaud them also on maintaining the moratorium 
on the patents.
  But I rise here today, one, to disagree with the gentleman from 
Texas, because the law is clear and the law should be interpreted the 
way it is. And so I rise in strong support of the Rahall-Shays-Inslee 
amendment, because I think it sends a strong message to the Senate to 
stop loading up appropriations bills with antienvironmental riders.
  Why is the Senate attempting to legislate in this way? Why do we here 
in this body attempt substantive legislation in appropriations bills? 
The simple answer is, these kinds of proposals could not survive in the 
normal legislative process. They could not survive in the light of day. 
This, plain and simple, is a giveaway. If we want to reform the 1872 
mining law, let us do it in our committees.
  This body in 1993 passed with a large bipartisan majority an 1872 
mining law reform bill. There were hearings. We heard from all 
interested parties. We addressed this issue in a thoughtful and 
substantive way. The other body is doing just the opposite with this 
antienvironmental rider. There is no bill. Interested parties have not 
been given an opportunity to testify. This issue has not been 
considered in a thoughtful, substantive way. Plain and simple, this is 
a special interest provision to help one mining company.
  Now, an amendment I think is always known for its supporters and this 
amendment is supported by over 70 taxpayer and environmental 
organizations, including the Taxpayers for Common Sense, the League of 
Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote for responsible legislating. A 
vote for this amendment is a vote for protecting the environment. A 
vote for this amendment is a vote to leave future generations with a 
cleaner, better world.
  Vote ``yes'' on Rahall-Shays-Inslee.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Rahall amendment to 
the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations Act. This amendment will allow the 
Solicitor of the Department of the Interior to amend the existing 
mining law without congressional authorization.
  In March of this year, the Solicitor at the Department of the 
Interior reinterpreted a longstanding provision of law and then relied 
on his new interpretation to stop a proposed gold mine in Washington 
State.
  This proposed mine (Crown Jewel) had gone through a comprehensive 
environmental review by federal and state regulators, which was upheld 
by a federal district court.
  They had met every environmental standard required and secured over 
fifty permits. The mine qualified for their federal permit after 
spending $80 million and waiting over seven years.
  The local Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service officials 
informed the mine sponsors that they qualified for the permit and they 
should come to their office to receive it.
  It was then that the Solicitor in Washington D.C. intervened and used 
his novel interpretation of the law to reject the project. The Rahall 
amendment is cleverly designed to codify this administrative 
reinterpretation.
  This interpretation has been implemented without any Congressional 
oversight or rulemaking which would be open to public review and 
comment.
  This was a calculated effort to give broad discretion to the 
Solicitor to stop mining projects that met all environmental standards 
yet were still opposed by special interest groups.
  This amendment should be defeated and the Solicitor should be 
required to seek a congressional change to the law or enter a formal 
rulemaking giving the impacted parties an opportunity to comment on the 
change.
  If allowed to stand, the Interior Department's ruling will render the 
Mining Law virtually meaningless and shut down all hard rock mining 
operations and projects representing thousands of jobs and billions of 
dollars of investment throughout the West.
  This amendment will destroy the domestic mining industry and with the 
price of gold at a new 30 year low, the second largest industry in 
Nevada will cease to exist. Pay attention Congress, mining will no 
longer exist in Nevada!
  If the Secretary or his solicitor has problems with the United States 
mining law then he

[[Page 15960]]

should take these problems to Congress, to be debated in the light of 
day, before the American public.
  Laws are not made by unelected bureaucrats. Bureaucrats administer 
the laws Congress approves whether or not they agree with those laws.
  It is the duty of Government in a democracy to deal honestly with its 
citizens and not to cheat them.
  As the Wall Street Journal stated, ``if the Solicitor's millsite 
opinion is allowed to stand, investment in the U.S. will be as risky as 
third world nations''.
  The International Union of Operating Engineers opposes the Rahall 
Amendment on the basis that if passed it will force the continued loss 
of high paying U.S. direct and indirect blue-collar jobs in every 
Congressional district.
  The Constitution gives the people control over the laws that govern 
them by requiring that statutes be affirmed personally by legislators 
and a president elected by the people.
  Majorities in the House and Senate must enact laws and constituents 
can refuse to re-elect a legislator who has voted for a bad law.
  Many Americans no longer believe that they have a government by and 
for the people.
  They see government unresponsive to their concerns, beyond their 
control and view regulators as a class apart, serving themselves in the 
complete guise of serving the public.
  When regulators take it upon themselves to legislate through the 
regulatory process the people lose control over the laws that govern 
them.
  No defensible claim can be made that regulators possess superior 
knowledge of what constitutes the public good. Nor to take it upon 
themselves to create laws they want because of Congressional gridlock--
the value laden word for a decision not to make law.
  The so-called gridlock that the policy elites view as so 
unconscionable was and is no problem for people who believe in the 
separation of powers doctrine contained in the Constitution which holds 
that laws indeed should not be made unless the broad support exists to 
get those laws through the Article I process of the Constitution, i.e. 
``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in Congress.''
  Let us debate the merits of the proposal, do not destroy the lives of 
hundreds of thousands of miners just to appease special interest groups 
whose entire agenda is to rid our public lands of mining.
  If you have problems with mining on our public lands come and see me, 
together we can make positive changes but do not destroy the lives of 
my constituents today by supporting the Rahall amendment.
  Without mining none of us would have been able to get to work today, 
we would not have a house over our heads--because without mining we 
have nothing.
  Give our mining families a chance to earn a living, to work to 
provide the very necessities that you require. Oppose the Rahall 
amendment and support common sense on our public lands.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) will be postponed.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I direct the attention of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) to the energy conservation budget in the Department of Energy. 
Energy conservation promotes reductions in energy use, reductions in 
waste of raw materials, and reductions of effluent discharge. It thus 
promotes cleaner water, cleaner air and cleaner soil.
  Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Energy has admirably 
focused on energy-intensive and waste-intensive processes.
  The U.S. Department of Energy has identified steel forging processes 
as an area that is ripe for improvement in energy conservation. 
Additionally, the U.S. Department of Defense has identified forging as 
a significant industry in the Department of Defense national security 
assessment.
  The National Center for Manufacturing Sciences' Precision Forging 
Consortium, better known as NCMS, has outlined Phase II of a specific, 
comprehensive, collaborative R&D project to establish new U.S. domestic 
precision forging capabilities. For a modest investment of $1.2 million 
this year, with well over 50 percent of the cost being borne by private 
partners, this second phase will complete the successful Phase I 
exploratory project.
  Phase II of this project will achieve very real and substantial 
returns in 18 months, and they are, namely, a tenfold improvement in 
tool-life; decreased die system cost; reductions in raw material 
consumption; reductions in effluent discharge; less scrap; reduced 
secondary machining requirements and billet design; lower forging 
temperatures; an overall 20 percent reduction in input energy.
  And importantly I wanted to note, too, Mr. Chairman, that this 
project has the support of the administration's Department of Energy 
Office of Industrial Technologies.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the gentleman from Ohio 
how I appreciate his kindness and courtesy in allowing me this time for 
the colloquy. I would urge obviously his consideration and support for 
this project in conference.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for bringing this 
proposal to my attention. This energy conservation project sounds very 
interesting, and it appears as though its continuation would fit 
appropriately with the work of the Department of Energy. I will be 
happy to work with him and with the Department of Energy to explore 
continuation of this effort as we move to conference on the Interior 
bill.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman. I look forward to working 
with him in that regard.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Young amendment 
which would cut the funding for all the discretionary programs in this 
bill. I am particularly concerned about the effect this amendment would 
have on Native Americans. I am deeply disappointed by the amount of 
funding provided in this bill for the programs of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs and the Indian Health Service. This bill provides $114 million 
less than the administration requested for the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
and $15 million less than the administration requested for the Indian 
Health Service program.
  The cuts in Indian school construction programs will be particularly 
devastating for Native Americans. The administration had proposed a new 
initiative to provide $30 million in bonds for school construction by 
Indian tribes in addition to an increase of $22 million in the funding 
for new school construction by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

                              {time}  1745

  The Committee on Appropriations did not provide any funding for the 
bond initiative, and the funding in this bill for school construction 
is virtually the same as last year.
  I realize the Committee on Appropriations has limited funds to work 
with in providing for programs in this bill; however, new school 
construction is desperately needed by many Indian tribes. Without new 
schools, Indian children will be unable to receive the education they 
so desperately need to succeed in our society.
  The Young amendment would make further cuts in school construction, 
health care, and other programs that serve Native Americans. This 
draconian amendment is unwise and unfair. The funding in this bill for 
programs serving Indians should be increased, not cut. The economy in 
the United States today is extraordinarily healthy. Nevertheless, the 
people who live on Indian reservations are some of the poorest people 
in our Nation. They desperately need funding for new schools and other 
infrastructure, health care and economic development. We cannot allow 
them to be left behind.
  Let me remind my colleagues that the President just took a tour of 
the poorest areas in our country to talk about new initiatives to help 
bring these communities on line with the new possibilities that are 
being created

[[Page 15961]]

with this well-performing economy. I had a long conversation with the 
President when he finally reached California.
  He had been on an Indian reservation. The President of the United 
States, President Clinton, said he had never ever seen poverty like he 
saw on this Indian reservation. He said it was beyond comprehension. He 
said if someone thinks what they have seen in any inner-city in America 
is bad, they need but go on some of these Indian reservations and see 
the abject poverty that they are experiencing.
  So, to have this kind of an amendment that would further exacerbate 
this kind of poverty is unconscionable, and I will ask my colleagues to 
reject the Young amendment and do not support this kind of cut in our 
discretionary spending.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on behalf 
of myself and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
       Page 108, after line 14, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 332. No funds made available under this Act may be 
     expended to approve class III gaming on Indian lands by any 
     means other than a Tribal-State compact entered into between 
     a State and a tribe, as those terms are defined in the Indian 
     Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. 
It ensures that the integrity of a law that the U.S. Congress passed, 
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, is preserved. I have here in my hand 
letters of endorsement of my amendment by both the National Governors' 
Association and the National Association of Attorney Generals, two 
bipartisan groups.
  Why have they endorsed this amendment? Because it protects the rights 
of States that this Congress granted them under the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act or the IGRA. Under IGRA, in order for Indian tribes to 
engage in Class III gambling, otherwise known as casino gambling, 
tribes must have an approved tribal-State compact.
  However, recent actions by the Department of Interior would enable 
Indian tribes to circumvent State governments when negotiating these 
compacts. Regulations issued by the Secretary of Interior on April 12, 
1999, established a process by which a tribe can essentially bypass the 
State and open a casino in the absence of a tribal-State compact.
  This severely weakens the rights of States to determine gambling 
activities in their own communities. These regulations are inconsistent 
with IGRA. The Department of Interior has exceeded the authority 
granted under IGRA by issuing a regulatory remedy on a matter that both 
Congress and the Supreme Court have stated should be determined by the 
States. My amendment prohibits the Secretary from allowing a tribe to 
open a casino in a State where the tribe has not negotiated a compact 
with the State.
  Allow me to review for the Members what my amendment does and does 
not do.
  What the Weldon-Barr amendment does: My amendment maintains the 
status quo of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. It ensures that tribes 
can still use the current IGRA process to engage in Class III casino-
style gaming. It preserves the right of Congress to pass laws and make 
majority policy changes. It continues incentives for tribes and States 
to pursue legislative changes to IGRA. It prevents the Secretary of 
Interior from bypassing Congress and allowing tribes to establish Class 
III gaming in the absence of a tribal-State compact. It protects State 
rights without harming Indian tribes.
  What my amendment does not do: This amendment does not amend the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The Weldon amendment does not affect 
existing tribal-State compacts. The amendment does not limit the 
ability of tribes to attain Class III gaming as long as valid compacts 
are entered into by the tribes and the States pursuant to existing law.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote to protect the rights granted by 
this Congress to the States. Vote to protect the rights of our local 
communities to have a voice in whether or not casinos will be opened in 
their communities. Vote to support our Governors and State attorneys 
general. I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, and I 
again point out that this amendment has been endorsed by the National 
Governors' Association and the National Association of States Attorneys 
General.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Weldon-Barr 
amendment. This amendment would keep the Secretary of Interior from 
fulfilling a congressionally mandated obligation that requires him to 
develop alternative procedures on Class III gaming compacts.
  Mr. Chairman, on April 12, 1999, the Secretary published proposed 
final regulations on Class III or casino style gaming procedures that 
allows the Secretary to mediate differences between States and Indian 
tribes and Indian gaming activities. These regulations are a long 
awaited development in the stalemate between Indian tribes and certain 
States over Class III gaming.
  The Secretary developed the regulations because of the United States 
Supreme Court ruling in Seminole Tribe versus Florida, which found that 
States could avoid compliance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by 
asserting immunity from suit. By enacting IGRA, Congress did not intend 
to give States the ability to block the compacting process by inserting 
immunity from suit. In fact, IGRA enables the Secretary to issue 
alternative procedures when the States refuse to ratify the compacts.
  This is why the Secretary is exercising authority to issue 
regulations governing Class III gaming with the States that refuse to 
negotiate in good faith. The Weldon-Barr amendment would prohibit the 
Secretary from fulfilling his obligations under IGRA on the grounds 
that it bypasses State authority.
  Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Chairman. The 
regulations would give great deference to the States' role under IGRA. 
Only after a State asserts immunity from suit and refuses to negotiate 
would the regulations apply.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is particularly important to note that the 
regulations would not give tribes a right to engage in gaming, but only 
create a forum where all interests, State, Federal and tribal, can be 
determined. The Secretary's role would be subject to several safeguards 
including oversight by the Federal courts.
  In April, one day after the Secretary published the Class III gaming 
regulations, the States of Florida and Alabama sued in the Federal 
district court in Florida claiming the regulations were beyond the 
scope of the Secretary's authority under IGRA. On May 11, 1999, the 
Secretary wrote to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, 
saying that he would refrain from implementing the regulations until 
the Federal court has resolved the authority question. We should not 
interfere in a matter currently under Federal court review. Allowing 
the Weldon-Barr amendment to become law now would interfere in that 
process.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the Interior appropriations bill is not 
the vehicle that should be used to debate the issues of Class III 
gaming regulations. The Committee on Resources spent months and months 
writing IGRA, and I helped write that bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the 
Republican leadership are meeting today with several tribal leaders on 
their support of Indian sovereignty. How ironic it is that we are here 
today considering an amendment that would devastate our policy and laws 
promoting tribal sovereignty and Indian self-determination. Downstairs 
they are talking to them, giving them certain promises, and I 
encouraged that meeting. I commend Speaker Hastert for having that 
meeting; It is a historical meeting. But while they are talking to them 
downstairs, our deeds up here are far more

[[Page 15962]]

important, and I urge the defeat of that amendment.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that has nothing to do with tribal 
rights; it has nothing to do with policies that the Speaker might 
engage in with Indian tribes or that the administration or the minority 
leader might engage in with Indian tribes.
  That is the reddest of herrings, perhaps exceeded only in its redness 
of herrings by the statements by the previous speaker that the 
amendment that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and I are 
proposing today would somehow thwart the congressional intent embodied 
in the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. That is an 
absolute inaccuracy that the previous speaker noted.
  The authority that the Secretary of the Interior has, Mr. Chairman, 
under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act clearly contemplates and 
expressly provides that the Secretary has the authority to step in and 
mediate a dispute between a State and a tribe seeking to set up 
gambling operations in that State only after a judicial finding of 
fact.
  The regulations that the Secretary is proposing and that the 
gentleman from Florida is supporting run roughshod over the rights of 
the States. Now he may firmly believe that the rights of a tribe should 
run roughshod over the rights of a State. The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Weldon) and I and others disagree with that and believe that there 
needs to be a balance here.
  That balance, Mr. Chairman, that balance is reflected in the very 
careful language of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which gives the 
States and the Governor of that State the authority to decide based on 
the best public interest whether or not to allow casino type gambling. 
It does provide for the Indian tribe a mechanism to contest that and to 
ensure that the State engages in good faith negotiations, and it does 
indeed provide a role expressly for the Secretary of the Interior.
  Once there has been a judicial finding of fact, what the Secretary is 
seeking to do is to circumvent that and to interpose his decision, his 
view of the world, over that of the State, and that is wrong. That 
indeed does subvert the congressional intent embodied in the careful 
balancing act which is the Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission.
  Now the previous speaker also referenced a letter from the Secretary 
of the Interior saying that the Secretary promised not to do anything 
until these court cases have gone through. I would urge the gentleman 
from Florida to read the second page of the letter which apparently he 
has not, or he has but he elects to ignore it.

                              {time}  1800

  The Secretary of the Interior has left himself a huge loophole in 
that he provides that this promise that he has made not to move forward 
on the final regulations, but to do everything up to the final 
publication of the regulations, would, however, be null and void if in 
fact the court had not ruled within 6 months. In fact, there is no way 
the courts are going to rule in 6 months on this, despite the wishful 
thinking of the previous speaker and other speakers on the other side.
  The fact is that the only way that States' rights can be kept intact 
as contemplated by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is to adopt the 
Weldon-Barr amendment, which maintains the status quo. It simply 
maintains the status quo as contemplated by the Congress, and for the 
life of me I do not know why the previous speaker, who takes great 
pride, as he should, in his role in formulating and passing the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act 11 years ago, he seems now to have changed his 
mind and seeks to undo the carefully crafted balance in there between 
States' rights, the role of the tribe, and the role of the Federal 
government as mediator once there has been a traditional finding of 
fact.
  I give the gentleman more credit than he gives himself. I say, yes, 
that act that he was instrumental in formulating does indeed provide a 
proper framework. It recognizes States' rights. It ensures that in a 
State where the public interest, as determined by the elected officials 
of that State, do not want a Class III casino-type gambling operation 
in their State, they, as long as they have engaged in good faith 
negotiations reflecting the will of the people, cannot have it forced 
on them by an unelected Federal bureaucrat, namely, the Secretary of 
the Interior.
  The act was correct in striking that balance. We should not allow the 
Secretary of the Interior unilaterally to undo that. And the way we do 
that, of course, is to adopt the Weldon-Barr amendment maintaining the 
status quo of the carefully balanced Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to vindicate a basic principle. That 
principle, embodied in the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to our 
Constitution, holds that decisions are best made at the level closest 
to the people they will affect.
  Of all the commercial enterprises that could be located in a 
community, there are none that more dramatically alter the local 
culture and economy than gambling casinos. When these casinos are 
located on newly-created Indian reservations, which are exempt from 
many local and state laws and taxes, the effect on communities is 
increased.
  While gambling promoters frequently make wild promises of economic 
growth, they just as often don't tell the whole story. For example, 
according to a study by Dr. Valerie Lorenz, in states with two or more 
forms of legalized gambling, 1.5%-3% of the population become 
compulsive gamblers. Even worse, the number of teenagers who will 
become addicted is much higher, reaching levels of 5%-11%. Among 
compulsive gamblers, 99% said they committed crime, and 25% surveyed 
said they attempted to commit suicide.
  Casino gambling can put an increased drain on law enforcement and 
social services. Furthermore, when it takes place on Indian lands, it 
can siphon away local tax revenues.
  Any way you look at it, it is obvious gambling significantly impacts 
any community it touches. Therefore, on such a critical issue, surely, 
every member of this House would agree that states should be able to 
determine for themselves whether or not they want to locate gambling 
operations within their borders.
  Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior seems unable or 
unwilling to grasp or recognize this fact. Beginning in 1996, the 
Secretary attempted to promulgate rules allowing the Department to 
approve Class III gaming in any state, regardless of whether or not the 
state wants it. Keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, Class III gaming does not 
apply to traditional tribal games, or even to bingo halls; it includes 
and refers to the types of gambling operations associated with a casino 
in Las Vegas or Atlantic City; in other words, massive gambling.
  Our amendment aims to prevent this travesty from occurring, by 
requiring all Class III gambling on Indian reservations be approved by 
state-tribal compacts, as it has been for years. It is a sensible, 
limited step, that is supported by the National Association of 
Attorneys General, the National Governors Association, the Christian 
Coalition, the Family Research Council, and others.
  Any Member who thinks their district will never have a problem with 
powerful gambling interests should think again. Georgia's Seventh 
District is hardly the first place where one would consider locating an 
immense casino. However, in the past three years, three counties in my 
district--Bartow, Carroll, and Haralson--have been the target of 
concerted, well-funded efforts by gambling promoters from outside our 
state, seeking to establish casinos on newly-identified Indian lands, 
despite intense local opposition.
  Already, these promoters are chomping at the bit to take advantage of 
Secretary Babbitt's dogged support for forcing casinos on states and 
communities that don't want them. As casino promoter Kenneth Baldwin 
recently told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, ``[w]e have the legal 
right to proceed with this project whether the governor likes it or 
not'' (May 26, 1999).
  This statement is outrageous, reflecting as it does the notion that a 
community can be radically changed by gambling promoters, backed by the 
heavy hand of the federal government running roughshod over the 
policies and wishes of the state population. The Weldon-Barr amendment 
returns a small level of balance to the law, and to public policy, and 
I urge its adoption by the House.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, for the Members who would like to get the facts on this 
one, the other body has had an amendment identical to this. What 
happened in the

[[Page 15963]]

conference on the supplemental a few months ago was that Senator Enzi 
had this amendment, and then he decided to withdraw it on the strength 
of a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt, that he 
would take no further action until such time as this issue is resolved 
by the courts; that is, as to the authority of the respective parties.
  What basically is at issue here if this amendment were to pass, would 
be that the governors would have the last word. So if an Indian tribe 
were to want to start a casino, they would have to go to the Governor 
to get approval. Under the present law, they can go to the Secretary of 
the Interior as an alternative.
  All I want is to make it clear to the Members what the situation is 
as they try to make a decision as to whether or not they think the 
Governors should have the last word, which would be the effect of the 
amendment, or whether they think that we should wait. What we decided 
in the conference on the supplemental is that we should wait until the 
courts have ruled on it.
  I will say that the Secretary of the Interior did state in a letter 
that he would not grant any applications until such time as there was a 
final ruling by the court, and then at that time we in the Congress 
would need to address this as to what we think the policy should be.
  If Members agree that the Governors should have the last word, then I 
think the Barr-Weldon amendment does that. If Members think we should 
wait until the court makes a ruling, and that was the decision in the 
conference on the supplemental, then we would wait until that time. 
Then, depending on what the court would rule, we will have to decide as 
a matter of policy whether we in the Congress think the Governors ought 
to be the final arbiter of the issue of a casino, or whether it should 
be an appeal process to the Secretary of the Interior.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard work that the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula) did in crafting this bill. The gentleman and I and his 
staff did talk at length before offering this amendment on this issue. 
I just want the chairman and my colleagues to understand that I believe 
we should decide this issue and not defer to the courts to decide.
  I consider the courts a place where the laws are interpreted, but I 
believe that we write the laws and the statutes, and in this particular 
case I believe the administration, via the office of the Secretary, are 
trying to go around the intent of the law.
  My amendment simply, I believe, reinvigorates IGRA to its original 
intent. I understand the chairman's position.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am just trying to lay 
out the facts.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I am very supportive of the work the gentleman 
does in the committee, but I believe we have the right to decide on a 
very, very important issue.
  If I might also add, one of the parties to this suit is the Attorney 
General from Florida, who encouraged me to go ahead and offer this 
amendment. So clearly he has decided that he would rather see this 
settled legislatively, rather than wait to see how the court decides 
the issue.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think there is 
probably a little more at issue in the courts. That is the issue of 
sovereignty. That becomes a question of what rights the Native 
Americans have by virtue of treaties as to their sovereignty.
  It is kind of a murky area, frankly. We keep trying to address it. We 
have the issue on the right to not pay any taxes at stores, and there 
is another issue as to whether or not a tribe could go out and buy a 
piece of land away from the tribal lands, and then consider that to be 
tribal lands for purposes of building a casino. I think we concluded in 
the supplemental conference that there were so many issues that we did 
not feel we could address them at that moment.
  So everyone understands what the question is here, the amendment 
would leave the responsibility with the Governors on that issue.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by answering my two colleagues 
who just spoke.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) who mentioned 
about circumventing the process, we are circumventing the process right 
now by not taking this up in the appropriate committee. That is the 
House authorizing committee of the Committee on Natural Resources. That 
is where this ought to be taken up. This is an amendment to an 
appropriations bill. It has no place on the floor right now being taken 
up on this issue.
  For the Members to say that somehow we are going to have the court 
decide what the law of the land is and be offended by that is really 
quite startling to me. The court is the arbiter. The court should be 
the arbiter. The fact of the matter is that when IGRA was written, it 
was written to mitigate the court.
  Let me just read what the court decided in the California versus 
Cabazon Band of Michigan case. It said, ``The attributes of 
sovereignty,'' which the former speaker said is a murky issue, but the 
Supreme Court court of the United States said that ``attributes of 
sovereignty over both their members and their territory,'' that 
``tribal sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate to, only the 
Federal government, not the States.'' Do I need to repeat that? To the 
Federal government. Because these are sovereign nations, in case no one 
has read the Constitution of the United States, which they were sworn 
to uphold, and which, I might add, one of the cosponsors of this 
amendment has so vehemently protected in every speech that he has given 
about how he is going to defend the Constitution.
  Let me read the gentleman some of the Constitution. The Constitution, 
Article 1, Section 8: ``The Congress shall have the power . . . To 
regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, 
and with Indian tribes.''
  Do Members know why the Constitution said that? Because they wanted 
to make sure Indian tribes were treated on the same basis as States 
were, and as foreign nations. This is about the basic tenets of our 
Constitution. How the hell do Members think we got the country that we 
are living in? We struck agreements with Native American tribes to get 
the land. It was predicated based upon an agreement, and this country 
has never lived up to that agreement. It is why we have so much of 
Native American country living in destitute poverty.
  What do the proponents of this amendment want to do? They want to 
say, well, our constituents do not like gaming. Okay, they do not like 
gaming. Guess what, they have an alternative, tell the State to ban 
gaming. That is what I did in my State. I voted against gaming. But 
while the State of Rhode Island has lottery and has Keno and everything 
else, I say to them, hey, listen, if it is good enough for the people 
of Rhode Island to have, then why are Members going to prohibit the 
Narragansett Band in my State?
  I would venture to say each and every one of the Members in their own 
States, unless their State prohibits gaming altogether, they have no 
alternative but to play by the same rules that they allow their own 
people in their own State to play.
  Keep in mind that these Native American tribes rely on this funding. 
This is not just for some casino operation where the money goes into 
someone's pocket. This is about money that goes to help subsidize 
housing for Native Americans, which I might add is in deplorable 
condition in this country. This money goes to subsidize education, 
which is in deplorable condition in the Native American reservations.
  This money goes to supporting health care. If Members look at every 
indice in this country with respect to

[[Page 15964]]

Native American populations and non-Native American populations, the 
difference is unbelievable. The difference is unbelievable. Do Members 
know what it points out? It points out the historic discrimination 
against native peoples in this country.
  If this Congress can come here today and say that they want to pass 
the Barr-Weldon amendment, then they want to join the legacy of shame 
of this great country of ours, the legacy of shame of what we have done 
to Native Americans by playing roughshod over them.
  God forbid we play roughshod over the States, because we have been 
playing roughshod over Native Americans our whole lives. God forbid our 
Members come up here and try to protect States. They are the ones. We 
have had Native Americans. God forbid States ever get run roughshod 
over.
  Now Native Americans have some leverage. They have this thing called 
sovereignty, which we never bothered to examine in the Constitution. 
Guess what they have done with that sovereignty? They have done the 
very same thing that every other State in this country has done, with 
the exception of maybe two or three other States that have outright 
prohibited gaming. They have said, listen, we want to take advantage of 
the same thing that every other State in this country is doing.
  Do Members know what? The Constitution and the Supreme Court decision 
says they can do it. Do Members know what their amendment is saying? It 
is saying no, they cannot do it. Do Members know why? Because Congress 
passed IGRA, and IGRA was unclear on this. IGRA watered down the 
Supreme Court decision. Now Members want to water down IGRA. It is not 
fair.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would remind all 
Members that the use of profanity during debate is not permitted.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), and I would like to thank them 
for their leadership on this very important matter, important to all 
Americans.
  I want to remind my colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy), that I am sure his support for bringing a bill of this 
magnitude or the magnitude of the other amendment offered by his 
colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), before the 
committee would be very important prior to bringing it to the floor, as 
well.
  I urge my colleagues here to support this amendment that would 
protect States' rights and ensure that the Federal government allows 
and follows the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. The passage of 
the Weldon-Barr amendment will stop the Department of the Interior from 
implementing regulations that will erode these rights.
  On January 22, 1998, the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, 
unilaterally made a decision that stripped the States of most of their 
fundamental rights under IGRA. Secretary Babbitt promulgated new 
regulations that gave him sole approving authority over Indian gaming, 
despite the objections of Governors and States, even over the unanimous 
opposition of the people in those States.
  The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution states that the powers not 
delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to it 
by the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
people. However, Secretary Babbitt again is trampling on these rights 
and taking them from Members' States and Members' Governors.
  The presence of casinos has commonly evoked among States very strong 
feelings and requires decisions to be made at the State level, not here 
in Washington, D.C. Currently the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act allows 
our Governors to negotiate with Indian tribes regarding the 
construction of Indian casinos on reservations. Secretary Babbitt wants 
to take away our Governors' authority in that area, and the Secretary 
further wants that authority himself to decide whether gaming will be 
allowed in any State, and which types of gaming will exist.
  If we want Indian casinos, great. If we do not, we and our Governors 
should have the authority to protect our States' rights and stop what 
could potentially become a very serious issue. Protect States' rights 
and let States make their own decision on Indian gaming. Stop the 
Secretary from taking what is not his to take.
  This is truly an issue of States' rights, because these regulations 
are inconsistent with current Federal law. The Department of the 
Interior has exceeded that authority granted under IGRA by issuing a 
regulatory remedy on a matter that both Congress and the Supreme Court 
have stated should be determined by the States.

                              {time}  1815

  Last month the federally appointed National Gambling Impact Study 
Commission issued their 2-year study and among the sweeping 
recommendations that they made included that ``tribes, States and local 
communities should continue to work together to resolve issues of 
mutual concern rather than relying on Federal law to solve problems for 
them.''
  The study also recommended that Congress should specify 
constitutionally sound means of resolving disputes between States and 
tribes regarding Class III gaming. Further, the Federal commission 
recommended that all parties to Class III negotiations should be 
subject to an independent impartial decisionmaker who is empowered to 
approve compacts in the event a State refuses to enter into a Class III 
compact. However, this should happen only if the decisionmaker does not 
permit any Class III games that are not available to other citizens of 
that State and only if the effective regulatory structure is corrected.
  Clearly, the Secretary of the Interior is not an impartial 
decisionmaker on this issue as he has a fiduciary duty to protect and 
act on behalf of tribal rights.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Weldon-Barr 
amendment and prevent this power grab by the Secretary of the Interior.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for yielding to me, and I want to make a couple of 
points.
  Regarding the issue of the courts, the courts have ruled that the 
Congress has the authority to cede this responsibility to the States to 
make the decisions. And what has spurred my interest in this issue is a 
tribe is trying to buy a piece of property outside of Disneyworld in my 
congressional district and when we asked them if their attempt was to 
build a Class III gaming facility, their response was that they would 
not rule that out.
  The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) said, why do the States 
not outlaw this? We had a ballot referendum on this in Florida, and 79 
percent of the people in the State of Florida voted in opposition to 
establishing Class III gaming in the State of Florida.
  Now, my amendment does not address any of those issues. All my 
amendment says is stick to the law in IGRA and do not violate the 
principles that this Congress passed 11 years ago and was signed by the 
President of the United States.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it appears to me after listening to this that basically 
what we have got here is a situation in which either we are going to 
wait for the court to determine whether under IGRA the Secretary has 
the authority to promulgate these regulations or we are going to adopt 
an amendment that basically says that if the States say no, it is no, 
that there is no other authority to intervene here.
  Now, as I have talked to the distinguished former chairman of one of 
the subcommittees that wrote this legislation, he believes that IGRA 
gives the

[[Page 15965]]

Secretary of the Interior the authority, when there is an impasse 
between the tribe and the State, to come in. And he has promulgated 
regulations that would allow him to do this so that he can try to 
negotiate an agreement to settle the impasse.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, that makes sense. If we did not have that, then 
the State could just say no, and that would be the end of it. I think 
that would be very unfair. The tribes do have sovereignty. The tribes 
have a relationship, a government-to-government relationship with the 
Federal Government. And it seems to me that the Secretary of the 
Interior would be playing a constructive role if he would try to 
negotiate an agreement and, if the States just adamantly refused to do 
anything, to actually implement an agreement. But it has to be 
consistent with State law. That is what I understand.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the gentleman 
from Washington has actually put it very clearly. I would like to 
suggest to my colleagues that they are interfering with something that 
really I believe would be unconstitutional because of the Sovereignty 
Act.
  Mr. DICKS. The Weldon-Barr amendment would be unconstitutional?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Absolutely, as far as the sovereignty tribes. I 
understand those who are against gambling, but this was set up very 
carefully. The Secretary now is an arbitrator. And, very frankly, in 
most cases, in some cases rarely, there has been an agreement with the 
State and with the governor for the establishment of gambling activity. 
And I have studied this very carefully. If we go into this and adopt 
this amendment today, as good as it may feel for some, I can guarantee 
it will make an awful lot of lawyers rich, and I do not want any more 
lawyers rich.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to say for those 
who did IGRA, it has worked well over the past 10 years with over 200 
compacts negotiated in 24 States. And, frankly, and I do not 
particularly like gambling. But I think Indian gaming has been for 
certain tribes very successful in terms of raising money to improve the 
quality of life for those tribes. So I can understand why some of the 
tribes have done it. And as I understand the law here, they cannot do 
anything that the State does not allow. In other words, if a State 
allows a certain level of gambling, then the tribe can allow it.
  Mr. Chairman, my view is that we should defeat this amendment. That 
we should wait and see what the court does with the regulations that 
the Secretary has promulgated. And he has said that he is not going to 
approve, where there is a conflict, any new compact until those 
regulations are tested in court. That seems to me to be a very 
reasonable approach, and I would urge my colleagues to defeat this 
amendment, which is unnecessary and which would, I think, violate the 
law and maybe even the Constitution.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Weldon-Barr amendment. 
It continues previous law which prohibited the Department of the 
Interior from using Federal funds to approve tribal gambling which was 
not approved by a host State. Keep in mind, and I know other Members 
can tell about this, one tribe came to my congressional district and 
was going to buy a ski lift and create a gambling casino in that 
district. I know a tribe was going to Cape May, New Jersey, and do the 
same thing.
  There is danger here if this amendment is not adopted. I would also 
call the attention of my colleagues to the gambling commission study 
which was reported out 2 weeks ago or 3 weeks ago. The commission said, 
and I quote, ``Policymakers at every level may wish to impose an 
explicit moratorium on gambling expansion because it is running rampant 
in the country.''
  Mr. Chairman, it has been found that more than 15 million Americans 
are problem or pathological gamblers. Half of them are children. Rather 
than going into a lot of statistics, to put it in words that we can 
understand, there are currently more adult and adolescent problem and 
pathological gamblers in America than reside in New York City. There 
are six times as many adolescent problem or pathological gamblers in 
America, 7.9 million, than men and women actively serving in the 
combined Armed Forces of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps and the 
Air Force. Our Nation's youth is disproportionately impacted by 
gambling.
  And so the current Department of Interior regulations preempt States' 
rights. And without prejudging, and nobody can say without implicating, 
the Secretary of Interior is currently involved in a litigation in a 
State in the Midwest with regard to an issue with regard to Indian 
gambling.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge that the Weldon-Barr amendment is a good 
amendment. I think it is the intention of what the Congress wanted to 
have, and I think it is one that gives us the pause that the commission 
recommended. And I might say that all the Members of this Congress, 
except for those who are freshmen, voted for this commission. The fact 
is, there was such unanimous support and anxious desire to have this 
commission that there were actually no votes on the floor in opposition 
to it. It was a voice vote.
  With that, I urge support of the Weldon-Barr amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). This is not really a debate about gaming. It 
is really a debate about sovereignty.
  The State of Michigan in its 1835 Constitution outlawed all gaming in 
Michigan. And about 1972, the legislature presented an amendment to the 
people to change that. I voted against putting it on the ballot. I 
wanted to keep the ban on all gaming in Michigan. To use the term, I am 
pretty ``conservative'' on gambling. Not very conservative in all 
areas, but conservative on gaming. I voted not to change the 
Constitution. And had Michigan, for example, kept that prohibition on 
gaming, then it could have prohibited gaming all over Michigan, 
including on sovereign Indian territory.
  That is what the court decision says. This is about sovereignty, not 
about gaming.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, keep in mind that the 
case down in Cape May, a tribe came into Cape May, and clearly perhaps 
there was at one time a tribe in Cape May, but they were no longer 
there and they had not been there for hundreds of years. They were 
going to buy several acres of land and establish a gambling casino 
there where there was no basic record of them having been.
  So I think the Weldon-Barr amendment is a good amendment. It brings 
us to where the country I think should be.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Weldon-Barr 
amendment which will, if passed, have a devastating impact on many 
Indian tribes in my home State of California as well as throughout the 
country. This amendment would prohibit the Department of the Interior 
from implementing important new regulations for mediating differences 
between States and Indian tribes on Indian gaming activities.
  These regulations are a long-awaited development in the stalemate 
between tribes and States over gaming compacts. The Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act requires Indian tribes to negotiate compacts with State 
governments for the operation of certain types of gaming facilities. In 
the event that States and tribes are unable to negotiate a compact, the 
act gives the Department of the Interior the authority to mediate 
between the States and the tribes.
  Congress never intended to give States a blanket veto power over an 
Indian tribe's right to conduct gaming. The supporters of this 
amendment

[[Page 15966]]

claim the regulations would bypass State authority. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. The alternative procedures proposed by the 
Department of the Interior would come into play only after a State has 
refused to negotiate. Furthermore, during the mediation process the 
State has 10 different opportunities to join the process and 
participate as a full party to the negotiations.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would encourage States to ignore their 
obligation to negotiate with tribes that seek to operate gaming 
facilities. It would permit States to refuse to negotiate gaming 
compacts and thereby prevent tribes from operating gaming even when 
other citizens of the State are permitted to do so. This unfairly 
discriminates against Indian tribes.
  Gaming is to Indian tribes what lotteries are to State governments. 
Indian gaming revenues are used to fund essential government services, 
including law enforcement, tribal courts, economic development, and 
infrastructure improvement. These revenues serve to promote the general 
welfare of the tribes. Through gaming, tribal governments have been 
able to bring hope and opportunity to some of the country's most 
impoverished people.
  Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago when I got up to speak against the 
Young amendment, I mentioned the President's visit to an Indian 
reservation and this trip that he did around the Nation to try and 
initiate economic development opportunities in poor communities through 
this new initiative. Again, I would like to reiterate the look of shock 
on the face of the President of the United States when he described the 
poverty on this reservation. He said it was absolutely off the scale.
  Now picture an Indian reservation that has gotten involved in gaming 
who is now providing health services, who are building schools, who are 
educating their young people. They are literally doing what America 
teaches us to do, pulling themselves up from their bootstraps.

                              {time}  1830

  We have people who have been relegated to nothingness out on the 
reservation with little or no help, and they decide they are going to 
do something about it, self-determination. What do we see? We see 
rising opposition from suspicious sources such as this amendment would 
do.
  We know of this game. In California, we just defeated a proposition 
that was placed on the ballot to deny Indians the right to have gaming 
on their own reservation, on their own land.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not right. This is not fair. This is 
discriminating. Someone challenged us, I do not know who it was, just a 
few minutes ago. I think it was the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy), when he said, if one does not like gaming, if one does not 
like gambling, outlaw it for one's entire State. But one cannot with a 
straight face stand up and say it is all right for some, but it is not 
all right for others.
  Who are those others? The same people whose rights have been trampled 
on. The same people who have been discriminated against historically. 
Shame on my colleagues for even attempting this kind of thing. This is 
beneath the dignity of anybody who is elected to represent all of the 
people. People deserve better representation. My colleagues deserve to 
be better representatives themselves.
  I ask us to reject this discriminatory amendment that would simply 
put the foot of the United States of America on the necks of the 
Indians and Native Americans one more time. I do not believe my 
colleagues would actually carry this out.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). I think it is important, 
Mr. Chairman, to turn to the document, Mr. Chairman, that we swear to 
uphold and defend.
  Article I, Section 8 of this Constitution reads that ``the Congress 
shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and 
among the sovereign States and with the Indian tribes.''
  Mr. Chairman, that very enumeration ensures that Indian tribes enjoy 
rights of full sovereignty and sovereign immunity.
  The problem and the difficulty before us and why we have to reject 
this amendment in part is based on this fact, not only Article I, 
Section 8 of the Constitution, but subsequent precedent in terms of 
treaties ratified by the Congress of the United States that sets up, 
not only a tribal trust relationship, but a government-to-government 
relationship between our Federal Government and the sovereign Indian 
tribes.
  Mr. Chairman, when we look at that government-to-government 
relationship, there is a difficulty we have, we would all admit it, in 
terms of fulfilling treaty obligations and dealing with the States and 
the whole notion of funding and set-asides that exist. That thorny 
issue is also addressed in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
  As originally crafted, IGRA provided States with a role of regulating 
Class III gaming, but it was never intended to give States absolute 
authority to preclude tribal gaming. Moreover, if we accept the 
Constitution, the document that we swear to uphold and defend, and we 
take a look at what is transpiring, two of our sovereign States dealing 
with this constitutional question have already sought relief in the 
courts.
  Mr. Chairman, I need not school my colleagues in civics. They 
understand clearly the separation of powers. But the question will be 
decided through interpretation by the judiciary. The process is already 
well under way. Why, then, would we come to the floor of this House and 
attempt to circumvent the judicial process? Worse, Mr. Chairman, we are 
attempting to legislate in the appropriations process.
  If the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), if the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr) have meaningful policy differences to debate, let 
them bring action through the authorization committees. Let them go to 
the full Committee on Resources that is facing the challenge of the 
jurisdiction of tribal trust questions.
  If there are questions of taxation, let them come to the Committee on 
Ways and Means on which I serve and must return, as we are in the 
middle of a legislative markup.
  But this is not the vehicle to use for this policy difference. Let 
the courts do their job. Uphold the Constitution. With all due respect 
and affection to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), please stand 
together as one, Republican and Democrat, and reject this.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I gladly yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from 
Arizona for a very fine statement. I think he very succinctly brought 
this issue to bear. His work on the committee has certainly been 
important and impressive, and I agree with him. I think we should not 
interrupt what the courts are doing, and I think we ought to let the 
authorizers solve this problem.
  I compliment the gentleman on his statement.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think many of the points have been made, but let me 
suggest that, in two instances, the suggestion was that we need this 
amendment because an Indian tribe was seeking to build a reservation on 
some land that they would purchase that was not part of their trust 
lands or not part of their reservation. In that instance they cannot 
build that casino.
  That land cannot be taken into trust under the existing law today 
without the Governor's approval. That has been true in a number of 
different States. Whether it is in Cape May or whether it is in 
Florida, to take lands into trust for that purpose under IGRA is not 
allowed without the approval of the Governor.
  In other instances, this Congress has decided that lands would be 
given to

[[Page 15967]]

Indian Nations, and the restrictions were that they could not be used 
for gaming purposes, because that decision was made both in some cases 
by the tribes who were seeking recognition and seeking the lands and 
those who did not.
  But let me just say that this amendment is a very dangerous 
amendment, because this is not about States' rights. This is about 
whether or not we try and nullify the sovereign rights of the Indian 
Nations in this country.
  Because as we now recognize, and as we recognized when we passed 
IGRA, the Indian Nations have a right to engage in gaming if, in fact, 
that State is engaged in gaming. That is settled.
  We put in IGRA so that it could be a process by which the State would 
then be included in that decision-making process. There would be a 
process to develop a compact in the case of Class III gaming if the 
State had Class III gambling.
  The problem comes when the State does not bargain in good faith, and 
then the State goes and hides behind the immunity, that they cannot be 
sued, that somehow, then, that ends the process. That is why IGRA 
envisions the Secretary of Interior then coming in as a trustee for the 
Indian Nations, an arbiter of this to try to put together a process by 
which then the Indians can have the rights that they are guaranteed 
under the Constitution. So this is not about usurping the States' 
rights. It is about protecting the Indians' rights.
  Again, as said by a number of people here, if States do not want 
casino gambling, all they have to do is outlaw casino gambling.
  We had a ballot measure to allow Indians in California to have casino 
gambling, to have slot machines, which we do not readily have in 
California, or it is open to discussion. A big campaign was run against 
that. It was run by the Nevada gaming and hotel people. They did not 
think California should have gambling. It looked to me like somebody 
trying to protect market share, not a high moral principle.
  But the fact of the matter is the State decided that they wanted to 
go ahead and have these compacts, and the Governor and the Indian 
Nations are now working out those compacts to provide for some form of 
Class III gambling. That is the process that is at work.
  But in some instances, even in the early days in Arizona, the 
Governor said no. But we cannot be arbitrary here because they have a 
right to this. That is why we created this escape valve measure. That 
now is being challenged in court. Properly so. People have a right to 
do that.
  The State of Florida and Alabama have sued over these regulations. 
The Committee on Appropriations made the wise decision to wait and see 
what the outcome of that lawsuit was before we put our thumb on one 
side of the scale of justice here.
  So this amendment, not only is misguided in terms of the problems 
that people have in fact described, because those are taken care of, 
and the Governor can keep that from happening, but it is also misguided 
in terms of the effort that somehow this is about a protection of 
States' rights when, in fact, the law recognizes the problem when a 
State simply says we will have Class III gambling in our State, we just 
will not allow the Indian Nations to do it.
  The Supreme Court says they have a right as sovereign nations to 
engage in those same activities that are legal in those States. If we 
have a law that says it is not legal, then they cannot engage in that. 
But recognizing the sovereignty of these nations and their trusted 
responsibility and all the history that goes along with it, the court 
said they have a right to engage in that same legal activity.
  This is an amendment to strike that down, because this is an 
amendment that lets the chief executive officer of a State in the most 
arbitrary fashion decide that he will not approve or she will not 
approve a compact, and the game is over.
  That is contrary to the sovereignty of these nations. It is contrary 
to the IGRA legislation that was passed by this Congress. I think it is 
contrary to the best judgment of the Committee on Appropriations to 
await the outcome of the court in making this determination.
  I hope that we vote against the Weldon-Barr amendment. It is an ill-
conceived and misguided amendment that does not address the problem 
that it is purported to speak to.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment in an effort to 
help stem the tide of bureaucratic overreaching by the Secretary of the 
Interior when it comes to trampling on the rights of States to regulate 
gaming activities within their borders.
  This amendment would prohibit funds from being expended to approve 
Class III gaming on Indian lands by any means other than a tribal-State 
compact entered into by a State and a tribe.
  There are four compelling reasons to vote in favor of this amendment:
  First, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is 
unconstitutional for the Indian tribes to force the States to allow 
gaming within their borders by suing in Federal court. There is nothing 
in the Supreme Court decision that allows the Secretary to take it upon 
himself to approve compacts where the States and tribes have not 
agreed. In many cases, the tribes are now completely bypassing 
negotiations with the States because they know they will receive a more 
favorable ruling from the Secretary of Interior.
  Second, the National Governors Association and the States Attorney 
General believe that the Secretary lacks legal authority for rulemaking 
and that statutory modifications to IGRA are necessary to resolve State 
sovereignty immunity issues.
  Let me share with my colleagues what the National Governors 
Association stated on this issue. They strongly believe that no statute 
or court decision provides the Secretary of the United States 
Department of the Interior with authority to intervene in disputes over 
compacts between Indian tribes and States about casino gambling on 
Indian lands. Such action would constitute an attempt by the Secretary 
to preempt States' authority under existing laws and recent court 
decisions and would create an incentive for tribes to avoid negotiating 
gambling compacts with States.
  Third, while not an entirely enthusiastic supporter of the National 
Gaming Study Commission, I do agree with its adopted language that 
opposes the Secretary of Interior empowering himself to grant Class III 
gaming licenses to Indian tribes. Why, my colleagues say? Because the 
Gambling Commission, after a 2-year exhaustive study, determined that 
Indian gaming was poorly regulated throughout this country and out of 
control.
  Finally, there is nothing in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act which 
grants this authority to the Secretary of the Interior.
  This amendment would prohibit overreaching by the Secretary of the 
Interior of the worst kind.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help reign in a 
bureaucracy that is so obviously out of control that it would grant 
gaming licenses in States and jurisdictions where both the Governor and 
the people do not wish to sanction this activity.
  May I say before I close, I have lived in Las Vegas for 38 years. I 
grew up there. I know gaming. I agree that the poverty on the Indian 
reservations is horrific. But if anyone thinks granting Indian tribes 
gaming licenses is a panacea for the reservations' abject poverty, they 
are sadly mistaken.

                              {time}  1845

  Certainly there must be better ways of bringing economic development 
to chronically poverty stricken Indian reservations and of correcting a 
failed and disgraceful national policy when it comes to our Indians. 
Giving them carte blanche support to have gaming on their reservations 
by the Secretary of the Interior is not the way to go.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of

[[Page 15968]]

words, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
just want to raise a couple of new points and reiterate several that I 
have already made.
  First of all, on the sovereignty issue, the courts have ruled on this 
issue and determined that the Congress has the authority to delegate 
the decision-making on this issue to the States, and that is exactly 
what we did in IGRA. My amendment does not amend IGRA. It does not 
change IGRA at all. It does not affect the existing tribal State 
compacts. There are 200 compacts right now involving 200 different 
tribes and 25 different States, and it does not limit the ability of 
tribes to obtain Class III gaming as long as a valid compact exists 
between the tribe and the States where they want to establish gaming.
  What does my amendment do? It is worth repeating because there has 
been a lot of discussion and I think we need to get back to that issue. 
It ensures that tribes can still use the current IGRA process if they 
want to engage in Class III gaming. It maintains the status quo of the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. It preserves the right of Congress to 
pass laws and make majority policies. But what my amendment does say is 
that the Secretary cannot do an end run around IGRA.
  Now, if my colleagues want to know what happened in Florida, we had a 
referendum, and it was overwhelming. Four out of five people said they 
do not want casino gambling in the State of Florida. And what the 
Secretary is proposing in this regulatory approach that he is taking is 
to do an end run around the will of the people in the State of Florida. 
And I think that is obviously wrong but, moreover, regardless of the 
right or the wrong of it, it violates the very intent of the law that 
this body passed. And all my amendment says is we are going to stick to 
the intent of the law as it was originally proposed.
  Now, if my colleagues do not like IGRA and they think we should cede 
all authority on this issue to the Secretary to allow gambling to come 
into anyplace that he sees in his decision-making authority to be 
appropriate, then I guess Members should vote against my amendment. And 
watch out, because they may be buying land in other congressional 
districts. Who knows? They might be buying land in my colleagues' 
neighborhoods.
  And, yes, they have to get, as was pointed out by the gentleman from 
California, they have to get approval from the governor before that can 
be taken in as part of the reservation. I understand that. And that is 
a regulatory hoop that they would have to go through. But, clearly, my 
amendment simply states that we should stick with IGRA.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to 
point out that I represent a small community in Alabama by the name of 
Wetumpka. Indians from other parts of Alabama have attempted to build a 
casino there on what was Oklahoma Indians' territory and includes a 
burial ground.
  Now, nothing has been said here today about the impact on these small 
communities whose infrastructure would be threatened by the traffic and 
what comes in to that casino. Surely they have some right to determine 
what will and will not destroy their infrastructure. They have no way 
to tax for this. None at all.
  Mr. Chairman, until Congress has had a chance to take into 
consideration the findings of the National Gambling Impact Study 
Commission with regard to Indian gaming, the Secretary of the Interior 
should refrain from considering Class III gaming licenses outside of 
the Tribal/State Compact process. the Weldon/Barr Amendment to put a 
hold on any further gambling compacts is a sensible approach to help 
address this aspect of the national gambling crisis.
  I have testified before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in the 
past on this very issue of Indian gaming. Since that time, the U.S. 
Supreme Court decision on the Seminole Case, followed by the Department 
of the Interior's draft regulations on Tribal-State Compacts, have 
added new dimensions to an already complex issue. I became interested 
in the issue of Indian gaming when the Poarch Band Creek Indians of 
Alabama began their efforts in 1993 to seek approval for Class III 
gaming, or casino gambling, at Hickory Grounds in Wetumpka, Alabama.
  Hickory Grounds is a sacred burial area that was deeded into the 
federal trust in the late 1980's for the purpose of preserving the 
Creek culture. As you can imagine, it came as quite a shock to the 
people of Wetumpka and other Native Americans in Alabama that the 
Poarch Band intended to build a gambling casino on this sacred ground.
  Frankly, the local community, which will have their infrastructure 
and public services strained by the operation of a gambling casino, 
should have a voice in the approval process, in addition to the State. 
A full-fledged casino, as envisioned by the Poarch Band Creeks, would 
place new burdens on the police, fire, rescue and other public services 
of a small town like Wetumpka. The roads, bridges and water and sewer 
capabilities of the town would be inadequate to handle the added 
demand.
  Mr. Chairman, until a proper judicial review of the proposed 
regulations of the Department of the Interior has been completed and 
Congress has had an opportunity to reevaluate the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act, at a minimum, the Secretary should be prohibited from 
granting Class III gaming licenses. I urge all members to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes to 
be equally divided.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the gentleman for objecting, and I am, 
frankly, uncertain about how this amendment affects my district, but I 
want to use this time to get something off my chest about the whole 
question of Indian gambling.
  I find it fascinating, because this amendment, as I understand it, 
attempts to take away the authority of the Secretary to fashion a 
compact if States have not been able to agree with the tribes. And yet 
the Secretary of the Interior at this point is the target of an 
investigation because he refused to approve a gambling casino in my 
State where three tribes (the nearest of whom was 100 miles away from 
the proposed casino), wanted to purchase a dog track which was 
collapsing economically. And the owners of the dog track thought that 
if the tribes could buy it they could convert a loser into a winner. 
And so, in my view, three tribes abusing the theory of tribal 
sovereignty attempted to take over that casino.
  So I find it ironic that the Secretary is being pushed in one 
direction in this amendment and he is being pushed in another direction 
by the review that is going on now of his activity.
  I just want to say this with respect to this issue. I detest what 
gambling has done to my own State. I detest what gambling has done to 
the politics of my own State. I also have reluctantly accepted the idea 
that there is not much under court decisions that we can do about on-
reservation gambling. But I certainly think that we ought to do 
everything possible to prevent tribes from abusing the concept of 
tribal sovereignty, buying a piece of land 25, 50, 100, 200 miles away 
from their reservation, having it converted to trust status and then 
being able to set up a gambling casino on that land.
  So I have doubts about this amendment. In fact, I suspect this 
amendment, in the case of Wisconsin, where we have a compact, does not 
even apply. And I may be making a mistake when I say this, but I intend 
to vote for this amendment simply because I believe that this country 
has gone far too far in both allowing the kind of gambling that is 
going on. Secondly, I believe in the concept of tribal sovereignty. I 
believe, however, that we should not sit here and allow that concept to 
be abused by its beneficiaries to the point where it loses all public 
support.
  And that is what happens when we have these ridiculous land transfers 
that take place which take land off the tax rolls 100 miles from a 
reservation.

[[Page 15969]]

For instance, one of the tribes in my district tried to establish a 
gambling casino one block from a major high school in a community. They 
had no damn business trying to put it in that place. And so while I do 
not think this amendment is exactly on point and there may be some 
problems that would need to be fixed up in conference, I, for one, will 
vote for it simply out of my sense of frustration with what has 
happened.
  And when I hear people talk about the BIA, I frankly have this view 
about the BIA. I think for 30 years the BIA did nothing but hammer 
Indian tribes and fail in their responsibility to deal with tribes with 
respect and dignity. But for the past 15 years or so I think the BIA 
has not been able to say no to any tribe. And the problem there is that 
when we refuse to say no to our friends when they are pushing something 
that is not right, we do not do them any long-term favors. We, in fact, 
allow them to get into trouble. And I think the BIA has been lax for a 
long time in that regard.
  Everybody around here needs to say no once in a while. That includes 
the Secretary of the Interior, that includes the BIA, and that includes 
congressional appropriation subcommittee chairs and ranking members.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my comments may not exactly be on point on 
this amendment, but I am supporting this simply out of frustration with 
what has occurred on an issue that, at its inception, appeared to be 
fairly benign but has grown into a monster.
  One tribe in my State established a casino more than 180 miles away 
from their reservation by simply persuading the city council of a major 
city to approve their request over the objection of the mayor. I think 
that is nuts.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I have listened with interest to the debate that has been going on 
this evening, and I have listened to my distinguished colleague and 
friend from Wisconsin, and I share some of the concerns that he 
expresses about what has happened in our country, in our society as a 
result of the proliferation of gambling, which no doubt has, in large 
measure, stemmed from the extent of gambling on Indian reservations.
  I listened to my colleague from Arizona talk about why we need to 
allow this to be settled by the courts, and I have listened to the 
people talk about the issue of tribal sovereignty, and I have listened 
to the people talk about States' rights. And I am aware of what has 
gone on in my State, where our governor has taken a position and we 
have had a struggle in our State with many of the Indian tribes trying 
to reach compacts.
  But I want to talk to my colleagues tonight for just a moment about 
it from a different level. Because just 5 days ago I was on one of my 
reservations in southern Arizona where I saw the impact of what has 
happened as a result of this gaming. The Pasqua Yaqui tribal 
reservation is a very small tribe and a very small reservation in an 
urban setting on the edge of the City of Tucson, with land that has no 
economic value other than what they have been able to do in terms of 
scraping it together to make their homes but which now has a casino 
there which is used by those in the urban area of Tucson.
  I was there last Saturday for the dedication of the Boys and Girls 
Club. Now, the construction of this came from a Department of Justice 
grant that goes to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. And, by the 
way, this was the 49th Boys and Girls Club on a Native American Indian 
reservation. By the end of next year we will have over 100 of those 
Boys and Girls Clubs on Indian reservations. I think that, in itself, 
speaks monuments to what we are accomplishing. But the operation of 
this Boys and Girls Club and the programs that are going to take place 
there come as a result of the revenue that they receive from Indian 
gaming.
  I talked to the director of the tribal health service, and he told me 
about some of the programs that they are doing with teenagers, with 
teenage mothers and the prevention of pregnancies; and what they are 
doing to prevent diabetes, which has been so rampant in so many of the 
other Native American tribes of the Southwest; and some of the other 
programs they are doing to deal with heart disease and all kinds of 
medical problems. It is the most innovative program in health care 
probably in our whole area.
  I talked to an Anglo doctor who is their consultant on medical 
issues, and he told me what this tribe is doing with the limited amount 
of resources they have been receiving from the small casino that they 
have on their reservation is truly remarkable and has really turned 
around this tribe and made them a healthier people and created a better 
life for them.

                              {time}  1900

  I talked to many of the young men who were there as policemen that 
day who were providing protection for people who live on this 
reservation that they had never had before, an area which was subject 
to rapes, to burglaries, to robberies. And I talked to some of the 
firemen that were there that day during this dedication, and they are 
providing fire protection and emergency medical care that was not 
available before, and all of this comes as a result of this revenue 
that comes from Indian gaming.
  This was not there before for this tribe. This was a tribe that lived 
in absolute abject poverty that was shuttled off to the edge of the 
city of Tucson, and they have been able to make something of themselves 
as a result of this.
  Now, I realize there are legitimate questions which have been raised 
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). The gentleman from Virginia 
earlier spoke very eloquently about what gambling does in our society, 
and I think these issues need to be addressed. But as long as we have 
this in our society, as long as this is there, I think we need to 
understand what a difference this can make for native American tribes 
and how it has changed the lives of their people.
  For that reason alone, I think that what we are trying to do with the 
Indian gaming legislation, as we try to maneuver our way through this, 
we ought to think very carefully about any kind of changes that we make 
to this. And it is for that reason that I would oppose the kind of 
amendment that is being proposed here today, which I think would really 
stop it in its tracks and make it impossible for tribes to really enjoy 
the economic fruits of the rest of us today as a result of a very 
healthy and good economy we are enjoying.
  I urge that we oppose this amendment.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from Florida, 
and certainly this Member does not question his integrity and sincerity 
in wanting to present this proposed amendment. But I have to 
respectfully oppose his amendment and would like to echo the sentiments 
that have been expressed earlier by both gentlemen from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) and (Mr. Kolbe) about the situation we are dealing with now 
at this point in time in the appropriations process.
  Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of an early Christian missionary by the 
name of John Wesley who said, ``Oh, how great it is for us to go and 
convert the Indians. But who will convert me?''
  I need to plead with my colleagues in this chamber to say simply that 
the matter that is now before us is before the courts. The States of 
Alabama and Florida have duly filed a lawsuit in the Federal District 
Court addressing this very issue. The regulations have been issued. I 
plead with my colleagues, let the district court, the judiciary process 
take its place in view of the fact that on account of numerous hearings 
for years before Congress eventually passed IGRA in 1988, it was not 
just a haphazard fashion in the way we crafted this piece of 
legislation.

[[Page 15970]]

  I might also add, and this is what really bugs me, Mr. Chairman, the 
Indian gaming industry is fully regulated by the Congress of the United 
States because of the obvious provision of the Constitution it has to 
deal with the Congress. I am asking my colleagues, let the court take 
its proper place by allowing the judiciary process to take place. If we 
do this, the Weldon amendment is moot and is not necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard earlier something said about a carte blanche 
given to the Indians about the gaming industry. Then I heard earlier 
also about the need for a moratorium as a result of this 2-year study 
of the National Commission on Gaming that we now found out there are 
pathological gamblers.
  How come no one ever talks about pathological alcoholics? Why have we 
not gone after the beer industry and alcohol and wine industry? Do they 
not have an impact on the lives and welfare and needs of this great 
Nation? To me it is somewhat hypocritical. We talk about gaming and 
gambling, but let us not talk about the problems we have with drunk 
driving. More people are killed by drunk driving every year than by any 
other.
  I plead with my colleagues to reject the Weldon amendment. Let the 
court take its proper place in this process. And if it does not work 
out, the Congress will always be here to correct this deficiency. So I 
ask my colleagues to vote down the Weldon amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words. I am very hoarse, but I am compelled to speak.
  I listened to my colleague from Florida as he has proposed an 
amendment which would gut the Indian Gaming Act in Florida. I served in 
the State legislature in Florida for 12 years; and never once did I see 
the Indians treated fairly, never once. Never once did I see them being 
negotiated with in good faith.
  Why are we trying to do an end-around play on the Indians? That is 
what we are trying to do here. It is not time for this. As a matter of 
fact, it adds an impasse, more of an impasse than we now have. If this 
amendment were to pass, it is going to take longer than the Federal 
courts will take to resolve the situation in Florida.
  This is unfair, Mr. Chairman. Because I am hoarse, I will end this by 
saying, white man speaketh with forked tongue if they let this 
amendment go. They know it is unfair. They are doing the end-around 
play to keep the Indians from getting their statutory rights as a 
sovereign State.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Weldon amendment. I think it 
is important that we understand what it is not before we talk about 
what it is. This amendment is in no way a rejection nor in any way does 
it show ignorance of the abject poverty that Native Americans have 
suffered throughout this country's history.
  I would certainly want to be very clear that those of us who will 
support this amendment also support a comprehensive effort to reverse 
the desperate straits and abject poverty that are seen on Indian 
reservations throughout this country.
  That is not the question before us tonight. Nor is this amendment a 
question about whether we support or oppose legalized gambling.
  I come from a State, New Jersey, which 23 years ago by referendum 
elected to legalize casino gambling in Atlantic City. There are others 
in this chamber that would strongly disagree with my State's judgment 
that legalized gambling is proper. I believe it is. I think it has 
brought very positive effects to New Jersey. It has brought thousands 
and thousands of jobs to the area of New Jersey that I represent, and I 
think it is a good thing. But I understand there are differences of 
opinion about that. But that is not the issue before us in the Weldon 
amendment, either.
  There are those who would say that the Weldon amendment is about 
process, whether this should be brought forward while the court is 
examining this. With all due respect, the litigation affects only two 
States. The decisions that will be rendered by the court will not 
necessarily bind other applications in other States. And by no means 
are we compelled under the doctrine of separation of powers to wait to 
see another branch work its will. In fact, I can argue we are better 
suited to work our will being a democratic, with a small ``d,'' soon 
now and hopefully with a large ``d'' in a few months, a democratic 
institution.
  I think the Weldon amendment is about a level playing field. It is 
about equality of regulation.
  Let me talk about my own State in particular. There are presently 
discussions in two counties in southern New Jersey with respect to 
tribes which are claiming that they have antecedent legal claims or 
legal rights to certain lands, and they discuss the plan to operate 
gambling casinos on those lands. There is significant local opposition.
  Now, even if they are able to overcome that opposition by the legal 
rights that they have under Federal statutes or under the Constitution, 
there is a question here of equality of regulation. Because if they 
want to operate a gambling casino in Atlantic City in New Jersey, they 
may only operate it in Atlantic City, nowhere else in the State, 
because we have made a judgment that we want to limit casino gambling 
only to that one municipality.
  If they want to work in a gambling casino in Atlantic City, they need 
a background check that is equivalent to the background check that one 
would need to be a cabinet officer in State government or a member of 
the State police. They have to have references and criminal background 
checks and tests for drug and alcohol. And we make very certain that 
individuals who work in our casino industry in New Jersey are 
thoroughly investigated and vetted.
  We prohibit employees of our gambling casinos in New Jersey from 
active participation in political campaigns. We prohibit the owners 
from making contributions to people running for the Governor's office 
or for the State legislature because we have a very precise set of 
understandings about how we want to regulate casino gambling.
  I believe it has been a success in New Jersey. And I think it would 
be completely unfair to New Jersey, where billions of dollars have been 
invested to build a regulated casino industry, to permit an unregulated 
industry to come in and compete under a different set of rules.
  So whether my colleagues think that tribal claims are right or wrong 
or whether my colleagues think that gambling is right or wrong, I would 
suggest that they should support the Weldon amendment because it takes 
the position that the same rules ought to apply to everyone.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a very quick 
point. I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey yielding to me.
  Several Members have gotten up and spoken about the beneficial 
effects of Indian gaming in some of these tribes. The gentleman from 
Arizona talked about Tucson. I just want to point out that that tribe 
has a compact with the State of Arizona. And all my amendment says is 
stick to that system; it works really well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Andrews was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from New Jersey, what do 
they do when the State refuses to reach a compact with the tribe? That 
is the problem we have here. That is why this is a much more 
complicated issue.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that if a 
State arbitrarily and capriciously refused to enter into a contract 
that individual's rights could be violated and that can be addressed in 
the courts.

[[Page 15971]]


  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, and we 
are now in court to see whether we have authority under IGRA for the 
Secretary to resolve this under the regulations.
  So I would suggest to the gentleman that the State should not be in a 
position to just arbitrarily say no.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I completely agree 
that, if a State acts in an arbitrary fashion, they should be overruled 
in court. But the State should have the authority to create a level 
playing field and treat all casinos on that level playing field.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the law is, as I understand it, that the 
State can only allow the tribe to do what the State allows everyone 
else to do; and so, if they have an agreement, the tribes cannot go to 
a higher level of gambling.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Andrews was 
allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, so there is an effort here to do that. The 
problem here we have is what happens when there is an impasse? That is 
why we have got to have the Secretary have some way to negotiate this 
between the State and the tribe. That is what we are trying to preserve 
here.
  What this amendment does is says the States have complete authority 
that overrides sovereignty and is probably unconstitutional.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) I think has really gotten to the point.
  Under my amendment, they stick to the language of IGRA.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Andrews was 
allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, under my amendment, they stick 
to the language of IGRA. And under IGRA, the tribe can go to court. But 
what the Secretary is trying to do is try to take the authority to 
resolve this into his hands, and that was not the original intent of 
the Congress of the United States under IGRA.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, what happens if the State refuses to go to 
court? I mean, that is the problem here. We have got a situation where 
some of the States are unwilling to negotiate.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Weldon-Barr amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress did not create or permit Indian gaming when it 
passed IGRA, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Rather, it 
sought to regulate an industry that had been growing throughout the 
previous decade that was legally outside the scope of State regulatory 
powers. So now tribes can only game to the extent the State authorizes 
gaming within that State. For Class III gaming or casino gaming, a 
compact is required with the State.
  I have numerous casinos in my district, Indian gaming facilities. I 
have heard tonight about all these promises we are going to help out 
with the Native Americans. Well, Native Americans have been hearing 
these promises for over 200 years from this Congress, BIA, and Interior 
and it does not materialize.
  I still remember in my lifetime where the city fathers of the local 
communities would only count the Native Americans for their population 
base and their poverty level so they could get Government grants to put 
in roads, to put in water and sewer; and the water and sewer and roads 
never made it to the Native American reservation.

                              {time}  1915

  Now, what has happened, at least in my district, Native Americans 
have the right to game, and gaming has been the only successful 
economic development tool many of these tribes have known. Tribes all 
over the country are rebuilding their infrastructure long neglected by 
the Federal Government and providing an increased level of social 
services to their own members.
  Are there problems? Yes, there are problems. But can they be worked 
out? You bet they can. Take Michigan. After IGRA was passed in 1988, we 
have had two different governors philosophically worlds apart 
politically, John Engler and Jim Blanchard. But yet they were both able 
to work out their differences with the Native Americans and enter into 
compacts. We hear all these arguments about, ``Well, jeez, if they come 
in and try to open up a casino, they will destroy the infrastructure of 
these small communities.'' I have got small communities like Christmas, 
Michigan, and Hessell. You cannot get much smaller than that. But 
underneath our compact, they get 2 percent of the profits. The State of 
Michigan takes another 8 percent for any problems they may cause the 
State of Michigan. The governor can limit the number of casinos, the 
governor can limit the number of slot machines, the governor can limit 
the type of games that are being played. The governor can limit whether 
or not there is ever casino gaming on a piece of land, whether it is by 
a school, by a church, 150 miles from their reservation. The governors 
can do it if they are willing to step up to their responsibility. And 
since 1988, the governors can deny opening casinos on any piece of 
property.
  Mr. Chairman, the two compacts we have had in Michigan have worked 
well. I would oppose this amendment and I would ask that we oppose 
prohibiting the Secretary as the arbitrator, final arbitrator before we 
always have to go to court. We should not always have to go to court to 
try to address differences.
  Because of sovereignty, I believe this amendment is unconstitutional, 
and I hope, I really hope, that we would not try to pass this amendment 
tonight.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the point I wanted to make is 
you have a successful compact. Your governor has that authority under 
the compact. That is under the provisions of IGRA. What the Secretary 
is trying to do is to do an end run around the language in IGRA, to 
claim the authority to decide these decisions rests with him and away 
from the States and the governors.
  Now, I think your example in Michigan is a good one, but I think we 
should stick to the intent of IGRA. My amendment will not affect 
anything that is going on in Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. Reclaiming my time, I would not say the Secretary is 
trying to do an end run around IGRA. We had the gentleman from 
Wisconsin come here and say the Secretary denied the Native American 
tribes in Wisconsin from taking over the dog track down off U.S. 141 
down there. They denied it. There the Secretary did not agree with the 
Native Americans and denied it. Now, he is being investigated for 
denying it.
  I mean, if Florida and Alabama have difficulties, I do not want to 
change law to accommodate just two States when it is working well in 48 
other States. I would tell Florida and Alabama, go back and work it 
out. Whatever concerns you have in Florida and Alabama can be addressed 
if the parties want to. But if one side is not going to negotiate, 
there has to be someone other than just running to court all the time. 
That is where I think the Secretary should be and that is what it

[[Page 15972]]

currently gives him and I think that is a proper use of authority, 
because the Federal Government is the only one that can really 
negotiate with these tribes on impasses because of sovereignty that 
must be respective of all Native American tribes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am intending to offer an amendment to reduce by $3.9 
million the funds provided in this bill to add new species to the 
Endangered Species List. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the 
Concho Water Snake as a threatened species in June of 1986. Since that 
time, the Colorado River Municipal Water District has spent $3.9 
million studying the snake and documenting its health.
  In June, 1998, after documenting a species population and 
distribution much larger than previous fish and wildlife estimates, the 
water district submitted a petition to delist the snake. In addition, 
the water district has documented that the construction of the lake, 
which the Fish and Wildlife Service argued would threaten the snake, 
has actually benefited the species by stabilizing stream flow and its 
habitat.
  According to the statute, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 
supposed to provide a preliminary finding within 90 days of a petition 
to delist and a final decision within 12 months. It has been almost 13 
months since this petition was submitted, and we are still waiting for 
their so-called 90-day response.
  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to propose adding a 
number of new species to the threatened or endangered list. Frankly, I 
find it difficult to fund an agency that is intent on expanding its 
responsibilities while failing to adequately handle the 
responsibilities it presently has. I would encourage them to prove they 
can handle proper listing and evaluation and delisting procedures 
regarding at least one species before they add any more to the backlog.
  There are certainly a number of larger problems with the Endangered 
Species Act, particularly with the whole delisting process, but that is 
a subject for the authorizing committee. However, I chose to simply 
limit funding by the same amount that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service has forced the folks in my district to spend on studying the 
snake.
  I hope my amendment will send a message to Fish and Wildlife that 
they cannot ignore the law regarding delisting with total impunity. I 
believe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should demonstrate they can 
complete their existing statutory obligations before taking on any 
additional responsibilities through expanding the Endangered Species 
List. Once they act on pending petitions, like the one for the Concho 
Water Snake, then we should talk about any funding for new species 
listings.
  Given the ongoing saga of the Concho Water Snake, adding more species 
to the current backlog might just demonstrate that common sense is the 
most endangered species in this Congress.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I am willing not to offer this amendment 
in the interest of moving this bill forward if the chairman and ranking 
member would kindly agree to work with me when the bill goes to 
conference to include conference report language that will require the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a decision on the petition 
regarding the Concho Water Snake.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. I certainly will agree to work with the gentleman from 
Texas to address this important issue in conference. I am also willing 
to work with him right now to get to the bottom of this issue with the 
Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Mr. STENHOLM. With those assurances, Mr. Chairman, I will not offer 
my amendment. I look forward to working with the chairman and the 
ranking member as this bill goes to conference. I thank the gentleman 
for his courtesy.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Klink

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klink:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:
       SEC. 332. No funds made available under this Act may be 
     used to implement alternatives B, C, or D identified in the 
     Final Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for 
     Gettysburg National Military Park dated June 1999.

  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. We have heard 
a lot of discussion today about the fact that it should be Congress 
that has oversight over these matters. There is a discussion right now, 
in fact, there is a proposal to build a $40 million visitors center at 
the Gettysburg National Battlefield, one of the most important 
battlefields in this Nation, the battlefield where really virtually the 
Civil War was decided. At that point, after Gettysburg, the South never 
made that much of an intrusion again and the republic was held 
together.
  There is an attempt now to build a visitors center for $40 million 
using private funds on private land within the borders of the 
battlefield. But the people in Gettysburg have not had their say. The 
elected officials have been run roughshod over by the Parks Department, 
by the Department of Interior, and we think that Congress should have 
oversight over what is being built there.
  This amendment simply would prohibit the Park Service from spending 
taxpayer funds on what we think is a misguided endeavor, and it would 
make sure that the Gettysburg Visitors Center is treated like all other 
similar visitors centers. Other visitors centers have required 
congressional authority before they were built. It is only because this 
visitors center is slated to be built on private land that it allows 
the Park Service to avoid having congressional approval.
  I think that the proposed visitors center should be treated like 
those at Valley Forge, Independence National Park in Philadelphia, Zion 
and Rocky Mountain National Park. None of those were built without 
Congress having oversight. That is clearly what the Constitution said 
that we should.
  Having watched the Park Service completely disregard the wishes of 
the people at Gettysburg and the committees of Congress, my bill simply 
closes this loophole and would require that the Gettysburg Visitors 
Center is treated like all other visitors centers built with private 
support and with Federal dollars as well. No more, no less.
  This should not be a partisan issue. I would challenge anybody who 
would oppose this amendment to explain why they would rather have an 
unelected Federal bureaucrat in the Parks Department or the Interior 
Department decide the future of a $40 million visitors center in 
Gettysburg rather than have Congress have oversight over it.
  We do not know much about this site. I talked to Secretary Babbitt. 
They do not have a final design that they can show us. We do not know 
if it looks like a shopping mall, if it looks like an amusement park. 
It could have a roller coaster they call Pickett's Charge. We do not 
know. It could have General Longstreet's Carousel or General Meade's 
Arcade or Robert E. Lee's Wild Ride. We do not know. We are being asked 
to buy a pig in a poke. We are simply saying, enough is enough. Let us 
step back and let Congress authorize this before we move forward.
  I had mentioned before about the problem with the photographs that 
the Department of the Interior had taken by going into private 
businesses. The whole matter of the intrusion into private businesses, 
taking surreptitious

[[Page 15973]]

photographs, has not been answered. Many of us, both on the Republican 
side and on the Democrat side, have raised that issue. We need to make 
sure that this is the best thing for the people of America, and we are 
not sure without Congress having that oversight.
  This position is supported by the Borough of Gettysburg. It is 
supported by the Cumberland Township Board of Supervisors, by the 
Gettysburg Area Retail Merchants Association, by the Gettysburg 
Convention and Visitors Bureau, by the Civil War Roundtable 
Association, and the Association for the Preservation of Civil War 
Sites. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, with all of those people for us, 
who could be against us? I would ask that this amendment be approved.
  Mr. Hansen. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and 
National Parks, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  There are major and serious problems with the proposed visitors 
center at Gettysburg National Military Park. Praised by the Park 
Service as a model of public-private partnership, this proposal has 
soured the general public's perception of the Park Service and 
infuriated the public with this project. This attitude is not without 
merit.
  The Park Service has withheld relevant information that should have 
been readily and openly available to the general public concerning this 
visitors center and the funding behind it. The Park Service has not 
given the public a reasonable range of alternatives which is mandated 
by NEPA. Instead, the Park Service has tried to justify a decision they 
have already made to demolish the historic Cyclorama Building and 
proceed with the construction of a visitors center that the Borough of 
Gettysburg and many Civil War associations do not want. If this indeed 
is a model of things to come, we are in serious trouble.
  Of major importance, the proposed construction of the visitors center 
is on land which has remained essentially undisturbed since 1863 and 
within the boundaries of the military park. Construction of any 
facility runs counter to the very intent of the military park's 
boundary extension legislation just passed in 1990. That legislation 
made it clear that the Park Service was to preserve all aspects of the 
battlefield, including the proposed site of the visitors center. It is 
impossible for the Park Service to preserve the battlefield, yet 
authorize construction of a large complex of buildings and 
infrastructure on this site.
  Furthermore, the proposed site is located about a mile from the 
current visitors center. The current site is within easy walking access 
to the 110 small businesses of Gettysburg. It is doubtful that the 
public will walk or even drive the extra distance to buy food, 
beverages, gifts and books available at the proposed site. Thus, many 
of these small businesses are sure to go under.

                              {time}  1930

  Loss of the business would be devastating to the borough, which has a 
very limited tax base as it is.
  Many of the public have raised a concern that this complex will 
commercialize one of the most sacred and important battlefields of the 
country. Clearly the future tenants of the visitor center are running 
their businesses for profit. Moreover, all of the services proposed are 
currently available in Gettysburg.
  It is Park Service policy that, if adequate facilities are located 
outside of a park, they will not be expanded within the park. One may 
argue semantics here, but the fact remains that a commercial enterprise 
is a commercial enterprise, and if it is available outside of the park, 
the park should not be planning to construct the same facilities within 
the boundaries.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) listed all of the 
organizations that are against this. Some would have us believe that 
the sum total of opposition is from a few disgruntled people who 
submitted proposals which were not selected. This is definitely not the 
case. This amendment would prohibit the expenditure of funds on any of 
the alternatives which implement the construction of the visitor center 
at Gettysburg National Military Park; but more, this amendment puts the 
brakes on construction of a visitor center which desecrates the very 
ground the Park Service is sworn to protect and which does not have 
local government support.
  Mr. Chairman, it is the right thing to do, and I ask my colleagues' 
support for this amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, what I do not want to happen is to have this debate on 
the proposed Gettysburg National Military Park visitor center become 
politicized, which it is becoming. I am no Johnnie Come Lately to this 
issue, and I do not want to see Members throwing themselves in the line 
of fire at Gettysburg like it was a repeat of 1863 all over again. I 
have been refereeing this present Civil War battle during the last 4 or 
5 years. I do not want it to now become a political war because I will 
lose; no one gains.
  I, too, am outraged over the Park Service out of control and its 
attitude towards the citizens of Gettysburg. I have never seen such a 
display of arrogance and disregard for the well being and the opinions 
of those who will be most impacted by the new visitor center at 
Gettysburg, the residents and local businessmen and elected officials.
  Over the past 3 years I have tried to be a mediator between many 
opposing sides to help bring about a compromise that can be acceptable 
to all with interests in preserving and protecting Gettysburg National 
Military Park. I regret that what should have been an opportunity to 
unite the community in an effort to improve the Gettysburg National 
Military Park as well as enhance the local economy has only restrained 
relations between the National Park Service and the Gettysburg 
residents and severely hampered efforts to make the Gettysburg National 
Military Park a model park for the 21st century.
  The most important issue at present to be addressed regarding the 
Gettysburg National Military Park is the preservation and display of 
priceless artifacts currently unprotected and at risk. Such protection 
is long overdue and desperately required.
  The existing visitor center is entirely inadequate, as all who have 
ever visited there would certainly have to agree. Over the past few 
years I have hosted numerous meetings with the National Park Service, 
the Gettysburg National Military Park personnel, with both the 
authorizing Committee on Appropriations chairmen, Gettysburg Borough 
elected officials, local business people and concerned citizens, not 
just in the last month, but the last 3 or 4 years.
  The purpose of these meetings was to ensure that the process of 
selecting a general management plan was in an atmosphere that 
encourages cooperation between the Park Service and community with the 
goal of choosing a plan that works for the betterment of all parties 
involved. Unfortunately this has not happened. We cannot afford to lose 
sight of the fact that the one goal for which we should all be united 
is maintaining the Gettysburg National Military Park, one of the crown 
jewels of the national park system, into the 21st century and beyond 
and protecting and preserving the legacy of our heritage for future 
generations.
  At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I do not want anyone to use 
Gettysburg as a pawn for their own ambitions. It is sad that we are 
faced with a vote on the floor of the House over an issue that should 
have been properly dealt with administratively. Since the day after the 
battle of Gettysburg, when residents started collecting artifacts off 
of freshly bloodied battlefields, controversy has plagued this town. I 
have represented this area for 25 years, and it is a most divisive 
community to represent because of the Gettysburg National Military 
Park.
  This present civil war has been raging for the 25 years that I have 
been here in Congress. Fortunately at this point we have had no deaths. 
Do we

[[Page 15974]]

kill the deer that are in the park? If we do, how do we kill them? Are 
we chasing the deer into Gettysburg, and if we are, are we endangering 
the lives not only of the deer, but the Gettysburg residents? When does 
that tower come down, and how much does it cost to purchase it, and how 
much will it cost to renovate the area?
  Can the much-needed sewer cross the hallowed ground? It was tied up 
for years. And now for the last 3 or 4 years, where does a much needed 
visitor center get located? Should it be a private-public partnership? 
What should be included? Three or 4 years ago a very prominent 
entrepreneur living in the Gettysburg area presented a well-documented, 
well-designed plan; and he was going to have it within the park, and he 
was going to weather the storm. It was going to be on what is called 
fantasy land which cost taxpayers a tremendous amount of money to 
purchase. He was going to do a private-public partnership. He was going 
to have a Cineplex theater and a restaurant and other things of that 
nature. This was going to be within the boundary.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Goodling was allowed to proceed for 5 
minutes.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, there was such an uproar because this was 
going to be in the park, that this well-respected entrepreneur withdrew 
his proposal. And so the park then decided to put out bids. It was 
amazing. The bids were very, very similar to the proposal that was 
given by this local entrepreneur, and to my surprise, two people from 
my district were bidding on this proposal, one who had presented the 
previous plan and one who helped organize the previous plan.
  It was to my surprise because I learned it when it was presented in 
one of the newspapers that it was awarded to one of the two from my 
district. Again, another uproar; and so I suggested why do you not put 
it where it presently is?
  That brought the next civil war battle. How could one suggest that? 
That is hallowed ground. Well, as I knew the area, it was a quarry, and 
after it was a quarry, it was a municipal dump, and after it was a 
municipal dump, it was covered over with macadam and is the present 
parking lot for the present visitor center. But it is on hallowed 
ground.
  What they all agree is that a visitor center is a must if they are 
going to grow and even if they are going to maintain existing visitor 
numbers. All agree that the artifacts should be preserved and on 
display. This raging civil war has never been political, and I do not 
think it should ever become political.
  What the Gettysburg Borough, the township, school districts have to 
say is very important to me. I am their voice in Congress. The 
representatives of the borough council told my staff this afternoon 
that they oppose this amendment even though they strongly oppose the 
location of the planned visitor center. They oppose it because they 
fear it will mean the loss of any new visitor center which would be a 
disaster, which would adversely affect the entire Gettysburg area.
  We must have a new center. We must protect the artifacts. We must 
display them. But I have the same concerns as were expressed by some 
borough council officials this afternoon, and that concern is that we 
could lose the opportunity to have a visitor center, and I would ask 
all to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, if there is ever a situation that cries out for 
oversight, this is one that does. As my colleague, Mr. Goodling, has 
recounted, this project has been controversial from the outset; and he 
has played a continued and constructive role in trying to mediate that 
process. But it started because the process started backwards. It 
started with the National Park Service trying to avoid congressional 
authorization for a major visitor center, a visitor center that all of 
us agree is sorely needed and must be brought to fruition.
  But the fact of the matter is that the visitor center plans that have 
been devised before were ones where they took the plan and then tried 
to develop a management plan to make it fit. When we asked them for 
actuarial information and we asked them for their business plan, when 
we asked them for the facts and figures with respect to the cash flows 
and whether or not this would be sustainable or not, or whether or not 
the Park Service would end up inheriting the facility that could not 
carry itself financially, they dodged the information. They hid the 
information from all of us for a very, very long period of time, came 
up with inaccurate information, came up with information that they knew 
in fact was inaccurate and presented it to our staff on the Committee 
on Resources.
  I think the fact what we see is that by trying to skirt the process, 
they have probably lengthened the process. The committee, the 
authorizing committee, has established authorized major visitor centers 
throughout this country, and we have done it in the midst of great 
controversy, but we have provided the forum by which those 
controversies could be reconciled. So far the National Park Service has 
been unable to do that. We still do not know what the economics of this 
plan will be and whether or not they believe the taxpayer holding, if, 
in fact, the projections, which are fairly robust and fairly 
optimistic, turn out not to be true.
  So I think the gentleman is quite correct in asking for this 
limitation on the expenditures of money for this agreement until such 
time as we have an opportunity to provide that kind of congressional 
oversight, and I say that with all due respect and great respect for my 
colleague and my chairman on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  I had talked to him about this almost 2 years ago when I was trying 
to get information from the Park Service and recognized his ongoing 
involvement, and I have tried to pull back from that because both he 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and others were 
working out to try to see whether or not something could be resolved. 
We still find ourselves in a situation where the Park Service has 
failed to come up with a workable plan both from the point of the 
affected community and from, I think, economics in terms of one that is 
sustainable for this magnificent battlefield park.
  And I would say that I absolutely agree with the gentleman, and I 
think the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and others who have been involved in 
this process. The goal is to get a new visitor center. This park 
deserves better. The artifacts, the history, all of that that is being 
maintained there needs to be preserved in a better fashion, needs to be 
more accessible to the public and to the people who study the history 
of the Civil War, and certainly the battle of Gettysburg; and I think 
this amendment is quite proper, and I would hope that the committee 
would support it
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my dear friend, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and he has been a dear friend and a 
great colleague, I agree with what the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller) just said.
  We think that those artifacts need to be preserved as well and would 
pledge to work with the gentleman in whose district this battlefield 
lies to make sure that those artifacts are not left to disintegrate and 
to make sure that this is done in a correct manner. We will do 
everything that we can on our side to work with the gentleman to make 
sure that whatever can be done will be done to protect those and make 
sure that a visitor center, once congressional oversight is conducted, 
that a visitor center is done as expeditiously as possible.

[[Page 15975]]



                              {time}  1945

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it would be a great tragedy if this amendment passes. 
It would be a tragedy to every Civil War buff in America, everybody 
concerned about the preservation of the artifacts.
  I very much respect the chairman of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, and it has been an honor to serve under him and his 
tremendous outline of the history on this.
  Also, as a member of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public 
Lands, I have great respect for the gentleman from Utah (Chairman 
Hansen), and I know his frustration was also expressed by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Miller), the frustration about a lot of the 
processes that go on with the Park Service.
  But I spent 3 hours listening to the hearing and to the concerns of 
the local community, and I understand some of their concerns, that 
business may drop off if the visitors center is moved a half to three-
quarters of a mile away from the downtown business district.
  But I do not agree. The studies do not show that. As a retailer 
myself, I think the business is actually going to go up. There is no 
business argument, and I believe their concerns, as are always there 
when there are changes, but they in fact are not anchored in economic 
reality. A new visitors center will be a boost to tourism and to those 
very businesses that are concerned. It may extend the length of stay.
  But more importantly, Gettysburg is a national site. Nine hundred 
Americans were killed, wounded, or captured at the very point where the 
current visitors center sits. It is on the critical fishhook of the 
Union Army, and the establishment of that fishhook was critical to the 
preservation of the Union.
  The visitors center sits smack in the middle of that. The traffic is 
so high that when one visits there, as I did a few weeks ago, they have 
more park rangers right now trying to handle the overflow parking on 
the grass as you try to tour the battlefield than they have park 
rangers at Antietam, which was the bloodiest single day, because we do 
not have adequate parking facilities.
  The compromise, the fantasyland area sometime ago where they proposed 
to put the new visitors center, is in an area that is part of the Park 
Service now, but was not part of the battle.
  Jeb Stuart, in the Confederate Army, took on the calvary over in a 
side battle because he was not where he was supposed to be. The main 
battle was over here. By putting the visitors center down in between, 
people can move around to the cemetery where Lincoln spoke and gave the 
Gettysburg address. The fishhook will now be available to walk around 
and see as part of the critical battlefield line, so you can see how 
the battle actually worked. Now you stand there, there is a big tower, 
a cyclorama building, a visitors center, cars all over the place. You 
cannot get the line of sight. There are trees there that are not 
supposed to be there. There is a peach orchard. One thinks, why did he 
hide there? The trees are fairly young yet.
  If we really believe in historic preservation, in appreciating this 
site, it is not enough to just talk about a visitors center, because 
quite frankly, we do not have enough money to keep up our sites. Every 
park we go to, whether it is a natural resource or a cultural resource, 
they do not have the budget to even keep the things from falling down 
in our primary parks in the United States.
  We can talk about preservation, but it is not occurring. We spend 
hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep some of these rifles in 
historic condition, and they are in non-humidified areas where they are 
not even preserving some now because we do not have adequate 
facilities.
  We can argue about this, but one of the fundamental things, in 
addition to the importance to every Civil War buff in America and every 
person who is interested in historic preservation in America, is a 
fundamental premise here. If we do not have enough money to keep things 
as they are, are we going to allow public-private partnerships in the 
parks? It is a fundamental question that is undergirding this debate.
  If we can extend public dollars through nonprofit corporations, I 
favor that. That is one of the fundamental fights here. It is very 
hard, when we go through years and years and years of delay and 
arguing, to come up with figures. It is hard for a private developer to 
come in and said, okay, I want this size bookstore, this size gift 
shop, this size restaurant. Then they come back after the hearing and 
say, no, you cannot have the restaurant, it has to be scaled back to 
this; the gift shop has to be scaled back to this.
  Legitimate arguments, but then it is a little cute to argue that 
there were not financial projections that were consistent all the way 
through because the gentleman is forcing the alternate projections on 
the cost.
  This is the realistic way, a legitimate way to get the visitors 
center, to preserve the cyclorama that is wrinkling, that is going to 
start to crack if we do not start this project immediately. If this 
gets stopped, to come up with an alternative plan, by the time an 
alternative plan could be executed, if we ever have the funds here in 
Congress, the cyclorama will be cracked, articles will be destroyed, 
and we will not have the fishhook for all the tourists who are going 
through there. For years it will delay the process another couple of 
years.
  This is a realistic alternative. It may have problems. Perhaps the 
Federal dollars will have to pick up some of the gap, but our 
alternative is, as the chairman of the committee full well knows, is 
the public is going to pick up all the costs of the visitors center.
  So for those who are really looking for creative solutions to the 
national park dilemma, this is one. It would be a tragedy if this 
amendment passes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink) 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that is yellowed and 
crumbling for the length of time it has been sitting there.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. DeFazio:

       Insert before the short title the following new section:
       Sec. _. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to carry out, or to pay the 
     salaries of personnel of the Forest Service who carry out, 
     the recreational fee demonstration program authorized by 
     section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained in section 
     101(c) of Public Law 104-134; 16 U.S.C. 4601-6a note), for 
     units of the National Forest System.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) reserves a 
point of order on the amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we have contained within the Interior 
appropriations from past years an embedded tax, a tax on the American 
people which was never authorized by the Committee on Resources or the 
Committee on Ways and Means, the two committees that would split 
jurisdiction over taxes or fees, if it is a fee on use of public land.
  Let us get one thing clear, the amendment being offered today does 
not affect user fees for national parks, for developed areas and 
campsites. But what it would say is that it is outrageous for the 
government, in a mish-mash, a plethora of programs, forest by forest, 
to have different reciprocities between forests, and I have one forest

[[Page 15976]]

where they have two different passes, that they proliferate the new fee 
programs, forest by forest, charging people $25 a hit or $3 a day to 
drive to the end of a gravel road in a forest and go for a hike, or 
view the wildflowers, or go hunting or go rockhunting, rockhounding.
  These activities have traditionally been free. These are not 
activities which are drawing upon a capital-intensive developed site. 
Yet, with this so-called pilot program, unauthorized program, millions 
of Americans are now breaking the law. This year the Forest Service is 
going to begin seriously attempting to cite and prosecute people who 
park at distant, remote trailheads, trailheads that are often subject 
to car clouting and other problems. The Forest Service does not seem to 
be too much concerned about that, but they are going to be out there 
ticketing them for not having paid a fee.
  In many cases, you get to the end of a road, the sign is about 150 
feet to the end of the road, and it says, to park here you need a pass, 
and you can obtain a pass 20 miles back that way at the nearest grocery 
store or other place which dispenses these passes.
  This is an inconvenience. It raises very little money. It is about 6 
percent of the recreation budget. Surely this Congress does not need to 
double tax the American people and those who live on or near or 
recreate on these lands and charge them this new user fee, this new 
tax. We can find that other 6 percent to fund the recreation programs 
of the Forest Service.
  Further, we are adding a new slush fund to an agency that the GAO 
says they have one of the worst financial management and accounting 
systems, and now we have another new off-budget slush fund which is 
being used by each forest as they see fit, and as the Assistant 
Secretary admitted to me last night, with no supervision from 
Washington, D.C.
  So whatever fees they cook up for whatever project they want to do, 
whatever burden they want to put on the American people, they can do it 
with no oversight from Washington, D.C. or from the Congress under this 
unauthorized program.
  The committee itself says they are concerned about the management, 
accountability, and performance of the Forest Service. The 
accountability problems of the Forest Service are much more of a 
problem than just bad accounting. Far too much, with little 
congressional control and knowledge, has been transferred for 
administrative functions of the department.
  This program, this so-called pilot program, goes right to the heart 
of those concerns. The committee was talking about a different program 
at that point, C.V. fund, but guess what, they have just now created 
another one that is proliferating around the country, around the 
country, and putting an extraordinary burden on people.
  Take, say, the city of Oak Ridge, Oregon, in my district, totally 
surrounded by the Forest Service. If you just want to drive out of town 
and park on a gravel road and go hunting or go for a hike, you have to 
pay a user fee. For what? To use the gravel road which was built 25 
years ago for logging, and is not maintained anymore? Or for beating 
through the brush? Why? Why should people pay for undeveloped sites on 
access to public lands? This has been a right that Americans have 
enjoyed for so many years, and it is very unfair to begin to assess a 
fee of $3 per hike or $25 per pass per forest, with very little 
reciprocity.
  On one forest in Oregon, the Deschutes, visitors to the Lavaland 
Visitors Center dropped off 40-percent in one year when this pilot 
project was put into effect. As was stated in an interview, the people 
at the visitors center said the people drive up, look at the sign, they 
turn around, they drive away; a 40-percent dropoff. Why? So they can 
buy a few more little gee- gaws for that visitors center, or make some 
other change on the forest?
  We should not be depriving Americans and their families of this 
opportunity. It is unfair. It is unauthorized. It should be stopped.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. DICKS. No, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this program has worked. If we talk to superintendents 
across the country, in the forests, the parks, the Wildlife refuges, 
the BLM lands, they are happy. They get to keep the money. They used to 
have to send any fees they collected to the Treasury and never saw it 
again. Now they keep it. They invest it in the facility.
  We were at Olympic National Park recently. They are doing some work 
on a magnificent chalet that the public loves to see and enjoy, and 
look out over the mountains. They had a sign up, ``This work is being 
done with user fees.''
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, just remember, 
this amendment does not affect parks.
  Mr. REGULA. I understand. I am going to read an editorial about the 
Sawtooth National Recreation Area. The paper was against the fee and is 
now for it because it has worked so well.
  Let me say this. The superintendent of the Olympic National Park said 
this: ``Morale is affected. People feel good to know that the public is 
participating, and they care about this facility. Vandalism is down 
because those who pay a little bit get a sense of proprietorship.''
  I hear that story all over, from the forests, the parks, and other 
facilities. In the period of time that this will be in place, it will 
raise $400 million. It does not affect their budget. This money is used 
for things that otherwise would not happen, for visitor enhancement, to 
make the visitor experience better.
  In Muir Wood, for example, the superintendent said she was able to 
improve the trails, put up signs. And we talked to people in the 
facilities and asked them. They said, we do not mind paying a modest 
amount. It is less than a movie ticket, and the money stays there. They 
get to use it. They get the benefit of it.
  The people that the gentleman is talking about, I would say to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), they are using it every day. They 
can buy an annual pass. How much is the annual pass?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the annual pass 
is $25 for that forest, but it is $25 for the other forest 20 miles 
that way, and it is $25 for the other forest 60 miles that way, and it 
is a different charge for the park, which is 40 miles that way, and 
then the BLM is looking at doing it also. So it starts running into a 
lot of money.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, they get to use a lot of facilities: 
Three forests, a park, and the BLM land.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. No. If the gentleman will continue to yield, those are 
all different passes. There is no transferability.
  Mr. REGULA. I understand. And the forest is working on developing a 
universal pass. This is an experimental program. They want to address 
it.
  Let me read the editorial. This says it more eloquently than the 
words I could use.
  This is from the Idaho Statesman in Boise, Idaho. Headline: ``Keep 
User Fees that Restore Trails and Improve Parks.''
  ``When a test of user fees was initiated a couple of years ago in the 
Sawtooth National Recreation Area, there was some grumbling. `We pay 
taxes, don't we? Why is it even more money to visit public lands?' but 
the fee projects were approved and even extended a few years ago by 
Congress. Why? Because people don't mind. They even seem to want to pay 
the fees, and because the money is put to good use.''

                              {time}  2000

  In fact, in Olympic National Park they had a little jar and even 
though they paid a fee, they were still putting money in as an extra 
contribution.

[[Page 15977]]

That shows how the public feels about it.
  ``Why not make the fees permanent? Give credit to three important 
steps of the success of the fee program: One, the money collected has 
stayed on the ground. Those paying the fees can see their money at 
work.'' That was true. We saw that several places.
  ``Two, the fees have remained reasonably priced and are getting less 
complicated.'' And I might tell the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
that they are getting less complicated. I believe probably in short 
order the Forest Service will have one pass that will work in all the 
forests in the area, and I would hope they do that and maybe even 
include the parks and the BLM. That is the goal, to have a universal 
pass, that visitors pay a modest amount and can use it anyplace for a 
period of a year.
  And thirdly, ``Forest managers are listening to visitors and 
addressing their concerns.'' And I hope the managers in the gentleman's 
district are doing that.
  ``So far, for the SNRA, the fees have paid off. More than $162,000 
has been collected since the start of the project in July, 1997. The 
money has been used to maintain hundreds of miles of trails, open new 
restrooms, hire additional visitor center staff,'' and so on.
  And the article concludes, ``When compared to many other family 
entertainment or vacation options, parks and recreation areas, even 
with the fees, remain a tremendous bargain.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. REGULA was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the article continues, ``Given that forest 
officials are responsive to what the public is asking and that the 
money is well spent. Clearly the fee program is a winner and should 
remain in place for years to come.''
  Mr. Chairman, I have several editorials along the same vein. The 
people support it. The park professionals support it. It is working 
extremely well. And as we eliminate some of the glitches just as 
described by the gentleman from Oregon, it will be even more effective, 
and visitors will benefit. That is the bottom line.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take 
a lot of time with this amendment, but I want to join the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) in his remarks against the amendment. I think 
the fact of the matter is there is a reason this is a pilot program. 
There are a lot of glitches. We still have problems.
  The gentleman is on the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. I still cannot get from one bus system to another bus 
system in the Bay area, but they are working on it. It is coming 
together. And here maybe the forests in the gentleman's district are 
too narrowly defined in terms of fees, and we will go to an annual 
pass.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. George Miller of California, and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. Regula was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield, the fact is, improvements are being made. The public 
appreciates those improvements. These places are much more friendly to 
the user.
  Yes, there is a problem if visitors go to a remote trailhead, and the 
Forest Service ought to think about if these people ought to be 
ticketed. The people made the effort to buy a pass. But that is no 
reason to curtail this program.
  It is 6 percent, and the fact of the matter is the gentleman knows we 
cannot find that 6 percent anywhere else. Especially in this budget. 
The gentleman has fought off all kinds of issues to cut off resources 
from this bill. We have an issue that is pending to cut off resource 
from this bill. Without these user fees, the fact of the matter is that 
the public is going to be denied the kind of access and the use that 
they want to put these forests to.
  I appreciate the problem faced by people in the local area, and it is 
a tough one. They have always viewed this as their ``divine right'' to 
enter in and out of the forests. But somebody has to maintain them, and 
we ought to continue this program and support the committee on this and 
reject this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I was very impressed both this year and last 
year when the committee took its trip at the work that is being done 
with the 80 percent of the money that stays in the local area. There is 
no doubt that if we cut this program off we are going to hurt these 
areas.
  Now, I realize the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has limited 
this only to the Forest Service areas. But, believe me, I think this 
program is working; and I pledge that I will be glad to work with the 
gentleman. I suggest we invite Mr. Lyons up here and see if we cannot 
straighten out this thing as it relates to the Forest Service in the 
gentleman's area, or the BLM in his area. Lets see if we cannot come up 
with a common pass or something that will satisfy the gentleman.
  But, Mr. Chairman, to undermine the work that the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Regula) has put into this program which is helping us reduce 
the backlog across the country and if we take it off the Forest 
Service, it will undermine the Park Service.
  The ironic thing about this, public opinion has been tested, and 83 
percent of the people favor it, and most of them say they think the 
fees are too low. They cannot see why we are not charging more.
  The gentleman from Oregon is a very senior Member of the House. I 
urge him to work with us to straighten out the problems that obviously 
exist in Oregon. And take the gentleman from Ohio at his word, but do 
not undermine a program that is doing so much positive good for our 
parks and Forest Service around the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that if this amendment passes then it will 
undermine the other program as well. So I want to compliment the 
chairman of the subcommittee. He has done an outstanding job and stayed 
with this. Let us stay and back him and defeat this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have had Mr. Lyons in my office last 
year and this year telling me he was going to rationalize the program 
and take care of the accountability problems and the proliferation of 
passes. Nothing has happened. I would appreciate it if something would 
happen.
  But I would further urge that if the committee is going to travel 
that they travel to my district and perhaps hold a hearing on the issue 
in my district and hear of some of the concerns and problems or meet in 
the district of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), from whom you 
will hear later. Because I think the committee will hear a little 
different story, perhaps because we have so many forests in our State 
and the proliferation is a problem.
  Finally, if it is so popular, and I am not sure of those polling 
numbers, I suggest that perhaps I should offer my other amendment, 
which is to turn it into a voluntary system and turn do away with the 
enforcement. The Forest Service could save money on the enforcement, 
and perhaps the gentleman from Ohio would look favorably upon that 
amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

[[Page 15978]]


  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio) the next time he has Mr. Lyons in for a visit, invite me 
and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and we will come and see 
if we cannot resolve these problems.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeFazio-Bono-Cook amendment to 
end the United States Forest Service's Adventure Pass program.
  The citizens within the 44th District of California brought to my 
attention a great injustice: The Federal Government was charging people 
to park and use our beautiful forests twice, first through the Federal 
income tax, second through a per car fee at the forest.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not give Uncle Sam permission to tax citizens 
twice. If Congress believes that the Service is underfunded, then we 
need an increase in appropriations. The fact is, taxpayers' money 
already goes to the Forest Service, and it is up to the Forest Service 
to manage their funds properly.
  But I question whether or not the Service can manage its finances 
well. In January of this year, the General Accounting Office named two 
Federal agencies to its financial accountability high risk list. One of 
those was the Forest Service's financial management system. According 
to the GAO, the Inspector General of the Agriculture Department found a 
lack of documents to verify accounts for land, buildings and equipment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a proposition. First, the Forest Service needs 
to manage its finances properly. Then once proven that it is making the 
most of the monies already allocated, it can come back to Congress with 
additional requests. I promise to give the Forest Service the due 
consideration it deserves.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a great supporter of the United States Forest 
Service. The local Rangers within my district are dedicated, 
intelligent, and extremely kind individuals. However, I do not believe 
that the Washington office of the Service is giving them the adequate 
support for them to do their job properly.
  Mr. Chairman, there are some officials who claim that forest visitors 
like this program. A recent survey conducted by Cal State San 
Bernardino says otherwise. Within the survey the following information 
was gathered: 83 percent of visitors noticed no improvement to the area 
since Adventure Pass began, but only 16 percent said the program 
greatly improves their recreation experiences. And only 4 percent 
mentioned that they would like to see improved security and patrol. The 
Service has constantly said that our constituents say this is a top 
concern.
  Although visitors have not noticed improvements, the Service has 
taken great care to say how it has spent this money. But in Washington 
and at home we know that a government agency will spend money if we 
give it to them. Therefore, the question is how much they should spend 
and in what way they should spend it.
  But, Mr. Chairman, this issue goes beyond the issue of financial 
accountability or what the survey says. In fact, this tax goes against 
the very concept of experiencing our free and open land. To residents 
in the communities of Idyllwild, Anza, Hemet and San Jacinto and 
tourists who come to enjoy these precious lands, this fee is a source 
of hardship. We have come to expect the freedom to enjoy this area 
without the burden and inconvenience of the tax imposed on us today. 
This is why the California State Assembly and the Los Angeles County 
Board of Supervisors wrote resolutions in support of eliminating the 
Adventure Pass program.
  We must encourage people to visit, not discourage them from doing so. 
When tourists go elsewhere, it hurts small businesses and it hurts our 
efforts to educate individuals on the importance of protecting this 
precious resource. This tax serves as a barrier to working families, 
hikers, nature lovers, and all of those desiring access to our national 
forests.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to be a user fee country, then we 
should have that debate and be consistent. We would never want to 
charge visitors for sitting in the Supreme Court, declaring every 
Federal highway a toll road, or even charging people to sit in this 
gallery. All of these Federal properties need maintenance like these 
forests do, but I never want any of these fees to become a reality.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will join me in repealing an 
onerous tax and returning the forests back to the people. To tax the 
great outdoors is offensive to the very concept of the national forest 
system.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, a poll was done not too long ago that asked the 
American people what they like most about the United States Government, 
and they answered the parks and the land. Number one of everything we 
do, the parks and land. They liked it the very best.
  The question was asked: ``What do you like the least?'' Surprising 
enough, they said the IRS, which did not surprise too many. But when we 
look at the parks and land and find out where it is going, as chairman 
of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, I do not think 
people realize the amount of money that we have in infrastructure that 
we are behind on. It is actually billions of dollars that we are not 
taking care of.
  Water systems that are out. Sewer systems that are out. We have gates 
that are out. We have dozens of things that are not working. When we go 
to a national park or the Forest Service or go to the BLM, we want it 
fixed. Every one of these agencies is in a position that we do not have 
enough funds.
  The gentleman from Oregon talks about the idea that maybe we can come 
up with some. Somebody ought to do it. We cannot even keep up with 
payment in lieu of taxes around here. We are shortchanging the States. 
Here we find ourselves in the position where the thing that the people 
like better than anything else that the government offers we are 
letting deteriorate. And why? Because we do not have the money to take 
care of it.
  So why is it so wrong to ask the people, when they seem to agree, 
when they write us letters, in fact, I have even received letters that 
have had money in them. They said, ``I went to the park'' or ``I went 
to this national area and, doggone it, it was so nice I felt I ripped 
you off.'' We take the money and send it to the Treasury because we are 
not taking care of these areas.
  Mr. Chairman, the biggest fear I have with these demonstration 
projects is that the appropriators and authorizers will reduce the 
amount of money that we give them, and we are already in arrears. We 
look and say, is this working? I agree with the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula). Let the thing have an opportunity to work. Let us find a 
time when we can say we finally got our act together.
  I think when we first got into this thing we envisioned kind of like 
a Golden Eagle pass that visitors pay $50 and they can go to the parks 
or BLM or the Forest Service, the reclamation things. And I think we 
will get to that, but why nip it in the bud? Why kill it when it is in 
the crib? Let this thing grow a little bit. This would be a dramatic 
step backwards to go along with this particular amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that in our budget 
we have $10 million more than requested by the President for recreation 
in the Forest Service. So I am saying this to emphasize that we have 
not in any way reduced our commitment to support these facilities. The 
money coming from rec fees takes care of extras that otherwise simply 
would not get done to enhance the visitor experience.
  That has been the emphasis that we have made to the public lands 
administrators, is take the rec fee money, fix things that otherwise 
might not be, just as the gentleman pointed out, that are neglected. So 
that the visitor has clean facilities, good campsites, good trails, 
good signage. And we in no way

[[Page 15979]]

have reduced their budgets as a result of the fee program. In fact, we 
have increased the budgets.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and I hope it continues that way, because that 
is how it was intended to work.
  The nice thing about what these programs do, Mr. Chairman, is if the 
superintendent of a park has a problem, he does not have to come back 
and ask for a supplemental. He has the latitude to do something with 
it. If the forest supervisor of a forest has a problem, he can work 
with it. We give the person some latitude with which to work.
  Why would we want to do away with it? The American public seems to 
like the idea. I feel we finally caught on to something that really 
works well. Let us not end it now by accepting this amendment. I 
strongly disagree with the amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  (On request of Mr. DeFazio, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hansen was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, just in reflection, on my forest, perhaps 
we have raised in this bill the amount of money that the committee has 
appropriated for recreation above what the President asked for, but 
obviously the President did not ask for an adequate amount, and the 
budget overall is reduced. In fact, I am finding, on a number of my 
forests, it happens that the collections are basically keeping them 
even. They were reducing recreation and other needs elsewhere.
  But to go beyond that, I remember that the gentleman last year 
approached me after this vote and said we would work together to 
authorize a program where we would have a universal single pass so we 
would not have this mish mash, and we have not done that. It still has 
not happened.
  I had one forest that had two passes for one forest. They have gone 
to one pass for that forest this year, but it does not have reciprocity 
with the other forests. I mean, this is insane. I asked the supervisor 
of one of my forests last Friday, I said, ``If I buy your pass, can I 
use it on the next-door forest?'' He said, ``No, you cannot.'' Then he 
called back on Monday and said, ``No, I was wrong. You can.'' I mean, 
it is so confusing. Average people cannot figure it out.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from Oregon, I 
hope that the amendment that he has brought up will somewhat trigger 
the Forest Service to start working on the exact problem he did bring 
up.
  The gentleman mentioned the President talking about this. Does the 
gentleman realize that the President of the United States has asked to 
make this program permanent at this point? I think we can work out the 
problems the gentleman from Oregon brought out. I think it will be to 
the benefit of the people of America.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I first want to start by commending the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for the work 
they do to make our parks as good as they are and their commitment that 
they have shown in their work.
  So it troubles me to stand here in some respects today, but we have a 
problem in Oregon. We have a problem in our forest with some of these 
fees. It is a confusing morass where one does not know, as the 
gentleman from Eugene, Oregon, (Mr. DeFazio) said, one does not know 
where to go and what fee to have and what park permit to get.
  Let me cite a story that ran recently in the Bend Bulletin, because I 
think they said it as well as anyone has. ``In the Deschutes National 
Forest, for example,'' and I am quoting here, ``a $3 day-use pass or a 
$25 annual pass is required to use more than 80 trails, virtually the 
forest's entire inventory.
  ``But wait. This year, a separate day-use fee to enter Newberry 
National Volcanic Monument has been scrapped; Newberry now falls under 
the trail park pass. At Lava Lands Visitor Center, which is not part of 
the trail pass program, the carload price actually went down from $5 
last year to $3 this year.
  ``If you want to use the two boat ramps at East Lake you can, free of 
charge. But because a trail rings Paulina Lake, the boat ramp parking 
there is part of the trail fee program (except in one boat ramp in 
Little Crater Campground).
  ``And that's just in the Deschutes. Oregon state parks charge day-use 
fees, the Bureau of Land Management levies boating fees on the Lower 
Deschutes River, and national parks in the region require separate 
passes for visitor centers and to climb mountains. Campgrounds are an 
additional charge. Confused?'' says the story.
  Well, they go on to talk about it. And people are. They are coming up 
to the Lava Lands Visitor Center, and the visitor count there plummeted 
from 83,515 people in 1996 to 46,170 last year and remained depressed.
  ``We're still getting people driving up it the booth, seeing there's 
a fee, and turning around,'' said Mr. Lang, who is in charge of the 
Lava Lands.
  So we have got that going. I have no problem charging people to go 
into the campgrounds and the really improved areas. My problem in my 
district, which is larger than 33 States. It is virtually all Federal 
land, 60-some percent. Thirty-six million acres in Oregon are Federal 
lands. It is like, no matter where one goes, one is on Federal land if 
one wants to get outside of any of the towns.
  Then it gets confusing about what little store one has to go to, 
where to find a permit for what, and are they open on the one sunny day 
in Oregon when one wants to go out hiking.
  My other concern is this, that even if we can perfect this process, 
and perhaps we can, at some point this is the base level, 3 or 5 bucks 
to get a pass, what is it going to cost a family? How far in advance 
are they going to have to book their trip to go on a hike in the 
Federal forest?
  Can my colleagues imagine telling visitors to Washington, D.C. that 
they have to book 6 months ahead of time and buy a pass to determine if 
they can walk on the Mall. Because, in Oregon, our forests are the 
equivalent of the Mall. It is the place we have to go. We feel like we 
are paying for them once. And for just the opportunity to park along a 
road and hike out there, I do not think we ought to have the fee.
  I understand the need to make the improvements. If I had my way, I 
would take money for future land acquisitions. There always seems to be 
billions around for that in some quarters, not necessarily ours, and 
target that into the improvements we all could agree need to be made.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for the 
work that he does.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I understand. But as my colleagues saw 
yesterday, we even took $30 million out that we had targeted for lands, 
and there is a pressure here to take even more. So that is probably not 
a source.
  I tell my colleagues that it is our understanding that the Oregon 
forests and Washington Management Team and the Forest Service and the 
State, are working on a universal pass that one would buy that would go 
to any forest in Oregon or Washington, including a State forest. We 
have urged them to do that.
  We understand some of the concerns that the gentleman's constituents 
would have. We want to make this as user friendly as possible and still 
have the revenues to fix those trails and fix those comfort stations 
and those camp sites. So that is our goal.
  This is only a 3-year program. We are still trying to work out some 
of the problems. But I think, on balance, in the long haul, that the 
gentleman's people will be very pleased because they are going to have 
a much better quality experience and get a universal pass at a 
reasonable cost.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Waldon) has 
expired.

[[Page 15980]]

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Waldon of Oregon was allowed to proceed 
for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. WALDON of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the 
gentleman from Ohio. I would say that we have a good program in Oregon 
called the Snow Park Permit Program. One buys one permit in the winter, 
and one can park in any of these cleared-out snow park areas if one 
wants to go cross-country or down-hill skiing. I have no problem with 
that. But the system we have in place today is one that concerns me 
because of its complication.
  The other element is I do not want to see us price families out 
eventually. I detected that was perhaps beginning to happen along with 
just the whole idea of reservations. One hiking trail, for example, in 
Mount Hood, do not hold me to exact numbers, but averages 200 people a 
day. The forest people wanted to reduce that to 20.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Waldon of 
Oregon) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hansen, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Waldon of 
Oregon was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. WALDON of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we understand that. We want to work with 
the gentleman from Oregon to solve those problems. I will be interested 
to talk to him about this snow pass. That may be the kind of thing we 
can put together.
  But on balance, the program has worked well in enhancing the 
visitors' experience. I think something that is important is the 
vandalism reduction in these public facilities, because people who pay 
have a sense of proprietorship.
  Mr. WALDON of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the gentleman from 
Ohio on that point.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I want 
to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the 
subcommittee, for his leadership in advancing this program in the past. 
It is vitally important that we have a program that allows each forest 
system to raise funds to take care of the infrastructure in that 
system. It is not being done. This new program is the best opportunity 
we have had to see that occur.
  Let me give my colleagues an example that occurred in my district 
with a national park. I know this amendment only applies to national 
forests. But the same principle applies, and it is one I think we 
should extend everywhere.
  A few years ago, when I first arrived here, the Shenandoah National 
Park superintendent proposed closing two-thirds of the national park 
for 6 months of the year. We had a meeting up here with the 
representatives, and we asked him why on earth would he want to do 
that?
  He said, ``Well, to save money.'' We said, ``Well, certainly the fees 
that you collect on entry to the park would offset the cost of the 
money that you save by having folks in the booths.''
  This is what he said, ``You are going to save about $250,000 by 
closing the booth and not collecting the fee.'' He said, ``Oh, yes, it 
would save us $250,000 because we do not get to keep any of the funds 
that we receive when we collect those fees. So all of the funds 
received go into the general Treasury, $250,000 off of our budget. It 
makes sense for us to close one of the largest, most visited national 
parks in the eastern United States, two-thirds of it, for half of the 
year, because we do not collect the fees.''
  We have changed that, both in our national parks and in our national 
forest to allow the collection of the fees. It gives the people on the 
ground in the parks the incentive to improve the conditions, to keep 
the facilities open.
  How many people visit our national forest today and find chains 
across the road, tank traps built because the Forest Service does not 
have the resources to maintain the facilities? So they shut them do 
down in large measure.
  If they are given the incentive to have the opportunity to collect a 
fee, they are going to open up more roads, they are going to open up 
more areas, they are going to open up more access to recreation. That 
is why this program, while it certainly can be improved, we certainly 
want to make sure that local residents who want to visit the park on a 
regular basis have a reasonable year-round pass that they can use in 
combined force. I think the gentleman is exactly right that that should 
be corrected and changed.
  I certainly, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department 
Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Committee on 
Agriculture would also extend my offer to work with him to see that 
that kind of improvements to the system are made. But please do not cut 
out the incentive to improve our national forest by allowing people who 
use them to collect a fee.
  In addition, I would point out that many people travel great 
distances to visit our national forests. They will pay money for 
gasoline, for hotel rooms, for meals, and so on. Then when they get to 
these destination places, they will either pay nothing or a nominal fee 
to visit them. That to me is not logical.
  If these places are, and they certainly are, great attractions for 
people to come long distances to visit them, it is not entirely 
unreasonable to think that we could collect a small fee to help to 
maintain and improve these facilities.
  So I urge the Members of the House to oppose this amendment and see 
that this program, which is evolving and which will, I think, lead to 
great improvements in the recreational facilities of our national 
forest, that this amendment is defeated.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the problem that my colleagues 
from Oregon have highlighted has been put in the spotlight and that we 
have had assurances from Members of the subcommittee that they will 
work with us to make sure that some of these anomalies are, in fact, 
corrected.
  But I would hope that we would keep in mind three things: that it is 
not just the money that is involved here, although that is significant. 
A number of us have been struggling, trying to be supportive of what 
the committee has been working on in the course of the debate here in 
the last 2 days. This is an important step to try to tie the benefits 
and the costs together. This is something a lot of people understand 
that government needs to be more entrepreneurial in a number of areas.
  We have seen, I think, here in Washington, D.C. the contrast between 
the way that we are treated here and other parts of the country. I 
think there is an opportunity for us to take small steps in this area. 
It also gives important incentives to local managers. We are getting a 
different behavior from people who are managing facilities, because 
they can be a little bit entrepreneurial.
  The amount of money involved is infinitesimal for most of the people 
that are there. If we look at CDs, if we look at things that people are 
carrying, not just comparing to other types of activities that they 
involve for recreational purposes, but the impact that it says on the 
managers and their employees in terms of being able to have a little 
discretion, in terms of being able to tie it back to needs that they 
have on-site that, frankly, would have a difficult time making it 
through the bureaucratic process.
  So putting aside for a moment the money, which is significant, put 
aside for a moment the connection between the benefits and the costs, 
which I think is not inappropriate, that we have had some opportunity 
here where we have assurances that we will work to try and make work 
better, and I think that is appropriate as well.

                              {time}  2030

  But I do think it is important for us to look at the impact this has 
on managerial behavior in and around the facilities. And I think that 
that may be the greatest legacy of all, is that it helps engage in a 
different type of

[[Page 15981]]

thinking, more flexibility, and more rapid reaction to give the 
taxpayers and the users a better product.
  I am confident that the committee chair and staff will follow 
through. And as a Member of the Oregon delegation, I, too, would like 
to have the fine-tuning, but I hope that we will have a chance to look 
back in a couple of years at how it has changed the behavior, because I 
think that may be the most important legacy.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
just wanted to point out we just received a phone call from Mr. Lyons. 
He said he was prepared to meet with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) and the chairman and myself tomorrow, if necessary, and also 
that they are working with OMB to fund a study on the Pacific Northwest 
Forest Service problem. And the gentleman from Oregon has pointed this 
out.
  I think there is a way to solve his problem administratively, and I 
hope we can move on to a vote on this amendment, and of course a 
negative vote because it will no longer be necessary.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Just in response to the gentleman's comments, Secretary 
Lyons came to me last year and asked me to forego the amendment, saying 
he understood their problems and he would fix the program. Yesterday, 
he showed up in my office again, said he understood there were problems 
and he will fix the program. Now today he has called and said he 
understands there are problems and he wants to fix the program.
  I think if perhaps he meets with the chairman, who controls his 
budget and his salary, ultimately, and that of all his employees, and 
the ranking member, maybe this time he will deliver. But I have to tell 
my colleagues, I am put out by the fact that this is a year later and 
it has not happened.
  And, also, I have to say that I have concerns that go beyond that to 
the concerns of the committee in terms of how these funds are being 
spent. And Mr. Lyons admits there is no authorization or control 
process beyond the local forest. I think that goes to the grave 
concerns.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) this. I would rather trust the local forest, because of the 
way this national financial system has been handled. I have more faith 
in the people out there to do the right thing with the money that they 
collect in their forest. That is why I think this program is working 
and working so successfully.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the pending amendment and do so for 
the following three reasons:
  One is that our national parks are national treasures and jewels in 
our system out there in America today. And just as they are places 
where our families enjoy bonding experiences and places that we went 
with our families as young people, now we are taking our families to 
the different national parks and Forest Service lands and visiting our 
national treasures and jewels across America.
  These are important to us for many reasons, and they are currently 
under great stress and great pressure externally for environmental 
reasons, internally with a host of different problems that are caused, 
quite frankly, by some lack of resources. So these demonstration fees 
not only support the parks and the national treasures that they serve 
for us as environmental treasures and places for families to visit 
together, but they also help us address huge problems that we are 
undergoing at our national parks.
  For instance, the Shenandoah National Park, not far from here, an 
hour and 20 minutes, it is undergoing internal stress, it is undergoing 
external stress from acid rain, from the PH content in some of the 
brooks and streams that are polluting and killing fish, and we do not 
have enough resources to address this right away. Well, the 
demonstration fees provide a way with this lack of resources to provide 
the money to address these things right away.
  And, thirdly, besides families, besides the stress, the demonstration 
fees keep 83 percent of the money right there in the local park. They 
do not ship the money off to Washington, D.C., or back to the national 
treasury. That money is preserved right there at that park where they 
can immediately apply it to local concerns, to those concerns 
indigenous to that park system and address it in an expeditious way, 
keeping the taxpayers' dollars from that local park, from that State, 
from that region in that local park.
  So I think that this amendment, while the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) is trying to correct some problems I think with some 
frustrations that he has encountered personally in Oregon, I think we 
should give this program some time to work. And I think to make sure 
the program works in these national parks throughout the country that 
so many people are visiting today and which are at historic levels of 
visitation and tourism in these parks and that are undergoing huge 
problems of stress, with lots of pollution problems, with lots of 
traffic problems, we need to be creative and original. This 
demonstration fee is an original way to do that, with the people that 
are coming into the parks to use the parks putting that money right in 
that park to immediately address local concerns.
  I think it makes a lot of sense to continue this program, and I would 
hope that we would defeat this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's position, but 
he has used the word ``parks'' at least 50 times. This does not apply 
to the parks, and it does not apply to developed areas on the Forest 
Service or BLM.
  Mr. ROEMER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say this 
confuses the issue. The gentleman is trying to apply this to the Forest 
Service. He has had some individual frustrations with it in Oregon. We 
are doing this not only in the Forest Service but at the national parks 
as well.
  It is working fairly well, very well in most places. We need to give 
it the opportunity to work. The parks vitally need the resources here, 
and I would encourage my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just read the gentleman's amendment again, 
and it says, ``None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
available by this Act may be used to carry out, or to pay the salaries 
of personnel of the Forest Service who carry out the recreational fee 
demonstration program.''
  Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) will continue 
to yield, that is amendment No. 2. We are doing No. 1.
  Mr. DICKS. I am reading from No. 1. It does not say anything about 
undeveloped areas. The gentleman said this several times, but if we 
have No. 1 here, it does not say that. It says ``anything'' on the 
Forest Service.
  The point I am trying to make is that the Forest Service provides 
more recreational opportunity than the Park Service.
  Mr. ROEMER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say I 
support the demonstration fees in the Forest Service and the national 
parks and urge defeat of the underlying amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?

[[Page 15982]]




           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Farr of California

  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 3.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Farr of California:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. _. None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to authorize, permit, administer, or promote the use of 
     any jawed leghold trap or neck snare in any unit of the 
     National Wildlife Refuge System except for research, 
     subsistence, conservation, or facilities protection.

  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which 
affects the national wildlife refuges. These are set aside by Congress 
as special habitats for wildlife conservation; and, since 1903, when 
President Theodore Roosevelt first established one to protect wildlife, 
we have set aside 517 wildlife conservation refuges. These are areas 
that are part of our national heritage where people go to see wildlife.
  In some cases, we even allow regulated hunting on certain refuges, 
but nobody has been aware that we allow commercial and recreational 
trapping to occur. Look at these photos. A Golden Eagle and a Red Fox. 
Does this look like recreational activity that our wildlife refuges tax 
dollars should go to? I do not think so.
  The American people have said no to trapping or using steel-jawed 
traps. According to a May, 1999, poll, 84 percent of Americans oppose 
the use of steel-jawed traps in national wildlife refuges, and yet we 
allow them to occur. Eighty-eight countries have banned them 
altogether. Four States, Arizona, California, Colorado and 
Massachusetts, have totally banned the use, but the only way we can ban 
the use of steel-jawed traps and neck snares on Federal lands is for 
Congress to pass an act.
  Now, the underlying bill is a great bill, and the chairman of the 
committee and the ranking member have done a tremendous job, and this 
amendment in no way reflects on that. This is an amendment that only 
sets a prohibition on using steel-jawed traps and neck snares for 
commercial and hunting purposes. Let me repeat that again. It only 
prohibits this cruel and inhumane use of this trap to painfully kill 
animals for profit.
  Imagine using steel-jawed traps for recreational hunting. That does 
not fit with me at all. Using this device to hunt would be like using 
land mines to hunt. It makes no sense, which is probably why 
recreational trapping is already banned in 446 of the 517 national 
wildlife refuges in this country.
  The amendment does not stop trapping. It allows trapping. It merely 
bans two devices. It bans the steel-jawed traps for commercial purposes 
and neck snares. Trappers can use other devices. They can still trap 
with Conibear traps, with foot-snare traps, with box traps, with cage 
traps. So I ask Members of this august body to join me in stopping the 
recreational torture in our national wildlife refuges. Please vote for 
this amendment which is very narrowly drafted.
  Just three years ago, Sidney Yates, the distinguished and former 
long-serving chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, 
expressed concerns about the use of steel-jawed leghold traps on 
National Wildlife Refuges. A long time opponent of the use of these 
traps and cosponsor of legislation to bar their use, former 
Representative Yates was instrumental in securing report language, with 
the consent of the distinguished chairman of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Regula, in the FY 1997 Interior 
Appropriations measure, requesting that the Fish and Wildlife Service 
create a task force to examine the humaneness of the leghold trap and 
assess the prevalence of trapping on refuge lands and waters.
  Regrettably, the Service did not follow through on several of 
Congress's directives expressed in the report language. To my 
knowledge, there was no task force created and no assessment of the 
humaneness of this barbaric and indiscriminate trap, which has been 
outlawed throughout he world because it is so cruel. Nonetheless, the 
Service did send questionnaires to managers of nearly 500 refuges and 
queried them on the extent of trapping activity.
  The report noted that there were approximately 467 trapping programs 
on 280 refuges; thus, more than half of the refuges had some form of 
trapping.
  Trapping on refuges occurs for a number of reasons--for predator 
control to conserve endangered species or waterfowl, for facilities 
protection, for commercial fur trapping, for recreation, for 
subsistence, and for other purposes. In conducting these programs, 
trappers use a wide variety of traps, from box and cage live traps to 
killing traps such as steel jawed traps, neck and foot snares, and 
Conibear traps.
  According to the report ``[e]ighty-five percent of the mammal 
trapping programs on refuges were conducted primarily for wildlife and 
facilities management reasons. The remaining 15% occurred primarily to 
provide recreational, commercial, or subsistence opportunities to the 
public.'' The Farr amendment would not have an impact on wildlife and 
facilities management programs, subsistence programs or research 
programs. Thus, the amendment would affect less than 15% of the 
trapping programs on the refuges. It is a narrowly crafted amendment to 
combat an egregious commercial abuse of the refuge system. It does not 
ban trapping, so critics who claim this is a purely anti-trapping 
amendment would be overstating their case.
  It is extraordinarily incongruous to allow the commercial and 
recreational killing or our wildlife with barbaric traps on lands 
called ``refuges.'' Surely, they cannot honestly be called refuges for 
wildlife if wildlife are killed by these means.
  Americans do now want their tax dollars used to administer trapping 
programs that feature steel jawed devices and neck snares. My amendment 
seeks to stop the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from misusing its 
funds for these purposes.
  The amendment will pose no threat to wildlife and no difficulty to 
wildlife managers. These traps have been banned in 88 countries 
throughout the world; surely these countries cope with their occasional 
wildlife conflicts without resorting to the use of steel traps. What's 
more, a large number of states, including states with numerous wildlife 
refuges, like my own state of California, bar the use of these traps.
  July last year, I was proud to support a ballot measure that was 
overwhelmingly adopted by California voters that barred the use of 
leghold traps, except in cases of public health or safety or the 
protection of endangered species. This amendment carried in almost all 
parts of the state, as have similar ballot initiatives in Arizona, 
Colorado, and Massachusetts. Other major refuge states, such as Florida 
and New Jersey, have also banned the leghold traps. Wildlife living on 
National Refuges in these states are not victimized by steel traps.
  The steel jawed leghold trap has been banned in so many jurisdictions 
because it is inhumane and indiscriminate. It has been declared 
inhumane by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the World 
Veterinary Organization, the American Animal Hospital Association, and 
The Humane Society of the United States. These traps are designed to 
slam closed and grip tightly an animals' leg or other body part. 
Lacerations, broken bones, joint dislocations and gangrene can result. 
Additional injuries result as the animal struggles to free himself, 
sometimes twisting or chewing off a leg or breaking teeth from gnawing 
at the metal jaws. Trapped animals can suffer from thirst and 
starvation and from exposure to the elements or predators. An animal 
may be in a trap for several days before a trapper checks it--with the 
interminable period in the trap severely compounding the animal's 
misery.
  The steel jawed leghold trap is indiscriminate. Any animal unlucky 
enough to stumble across a trap will be victimized by it. In addition 
to catching ``target'' animals, traps catch non-target, or trash, 
animals, such as family pets, eagles, and other protected species.
  National Wildlife Refuges should not allow commercial and 
recreational trapping with inhumane traps. Refuges are the only 
category of lands specifically set aside for the protection and benefit 
of wildlife. It is unacceptable that there is recreational and 
commercial killing of wildlife on refuges with inhumane traps.
  A May 1999 poll conducted by Peter Hart Research of a national sample 
of 1100 Americans revealed that 84 percent of respondents oppose the 
use of steel-jawed leghold traps on national wildlife refuges.
  Please support this amendment and restore compassion and fiscal 
responsibility to our National Wildlife Refuge System.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I would like to commend the gentleman from California for 
offering this important amendment.

[[Page 15983]]

  As the gentleman has already very clearly stated, this amendment 
simply says that if someone is within the boundaries of a national 
wildlife refuge they cannot use steel-jawed traps or neck snares for 
the purpose of catching animals. Wildlife refuges were created for the 
express purpose of benefiting and protecting animals, and it seems 
quite to the contrary that we allow in our national wildlife refuges 
this type of activity that is so inhumane.
  As the gentleman stated, we have 517 national wildlife refuges, and 
already the decision has been made that they would allow steel traps 
and neck snares in only 71 of those, and 88 countries around the world 
have already outlawed steel-jawed traps and neck snares. Hunters, with 
their rifles and their shotguns and with their clever stalking and with 
their intellect and with their thinking ability, already have an 
advantage over animals, so why do they need to use these kinds of 
devices and particularly within a wildlife refuge?
  They can be used elsewhere. But remembering that the purpose of the 
refuge was to protect animals, to benefit animals, and now to allow 
these devices to be used for commercial and recreational purposes seems 
to be not the right policy. '
  As the gentleman from California aptly stated, we can still use these 
devices for research, for subsistence, for conservation, or for a 
facility's protection. But I think it is a great amendment, and I would 
urge everyone in this body to support this amendment.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment. These steel-jawed 
traps cause gratuitous cruelty. I do not see the reason why we need 
these when there are a number of other trapping devices that accomplish 
the purposes that are served on wildlife refuges to keep various 
populations under control.
  This amendment only applies to commercial trapping.
  I think it is an appropriate amendment. I think we ought to pass it. 
I would be surprised if we could come up with substantive arguments 
against it. But I would not be surprised if certain of our colleagues 
do oppose it, because they seem to oppose any attempt to protect our 
environment or to respect the other innocent beings who attempt to 
inhabit it.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me point out that in the State of Utah there is the 
Bear River Refuge. It is one of the oldest in America. It was founded 
in 1928. Literally thousands and thousands of acres. It is called a 
``duck factory'' by a lot of people. Mallards, pintails, gadwalls, you 
name it. Teal all over the place, Canadian Honkers like my colleagues 
cannot believe, literally millions of them. There are all kinds of 
shore birds. There is all kinds of interesting things that go through 
there.
  People up there tell me that three red foxes can probably kill 500 
birds in about 2 weeks' time. And they normally get them when they are 
nesting. They go in and they break the eggs; they kill the young. And 
so we work for years to try to establish waterfowl. It does take water. 
It does take habitat. But somebody has to take care of the predators. 
As we talk to the people who are in this business, they say this is the 
effective way to do it.
  Now, what are we talking about? We are talking about a fox. We are 
talking about a coyote. We are talking about muskrats. We are talking 
about these predators that are in these areas. If somebody could come 
up with a more humane way to come up with it, then fine, let them come 
up with it.
  But let us get real. This is not Bambi around here. We are not 
talking about things like the white stallion. We are talking about 
things that really wreck things that we are trying to do in producing 
things that are important to us.
  I think there are a lot of things that we could consider, but let us 
get down to the fact, do we want to wipe out these areas for the very 
reason they were created. They were created to perpetuate these things. 
So just a few, an infinitesimal minority of these animals, could ruin 
the whole thing.
  Now, apparently I am not the only one that thinks this way. I have 
something here from the Department of the Interior that opposes 
strongly the amendment from the gentleman of California. Here is a 
letter from the International Association of Fish and Wildlife agencies 
strongly opposing this amendment because they think it will throw the 
whole thing out of balance.
  Sure our hearts go out. No one likes to see a little animal suffer or 
a bird suffer. We can go along with that. But what is a better way?
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I do not 
know if the gentleman read the amendment. Because it makes exception 
for all the purposes the gentleman indicated. It only bans the 
commercial use of steel-jawed traps for recreational hunting. It allows 
all the kinds of management techniques that are necessary to protect 
endangered species and so on.
  The amendment specifically excepts all of those things. It excepts 
research, subsistence, conservation, or facilities protection.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, well, I wish someone 
would explain that. Then maybe we better teach these people to say, 
this one is commercial and this one is recreational. They do not know 
that.
  It is just like hunting is a tool, this is a tool. And maybe that is 
nice to say, but we are going to have all types of these people in 
doing that type of problem.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I stand with the gentleman on this issue. I stand with the trappers 
of my district, the young men who have earned their way through college 
for years trapping responsibly and reliably. I think this is a very 
misguided amendment, and I stand with the gentleman.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
comments of the gentleman. Let me point out to my colleagues that this 
is a very effective way to control a big problem we have got in America 
in many of our areas.
  I would sincerely appreciate a ``no'' vote on the amendment of the 
gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as my good friend from Utah has mentioned, the 
administration is adamantly opposing the amendment and so is the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife.
  But it never ceases to amaze me. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran) has never seen a trap in his life. He has never seen a trap. He 
has never trapped. I am the only licensed trapper in this whole 
Congress, the only person who has ever done any trapping commercially 
and for subsistence.
  I will tell my colleagues what really disturbs me is that they are 
not looking at a management tool. But more than that, my colleagues 
wonder why I am upset about this.
  We have in my State a group of people that have to have trapping for 
their welfare. These are native people that they have surrounded by 
refuge lands. Yes, they say, they can do it for subsistence. But this 
is not for subsistence. This is for a livelihood. And my colleagues are 
going to take it away from them.
  I did not want that refuge, but it was created by this Congress 
around most of the villages of native people in my State.
  What the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is doing is taking the 
poor little guy and squishing him and eliminating his ability to make 
any livelihood at all.
  Now, I am ashamed of the gentleman for not even thinking of that. If 
my

[[Page 15984]]

colleagues want to exclude Alaska, that is their business; but that is 
what should have been done. But they are hurting my people.
  I again say I am the only trapper that has done this professionally. 
I have never hurt an animal. The trap works efficiently, as the 
Department of the Interior says it does. It is a tool that must be 
used.
  By the way, if my colleague has an antitrap law in his State, he 
cannot trap on Federal lands. If he wants to do it, pass it in his 
State. But do not mess with my State.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, we have passed it in California 
State lands. But remember that this also allows the trappers that the 
gentleman just talked about to use all of the other tools of trapping.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the other 
traps do not work. So the gentleman does not know what he is talking 
about. The other traps do not work. It is impossible for them to 
transport those traps out to the areas they have to trap in, and they 
are not effective.
  The Conibear trap, which my colleague just talked about, is the most 
unselective trap of all. If one is a good trapper, they can set these 
traps to where they catch what they are seeking. They can do that. The 
Conibear catches anything and everything that touches it. That is what 
the gentleman does not understand.
  The leghold trap is not the most humane trap. The Conibear trap is a 
killer and it kills everything that steps into it. Not a leghold trap. 
If they are after mink they use one. If they are after a little larger, 
one and a half. It goes right on up. And they set them appropriately 
for the species they are trying to catch.
  This is a bad amendment. Like I said, the administration, every Fish 
and Wildlife person involved is against it. This amendment should be 
defeated, if not for good sound wisdom and science, but for the poor 
people of my State. Go ahead and take away their livelihoods. Feel 
proud of yourselves. Eliminate their chances. If it makes my colleagues 
feel good, then go right ahead and do it. But remember, they will have 
that on their conscience, especially when any scientist or any 
biologist will tell them that the leghold trap is the proper method to 
be used.
  I think the gentleman should reconsider his amendment, and I urge the 
defeat of his amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not a trapper so I do not preface my comments with 
that fact. However, I do believe that this Farr amendment deserves to 
be passed. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for 
bringing it to the floor.
  What it does is it seeks to bar the use of Federal funds to 
administer or promote the use of steel-jawed, leghold traps, or neck 
snares for commerce or recreation on any unit of the National Wildlife 
Refuge System.
  Now, speaking of endorsements, I have heard from the American 
Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital 
Association, the World Veterinary Association; and they all agree that 
steel-jawed leghold traps are inhumane.
  They are designed to slam violently shut on a body part of the 
animal, usually breaking bones or dislocating joints. An animal can 
suffer for days while exposed to weather, starvation, and predators. 
Animals who are victimized by these traps are often family pets, 
eagles, and other protected species.
  These traps have been condemned throughout the world community, with 
88 nations banning them, including the European Union. California, 
Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, and New Jersey have also 
banned leghold traps. There are dozens of wildlife refuges in these 
States that have suffered no adverse impact from banning recreational 
and commercial killing of wildlife.
  Eighty-five percent of the mammal trapping programs on refuges are 
conducted primarily for wildlife and facilities management reasons. The 
Farr amendment would not have an impact on the wildlife and facilities 
management program or the subsistence programs on the refuges. It is a 
narrowly crafted amendment to combat an egregious commercial abuse of 
the system which was designed to provide sanctuaries for wildlife.
  The pain and suffering caused by steel-jawed leghold traps are 
incalculable. I think it is irresponsible to continue barbaric 
practices with so many less cruel methods of trapping for capturing 
wild animals that are available to us today. Let us look for those.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Farr amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her for her statement and wish to 
associate myself with her remarks.
  As she quite properly points out, this has very, very limited impact 
on the total amount of trapping that takes place on the refuges.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the Farr amendment to H.R. 2466, an effective compromise that will 
prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for the inhumane use of steel-jawed 
leghold traps for recreational or commercial purposes on national 
wildlife refuges. I thank Congressman Farr for bringing this amendment 
to the floor.
  The Farr amendment is specifically tailored to put an end to 
recreational and commercial trapping using steel-jawed leghold traps, 
which occurs on approximately 15 percent of our national refuges. 
Trapping programs used for animal and facilities management would not 
be affected by this bill. It is not an aimless, arbitrary attack on our 
American trappers, but an effort to protect animals where they should 
be protected, on our national wildlife refuges.
  The bottom line is that steel traps are inhumane. Already banned in 
88 counties in the United States and nearly 90 countries around the 
world, steel traps result in serious and debilitating injuries to 
animals that can often lead to painful and misery-filled deaths. 
Moreover, the traps are indiscriminate, and thereby will harm any 
animal that falls in its path. Trappers will often catch animals that 
they were not even intending to capture, many of whom are endangered 
and need our protection.
  It is time that we address this issue and take the initiative to 
prevent recreational and commercial trapping of wildlife on our 
national refuges using steel-jawed leghold traps.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for the protection of our wildlife 
on our national refuges and support the Farr amendment to the Interior 
appropriations bill.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Farr 
amendment. This narrowly crafted, common-sense amendment would improve 
a bill that I believe is good.
  As the sponsor of H.R. 1581, a bill that would outlaw the overall use 
of steel-jawed leghold traps in the United States, I have been trying 
to rid this country of these barbaric traps. Steel-jawed leghold traps 
slam with bone-crushing force upon their victims. Even worse, these 
devices are completely indiscriminate. Like land mines, they make a 
victim of any animal that happens upon them, threatening pets, 
endangered species, other non-target animals and even small children. 
Steel-jawed leghold traps and neck snares have been condemned as 
inhumane by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the 
American Animal Hospital Association.
  Because of these dangers--and the existence of less cruel trapping 
alternatives, as witnessed by the non-lethal trapping of the Cherry 
Blossom beavers here in Washington--eighty-eight countries have already 
outlawed steel-jawed leghold traps.
  The National Wildlife Refuge system, launched in 1903, was created to 
combat the effects of the commercial killing of wildlife. It seems 
reasonable that, on the one federal land system created with the 
primary purpose of protecting and conserving wildlife, we prohibit the 
use of these inhumane traps.
  The Farr amendment does not bar the expenditure of funds to conduct 
trapping programs to protect endangered species, to manage other 
wildlife populations, or to protect facilities. This amendment simply 
bars two inhumane and indiscriminate traps when they are used for 
commercial profit or recreation on the one federal wildlife refuge 
designed to protect and conserve wildlife.

[[Page 15985]]

  The time has come for the United States to follow the lead of other 
industrialized nations. Three out of four Americans believe these traps 
should be prohibited. The appropriation committee has crafted a good 
bill. Let us pass this amendment and make it even better. I hope you 
will join us and support this commonsense, humane amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Farr 
amendment to prohibit the use of steel-jawed leghold traps or neck 
snares on National Wildlife Refuges for purposes of commerce or 
recreation.
  The National Wildlife Refuge System was established in 1903. The 
refuges were meant to be sanctuaries to combat the effects of 
commercial killing of wildlife and provide an environment where 
wildlife could be protected and conserved.
  Today, the refuge system encompasses 92 million acres in all 50 
states, including the Stuart B. McKinney Wildlife Refuge in my district 
in Connecticut.
  According to a 1997 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey, of the 517 
National Wildlife Refuge units in the United States, 280 allow trapping 
of animals and 140 of those allow the use of steel-jawed leghold traps.
  While some trapping may be necessary for activities such as predator 
control for threatened and endangered species protection, facilities 
protection, and disease control and population management, 15 percent 
of the trapping is used for recreation and commercial profit.
  Steel-jawed leghold traps do not discriminate against their victims. 
These devices capture protected wildlife species as well as family 
pets.
  Animals caught in leghold traps suffer crushed bones, and often 
resort to twisting off a limb to escape the horrible pain.
   Mr. Chairman, the banning of leghold traps has worldwide support. 
Leghold traps have been banned in over 80 countries and banned or 
severely restricted in six states. Groups such as the American 
Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital 
Association, Humane Society of the United States, and the World 
Veterinary Association support the banning of leghold traps.
  It is important to note Mr. Farr's amendment does not prohibit other 
forms of trapping, or even the use of steel-jawed leghold traps and 
neck snares for purposes such as endangered species protection.
  Let's demonstrate our dedication to protecting animals on wildlife 
refuges by supporting this important amendment designed to end animal 
cruelty on our national wildlife refuges.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:
       Sec.   . The amount otherwise provided by this Act for 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE--Forest Service--Forest and 
     Rangeland Research'' is hereby reduced by $16,929,000.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order until I have a 
chance to see the amendment. I have not had a chance to see the 
amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I propose is designed 
to save approximately $17 million presently being wasted in type of 
research programs conducted by the Forest Service of a nature that can 
only be described as worthy of the proverbial golden fleece award.
  The amendment reduces the appropriation for forest and range land 
research by $16.9 million, which is a cut of $10 million from last 
year's level and reduces the account to the Senate level.
  In explaining the decision to reduce the account by the $10 million, 
the Senate committee stated as follows: ``The committee is extremely 
concerned that the research program has lost its focus on what should 
be its primary mission, forest health and productivity. As it did last 
year, the committee directs the Agency to increase its emphasis on 
forest and range land productivity by implementing a reduction of $10 
million in programs not directly related to enhancing forest and range 
land productivity.'' I emphasize ``not related to enhancing forest and 
range land productivity.''
  That is the charge of the Forest Service for the forest and range 
land research.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues what they have been doing for the last 
several years with the money that we appropriate that is designed, once 
again, to go to enhancing forest and range land productivity.

                              {time}  2100

  Let me cite an example. Theoretical Perspectives of Ethnicity and 
Outdoor Recreation: A Review and Synthesis of African-American and 
European-American Participation.
  Accounting for ethnicity in recreation demand: a flexible count data 
approach.
  I ask my colleagues, what has this got to do with enhancing forest 
and rangeland productivity?
  Another one. Research Emphasis for the Pacific Southwest Research 
Station: ``Social Aspects of Natural Research Management including 
cultural diversity, customer service, communication and social 
justice.''
  I ask my colleagues, what has this got to do with enhancing forest 
and rangeland productivity?
  Another, the analytic hierarchy process and participatory decision-
making: ``A systematic, explicit, rigorous and robust mechanism for 
eliciting and quantifying subjective judgments.''
  I ask my colleagues, what has this got to do with enhancing forest 
and rangeland productivity?
  There are a number of programs, of course, that are operated, a 
number of research programs operated by the forest and rangeland 
research operation that are of great quality. I point out, for example, 
the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. Programs like this will be 
provided for.
  Mr. Chairman, this is almost a $200 million program. The fact that we 
are reducing it by $16 million in no way inhibits the ability of the 
Forest Service to accomplish its major and primary goal, that goal 
being to enhance forest and rangeland productivity. I suggest to 
Members that the rest of this stuff is pure junk. It is poppycock. We 
cannot waste dollars like this in programs like this anymore.
  I can go on. Here is another one. Voices from Southern Forests: 
``Examines the changing social, economic, attitudinal and other voices 
of southerners and speculates about the meaning these changing voices 
might have on the future of forest wildlife management in the South.''
  Again, Mr. Chairman, what has this got to do with enhancing forest 
and rangeland productivity?
  Once again, this is not my individual idea and the amount of money is 
not mine alone. It is going back to the Senate committee mark. This was 
the original appropriation by the Senate committee, reducing it by $10 
million and then the House increased it by $6.9 million, so we are 
taking it down a total of $16.9 million.
  I suggest that this is only appropriate considering what the charge 
of the Forest Service is in this particular program. I ask for my 
colleagues' support.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Washington insist on his point 
of order?
  Mr. DICKS. No, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we put great emphasis on in our 
committee is forest health. We have 200 million acres of forests, 156 
national forests, almost 800 million visitor days, and the health of 
our national forests have a profound impact on the health of our 
private forests, which, of course, is also millions of acres. We have 
cut back substantially in this program. In spite of inflation, it is 40 
percent less than it was 10 years ago. But I think it would be penny 
wise and pound foolish to cut research and to eliminate scientists. We 
have more and more problems because of the shrinking world. Diseases 
are brought in. Let me cite

[[Page 15986]]

one, Dutch elm disease. Twenty years ago we had magnificent elm trees 
in our cities that lined the boulevards. Today most of them are gone. 
Why? Because the Dutch elm disease was brought into this country on 
imported lumber and it has just decimated the elm forests of our 
country. That is just one example. There are many. Another is gypsy 
moths. There is a constant proliferation of diseases and problems that 
threaten the national forests as well as the private forests. We have 
cut back, as I mentioned earlier, but I think it would be unwise to 
take another cut on something that is so vitally important to this 
great natural resource. We have made every emphasis in our bill to 
encourage good management and to ensure that the dollars are used 
carefully.
  I know the gentleman cited a number of sort of esoteric titles. Some 
of this involved recreation symposiums, ideas of how to better provide 
visitor services, and perhaps it was a poor choice of words in 
describing these programs, and I do not know that all of them are 
necessarily good. We have said to the Forest Service people, make the 
dollars take care of the health of our forests, because they are a 
priceless resource of this Nation. It not only goes to the question of 
private forests, it goes to the question of habitat, it goes to the 
question of our streams, the fish, because if you have diseases in the 
forests, it is going to get into the water system and on downstream. 
For that matter, a lot of water supply in this country starts in our 
national forests. So this has a reach much greater than just the 
forests themselves.
  I would think it would be a very unwise move. To say what the other 
body has done is not a very compelling reason to me to make a change, 
because I would be reluctant to follow the other body's decision on 
every part of a bill. In the judgment of our committee, we put a heavy 
emphasis on maintaining healthy forests, healthy habitat for wildlife, 
healthy streams, good water quality, provide assistance to some of the 
private forests, avoid the sort of things that impact heavily on them.
  I would urge the committee members to vote ``no'' on this amendment 
and protect the health of our 200 million acres of priceless assets in 
the form of the national forests.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I would point 
out that this year we cut $30,271,000 from the administration's 
request. We barely allowed a cost of living increase for this important 
research work. The gentleman from Ohio has given a very comprehensive 
and accurate description of how this money is used. I would also point 
out that work is done with our State foresters, also with our 
universities across this country to deal with all of these research 
issues that affect the ecosystem, the ecology of these forests. Frankly 
I think a lot of people would think with an asset of this importance to 
the country, that maybe we are not doing enough in terms of good 
scientific research on our national forests.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment so that we can 
move on and move towards final passage.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I do not doubt the chairman and the ranking member's words that this 
is an important part of our forest research and a tremendous natural 
resource, but I think the point that needs to be made is that if there 
are so many Federal dollars in this program that they can spend 
research as outlined by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) that 
there is obviously way too much money there. He did not outline all of 
the what I would consider programs which are just a drop in the bucket 
that have been research that have nothing to do with rangeland or our 
forests.
  Let me give my colleagues another one. Since I am from the South, I 
kind of like this one. Here is one study that they did, Voices From 
Southern Forests, ``Examines the changing social, economic, 
attitudinal, and other voices of southerners and speculates about the 
meaning these changing voices might have on the future of forest 
wildlife management in the South.''
  I know that is important to the researcher who did that, but I do not 
think that does anything to enhance the quality of our forests, to 
enhance the productivity of our forests or enhance our ability to 
direct money to be spent in a proper way.
  I am not critical of the committee as they look at this. I know they 
cannot be on top of everything. But I would doubt that the chairman and 
ranking member, if they knew these were the studies that this committee 
paid for last year, would be happy to give this agency a $7 million 
increase.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. We will invite the gentleman to the hearing next year, 
because, believe me, we will raise these issues; probably before that. 
I hope some of the folks in the Forest Service are listening to this 
debate tonight and recognize that some of these things do not make 
sense. But the basic program is very sound.
  Mr. COBURN. To the chairman, I would agree. I have no criticism of 
the basic program. We spent $197 million on this last year. You have 
brought it to almost $204 million. To me, what it says is we are 
rewarding this kind of incompetence. Every dollar that this program 
does not spend to help forests get better is a dollar that our 
grandchildren are going to pay back in terms of the Social Security 
obligation that we have. I would appreciate it if the chairman and 
ranking member would at least consider this reduction, not because 
maybe it is necessary in their judgment but it might send a message to 
the people that are authorizing this kind of garbage with our children 
and grandchildren's money that maybe they should not do it next year 
and when they come to you next year, they can have this increase that 
you have outlined for them and they will have learned that you mean 
business about the money that they spend for our future generations.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, what we have tried 
to address is just the fixed costs that they have. I appreciate that 
the gentleman brings these things to our attention. I think it is 
probably a very small part of the budget, but we are going to have some 
discussion on the issue.
  But he mentions our children and grandchildren. We want to leave them 
healthy forests. Because more and more of the forests are a very 
important part of the water supply system of this Nation. That is our 
real concern, the health of the forests.
  Mr. COBURN. I agree. I thank the gentleman.
  I would just note, this one program spends a dollar per acre for 
every acre of land that we own, of our forestland. I am not saying that 
is too much, but it is too much when it is spent this way. I appreciate 
the gentleman's time and the hard work that he does.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the gentleman from Colorado's 
amendment here. I sit on the authorizing committee for the Forest 
Service. It is unbelievably mismanaged. It is horrendous in any number 
of areas. Yes, we need scientific research, but this is hardly 
scientific research, what the gentleman from Colorado so courageously 
proposes to delete. I understand the Senate has already done this. 
These absurd, wasteful studies, it makes you really wonder if this is 
not just the tip of the iceberg and that beneath this tip there is 
nine-tenths more that could be delved into. It really makes you wonder. 
Theoretical Perspectives of Ethnicity and Outdoor Recreation; Research 
Emphasis for the Pacific Southwest Research Station.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, just to enlighten the Members of the House, 
we went on their web site this morning, and in 30 minutes these are a 
list of some of the programs we found. If we

[[Page 15987]]

went through the whole web site, which would take about 2 days, I think 
you can find the depth of the problem. I appreciate the gentleman 
allowing me the time to explain that.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I appreciate the gentleman raising these issues.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, it was mentioned by the other side that 
someone on the other side said, we are not doing enough in terms of 
good scientific research. I agree. I absolutely agree. We are 
apparently are not doing enough in terms of good, scientific research 
and one reason is because we are doing this junk. This is not in 
anybody's estimation good scientific research, especially for the 
purpose stated for this particular program. I wish there was a better 
way. I truly wish there was a better way of getting the attention of 
the bureaucrats in this department or any department rather than having 
to cut their budget in order to make them pay attention to what it is 
we want. We tried this last year. They completely ignored it. This is 
the only option we have. Cut the budget, it gets their attention.
  I ask my colleagues for support of this amendment.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do not think anybody 
has to tell me what good work the Forest Service can do and how 
important it is, the work that they are doing across the country right 
now.
  Unfortunately what the gentleman from Colorado points out is that 
when we do not have the kind of oversight we should over their 
spending, we end up with programs like this. Obviously the Forest 
Service must think they have too much money or else they would not 
spend money on programs like this. Obviously they think that there is 
so much money coming into their agency that it is important to set 
aside money to do programs like this.

                              {time}  2115

  Now, if all they were doing was setting aside money for scientific 
research, I do not believe this amendment would be necessary. I do not 
believe that we would be debating this at this time. But because they 
feel like they have so much money to spend, that they have got extra 
money to spend on crazy programs that make absolutely no sense, and I 
do not think that there is a Member of Congress, I do not think there 
is anyone on the authorizing committee or the Committee on 
Appropriations that can look at these programs and say that is how we 
ought to be spending our scarce tax dollars and our even more scarce 
resources going to the Forest Service.
  This is outrageous that they would even consider spending money on 
these programs.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would just observe, Mr. Chairman, we had a very 
interesting oversight hearing in the committee of the gentlewoman from 
Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) about the devastating threat of catastrophic 
forest fires. Do my colleagues know the Forest Service still does not 
have a plan despite 9 years of hearings on this topic. When this threat 
has been mentioned, they still to this day do not have a plan to fight 
catastrophic forest fires, and yet we have time and money to spend on 
nonsense like this.
  It is outrageous, Mr. Chairman. This amendment should be supported, 
and we should take further actions down the road.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, if the accusations that have been made here this 
evening are accurate, I would support them. I do not know that they 
are, I do not know that they have ample proof of that. I do know I have 
visited one of these laboratories in my district in the Allegheny 
National Forest, and I have always been impressed with the kind of work 
they do.
  Our forests in the recent years have had one insect infestation after 
another, and they were the ones that came up with the program of how to 
save our forests. I think we all would have wished we had this kind of 
research back when our chestnut was attacked by the chestnut blight 
years ago. In our part of the country chestnut was the finest wood 
there was. It was a wood product that insects did not like, it was a 
great framing lumber. One could put it in the ground, it would not rot. 
It had so many qualities, and a blight came through. We did not have 
the kind of research ability then to fight that, and we lost the 
chestnut.
  A few years ago with the oak leaf roller cane they thought we were 
going lose the oak, but we found a remedy. When the gypsy moth came, we 
thought we were going to lose the oak because that was their prime 
wood, and we found a remedy to that. The cherry scallop. We have a very 
diverse forest in this country.
  In the west we have a soft wood forest, in the east we have a 
hardwood forest, and it varies in New England from where I live in the 
mid Atlantic States to the south. Even though the same species are 
there, the forest composition is different.
  This kind of research has also provided us with wood products, 
oriented fiberboard, the fancy laminated products that we use today, 
the wooden bridges with laminated wood that are using low quality wood 
to build bridges.
  I think this is an issue that we need a lot more information on 
before we decide to cut their budget. This program was just 
reauthorized last year. I urge further review and study if it is proven 
that they are wasting money as stated.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have just handed to the 
gentleman's staff exact copies from the web site of this agency that 
without a doubt proves they are doing that. So based on the gentleman's 
statement, I would expect his support for this amendment because we 
took it off their web site today.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure web site 
information is going to prove to us what was studied, how much was 
spent and whether it was worthwhile or not. I think this is an issue 
that ought to be researched, it is one that ought to be taken 
seriously, but to cut their budget this amount tonight I think is 
throwing the baby out with the bath water and would be a mistake.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was not prepared to speak on this. I am surprised the 
amendment is here. But it seems to me that many of my colleagues who 
have criticized the forest policy with regards to fire suppression, 
with regards to forest health, are mistaken in attacking a budget which 
in fact emphasizes a certain amount of research. If anything, I think 
that the Forest Service and some of our land managers spend too little 
money in terms of research, and while there is some criticism of 
cultural research and the impact of people and recreation on lands, I 
think that that is very important because there is an increasing use of 
our lands by the tens of millions of visitor days each year in fact on 
the Forest Service lands as well as on of course other public, domain 
lands, in terms of people using it, and I think for us to suggest that 
we have all the answers with regards that is sorely mistaken.
  With regards to fire prevention, the prescription types of burns, the 
impact of it in terms of vegetation; I mean there are a myriad of 
problems that we do not have the answers to with regards to landscape 
management. Is use of integrated control in terms of pests, how to 
manage those forests, the hydrology of those forests, and of course 
this goes, I think, to some of the special forests that we have. In 
fact, as a member of the Committee on Resources, I have had the 
opportunity to visit some of our research stations. We have one in the 
Midwest on the University of Minnesota, St. Paul campus, which we are 
very proud of in terms of

[[Page 15988]]

its work with urban forestry, the discoveries recently that have been 
made with regards to Dutch elm disease and the pseudomycetes and other 
types of fungi that are infecting the entire urban forest and the 
problems that are associated with white pine blister rust, the chestnut 
blight. There is ongoing studies in terms of trying to develop species, 
the Forest Service working in conjunction, frankly, with our 
universities, working with the academic community on a global basis. In 
Puerto Rico we have one of the finest tropical forest research stations 
in the world.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman for his remarks and associate myself with his remarks. This 
research is, in fact, very important. If somebody does not like the 
title of some particular research grant, they have now decided they 
just going to cut it. As my colleagues know, if they did not go out and 
talk to the people in the south about the forests and how they were 
going to manage it and how they were going to deal with it, somebody 
would be in here blistering the Forest Service's rear end saying, 
``You're changing policy without talking to the people in the area.''
  We are having big deliberations in the State of California about the 
future of the Sierra Nevada, all kinds of parties are involved in this 
because those forests are becoming less and less timber resources and 
more and more recreational assets for the 30 million people in the 
State of California. Do my colleagues know what? The Forest Service has 
to go out and do that kind of research to see what the people in the 
small communities think, see what the people in the foothills think, 
see what the people in the LA basin think about these resources, about 
the management of that.
  Now this one, I guess they are talking to people in the southern 
United States about the southern forests. But as my colleagues know, it 
is kind of the height of intellectual illiteracy to just decide they do 
not like the title, so we are going to cut this money without any 
investigation as to exactly what is taking place here, and the fact of 
the matter is that many, many of the forests, as the gentleman has 
pointed out, are under serious threat from all kind of diseases and 
what have you, and this research is fundamental to that proposition in 
trying to keep the productivity of the forest up, to try to keep these 
forests surviving into the future so people can use them for multiple 
uses.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I would just 
reiterate that the fact is that these dynamic ecosystems, our forests, 
our grasslands, the work that is being done here is fundamental to 
sound decision-making and stewardship of these resources. As I said, in 
fact I think we do far too little research. I think it is enormously 
important to keep in place this corpus of people, this expertise, the 
knowledge base that we are developing, which in fact we share, for 
instance, with our tropical forestry research, we share with Central 
America, with countries in South America. Our Forest Service is, in 
fact, a leader in terms of this type of natural resource information, 
and to come to the floor blatantly and to cut this based on the title 
of some studies because we are evaluating the cultural impact and 
sensitivity in terms of how people use this for recreation I think is 
wrong, and I would hope Members would oppose this amendment. This is a 
bad amendment, and it is the wrong way to go.
  The committee has given this good consideration. The very individuals 
that are concerned about forest health ought to be concerned about 
understanding the consequences of policy and having good information 
upon which to base their judgments.
  Reject this amendment.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. As chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Forestry, I have sat through countless hours of 
hearings on the problems that we are having in our national forests 
from lack of care, and, as I review some of these programs in research 
that the Forest Service has been spending their money on, let me just 
reiterate some of the programs.
  Recreation visitor preferences for and perceptions of outdoor 
recreation setting attributes.
  Now get this though, Mr. Chairman. Attitudes towards roads on the 
national forest: and analysis of the news media? Well, for heaven 
sakes; is that going to bring a healthier forest if we sit down and 
poll and analyze the news media? For heaven sakes.
  As my colleagues know, our Forest Service people used to be able to 
match our mountains not only in their skill, but in their common sense, 
and now we have a Forest Service that analyzes the news media on how to 
manage the forest? Yes, this research does need to be cut.
  And finally, research themes for the Rocky Mountain Research Station: 
Human dimensions including cultural heritage and environmental 
psychology and social interactions.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not going to bring forest health back, and in 
this day when we are fighting over every single last dollar, we 
promised the American people we are going to return a surplus to them, 
we are going to secure Social Security, we are going to do all of these 
great things; to be spending this kind of money on these kinds of 
ridiculous programs really is not what the Forest Service was set up to 
do. This is not a social worker's institution; this is the Forest 
Service, and we need people again who will match our mountains in 
common sense and be able to restore our forests to the forest health 
that we need.
  Our forests are a trust that the American people have placed not only 
in us, as a Congress, but also in the Forest Service, and they have 
abused that trust.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly oppose this amendment. I think the 
gentleman has done us all a good service by pointing out these several 
studies that I think are highly questionable, but he is using a sledge 
hammer to hit at something that I think is probably far less expensive 
and doing so at the expense not only of our national forest, 200 
million acres of land that we are responsible for managing.
  But this information is also utilized by our universities, by our 
extension services to help private landowners. We have more than 10 
million private forest landowners in this country who receive 
assistance from extension services in terms of the advice they get on 
how to fight these various diseases on private land. If we only fight 
these problems on our public lands, we do not solve the problem at all 
because the various blights and so on are obviously indiscriminate, and 
they go on both public and private lands, and this is something that is 
a valuable resource to 10 million taxpayers in this country who utilize 
this research to help preserve private lands that are under a great 
deal of stress because we have reduced the amount of timber harvesting 
on public lands so much that the management of our private lands, and 
this information for those private landowners is vitally important.
  So I would suggest to the gentleman that perhaps the better approach 
would be to find out what these programs cost and introduce an 
amendment that would eliminate just that amount of money. I think the 
message needs to be sent that these wasteful programs he has identified 
are wrong, but we are cutting out far more than that when we cut out 
16.9 million.
  So I am going to oppose the amendment but will work to see that the 
Forest Service gets the message that some of these research studies 
that are being funded that are intended to address real problems in our 
national forest are not being addressed by spending money on some of 
the studies that he cited, and I commend him for his efforts in that 
regard.

[[Page 15989]]



                              {time}  2130

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just rise in support of this amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), because I think if there was 
ever a case such as a terminal illness when it comes to stupidly 
spending money, I think this is the case.
  It is amazing to me, if we look at the Forest Service program, 
basically we have 191 million acres spread over 144 forests throughout 
this country. If we add all that up, basically it is the size of Texas.
  If the gentleman or I were given all the forest lands in Texas, would 
we or would we not be able to make a dime? If the gentleman was given 
all the forest lands in Georgia, in South Carolina, in North Carolina, 
would we or would we not be able to make a dime? Yet the GAO reports 
shows that the Forest Service has lost $2 billion basically over the 
last 6 years. So we have a real terminal problem here with the way that 
money seems to be spent within the Forest Service.
  I think this is just another excellent example of what is being 
spent.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if anybody who is criticizing 
this has read these studies right now.
  Mr. SANFORD. I have one here right now.
  Mr. VENTO. The gentleman is just reading the title of the study. Has 
he read the study?
  Mr. SANFORD. Have I personally read the study? No, but I will tell 
the gentleman what it says: ``Voices from Southern Forests, ``examines 
the changing social, economic, attitudinal, and other voices of 
southerners, and speculates about the meaning these changed voices 
might have on the future of forest wildlife management in the South.''
  That is a wacko theme. Does that study mean much to the gentleman?
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I 
do not know. I would suggest to the gentleman that it is a very long 
statement talking about the impact, the cultural impact in terms of 
attitudes and how they are affecting road construction and management 
of forests.
  The Forest Service is attempting to understand its land management 
role. But not having read the study, I do not know what the use of it 
is or the validity or application, so I would not be up here trying to 
cut $27 million out on the basis of that.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the study that 
I have looked at is the ultimate study, the GAO study that shows the 
Forest Service has lost $2 billion basically between 1992 and 1997; 
that is the real issue, $2 billion.
  Let me add up the board feet we are talking about here. If the 
gentleman was given a $220 billion asset, because again, another GAO 
report showed that if we added up all the forest land, not in the 
recreational assets business, just the linear board feet owned by the 
Forest Service, the National Forest Service across the country, it adds 
up to 1 trillion board feet, which basically equates to about $20 
billion, would we or would we not make money on a $220 billion asset?
  Most people would say if we put $220 billion in the bank, just based 
on interest on that $20 billion, I would make money. I think that is 
the issue we are dealing with right here, rather than spending more 
money on studying the voices of southern forests.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, these are the actual descriptions of the programs we 
were referring to, not just the titles but descriptions. I have read 
them. We will make them available. I assure the gentleman, they give no 
greater degree of surety that any of the things here match what this 
program is supposed to do. I go back to the original purpose of the 
program. It does not make us feel any better reading the descriptions, 
I assure the gentleman.
  One other thing I would like to point out, this is not just simply my 
analysis or our analysis. Originally this was part of what the Senate 
did. They looked at all of this. They went back and told, and this was 
last year, told the Forest Service, look, these are the things we have 
identified as a problem. These are way outside the bounds of what you 
are supposed to be doing. Do not do it anymore.
  The Forest Service ignored it entirely and came back with these kinds 
of studies, and the Senate took the action that I referred to earlier. 
They said, compared to the fiscal 1999 enacted level the committee, the 
Senate committee recommended, it consists of the following changes, a 
decrease of $14.9 million in base funding for the lower priority 
research activities, and increases of $1,130,000 for the harvesting and 
the wood utilization laboratory in Sitka, Alaska, and an increase of $2 
million for forest inventory and analysis.
  So the purpose is to get the money into the good stuff and away from 
the junk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


                      Amendment Offered by Mr. Wu

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wu:
       On page 108, after line 14,
       Insert before the short title the following new section:
       ``Sec.   . Of the amounts provided for in the bill under 
     the heading National Forest System, $196,885,000 shall be for 
     timber sales management, $120,475,000 shall be for wildlife 
     and fisheries habitat management, and $40,165,000 shall be 
     for watershed improvements as authorized by the Multiple Use 
     Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-517).''.

  Mr. WU (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, it is with pleasure that I join my colleague, 
the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) in offering this amendment. I 
would like to thank the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) for their support on this 
amendment, and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their 
hard work in bringing a good appropriations bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, the Wu-Hooley amendment improves a good appropriations 
bill by taking an environmentally sound and fiscally responsible 
approach to preserving our national forests for recreational and 
commercial users. This is truly a win-win proposition, proof that what 
is good for our environment is good for business.
  The Wu-Hooley amendment scales back the timber sales management 
program by $24 billion to the administration-requested level of $196 
million, and redirects the freed-up funds to vitally needed watershed 
improvements and to protect fish and wildlife.
  Restoring forests does not just make outdoor lovers happy, it 
provides a future for resource-based industries. Every year more and 
more species of important forest and aquatic life are listed as 
endangered or threatened. This loss of wildlife jeopardizes both our 
natural resources and our natural resource-based industries.
  The future of the forest products industry, the very future of 
harvesting timber, is dependent on healthy forests, healthy watersheds, 
and healthy

[[Page 15990]]

ecosystems, not degraded to the point where either human water supplies 
or fish and wildlife become so endangered that we must close our 
forests to important commercial activity.
  Unless we take adequate steps now to protect watersheds, fish and 
wildlife, it will be much, much more difficult to harvest timber in the 
future. The Wu-Hooley amendment strikes a balance between current 
timber harvests and restoring fish and preserving wildlife, both for 
their own sake and for the future of timber harvesting. It protects all 
of these valuable natural treasures for the long term.
  The Wu-Hooley amendment is an attempt to address the shortfall of 
funding for watershed and fish and wildlife protections. Communities 
across America and in my State, such as Salem, in the district of the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and Carlton in my district, and 
Lake Oswego near the border between the district of the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and my own get their drinking water from 
watersheds on forest land.
  When I go home in August, I would like to tell parents in Oregon that 
Congress recognizes the importance of safe drinking water and the need 
to restore our forests for their family's health.
  The Wu-Hooley amendment is also an exercise in real fiscal 
discipline. The administration requested $196 million for this line 
item and the committee funded it at $220 million. Meanwhile, efforts 
that are essential to the Pacific Northwest and to America, like 
watershed improvement and fish and other wildlife protection, are being 
neglected. Our amendment scales back timber sales management funding to 
the administration's request.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to exercise fiscal responsibility 
and demonstrate a real commitment to the long-term interests of healthy 
forests and clean drinking water. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on 
the Wu-Hooley amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we spent a lot of time on this bill trying to get a 
balance. We reduced the amount that was committed to forest timber 
sales, but we do not want to go too deeply because a lot of this money 
is important to counties and local school districts. This would reduce 
by $7 million the money that would be received by local government. It 
would reduce by $30 million the receipts that we get from the Forest 
Service. Aside from that, it would reduce the money available to manage 
these forests carefully.
  As has been discussed in earlier amendments, the forests are a 
priceless asset, and it goes far beyond just the trees, it goes to the 
habitat, it goes to the water, it goes to the riparian areas along the 
banks of our streams, and it goes to forest thinning. This would reduce 
the money available for thinning forests.
  Let me tell the Members, if we get a lightning strike on a forest 
that is relatively clean, it may scar but it will not destroy. But if 
we just have a lot of junk on the forest floor because of the lack of 
money to get out the dead and dying trees, we are going to get a hot 
fire that will be very destructive.
  We have reduced the account already. We have reduced the timber 
sales. But I think this goes too far. We have tried to strike a 
balance. We are way down from where it used to be. About 8 years ago we 
allowed 12 billion board feet of harvest. Our bill is down to 3 billion 
board feet. The reality is there will be about 2.5 billion board feet 
harvested.
  As someone said earlier, that puts a lot of pressure on the private 
forests. I think it would be irresponsible to go any more, to cut any 
deeper than we already have cut in the management of this. I strongly 
urge a vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to join the chairman in opposing this amendment. I 
also want to just say that people are saying, why are there not more 
revenues? The reason there are not more revenues is because we have 
dramatically reduced the harvest of timber on the Federal timberlands. 
This Congress has passed the laws that have driven us in that 
direction.
  So I say to my conservative friends who want to know where the money 
is, the money is not there because we have gone from 8 billion board 
feet down to 2.5 billion board feet. That is why there is no money. It 
is pretty clear, we have changed the way these forests are being 
managed. We are managing them more for environmental protection and 
ecological reasons, and for the fish and the water and everything else, 
and on a multiple use basis.
  But believe me, Members may not like what they do in research, but 
there has been a sea change in the way they harvest timber on the 
national forest lands. That is why the money is down.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to recall for our colleagues in connection with 
this amendment that on February 11 of this year, the U.S. Forest 
Service, at the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, announced an 
18-month moratorium on forest road development. That had the immediate 
effect of putting into deep freeze potential harvest sales of 170 to 
260 million board feet of timber on our national forests. That has 
already been in effect.
  In my own district, on the Superior National Forest, there were two 
sales of 3 million board feet and 1.2 million board feet, separate 
sales, that were immediately affected by that timber moratorium. 
Overall, in the last decade, we have gone from 12 million board feet 
harvested on national forests down to 4 billion board feet. That is a 
75 percent reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not need to go any further. We are taking jobs 
away from people. We have lost over 80,000 jobs in forestry in the last 
10 years. In the wake of that, what we have is poorly managed forests. 
We do not have harvesting of diseased timber, that is overmatured 
timber that is right on the edge of becoming diseased and going down 
and being fuel for forest fires.
  The chairman talked about, I thought very wisely and very 
appropriately, about downed trees on the forest floor. Well, we have 
downed trees in northern Minnesota in the wake of the Fourth of July 
storm, not of the century, of a thousand years, a hundred miles an hour 
wind recorded through the Superior National Forest and the boundary 
waters canoe area, and a swath 12 miles wide which leveled 21 million 
trees.

                              {time}  2145

  Twenty-one million trees, many of which were saplings at the time of 
the Civil War, and all of that is now down. Most of it is not touching 
the ground and the air circulating around it. By this fall among the 
hardwoods, the poplars, we are going to have stuff ready to explode in 
a lightning strike. And by this time next year this would be ripe for 
not a burn but an inferno.
  Now, we are not going to be harvesting timber in a wilderness area 
but the areas outside of the wilderness. Yes, big, serious problems. 
This is a badly mistaken amendment. It strikes at the heart of good 
management, of good sense, of good utilization of our national forests. 
We ought not to adopt such an amendment. We ought to, in fact, roll 
back the 18-month forest road moratorium is what we ought to be doing 
here.
  Please, I beg my colleagues in the interest of good common sense 
forestry management to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full time, but let me just read 
from one report concerning our growth in the national forests.
  Tree growth in national forests exceeds current harvest by over 600 
percent. National forests are growing more than 23 billion board feet 
of wood annually while 6 billion board feet die each year from insects, 
disease, fire, and other causes. Less than 3 billion board feet is 
harvested each year.
  Mr. Chairman, that is an important figure. I know if some people went 
into

[[Page 15991]]

some of the schools where the children are not hearing the full story 
but are told that we are cutting 2.5 billion or 3 billion board feet of 
wood in our national forests each year they would probably think that 
is a horrible thing. But they are not told that there is 23 billion 
board feet of new growth each year and less than 3 billion are going to 
be cut.
  In the early 1980s, the Congress passed what was thought of then as 
an environmental law, that we would not exceed cutting 80 percent of 
the new growth in our national forests. Now we are cutting less than 
one-seventh of the new growth in our national forests. We are not even 
cutting half of the amount of wood that is dying in the national 
forests each year.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want to build homes, if we want to have 
newspapers and magazines and every paper product imaginable, we have 
got to cut some trees. If we want to have healthy forests, we have got 
to cut some trees, and this amendment goes to an extreme position. This 
is really a very radical amendment to reduce this any further. And the 
National Association of Home Builders has produced a very strong letter 
against this amendment yesterday.
  I repeat, if we are going to have a good economy, if we are going to 
have the type of life that people want to have and the good standard of 
living that we have, we have got to cut a few trees. We have 
approximately 200 million acres in national forests and 500 million 
acres in private forests. But to go from 23 billion board feet of new 
growth and cut less than 3 billion board feet is getting pretty 
ridiculous.
  Very few people in this Congress have voted for more amendments to 
save money than I have, and I used to vote for amendments like this. 
But this is going too far, and we need to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley) to transfer this money from the Timber Sales Preparation Fund. 
The people opposed to this amendment are acting like this amendment 
would zero it out. There is $197 million left in this fund. But the 
fact is the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) got up earlier 
and talked about what a loser the Forest Service was. We have spent 
$1.2 billion preparing Forest Service sales, and we have gotten $1.8 
billion out of those sales, and only $125 million came into the 
Treasury.
  What this amendment says is that there is a more productive area to 
put the money to use. The fact of the matter is for $125 million we 
have gotten into the Treasury after all of these sales because we ended 
up subsidizing all of these sales and built the roads. The fact of the 
matter is there is a much better place. In the western United States 
two out of three fishermen fish on the Forest Service lands. That is 
$8.5 billion annually to the economy, a billion dollars in my State of 
California alone.
  In fact, with the proper use of these forests, they are huge economic 
engines to local communities and States where people can use them for 
multiple purpose reasons. But the fact of the matter is many of these 
forests are in a shambles in the watersheds and in the way they have 
been treated in the past. We can go into southern Oregon and northern 
California and find forests that were logged in the 1960s and the 1970s 
and that are in a complete shambles and have not been reforested. The 
watersheds are damaged, and we are losing the salmon fisheries. And all 
of that is sustainable economy. All of that drives the resort 
communities, the tourism, the gas stations and all the business in 
those areas.
  So we can get a better return on the investment we make with this 
money by putting it into the rehabilitation of the watersheds, the 
rehabilitation of the fish and the wildlife from the scars that have 
been left in the past of the previous forest practices which were never 
sustainable and have done a great deal of damage to our forests in this 
area. This is about a smart economic decision for the communities that 
are surrounding these forests. This is about protecting the clean water 
supplies for urban areas.
  In California, a huge amount of our water is stored in those forests, 
in those watersheds. We are struggling, spending additional Federal 
dollars to try to clean up that water so that we can continue to 
consume it in the State of California. So this is very, very smart use 
of this money, rather than to continue to put it into sales where we do 
not generate the kind of revenues that have continued to be a loser, 
that is a subject of all the GAO reports, money that goes into slush 
funds. This is the amendment that takes care of that problem.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about the wise investment, the wise investment 
in our forests, in management of those forests for all of these 
purposes and for all of these uses so that we can have improved 
watersheds, we can stop the decline in the fisheries, we can increase 
the tourism economy in so many of these communities and we can increase 
the health of the forests. This is where the money should be spent and 
the House should support the amendment of the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Wu) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) to increase and 
improve the forest health of this Nation.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Oregon.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that this amendment leaves 
salvage harvesting intact. There is a separate fund for salvage 
harvesting which in the last fiscal year totaled approximately $110 
million. And my amendment leaves that fund intact.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, 
the gentleman makes a very important point. His amendment leaves intact 
enough money in this account plus the salvage amendment to go ahead and 
harvest the 3.5 million board feet that we anticipate harvesting this 
year. So we have the opportunity by going to the administration's 
number in the Fish and Wildlife account to improve the forests, to 
improve their productivity, and to improve the multiple use of those 
forest. The salvage account remains intact, as does $197 million out of 
the timber management account, and we should approve the amendment.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition the Wu amendment; and I have here 
a study, a study that was compiled from U.S. Forest Service records and 
Bureau of Labor Statistics records and U.S. Census Bureau records and 
BLM records. It is a study of the 148 most impoverished forest 
counties. Several of those are in Montana and some are in the authors' 
State of Oregon on well.
  What this study says is that these 148 at-risk impoverished forest 
counties have an unemployment rate that is three times the national 
average of unemployment, and what the study indicates is that these 
impoverished forest counties have a poverty rate that is 1.5 times the 
poverty rate of the country. In fact, there is a county in Mississippi, 
one of the at-risk counties, that has an unemployment rate that is 7 
times the national average unemployment rate.
  Mr. Chairman, I know things are pretty good in urban and suburban 
America, but things are not so good in rural America and particularly 
not so good in these impoverished counties. East of the Mississippi the 
study identifies 15 counties: Two in Wisconsin, one in Pennsylvania, 
three in Arkansas, three in Louisiana, one in West Virginia, three in 
Mississippi. And the study identifies the 15 most at-risk counties in 
the West. Three of them happen to be in my home state of Montana: 
Lincoln County, Sanders County and Mineral County. Four in Oregon.
  I want to talk about Lincoln County in Northwest Montana because it 
is identified as the most at-risk impoverished rural forest county in 
the country. There are 19,000 residents of this county. It has a 
poverty level of 18.3 percent. That is 3,500 people of that county live 
below the poverty line. A 13 percent unemployment rate. That is

[[Page 15992]]

2,600 people in that county that cannot find a job because 77 percent 
of the tax base is lost to U.S. Forest Service Federal lands.
  Mr. Chairman, 33 percent of the employment in this county is timber 
related. In 1908, the Federal Government made a covenant with Federal 
lands counties that said we are going to share revenue and develop the 
resources to improve their economy, and this amendment breaks that 
covenant and takes away the jobs. $7.5 million will come out of school 
budgets and county budgets and will wipe out local county budgets. It 
will cost hundreds of more jobs in Lincoln County.
  But this is not just about jobs, it is about safety and the 
environment, too. The General Accounting Office says there are 40 
million acres of western forests that are at risk of catastrophic fire. 
Catastrophic fires are not just big fires, they are fires that threaten 
the health of the forests. They threaten people. They threaten 
property. They threaten the environment. They threaten watersheds and 
the soil.
  We need these funds to manage these forests, to thin and harvest 
these forests and to restore their health. And the GAO just issued a 
report that said the Forest Service is $700 million per year short of 
what it needs in order to manage the forest health problem.
  This amendment breaks 92 years of cooperation, a 92-year-old promise. 
It abandons these communities and neglects their safety. It says the 
kids who go to school in these counties do not matter. It says the 
people who work in those counties do not count, and it is going to make 
poverty in those areas worse. This amendment is offered without 
conscience. It is bad economics. It is bad for the environment, and it 
is a further attack on rural America.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following study for the Record:

                         Forest Products Study


   rural reservations--Thirty forest counties most at risk if a zero 
                   federal harvest policy is adopted

       On the eve of the new millennium federal elected officials 
     have been drawn into a debate on whether or not timber 
     harvesting should occur on U.S. Forest Service and BLM 
     managed lands. For those advocating to eliminate timber 
     harvesting on federal lands the question is couched in terms 
     of ``saving'' the environment. For those who advocate for 
     continued harvesting, the issue is couched in terms of forest 
     health and fire risk. Forgotten in the debate are the 
     communities and counties which depend on federal land 
     management for their economic survival. Several hundred rural 
     counties and thousands of rural communities depend on the 
     economic activities generated by the harvest of timber off 
     federal lands. While the concept of jobs versus the 
     environment has been bantered about in the past, Congress 
     doesn't seem to have a true understanding of how important 
     federal timber harvests are to these communities. This report 
     puts a face on ``at-risk'' counties and helps the reader 
     better understand the economic challenges facing these rural 
     counties.
       While the environmental industry works to direct the focus 
     of the debate on environmental concerns and forestry 
     professionals work to keep the debate focused on forest 
     health and commodity production, we hope that Congress and 
     the American public will take the time to think about the 
     importance of the overall economic benefit derived from the 
     sale of federal timber each year.
       The concept of ranking counties based on poverty is not 
     uncommon. In fact, President Clinton recently undertook a 
     five day trade mission to some of America's poorest counties 
     and neighborhoods. The Clinton Administration visited these 
     impoverished areas asking U.S. businessmen to invest in these 
     areas. Ironically, at the very same time as pointing out the 
     challenges many of these communities face, others in the 
     Clinton Administration are advocating natural resource 
     policies designed to recruit and create new impoverished 
     counties.
       To understand how a zero harvest policy would affect 
     counties, we developed a risk ranking system to identify at-
     risk counties. We began by examining a county's unemployment 
     and poverty level, along with the amount of timber employment 
     income that would be lost if a zero harvest policy was 
     adopted. If the county had two out of the following three 
     conditions (double the national average unemployment rate; 
     one and one-half times the national average poverty level; or 
     lost more than one million dollars of timber employment 
     income) we included it in our study.
       To rank the counties we examined U.S. Forest Service, 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau, and Bureau of 
     Land Management data. We ranked 148 of the most impacted 
     counties in five categories and developed a combined ranking 
     system that predicts which counties, and therefore 
     communities, would be injured the most if the United States 
     Congress, or the administration through executive fiat, 
     adopts a zero federal harvest policy. Due to the different 
     nature of National Forests in the Eastern United States 
     versus those in the West we split the data base into Eastern 
     counties and Western counties.
       This report displays the 15 most at-risk counties in the 
     East, as well as the 15 most at-risk counties in the West. 
     The attached appendix displays the rank order for all 148 
     counties examined for all five categories.
       The study points to those rural counties which have not 
     benefited from the economic boom the rest of the United 
     States has enjoyed over the last decade. In fact, the data 
     suggests many of these counties have been completely left out 
     of the economic boom. Unfortunately, now Congress is being 
     asked to consider taking away one of the few economic bright 
     spots they have to rally around. If that occurs, the social 
     and economic fabric of these communities will be torn 
     asunder. It is our hope that Congress will step up and make 
     every effort to understand the significant consequences of 
     their actions before they vote on issues affecting rural 
     counties.
       The chasm between our most well-to-do suburban counties and 
     our poorest rural counties is staggering. In a country which 
     has enjoyed statistical full employment (<5%) for the last 
     four years, over a third of the 148 national forest counties 
     surveyed have three times the unemployment rate enjoyed by 
     other more affluent counties in the United States today. One 
     county, Sharkey, Mississippi suffered nearly seven times the 
     unemployment rate currently enjoyed by most urban and 
     suburban counties.
       Poverty is perhaps one of the most pervasive and sinister 
     problems facing our two-tiered economy. Over ten percent of 
     the 148 counties surveyed have double the National average 
     poverty level. Again, Sharkey, Mississippi suffers three 
     times the poverty level enjoyed by the ``average'' county in 
     our country. Nearly one-third of the national forest counties 
     included in our survey suffer poverty levels that are at 
     least one and one half times the National average.
       The third economic factor to be considered is the amount of 
     timber employment income generated by the FY 1997 U.S. Forest 
     Service timber sale program. While we have no national 
     average data to compare against, it gives pause to understand 
     that some counties in the West stand to lose tens of millions 
     of dollars of employment income if a zero harvest policy is 
     imposed.
       To truly understand the employment income statistics, one 
     must put them in context with the poverty and unemployment 
     rates, then consider how the loss of millions of dollars of 
     employment income will affect these rural counties. One must 
     also think about the alternatives available to counties, 
     given the amount of tax base which has been put off limits as 
     a result of federal land ownership within each county. Will a 
     county like Sharkey, Mississippi with its 29.7% unemployment 
     and 42.1% poverty level be worse off losing $1.3 million of 
     employment income than a county like Linn County, Oregon with 
     its 13.8% poverty level and 9.1% unemployment rate which 
     stands to lose over $12.8 million of employment income? In 
     both instances the reader must conclude these counties will 
     suffer grievously compared to their urban and suburban 
     cousins.
       Chief of the Forest Service Michael Dombeck has become fond 
     of asking ``why the richest country in the world should fund 
     the education of rural school children on the back of a 
     controversial timber sale program?'' To many in the forest 
     counties school movement this rhetorical question has an 
     uneasy ring to it.
       There is an eerie resemblance between the experience of the 
     Native Americans whose treaties with our federal government 
     were broken time and time again and that which is happening 
     today in rural America. There is an eerie resemblance between 
     the federal government's inability to help those on Native 
     American reservations become economically prosperous and 
     economically self-sufficient and what is happening today in 
     many rural national forest counties. At times it seems as if 
     there is a carefully crafted strategy by the federal 
     government to turn our rural counties into reservations where 
     those who remain are beset with a host of social problems, 
     including: alcoholism, child and spousal abuse, unemployment, 
     and poverty. The specter of such problems has a direct and 
     frightening parallel to the experiences of many Native 
     American tribes over the last century.
       Our rural counties are being asked to accept a 
     Congressional entitlement program that enslaves local 
     governments and forces them to depend on Congressional hand-
     outs. Welfare programs which will be funded in the ``good'' 
     years and taken away by the urban and suburban elite in the 
     ``bad'' years. We are being told the new federal forestry 
     policies will help preserve the environment and that Congress 
     will fully fund these new welfare programs, but at what cost? 
     We in the Counties and Schools movement aren't convinced that 
     our communities will be better

[[Page 15993]]

     off. We're not even convinced the environment will be better 
     off. Our National Forests are growing more than 20 billion 
     board feet of timber each year, yet we harvest only three 
     billion board feet. The U.S. Forest Service has already 
     identified 40 million acres of forest land with severe forest 
     health problems, and tens of millions of acres more that are 
     at risk.


                       The Most At Risk Counties

       In this section we will help you understand which national 
     forest counties face the greatest risk related to the zero 
     harvest policies currently being considered by Congress. 
     We've divided the country into two zones. Those counties west 
     of the 100th meridian and those east of the 100th meridian. 
     Counties west of the 100th meridian generally suffer with 
     more federal land within their county and a higher dependence 
     on federal timber. Eastern counties do not have the high 
     dollar figures to lose, but have very high unemployment rates 
     and poverty rates. We've listed the fifteen counties most at-
     risk and included an indepth look at five counties east of 
     the 100th meridian, as well as the five counties west of the 
     100th meridian which are the most high-risk.

                FIFTEEN EASTERN COUNTIES AT HIGHEST RISK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total
                       County and State                          points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le Flore, OK.................................................        261
Forest, WI...................................................        311
Grant, LA....................................................        312
Forest, PA...................................................        312
Sabine, TX...................................................        312
Montgomery, AR...............................................        313
Ashland, WI..................................................        315
Newton, AR...................................................        317
Franklin, MS.................................................        320
Sharkey, MS..................................................        324
Scott, AR....................................................        326
Natchitoches, LA.............................................        327
Winn, LA.....................................................        332
Randolph, WV.................................................        337
Wilkinson, MS................................................        338
------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A Closer Look at the Five Most At Risk Eastern Counties

                       Le Flore County, Oklahoma

       County Seat: Poteau: Pop.--7,210.
       Acres in County: 1,015,040.
       U.S. Senators: Senator Don Nickles (R); Senator James 
     Inhofe (R).
       United States Representative: Rep. Wes. W. Watkins (R-3rd).
       County Population: 45,641.
       Major Industries: Health Services, Retail.
       Poverty Level: 24.1%.
       Tax Base Lost to Federal Lands: 25.0%.
       Employment Income from Timber: 3.0%.
       Timber Employment Income Lost if Zero Federal Harvest: 
     $13,812,720.00.
       Closet Large Towns: Mena and Fort Smith, Arkansas.
       Unemployment Level: 7.6%.
       Le Flore County is located on the far eastern edge of 
     Oklahoma along the Arkansas border. Like many rural counties, 
     its economy is agricultural based. With a quarter of the 
     potential taxable land encumbered by the Ouchita National 
     Forest, the economic activities produced on that forest are 
     important to the community. The county received $732,119.00 
     of 25% and PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) payments as a 
     result of the Ouchita's resource programs in FY 1997. Because 
     Oklahoma depends primarily on property taxes to fund county 
     and school system budgets, these revenues would pay for 
     approximately 32% of those budgets in Le Flore County. The 
     loss of $13,812,720.00 of timber employment income translates 
     to $69,063,900.00 of lost economic activity. Severe economic 
     disruption would occur in Le Flore County if the Ouchita 
     National Forest were to stop selling timber.

                        Forest County, Wisconsin

       County Seat: Crandon: Pop.--1,958.
       Acres in County: 648,960.
       County Population: 9,361.
       U.S. Senators: Senator Herbert Kohl (D); Senator Russ 
     Feingold (D).
       United States Representative: Rep. Mark Green (R-8th).
       Major Industries: Hotel/lodging, Retail.
       Poverty Level: 13.2%.
       Tax Base Lost to Federal Lands: 47%.
       Employment Income from Timber: 16%.
       Timber Employment Income Lost if Zero Federal Harvest: 
     $21,383,601.
       Closest Large Towns: Wausau and Rhinelander, Wisconsin.
       Unemployment Level: 7.9%.
       Forest County is located in the northeast corner of the 
     state. With nearly half of it's land base tied up in the 
     Nicolet National Forest, dollars and economic activity 
     produced on the forest are vital to the economic well-being 
     of Forest County. The county received $369,954.00 in 25% and 
     PILT payments as a result of the Nicolet's resource programs 
     in FY 1997. These revenues make up approximately 5% of Forest 
     County's annual budget. The potential loss of $21,383,601.00 
     in timber employment income translates to $106,918,005.00 of 
     lost economic activity. Clearly, severe economic disruption 
     would occur in Forest County if the Nicolet National Forest 
     were to stop selling timber.

                        Grant County, Louisiana

       County Seat: Colfax: Pop.--1,880.
       Acres in County: 412,800.
       County Population: 18,270.
       U.S. Senators: Senator John Bureaux (D); Senator Mary 
     Landrieu (D).
       United States Representative: Rep. John Cooksey (R-5th).
       Major Industries: Lumber & Wood Products, Health and Social 
     Services.
       Poverty Level: 21.7%.
       Tax Base Lost to Federal Lands: 34%.
       Employment Income from Timber: 18%.
       Timber Employment Income Lost if Zero Federal Harvest: 
     $8,578,181.
       Closest Large Towns: Alexandria and Winnfield, Louisiana.
       Unemployment Level: 7.1%.
       Grant County is located in the center of the state. With 
     one-third of it's land base tied up in the Kisatchie National 
     Forest, dollars and economic activity produced on the forest 
     are vital to the economic well-being of Grant County. The 
     county received $652,026.00 in 25% and PILT payments as a 
     result of the Kisatchie's resource programs in FY 1997. These 
     revenues make up approximately 12.3% of Grant County's annual 
     budget. The potential loss of $8,578,181.00 in timber 
     employment income translates to $42,890,905.00 of lost 
     economic activity. Severe economic disruption would occur in 
     Grant County if the Kisatchie National Forest were to stop 
     selling timber.

                      Forest County, Pennsylvania

       County Seat: Tionesta: Pop.--500.
       Acres in County: 273,920.
       County Population: 5,001.
       U.S. Senators: Senator Arlen Specter (R); Senator Rick 
     Santorum (R).
       United States Representative: Rep. John Peterson (R-5th).
       Major Industries: Lumber & Wood Products, Amusement & 
     Recreation, Health Services.
       Poverty Level: 14%.
       Tax Base Lost to Federal Lands: 45%.
       Employment Income from Timber: 12%.
       Timber Employment Income Lost if Zero Federal Harvest: 
     $11,252,287.
       Closest Large Towns: Titusville and Oil City, Pennsylvania.
       Unemployment Level: 11%.
       Forest County is located in the northeast portion of the 
     state. With nearly half of it's land base encumbered by the 
     Allegheny National Forest, dollars and economic activity 
     produced on the forest are vital to the economic well-being 
     of Forest County. The county received $1,243,046.00 in 25% 
     and PILT payments as a result of the Allegheny's resource 
     programs in FY 1997. These revenues make up approximately 53% 
     of Forest County's annual budget. The potential loss of 
     $11,252,287.00 in timber employment income translates to 
     $56,261,435.00 of lost economic activity. Clearly, there 
     would be very severe economic disruption in this rural county 
     of only 5,000 people if the Allegheny National Forest were to 
     stop selling timber.

                          Sabine County, Texas

       County Seat: Hemphill: Pop.--1,182.
       Acres in County: 313,600.
       County Population: 10,487.
       U.S. Senators: Senator Phil Gramm (R); Sen. Kay Bailey 
     Hutchison (R).
       United States Representative: Rep. Jim Turner (D-2nd).
       Major Industries: Health Services, Retail.
       Poverty Level: 17.6%
       Tax Base Lost to Federal Lands: 34%.
       Employment Income from Timber: 31%.
       Timber Employment Income Lost if Zero Federal Harvest: 
     $5,097,729.
       Closest Large Towns: Jasper, Texas and Leesville, 
     Louisiana.
       Unemployment Level: 8.9%.
       Sabine County is located on the central north border of the 
     state. With one-third of its land base tied up in the Sabine 
     National Forest, dollars and economic activity produced on 
     the forest are vital to the economic well-being of Sabine 
     County. The county received $267,513.00 in 25% and PILT 
     payments as a result of the Sabine's resource programs in FY 
     1997. These revenues make up approximately 9% of Sabine 
     County's annual budget. The potential loss of $5,097,729.00 
     in timber employment income translates to $25,488,645.00 of 
     lost economic activity. Clearly, severe economic disruption 
     would occur in Sabine County if the Sabine National Forest 
     were to stop selling timber.

                FIFTEEN WESTERN COUNTIES AT HIGHEST RISK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total
                       County and State                          points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln, MT..................................................        108
Idaho, ID....................................................        137
Sanders, MT..................................................        168
Clearwater, ID...............................................        174
Pend Oreille, WA.............................................        179
Klamath, OR..................................................        184
Lake, OR.....................................................        187
Adams, ID....................................................        190
Boundary, ID.................................................        197
Mineral, MT..................................................        198
Plumas, CA...................................................        201
Pet/Wrangell/PWI, AK.........................................        211
Grant, OR....................................................        219
Sierra, CA...................................................        221
Douglas, OR..................................................        225
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Lincoln County, Montana

       County Seat: Libby: Pop.--2,532.
       Acres in County: 2,312,320.
       County Population: 18,678.
       U.S. Senators: Sen. Max Baucus (D); Sen. Conrad Burns (R).
       United States Representative: Rep. Rick Hill (R--at large).
       Major Industries: Lumber & Wood Products, Retail, Health 
     Services.
       Poverty Level: 18.3%.

[[Page 15994]]

       Tax Base Lost to Federal Lands: 77.0%.
       Employment Income from Timber: 33%.
       Timber Employment Income Lost if Zero Federal Harvest: 
     $101,760,422.
       Closest Large Towns: Spokane, Washington, and Missoula, 
     Montana.
       Unemploymenmt Level: 13.19.
       Lincoln County is located on the far Northwest corner of 
     Montana along the Idaho and Canadian borders. Like many rural 
     counties it's economy is timber based, with over one-third of 
     the economic activity tied to the manufacturing of wood 
     products. With three quarters of the potential taxable land 
     base encumbered by the Kootenai and Flathead National 
     Forests, the economic activities produced on these forests 
     are critically important to the community. The county 
     received $4,523,017.00 of 25% and PILT payments as a result 
     of the Kootenai and Flathead resource programs in FY 1997. 
     These revenues paid for approximately 47% of the county's 
     total budget. The loss of $101,760,422.00 of timber 
     employment income translates to approximately $508,802,110.00 
     of economic activity. Severe economic disruption would occur 
     in Lincoln County if the Flathead and Kootenai National 
     Forests were to stop selling timber. It is very likely that 
     the county government would go bankrupt.

                          Idaho County, Idaho

       County Seat: Grangeville: Pop.--3,226.
       Acres in County: 5,430,400.
       County Population: 14,789.
       U.S. Senators: Senator Larry Craig (R); Senator Mike Crapo 
     (R).
       United States Representative: Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-1st).
       Major Industries: Lumber & Wood Products, Health Services, 
     Retail.
       Poverty Level: 15.7%.
       Tax Base Lost to Federal Lands: 83%.
       Employment Income from Timber: 22%.
       Timber Employment Income Lost if Zero Federal Harvest: 
     $72,476,050.
       Closest Large Towns: Lewiston and Orofino, Idaho.
       Unemployment Level: 14.2%.
       Idaho County is nestled in the center of Idaho among the 
     Nez Perce and Payette National Forests. More than three-
     quarters of it's land base is encumbered by Federal ownership 
     of these National Forests within Idaho County. Because lumber 
     and woods products is, by far, the largest employment sector 
     in Idaho County, economic activity produced on the forests 
     are vital to the economic well-being of Idaho County. The 
     county received $3,211,755.00 in 25% and PILT payments as a 
     result of the Nez Perce and Payette resource programs in FY 
     1997. These revenues make up 30% of Idaho County's annual 
     budget. The potential loss of $72,476,050.00 in timber 
     employment income translates to $362,380,250.00 of lost 
     economic activity. The severe economic disruption that would 
     occur in Idaho County if the Nez Perce and Payette National 
     Forest were to stop selling timber in unconscionable.

                        Sanders County, Montana

       County Seat: Thompson Falls: Pop.--1,319.
       Acres in County: 1,767,680.
       County Population: 10,089.
       U.S. Senators: Senator Max Baucus (D); Senator Conrad Burns 
     (R).
       United States Representative: Rep. Rick Hill (R-At Large).
       Major Industries: Lumber & Wood Products, Health Services, 
     Retail.
       Poverty Level: 20.6%.
       Tax Base Lost to Federal Lands: 52%.
       Employment Income from Timber: 25%.
       Timber Employment Income Lost if Zero Federal Harvest: 
     $23,433,551.
       Closet Large Towns: Kellogg, Idaho and Kalispell, Montana.
       Unemployment Level: 10.6%.
       Sanders County is located just south of Lincoln County 
     Montana, along the northeast border of Idaho. Portions of the 
     Lolo, Kaniksu and Kootenai National Forests make up one-half 
     of the county's land base. Economic activity produced on 
     these forests is vital to the economic well-being of Sanders 
     County. The county received $1,286,615 in 25% and PILT 
     payments as a result of the National Forest's resource 
     programs in FY 1997. These revenues make up approximately 21% 
     of Forest County's annual budget. The potential loss of 
     $23,433,551.00 in timber employment income translates to 
     $117,167,755.00 of lost economic activity. The economic 
     disruption to Sanders County would be devastating if the 
     Lolo, Kaniksu and Kootenai National Forests were to stop 
     selling timber.

                        Clearwater County, Idaho

       County Seat: Orofino: Pop.--2,868.
       Acres in County: 1,575,680.
       County Population: 9,115.
       U.S. Senators: Senator Larry Craig (R); Senator Mike Crapo 
     (R).
       United States Representatives: Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-
     1st).
       Major Industries: Lumber & Wood Products, Health Services, 
     Retail.
       Poverty Level: 13.1%.
       Tax Base Lost to Federal Lands: 54%.
       Employment Income from Timber: 42%.
       Timber Employment Income Lost if Zero Federal Harvest: 
     $29,714.65.
       Closest Large Towns: Lewiston and Moscow, Idaho.
       Unemployment Level: 19%.
       Clearwater County is located just north of Idaho County. 
     More than one-half of it's land base is encumbered by the 
     Clearwater and St. Joe National Forests Economic activity 
     produced on these forests is vital to the economic well-being 
     of Clearwater County. The county received $1,028,986.00 in 
     25% and PILT payments as a result of the National Forest's 
     resource programs in FY 1997. These revenues make up 
     approximately 11% of Clearwater County's annual budget. The 
     potential loss of $29,714,265.00 in timber employment income 
     translates to $148,571,325.00 of lost economic activity. 
     Clearly, severe economic disruption would occur in Clearwater 
     County if the Clearwater and St. Joe National Forests were to 
     stop selling timber.

                        Pend Oreille, Washington

       County Seat: Newport: Pop.--1,691.
       Acres in County: 896,640.
       County Population: 10,749.
       U.S. Senators: Senator Slade Gorton (R); Senator Patty 
     Murray.
       United States Representative: Rep. George Nethercutt (R-
     5th).
       Major Industries: Health Services, Retail, Special Trade 
     Contractors.
       Poverty Level: 18%.
       Tax Base Lost to Federal Lands: 54%.
       Employment Income from Timber: 25%.
       Timber Employment Income Lost if Zero Federal Harvest: 
     $15,880,684.
       Closest Large Towns: Spokane, Washington and Coeur d'Alene, 
     Idaho.
       Unemployment Level: 13.8%.
       Pend Oreille County is situated in the far northeast corner 
     of Washington along the Idaho and Canadian border. More than 
     one-half of Pend Oreille's land base is encumbered by the 
     Colville and Kanisku National Forests. Economic activity 
     produced on the forests is vital to the economic well-being 
     of Pend Oreille County. The county received $826,758.00 in 
     25% and PILT payments as a result of the National Forests 
     resource programs in FY 1997. These revenues make up 
     approximately 4.5 percent of Pend Oreille County's annual 
     budget. The potential loss of $15,880,684.00 in timber 
     employment income translates to $79,403,420.00 of lost 
     economic activity. Clearly, severe economic disruption would 
     occur in Pend Oreille County if the Coleville and Kanisku 
     National Forests were to stop selling timber.


                               conclusion

       President Clinton is traveling the country asking American 
     businessmen and businesswomen to invest in impoverished 
     counties in the same manner he has asked them to invest in 
     third world countries. There is a sad irony in this when one 
     considers that this Administration is tacitly backing efforts 
     by the environmental industry to end timber harvesting on 
     federal lands. While the U.S. Forest Service timber sale 
     program could be considered controversial, and might be 
     described as dysfunctional, it does provide over $2 billion 
     of employment income activity to several hundred rural 
     counties. Using even the most conservative multiplier for 
     economic impact, that $2 billion of employment income 
     translates into $5 to $10 billion of economic activity. The 
     Administration shouldn't be allowed to feign concern for 
     poverty stricken counties when its natural resource policies 
     will cause 150 to 200 rural counties to suffer exponential 
     increases in unemployment and poverty.


                              appendix one

     Methodology
       We began by examining each national forest timber county's 
     unemployment and poverty level, along with the amount of 
     timber employment income that would be lost if a zero harvest 
     policy was adopted. If the county had two out of the 
     following three conditions (double the national average 
     unemployment rate; one and one-half times the national 
     average poverty level; or lost more than one million dollars 
     of timber employment income) we included it in our study. We 
     then collected the following data points for the 148 
     counties: (1) the percent of employment income generated in 
     an individual county as a result of the primary timber 
     industry in that county; (2) the percent of tax base lost as 
     a result of federal lands within the boundaries of the 
     county; (3) the poverty level in the county compared to the 
     National Average of 13.8%; (4) the March 1999 unadjusted 
     unemployment rate compared to the National Average of 4.3%; 
     and (5) the timber employment income generated by FY 1997 
     U.S. Forest Service timber sale programs in each individual 
     county, as reported in the FY 1997 Timber Sale Program 
     Information Reporting System (TSPIRS). Each county was ranked 
     within each data point. We then added the sum of the rank 
     order value under each category to achieve a total score for 
     each county. Our final ranking values each of the five 
     categories equally. Those counties with the lowest sum total 
     face the highest risk of injury if a zero federal harvest 
     policy is adopted.
     The categories
       Percent of Employment Income Derived from Primary Timber 
     Manufacturing.--Despite the fact that many see the 
     manufacturing of wood products as environmentally bad, 
     American's utilized over 53 billion board feet of softwood 
     products in this country in 1998. While most communities 
     strive to have a balanced economy, the fact is that timber 
     manufacturing plays a critical role in many

[[Page 15995]]

     communities. The counties in the data base range from as 
     little as one percent of the economic activity in their 
     country generated by primary timber manufacturing to a high 
     of Perry County, Arkansas where 53% of the total employment 
     income in that county is generated by the primary 
     manufacturing of wood products. Over one-third of the 
     counties surveyed had a 14 percent or greater dependence on 
     the employment income generated by the primary timber 
     manufacturers in their communities. The sad reality is that 
     if federal lands are no longer producing the 3.2 billion 
     board feet of timber needed by companies in these rural 
     communities, then these counties will see economic 
     dislocation and distress.

 RANK ORDER OF PERCENT OF EMPLOYMENT INCOME GENERATED BY PRIMARY TIMBER
                              MANUFACTURES
          [Data Source: USFS General Technical Reports 329-331]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Employment from
                                                           timber--
                  County and State                  --------------------
                                                      Percent     Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perry, MS..........................................      53.00         1
Alger, MI..........................................      43.00         2
Clearwater, ID.....................................      42.00         3
Adams, ID..........................................      41.00         4
Winn, LA...........................................      37.00         5
Jasper, TX.........................................      35.00         6
Boise, ID..........................................      34.00         7
Boundary, ID.......................................      33.00         8
Lincoln, MT........................................      33.00         9
Deschutes, OR......................................      32.00        10
Sabine, TX.........................................      31.00        11
Skamania, WA.......................................      29.00        12
Coos, NH...........................................      28,00        13
McCurtain, OK......................................      27.00        14
Bonner, ID.........................................      26.00        15
Sierra, CA.........................................      25.00        16
Granite, MT........................................      25.00        17
Sanders, MT........................................      25.00        18
Grays Harbor, WA...................................      25.00        19
Pend Oreille, WA...................................      25.00        20
Franklin, MS.......................................      24.00        21
Price, WI..........................................      24.00        22
Idaho, ID..........................................      22.00        23
Schoolcroft, MI....................................      22.00        24
Taylor, WI.........................................      22.00        25
Grant, OR..........................................      21.00        26
Klamath, OR........................................      21.00        27
Itasca, MN.........................................      20.00        28
Trinity, CA........................................      18.00        29
Wallowa, OR........................................      18.00        30
Grant, LA..........................................      18,00        31
Haines, AK.........................................      17.00        32
Plumas, CA.........................................      17.00        33
Linn, OR...........................................      17.00        34
Tucker, WV.........................................      17.00        35
Ashland, WI........................................      16.00        36
Florance, WI.......................................      16.00        37
Forest, WI.........................................      16.00        38
Pet/Wrangell/PWI, AK...............................      15.00        39
Douglas, OR........................................      15.00        40
Lake, OR...........................................      15.00        41
Sitka, AK..........................................      14.00        42
Tehema, CA.........................................      14.00        43
Josephine, OR......................................      14.00        44
Garfield, UT.......................................      14.00        45
Angelina, TX.......................................      14.00        46
Gogebic, MI........................................      14.00        47
Sawyer, WI.........................................      14.00        48
Lewis, WA..........................................      14.00        49
Shelby, TX.........................................      13.00        50
Reynolds, MO.......................................      12.00        51
Shannon, MO........................................      12.00        52
Jackson, OR........................................      12.00        53
Lane, OR...........................................      12.00        54
Flathead, MT.......................................      12.00        55
Missoula, MT.......................................      12.00        56
Ravalli, MT........................................      12.00        57
Forest, PA.........................................      12.00        58
Cass, MN...........................................      12.00        59
Lassen, CA.........................................      11.00        60
Baker, OR..........................................      11.00        61
Curry, OR..........................................      11.00        62
Manistee, MI.......................................      11.00        63
Ferry, WA..........................................      11.00        64
Okanogan, WA.......................................      11.00        65
Pocahontas, WV.....................................      11.00        66
Randolph, WV.......................................      11.00        67
Webster, WV........................................      11.00        68
Powell, MT.........................................      10.00        69
Oconto, WI.........................................      10.00        70
Navajo, AZ.........................................       9.00        71
Siskiyou, CA.......................................       9.00        72
Shasta, CA.........................................       9.00        73
Menifee, KY........................................       9.00        74
Mineral, MT........................................       9.00        75
Wayne, MS..........................................       9.00        76
Covington, AL......................................       8.00        77
Del Norte, CA......................................       8.00        78
Valley, ID.........................................       8.00        79
Natchitoches, LA...................................       8.00        80
Iron, MI...........................................       8.00        81
McCormick, SC......................................       8.00        82
Perry, Al..........................................       7.00        83
Catron, NM.........................................       7.00        84
Carter, MO.........................................       7.00        85
Elk, PA............................................       7.00        86
Beltrami, MN.......................................       7.00        87
Cook, MN...........................................       7.00        88
Polk, AR...........................................       6.00        89
Newton, AR.........................................       6.00        90
San Augustine, TX..................................       6.00        91
Vilas, WI..........................................       6.00        92
Custer, SD.........................................       6.00        93
Greenbrier, WV.....................................       6.00        94
Montgomery, AR.....................................       4.00        95
Cliborne, LA.......................................       4.00        96
Rapides, LA........................................       4.00        97
Sharkey, MS........................................       4.00        98
Houston, TX........................................       4,00        99
Mackinac, MI.......................................       4.00       100
St. Louis, MN......................................       4.00       101
Scott, AR..........................................       3.00       102
LeFlore, OK........................................       3.00       103
Apache, AZ.........................................       3.00       104
Fresno, CA.........................................       3.00       105
Custer, ID.........................................       3.00       106
Shoshone, ID.......................................       3.00       107
Barry, MO..........................................       3.00       108
Wayne, MO..........................................       3.00       109
Vernon, LA.........................................       3.00       110
Warren, PA.........................................       3.00       111
Iosoc, MI..........................................       3.00       112
Ontonagon, MI......................................       3.00       113
Winston, AL........................................       2.00       114
Coconino, AZ.......................................       2.00       115
Rio Arriba, NM.....................................       2.00       116
Modoc, CA..........................................       2.00       117
Tulare, CA.........................................       2.00       118
Kern, CA...........................................       2.00       119
Saguache, CO.......................................       2.00       120
Lake, FL...........................................       2.00       121
Elmore, ID.........................................       2.00       122
Whitley, KY........................................       2.00       123
Dent, MO...........................................       2.00       124
Iron, MO...........................................       2.00       125
Washington, MO.....................................       2.00       126
Umatilla, OR.......................................       2.00       127
Duschesne, UT......................................       2.00       128
San Juan, UT.......................................       2.00       129
San Jacinto, TX....................................       2.00       130
McKean, PA.........................................       2.00       131
Carrol, NH.........................................       2.00       132
Alcona, MI.........................................       2.00       133
Chippewa, MI.......................................       2.00       134
Houghton, MI.......................................       2.00       135
Lake, MI...........................................       2.00       136
Wexford, MI........................................       2.00       137
Lake, MN...........................................       2.00       138
Bayfield, WI.......................................       2.00       139
Chelan, WA.........................................       2.00       140
Yakima, WA.........................................       2.00       141
Pendleton, WV......................................       2.00       142
Taos, NM...........................................       1.00       143
Medera, CA.........................................       1.00       144
Lemhi, ID..........................................       1.00       145
Benton, MS.........................................       1.00       146
Grofton, NH........................................       1.00       147
Columbia, WA.......................................       1.00       148
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Percent of Tax Base Lost to Federal Land Managers.--As our 
     National Forests were established in the early part of this 
     century, Congress and the Administration understood that 
     counties who had National Forests, and other public lands, 
     within their boundaries would face a challenge funding local 
     governmental services. They understood that these counties 
     would suffer from diminished tax bases. A compact was forged 
     that guaranteed these counties a share of the gross receipts 
     generated through the sale of timber, and other commodities, 
     with the counties. In 1908 a law was passed to share 25% of 
     the gross receipts generated off the federal lands with the 
     counties or other units of local government. The funds were 
     ear-marked to be used for schools and roads. Each State, or 
     territory was to set its individual formula. Most share 50% 
     of the funds with schools and 50% with the county road 
     departments. Some give as much as 70% to their county road 
     departments, and one, North Carolina directs 100% of their 
     25% Payment to their school systems.
       It is critically important to understand that the counties 
     with the most federal entitlement lands face the largest 
     challenges when the Forest Service timber sale programs stop 
     producing revenue. The ability of most counties is hamstrung 
     by their diminished ability to find lands to tax, combined 
     with the public's unwillingness to pay new increased taxes. 
     While this is not the most important factor when considering 
     the risk to counties, it is one of the most important.

   RANK ORDER OF FEDERAL ENTITLEMENTS IN COUNTY AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL
                             COUNTY ACREAGE
      [Data Sources: BLM Annual PILT Report and 1998 World Almanac]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Tax Base Lost to Federal
                                                         Lands--
               County and State                -------------------------
                                                  Percent        Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pet/Wrangell/PWI, AK..........................        98.00            1
Sitka, AK.....................................        96.00            2
Custer, ID....................................        93.00            3
Haines, AK....................................        91.00            4
Lemhi, ID.....................................        90.00            5
Valley, ID....................................        87.00            6
Idaho, ID.....................................        83.00            7
Mineral, MT...................................        83.00            8
Skamania, WA..................................        78.00            9
Lincoln, MT...................................        77.00           10
Garfield, UT..................................        77.00           11
Cook, MN......................................        77.00           12
Chelan, WA....................................        77.00           13
Navajo, AZ....................................        76.00           14
Trinity, CA...................................        75.00           15
Flathead, MT..................................        75.00           16
Boise, ID.....................................        73.00           17
Curry, OR.....................................        73.00           18
Del Norte, CA.................................        72.00           19
Shoshone, ID..................................        72.00           20
Ravalli, MT...................................        72.00           21
Plumas, CA....................................        71.00           22
Sierra, CA....................................        70.00           23
Montgomery, AR................................        69.00           24
Lake, OR......................................        69.00           25
Saguache, CO..................................        66.00           26
Elmore, ID....................................        66.00           27
Modoc, CA.....................................        65.00           28
Granite, MT...................................        64.00           29
Scott, AR.....................................        63.00           30
Adams, ID.....................................        63.00           31
Catron, NM....................................        62.00           32
Grant, OR.....................................        60.00           33
Boundary, ID..................................        59.00           34
San Juan, UT..................................        59.00           35
Klamath, OR...................................        58.00           36
Wallowa, OR...................................        58.00           37
Lassen, CA....................................        56.00           38
Douglas, OR...................................        56.00           39
Lake, MN......................................        55.00           40
Rio Arriba, NM................................        54.00           41
Clearwater, ID................................        54.00           42
Pend Oreille, WA..............................        54.00           43
Taos, NM......................................        53.00           44
Baker, OR.....................................        52.00           45
Sanders, MT...................................        52.00           46
Pocahontas, WV................................        51.00           47
Tulare, CA....................................        50.00           48
Powell, MT....................................        49.00           49
Lane, OR......................................        48.00           50
Forest, WI....................................        47.00           51
Okanogan, WA..................................        46.00           52
Newton, AR....................................        45.00           53
Forest, PA....................................        45.00           54
Duschesne, UT.................................        43.00           55
Fresno, CA....................................        42.00           56
Missoula, MT..................................        42.00           57
Siskiyou, CA..................................        41.00           58
Shasta, CA....................................        41.00           59
Bonner, ID....................................        41.00           60
Iron, MI......................................        41.00           61
McCormick, SC.................................        41.00           62
Custer, SD....................................        40.00           63
Apache, AZ....................................        39.00           64
Perry, MS.....................................        39.00           65
Josephine, OR.................................        38.00           66
Tucker, WV....................................        38.00           67
Polk, AR......................................        37.00           68
Medera, CA....................................        37.00           69
Menifee, KY...................................        35.00           70
Ferry, WA.....................................        35.00           71
Grant, LA.....................................        34.00           72
Sabine, TX....................................        34.00           73
Gogebic, MI...................................        34.00           74
Linn, OR......................................        33.00           75
Deschutes, OR.................................        31.00           76
San Augustine, TX.............................        31.00           77
Lewis, WA.....................................        31.00           78
Columbia, WA..................................        30.00           79
Randolph, WV..................................        30.00           80
Pendleton, WV.................................        29.00           81
Iron, MO......................................        27.00           82

[[Page 15996]]

 
Wayne, MO.....................................        27.00           83
Benton, MS....................................        27.00           84
Ontonagon, MI.................................        27.00           85
Ashland, WI...................................        27.00           86
Jackson, OR...................................        26.00           87
Warren, PA....................................        26.00           88
Le Flore, OK..................................        25.00           89
Franklin, MS..................................        25.00           90
Sharkey, MS...................................        24.00           91
Alger, MI.....................................        24.00           92
Tehema, CA....................................        23.00           93
Bayfield, WI..................................        23.00           94
Cass, MN......................................        22.00           95
St. Louis, MN.................................        22.00           96
Kern, CA......................................        21.00           97
Reynolds, MO..................................        21.00           98
Elk, PA.......................................        21.00           99
Lake, FL......................................        20.00          100
Umatilla, OR..................................        20.00          101
McKean, PA....................................        20.00          102
Angelina, TX..................................        19.00          103
Houghton, MI..................................        19.00          104
Yakima, WA....................................        19.00          105
Webster, WV...................................        19.00          106
Shannon, MO...................................        18.00          107
Winn, LA......................................        18.00          108
Itasca, MN....................................        18.00          109
Florance, WI..................................        18.00          110
Washington, MO................................        17.00          111
Wayne, MS.....................................        17.00          112
San Jacinto, TX...............................        17.00          113
Iosoc, MI.....................................        17.00          114
Manistee, MI..................................        17.00          115
Oconto, WI....................................        17.00          116
Whitley, KY...................................        16.00          117
Natchitoches, LA..............................        16.00          118
Price, WI.....................................        16.00          119
Barry, MO.....................................        15.00          120
Dent, MO......................................        15.00          121
Wexford, MI...................................        15.00          122
Sawyer, WI....................................        15.00          123
Greenbrier, WV................................        15.00          124
Chippewa, MI..................................        14.00          125
Schoolcroft, MI...............................        13.00          126
Rapides, LA...................................        12.00          127
Houston, TX...................................        12.00          128
Shelby, TX....................................        12.00          129
Alcona, MI....................................        12.00          130
Grays Harbor, WA..............................        12.00          131
Vernon, LA....................................        10.00          132
Taylor, WI....................................        10.00          133
Perry, AL.....................................         9.00          134
Coconino, AZ..................................         9.00          135
Jasper, TX....................................         9.00          136
McCurtain, OK.................................         8.00          137
Carter, MO....................................         8.00          138
Mackinac, MI..................................         8.00          139
Vilas, WI.....................................         8.00          140
Beltrami, MN..................................         5.00          141
Winston, AL...................................         4.00          142
Lake, MI......................................         4.00          143
Cliborne, LA..................................         3.00          144
Coos, NH......................................         3.00          145
Covington, AL.................................         2.00          146
Grofton, NH...................................         2.00          147
Carrol, NH....................................         1.00          148
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Percent of Poverty in County (all citizens).--Poverty is 
     one of the measures that the public, Congress and others use 
     to assess the economic health of an area. High poverty levels 
     generally mean more difficult living conditions. According to 
     a U.S. Census Bureau, February 1999 report on poverty, the 
     average county poverty rate in the United States is 13.8%. As 
     we began to collect the poverty data on the forest counties a 
     disturbing reality set in. Of the 148 most at risk counties 
     in our study, over two thirds had poverty levels that 
     exceeded the national average. Fifteen of the counties had 
     poverty levels that doubled the national average. Most of 
     these counties stand to lose more than $1 million of 
     employment income if federal timber harvests are eliminated. 
     Such a policy would be considered barbaric in many countries!

                   RANK ORDER OF COUNTY POVERTY LEVELS
           [Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau Feb. 1999 Report]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Poverty Level--
                  County and State                  --------------------
                                                      Percent     Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharkey, MS........................................       42.1         1
Perry, AL..........................................       41.3         2
Apache, AZ.........................................       39.4         3
Webster, WV........................................       35.6         4
Menifee, KY........................................       31.5         5
Whitley, KY........................................       30.7         6
Navajo, AZ.........................................       29.0         7
Saguache, CO.......................................       28.9         8
San Juan, UT.......................................       28.3         9
Tulare, CA.........................................       28.2        10
Wayne, MO..........................................       28.2        11
Natchitoches, LA...................................       28.0        12
Ciborne, LA........................................       27.5        13
Shannon, MO........................................       27.1        14
Taos, NM...........................................       26.8        15
Washington, MO.....................................       26.0        16
Newton, AR.........................................       25.7        17
Carter, MO.........................................       25.5        18
Franklin, MS.......................................       25.5        19
Fresno, CA.........................................       25.2        20
San Jacinto, TX....................................       25.2        21
Wayne, MS..........................................       24.9        22
Houston, TX........................................       24.5        23
Winn, LA...........................................       24.3        24
Le Flore, OK.......................................       24.1        25
Benton, MS.........................................       24.0        26
Catron, NM.........................................       23.8        27
Rio Arriba, NM.....................................       23.7        28
Reynolds, MO.......................................       23.7        29
San Augustine, TX..................................       23.7        30
Iron, MO...........................................       22.7        31
Lake, MI...........................................       22.7        32
Randolph, WV.......................................       22.6        33
Perry, MS..........................................       22.3        34
Scott, AR..........................................       22.1        35
Rapides, LA........................................       22.1        36
Shelby, TX.........................................       22.1        37
Montgomery, AR.....................................       21.7        38
Grant, LA..........................................       21.7        39
Dent, MO...........................................       21.6        40
Shoshone, ID.......................................       21.4        41
Covington, AL......................................       20.9        42
Medera, CA.........................................       20.8        43
Duschesne, UT......................................       20.7        44
Kern, CA...........................................       20.6        45
Sanders, MT........................................       20.6        46
McCormick, SD......................................       20.5        47
Pocahontas, WV.....................................       20.5        48
Coconino, AZ.......................................       20.3        49
Yakima, WA.........................................       20.2        50
Mineral, MT........................................       20.0        51
Josephine, OR......................................       19.9        52
Okanogan, WA.......................................       19.7        53
Del Norte, CA......................................       19.6        54
Powell, MT.........................................       19.6        55
Granite, MT........................................       19.4        56
Greenbrier, WV.....................................       19.2        57
Jasper, TX.........................................       18.7        58
Beltrami, MN.......................................       18.6        59
Tehema, CA.........................................       18.5        60
Modoc, CA..........................................       18.4        61
Lincoln, MT........................................       18.3        62
Vernon, LA.........................................       18.3        63
Ferry, WA..........................................       18.1        64
Pend Oreille, WA...................................       18.0        65
Angelina, TX.......................................       17.6        66
Sabine, TX.........................................       17.6        67
Tucker, WV.........................................       17.6        68
Klamath, OR........................................       17.2        69
Umatilla, OR.......................................       17.0        70
Winston, AL........................................       16.9        71
Trintiy, CA........................................       16.9        72
Boundary, ID.......................................       16.7        73
Baker, OR..........................................       16.7        74
Houghton, MI.......................................       16.7        75
Pendleton, WV......................................       16.6        76
Grays Harbor, WA...................................       16.4        77
Missoula, MT.......................................       16.3        78
Shasta, CA.........................................       16.0        79
Douglas, OR........................................       16.0        80
Ravalli, MT........................................       16.0        81
Schoolcroft, MI....................................       15.9        82
Cass, MN...........................................       15.9        83
Barry, MO..........................................       15.8        84
Manistee, MI.......................................       15.8        85
Idaho, ID..........................................       15.7        86
Lemhi, ID..........................................       15.5        87
Chippewa, MI.......................................       15.5        88
Lake, OR...........................................       15.4        89
Columbia, WA.......................................       15.4        90
Polk, AR...........................................       15.3        92
Bonner, ID.........................................       15.1        92
Curry, OR..........................................       15.1        93
Iosoc, MI..........................................       15.0        94
Lane, OR...........................................       14.9        95
Sawyer, WI.........................................       14.9        96
Garfield, UT.......................................       14.7        97
Gogebic, MI........................................       14.7        98
Jackson, OR........................................       14.6        99
Alcona, MI.........................................       14.6       100
Lassen, CA.........................................       14.5       101
Iron, MI...........................................       14.5       102
McCurtain, OK......................................       14.4       103
Flathead, MT.......................................       14.4       104
Wallowa, OR........................................       14.2       105
Wexford, MI........................................       14.2       106
Chelan, WA.........................................       14.2       107
McKean, PA.........................................       14.1       108
Lewis, WA..........................................       14.1       109
Siskiyou, CA.......................................       14.0       110
Adams, ID..........................................       14.0       112
Forest, PA.........................................       14.0       112
Linn, OR...........................................       13.8       113
Ashland, WI........................................       13.7       114
Lake, FL...........................................       13.5       115
Grant, OR..........................................       13.4       116
Forest, WI.........................................       13.2       117
Clearwater, ID.....................................       13.1       118
Haines, AK.........................................       12.8       119
Ontonagon, MI......................................       12.8       120
Valley, ID.........................................       12.6       121
Itasca, MN.........................................       12.6       122
Mackinac, MI.......................................       12.5       123
Bayfield, WI.......................................       12.4       124
Alger, MI..........................................       12.3       125
Plumas, CA.........................................       12.2       126
Elmore, ID.........................................       12.1       127
Custer, SD.........................................       12.1       128
Custer, ID.........................................       12.0       129
St. Louis, MN......................................       12.0       130
Vilas, WI..........................................       11.0       131
Boise, ID..........................................       10.8       132
Skamania, WA.......................................       10.7       133
Deschutes, OR......................................       10.6       134
Coos, NH...........................................       10.6       135
Warren, PA.........................................       10.3       136
Pet/Wrangell/PWI, AK...............................       10.1       137
Florance, WI.......................................        9.8       138
Taylor, WI.........................................        9.8       139
Sierra, CA.........................................        9.4       140
Carrol, NH.........................................        9.2       141
Grofton, NH........................................        8.8       142
Oconto, WI.........................................        8.8       143
Lake, MN...........................................        7.6       144
Elk, PA............................................        7.4       145
Cook, MN...........................................        6.9       146
Sika, AK...........................................        6.7       147
Price, WI..........................................        6.6       148
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       March 1999 Unadjusted Unemployment Rates by County.--This 
     data was collected at the State level from various State 
     agencies responsible for reporting unemployment. The National 
     average unemployment rate in March of 1999 was 4.3%. The 
     question facing most suburban and urban Congressmen and many 
     Senators is how they would respond if their colleagues 
     proposed a new federal policy which quadruples the 
     unemployment rates in their District. When considered in 
     light of the potential employment income which will be lost 
     to a zero harvest policy, some of these rural forest counties 
     are already in dire straits! Fully one-half of the rural 
     forest counties surveyed have unemployment rates which are at 
     least double the national average.

                RANK ORDER OF COUNTY UNEMPLOYMENT LEVELS
 [Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and State Agency Reports]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Unemployment--
                  County and State                  --------------------
                                                      Percent     Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharkey, MS........................................       29.7         1
Adams, ID..........................................       22.8         2
Tulare, CA.........................................       20.9         3
Clearwater, ID.....................................       19.0         4
Grant, OR..........................................       18.1         5
Wilkinson, MS......................................       17.9         6
Haines, AK.........................................       17.5         7
Fresno, CA.........................................       17.1         8
Trinity, CA........................................       16.7         9
Columbia, WA.......................................       16.4        10
Ferry, WA..........................................       16.2        11
Medera, CA.........................................       15.5        12
Shoshone, ID.......................................       15.1        13
Lake, OR...........................................       15.1        14
Sierra, CA.........................................       14.8        15
Kern, CA...........................................       14.7        16
Plumas, CA.........................................       14.3        17
Idaho, ID..........................................       14.2        18
Navajo, AZ.........................................       14.1        19
Siskiyou, CA.......................................       14.0        20
Wallowa, OR........................................       14.0        21
Apache, AZ.........................................       13.8        22
Pend Oreille, WA...................................       13.8        23
Pet/Wrangell/PWI, AK...............................       13.7        24
Lincoln, MT........................................       13.1        25

[[Page 15997]]

 
Modoc, CA..........................................       13.0        26
Valley, ID.........................................       12.8        27
Catron, NM.........................................       12.5        28
Bonner, ID.........................................       12.5        29
Boundary, ID.......................................       12.4        30
Yakima, WA.........................................       11.9        31
Greenbrier, WV.....................................       11.8        32
Baker, OR..........................................       11.7        33
Tucker, WV.........................................       11.7        34
Jasper, TX.........................................       11.6        35
Okanogan, WA.......................................       11.6        36
Klamath, OR........................................       11.4        37
Alcona, MI.........................................       11.4        38
Iosoc, MI..........................................       11.4        39
Lake, MI...........................................       11.4        40
Taos, NM...........................................       11.2        41
Douglas, OR........................................       11.0        42
Forest, PA.........................................       11.0        43
Mineral, MT........................................       10.8        44
Lassen, CA.........................................       10.7        45
Randolph, WV.......................................       10.7        46
Sanders, MT........................................       10.6        47
Natchitoches, LA...................................       10.5        48
Saguache, CO.......................................       10.3        49
Ashland, WI........................................       10.2        50
Chelan, WA.........................................       10.2        51
Del Norte, CA......................................       10.1        52
Josephine, OR......................................       10.0        53
Duschesne, UT......................................       10.0        54
Skamania, WA.......................................       10.0        55
Shasta, CA.........................................        9.7        56
Price, WI..........................................        9.7        57
Webster, WV........................................        9.7        58
Custer, ID.........................................        9.6        59
Curry, OR..........................................        9.6        60
Newton, AR.........................................        9.4        61
Carter, MO.........................................        9.3        62
Grays Harbor, WA...................................        9.3        63
Boise, ID..........................................        9.2        64
Lemhi, ID..........................................        9.1        65
Linn, OR...........................................        9.1        66
Granite, MT........................................        9.0        67
Manistee, MI.......................................        9.0        68
Florance, WI.......................................        9.0        69
Franklin, MS.......................................        8.9        70
Sabine, TX.........................................        8.9        71
Rio Arriba, NM.....................................        8.8        72
Tehema, CA.........................................        8.8        73
Ontonagon, MI......................................        8.7        74
Schoolcroft, MI....................................        8.7        75
Bayfield, WI.......................................        8.7        76
Wayne, MO..........................................        8.5        77
Alger, MI..........................................        8.5        78
Chippewa, MI.......................................        8.5        79
Gogebic, MI........................................        8.5        80
Houghton, MI.......................................        8.5        81
Iron, MI...........................................        8.5        82
Mackinac, MIO......................................        8.5        83
Wexford, MI........................................        8.5        84
Sawyer, WI.........................................        8.5        85
Deschutes, OR......................................        8.3        86
Lewis, WA..........................................        8.3        87
Umatilla, OR.......................................        8.2        88
Jackson, OR........................................        8.1        89
Garfield, UT.......................................        8.1        90
McCurtain, OK......................................        8.0        91
San Juan, UT.......................................        8.0        92
Flathead, MT.......................................        7.9        93
Forest, WI.........................................        7.9        94
Vilas, WI..........................................        7.8        95
Le Flore, OK.......................................        7.6        96
Perry, MS..........................................        7.5        97
Coconino, AZ.......................................        7.3        98
Shannon, MO........................................        7.2        99
Menifee, KY........................................        7.1       100
Washington, MO.....................................        7.1       101
Ravalli, MT........................................        7.1       102
Cliborne, LA.......................................        7.1       103
Grant, LA..........................................        7.1       104
Elk, PA............................................        7.1       105
Benton, MS.........................................        6.9       106
Cass, MN...........................................        6.9       107
Covington, AL......................................        6.8       108
Taylor, WI.........................................        6.8       109
Custer, SD.........................................        6.8       110
Wayne, MS..........................................        6.6       111
San Augustine, TX..................................        6.5       112
Itasca, MN.........................................        6.5       113
Oconto, WI.........................................        6.5       114
Elmore, ID.........................................        6.4       115
Iron, MO...........................................        6.3       116
Shelby, TX.........................................        6.3       117
Sitka, AK..........................................        6.0       118
WInn, LA...........................................        6.0       119
McKean, PA.........................................        6.0       120
Dent, MO...........................................        5.9       121
Lane, OR...........................................        5.9       122
Pocahontas, WV.....................................        5.7       123
Perry, AL..........................................        5.6       124
Rapides, LA........................................        5.6       125
Vernon, LA.........................................        5.6       126
Angelina, TX.......................................        5.5       127
Powell, MT.........................................        5.4       128
Cook, MN...........................................        5.2       129
Polk, AR...........................................        5.1       130
Beltrami, MN.......................................        5.1       131
Reynolds, MO.......................................        5.0       132
Pendleton, WV......................................        5.0       133
Whitley, KY........................................        4.8       134
Warren, PA.........................................        4.8       135
Winston, AL........................................        4.7       136
Lake, MN...........................................        4.6       137
Montgomery, AR.....................................        4.5       138
San Jacinto, TX....................................        4.5       139
Coos, NH...........................................        4.5       140
Missoula, MT.......................................        4.3       141
Houston, TX........................................        4.2       142
Barry, MO..........................................        4.0       143
St. Louis, MN......................................        3.7       144
Scott, AR..........................................        3.6       145
Carrol, NH.........................................        3.4       146
Lake, FL...........................................        3.2       147
Grofton, NH........................................        2.4       148
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Timber Employment Income Lost by County if Zero Federal 
     Harvest Policy Adopted--This data was generated by 
     desegregating the U.S. Forest Service TSPIRS Timber 
     Employment Income data from a forest-by-forest report, to a 
     county-by-county basis. It is based on the number of acres of 
     each national forest in a county and the amount of employment 
     income generated by the FY 1997 Forest Service timber sale 
     harvest on each Nation Forest. It represents direct, indirect 
     and induced employment income generated as a result of the 
     harvest, manufacturing and shipping of lumber derived from 
     the trees the U.S. Forest Service allowed to be harvested 
     from National Forest lands in FY 1997.

 FOREST SERVICE GENERATED TIMBER EMPLOYMENT INCOME LOST IF ZERO HARVEST
                            POLICY IS ADOPTED
               [U.S. Forest Service FY 1997 TSPIRS Report]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Timber income lost--
                County and State                 -----------------------
                                                      Amount       Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln, MT.....................................    $101,760,422       1
Idaho, ID.......................................      72,476,050       2
Valley, ID......................................      48,118,770       3
Siskiyou, CA....................................      40,331,023       4
Lane, OR........................................      32,557,484       5
Clearwater, ID..................................      29,714,265       6
Plums, CA.......................................      27,871,776       7
Pet/Wrangell/PWI, AK............................      24,275,086       8
Sanders, MT.....................................      23,433,551       9
Scott, AR.......................................      23,232,410      10
Flathead, MT....................................      22,776,620      11
Modoc, CA.......................................      21,739,914      12
Forest, WI......................................      21,383,601      13
Bayfield, WI....................................      21,012,696      14
Montgomery, AR..................................      21,005,410      15
Lassen, CA......................................      20,919,075      16
Lake, OR........................................      20,911,126      17
Boise, ID.......................................      20,646,531      18
Douglas, OR.....................................      20,509,552      19
Klamath, OR.....................................      20,339,531      20
Trinity, CA.....................................      19,761,393      21
Mineral, MT.....................................      19,186,111      22
Missoula, MT....................................      17,530,019      23
Shasta, CA......................................      17,483,779      24
Shoshone, ID....................................      17,318,060      25
Sierra, CA......................................      16,653,781      26
Pend Oreille, WA................................      15,880,684      27
Elmore, ID......................................      15,850,552      28
Lake, MN........................................      15,509,194      29
Coconino, AZ....................................      14,533,534      30
St. Louis, MN...................................      14,185,120      31
Deschutes, OR...................................      14,137,080      32
Ashland, WI.....................................      14,049,978      33
Lake, FL........................................      13,987,269      34
Warren, PA......................................      13,894,923      35
Le Flore, OK....................................      13,812,720      36
Chelan, WA......................................      13,778,783      37
Ravalli, MT.....................................      13,665,678      38
Grant, OR.......................................      13,422,139      39
Cook, MN........................................      13,180,684      40
Adams, ID.......................................      13,014,235      41
Itasca, MN......................................      12,891,717      42
McKean, PA......................................      12,795,873      43
Linn, OR........................................      12,755,053      44
Bonner, ID......................................      12,318,467      45
Cass, MN........................................      12,041,721      46
Grofton, NH.....................................      11,842,864      47
Skamania, WA....................................      11,782,051      48
Price, WI.......................................      11,769,739      49
Forest, PA......................................      11,252,287      50
Boundary, ID....................................      10,931,844      51
Gogebic, MI.....................................      10,737,757      52
Elk, PA.........................................      10,572,058      53
Tehema, CA......................................       9,931,660      54
Sawyer, WI......................................       9,853,943      55
Fresno, CA......................................       9,739,734      56
Ontonagon, MI...................................       9,657,199      57
Powell, MT......................................       9,647,317      58
Taylor, WI......................................       9,638,095      59
Ferry, WA.......................................       9,597,474      60
Curry, OR.......................................       9,322,753      61
Jackson, OR.....................................       9,253,868      62
Oconto, WI......................................       8,786,515      63
Custer, ID......................................       8,766,834      64
Grant, LA.......................................       8,578,181      65
Granite, MT.....................................       8,228,367      66
Lemhi, ID.......................................       8,227,228      67
McCurtain, OK...................................       7,964,516      68
Coos, NH........................................       7,804,209      69
Natchitoches, LA................................       7,795,305      70
Garfield, UT....................................       7,728,187      71
Chippewa, MI....................................       7,314,442      72
Haines, AK......................................       6,992,175      73
Wallowa, OR.....................................       6,732,097      74
Winn, LA........................................       6,621,141      75
Custer, SD......................................       6,421,727      76
Iron, MI........................................       6,178,210      77
Josephine, OR...................................       6,139,734      78
Rapides, LA.....................................       6,097,049      79
Tulare, CA......................................       5,933,423      80
Del Norte, CA...................................       5,753,086      81
Lewis, WA.......................................       5,518,925      82
Houghton, MI....................................       5,401,133      83
Carrol, NH......................................       5,289,895      84
Florance, WI....................................       5,285,049      85
Okanogan, WA....................................       5,199,000      86
Vernon, LA......................................       5,116,015      87
Duschesne, UT...................................       5,109,610      88
Sabine, TX......................................       5,097,729      89
Houston, TX.....................................       4,978,641      90
Mackinac, MI....................................       4,785,506      91
Newton, AR......................................       4,353,178      92
Kern, CA........................................       4,306,829      93
Sitka, AK.......................................       4,294,042      94
Polk, AR........................................       4,226,255      95
Pocahontas, WV..................................       3,938,213      96
Alger, MI.......................................       3,852,967      97
Umatilla, OR....................................       3,842,225      98
Medera, CA......................................       3,669,819      99
San Augustine, TX...............................       3,669,790     100
Schoolcroft, MI.................................       3,668,905     101
Baker, OR.......................................       3,616,753     102
Perry, MS.......................................       3,611,334     103
Iosoc, MI.......................................       3,588,232     104
Alcona, MI......................................       3,545,437     105
Lake, MI........................................       3,533,660     106
Vilas, WI.......................................       3,491,140     107
San Jacinto, TX.................................       3,241,446     108
Shelby, TX......................................       3,152,744     109
Angelina, TX....................................       3,125,936     110
Wexford, MI.....................................       3,032,878     111
Winston, AL.....................................       2,933,001     112
Catron, NM......................................       2,796,549     113
Manistee, MI....................................       2,756,818     114
Pendleton, WV...................................       2,756,738     115
Beltrami, MN....................................       2,682,562     116
Randolph, WV....................................       2,596,286     117
Rio Arriba, NM..................................       2,504,243     118
Franklin, MS....................................       2,119,744     119
Wayne, MS.......................................       1,999,418     120
Apache, AZ......................................       1,822,186     121
Iron, MO........................................       1,808,307     122
Navajo, AZ......................................       1,807,204     123
Covington, AL...................................       1,800,017     124
Carter, MO......................................       1,733,748     125
Reynolds, MO....................................       1,714,278     126
Wayne, MO.......................................       1,682,267     127
San Juan, UT....................................       1,674,575     128
Yakima, WA......................................       1,614,005     129
Shannon, MO.....................................       1,591,674     130
Columbia, WA....................................       1,571,947     131
Washington, MO..................................       1,571,040     132
Dent, MO........................................       1,379,909     133
Saguache, CO....................................       1,357,282     134
Sharkey, MS.....................................       1,331,119     135
Greenbrier, WV..................................       1,298,983     136
Benton, MS......................................       1,229,758     137
Tucker, WV......................................       1,220,996     138
Menifee, KY.....................................       1,219,646     139
Cliborne, LA....................................       1,191,401     140
Whitley, KY.....................................       1,154,452     141
Grays Harbor, WA................................       1,127,836     142
Jasper, TX......................................       1,125,305     143
McCormick, SC...................................       1,077,508     144
Perry, AL.......................................       1,076,470     145
Taos, NM........................................       1,056,431     146
Barry, MO.......................................       1,047,468     147

[[Page 15998]]

 
Webster, WV.....................................         844,004     148
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Wu-Hooley amendment 
which reduces forest timber sales management by $30 million. Forest 
products are my district's main industry and have a great financial, 
environmental, cultural, historical and recreational impact on my 
constituents.
  My constituents depend upon a strong, vibrant national forest. We 
have been good stewards of our land and its natural resources. The 
forests depend upon us for proper management, for nurturing and 
protection. We cannot afford a reduction in the timber sales program.
  I have heard it said here tonight we are only going to cut 23 or 30 
million out of a $220 million timber sales account. That is greater 
than a 10-percent cut. This amendment would upset the balanced 
environmental program in the current Interior bill. The Interior bill 
eliminates the timber purchaser road credits. It provides only 
decreased funding for timber management and already increases the 
wildlife account by $3 million.
  Our national forests are in a health crisis. The timber program has 
already been reduced by 70 percent since 1991. Further reductions are 
terrible public policy. Where do we go if we stop cutting and continue 
the reductions in timber sales on Federal forests? We put more pressure 
on State and private forests to make up for the lost timber. We do 
great environmental degradation to those lands, greater erosion of 
water quality.
  Our national forest, as I said, are in a health crisis. More than 40 
million acres of the national forests are at high risk for catastrophic 
fires due to accumulation of dead and dying trees. An additional 26 
million acres are at risk from insect and disease. Forests in my 
district have suffered several fires in the last 2 years. Recently, 6 
weeks ago, we had a couple of major fires costing more than $2 million 
to fight, destroying thousands of acres of timber, cottages, and camps. 
Careful removal of many of the trees is one of the most efficient, 
economical and least environmentally impacting management tools 
available to us to reduce the risk to our national forests and protect 
adjacent private and State land.

                              {time}  2200

  Most Forest Service timber sales are designed to help attain other 
stewardship objectives. Timber sales are often the most effective 
method, both ecologically and economically, of achieving desired 
vegetative management objectives such as thinning dense forest stands 
or to restore historical ecological conditions, reducing excessive 
forest fuels, and creating desired wildlife habitat.
  Timber sales provide many benefits beyond the revenues earned. From 
an ecological perspective, timber sales improve forest ecosystem 
health, reduce the risk and intensity of catastrophic fire, and improve 
water quality. From an economic point of view, they provide job 
opportunities, generate individual and business income, and produce 
incremental tax receipts that various levels of government collect.
  We have heard tonight that the home builders would oppose this 
amendment. Well, the Western Council of Industry Workers, the United 
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America also oppose the Wu-
Hooley amendment.
  If I may, I would just like to quote from their language on why they 
are opposed to this amendment. Labor says, ``Legislative efforts to 
reduce funding for forest management programs seriously jeopardize the 
livelihoods of our members and tens of thousands of forest product 
workers nationwide. Job loss within our industry has been severe as the 
timber sale program has been reduced by almost 70 percent since the 
early 1990s. More than 80,000 men and women have lost their jobs due to 
this decline and further cutbacks in these important programs will only 
add to the unemployment.''
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the timber sale program 
and reject the Wu-Hooley amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be engaging shortly in a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, 
Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry. But I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  While I strongly believe that we should be providing more funding for 
the Forest Service's restoration program, I am reluctant to support 
further cuts in the timber program at this time. The program is funded 
in the bill at slightly below last year's level, an appropriate figure 
as we work on a long-range forest policy for this country, a policy 
that should give greater emphasis to multiple use.
  I do expect that, even without cutting the timber program, we will 
have an opportunity later this year to increase spending for the Forest 
Service's restoration programs. That is an opportunity we should 
accept. Ideally, these programs should be funded at the requested 
level.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Virginia, 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, 
Nutrition and Forestry.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman that I 
thank him, first of all, for his opposition to this amendment. I 
believe that it would be appropriate to fund the backlog of restoration 
programs more fully. If more money materializes for the Interior 
appropriation, I hope that some of those funds would be added to the 
restoration accounts. I would join with the gentleman from New York in 
his effort to do that.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his assurances.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Ohio, chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Interior.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my support for the 
restoration programs. If more funding becomes available, I would be 
pleased to consider adding some of it to these accounts.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank both chairmen. With the 
understanding that there is broad agreement that restoration programs 
could and should receive additional funds later this year, I urge 
opposition to the amendment.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Wu) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for helping 
to bring this amendment to the floor.
  I also thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of 
the subcommittee, as well as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) 
for all of the hard work they have done in trying to balance all of 
these competing needs.
  We have heard a lot of talk about how much timber we are not going to 
harvest if we pass this amendment. None of us are talking about 
reducing the amount of timber cut. Somebody else mentioned, well, we 
should give them what they requested. The administration requested $23 
million less than what the appropriators gave this program. What I am 
looking for is some balance in this program.
  Is the management underfunded? Probably. But is the wildlife and 
fishery programs even more underfunded? They are tremendously 
underfunded. My colleagues have to remember, again, the timber sales 
program will be funded at the administration's request for this under 
this amendment.
  One of the problems that happens in our forest is there is little 
funding to

[[Page 15999]]

work proactively on improving and protecting habitat. I think this is 
interesting. We talk about the timber, but remember, the Forest Service 
manages more acres of fresh water fish habitat than any other agency. 
In addition, almost 65 percent of all listed aquatic species of the 
United States occupy habitat on public lands. We not only need to 
manage our trees, but we need to manage these resources as well.
  I know Oregon and other States with large tracts of Federal lands 
rely on funding for activities which will restore and enhance existing 
fish and wildlife habitat. This is particularly important since the 
northwest has had nine species of salmon and Steelhead listed on the 
endangered species list. Programs to restore forest and wildlife are 
chronically underfunded.
  We look at the maintenance backlog on the current national forest 
system, which is over $8 billion, causing a number of water pollution 
problems from unmaintained roads. This amendment provides the funds 
necessary to partially address these efforts. It does not fund the 
whole thing. It just partially addresses these efforts.
  First of all, the Forest Service has $1 billion budget. One-third of 
it is spent to log national forests, while only 11 percent of the 
agency's total spending goes for fish and wildlife and watershed 
improvement.
  Today, we have an opportunity to address this shortfall. I ask for my 
colleagues' support for the Wu-Hooley amendment and take a small 
proactive step toward enhancing fish and wildlife habitat, to better 
our water quality, and protect our watersheds.

                                        Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1999.
     Hon. Darlene Hooley,
     House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC
       Dear Darlene: Yesterday I wrote a letter to Chairman Bill 
     Young expressing my concern about the low funding levels for 
     wildlife and fisheries in the Interior and Related Agencies 
     FY00 bill while funding for the timber program remains at $23 
     million above the President's request. I understand you may 
     offer an amendment to equalize these programs, in accordance 
     with the President's budget to assure greater balance among 
     all of the multiple uses and values of our nation's forests. 
     Increasing funding for salmon and other wildlife habitat 
     restoration is one of the administration's top priorities. As 
     I understand your amendment, it is consistent with these 
     priorities, as reflected in the administration budget's 
     request and, therefore, I strongly support it.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Dan Clickman,
                                                        Secretary.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong disagreement with this amendment. Good 
forestry is good water practice. It is good wildlife practice. If we 
take 23 million more dollars out of the budget for forest stand 
improvement, we will, in the long-term, hurt wildlife, will hurt water 
and watershed.
  We have 40 million acres in this country that have been entrusted to 
us as the stewards for the American people of forests that are in grave 
danger of catastrophic fire. We are the stewards of the greatest 
resource man could imagine, our national ground, our national forests. 
This is a wrong-headed move. We need to put more money into the 
management of that. We need to move the management of our forest so 
they are productive, so they are self-sufficient, so they produce game, 
so that they are in all aspects compatible with a sustainable yield and 
use by all our people.
  Good forest management is not in opposition to any of the goals that 
have been stated here tonight. Good forest management increases those 
goals. As we take the dead wood, the downed timber out of our forest, 
we reduce the chance for a catastrophic fire. We will increase the 
growth. We will have more oxygen, cleaner water, better forests, and 
better opportunities for recreation.
  I think that this is not fiscal discipline. I think it is fiscal 
folly. I would very much ask my colleagues to vote no on the Wu 
amendment.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wu amendment, because this 
amendment could have a very significant adverse effect on my district 
and the districts of many of us who have national forests within their 
boundaries.
  This amendment has a noble purpose in that it proposes to increase 
funding for wildlife and fishery habitat. But it also offsets that 
increase against the Timber Sales Management Program that is very vital 
to the activity of the national forest that harvests timber and does it 
in a wise and sound and environmentally correct way.
  This particular amendment would take away a level funding by reducing 
by 10 percent the amount in this bill for the Timber Sales Management 
Program. Not only is the funding already questionable, but a further 10 
percent cut could be devastating to this program.
  This cut has several unintended consequences. First of all, it 
jeopardizes the jobs of many of those who are representative of 
national forest areas because it threatens the ability of the Forest 
Service to carry out their timber sales program.
  Secondly, the Wu amendment would reduce funds that are available for 
our school districts and our counties, because, as we all know, half of 
the proceeds from timber sales, from the national forests, are rebated 
back to our counties and our school districts. In my district alone, 
national forest sales has meant $5.6 million to our counties and school 
districts. This money means quality education and services to those in 
those counties.
  Thirdly, cutting support for the Timber Sales Management Program will 
have an adverse effect on the health of our forest, one of the 
objectives that the proponents of the amendment would advocate.
  There are over 40 million acres of national forest that are 
threatened by catastrophic fires, a great risk that has occurred 
because of accumulation of dead and dying trees. There is an additional 
26 million acres of national forest threatened by insect and disease.
  We all know dead timber is a catalyst for forest fires. We know that 
the proper removal and the thinning of our national forest is one of 
the tools used to efficiently and economically and environmentally 
correct management of our national forests.
  From time to time, it has been suggested that we are overharvesting 
our national forest. But as has been pointed out by several speakers 
here tonight, our tree growth in our national forest exceeds our 
current harvest by over 600 percent.
  Forest Service estimates that 23 billion board feet of wood are grown 
every year in the national forest. Six billion board feet die due to 
insects, disease, and fire. Less than 3 billion are actually harvested 
each year.
  The Forest Service Timber Management Program is an essential tool in 
the proper management of our national forest. I know the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu) believes very strongly in safeguarding our environment 
and also could appreciate that shortchanging this management program 
could have a detrimental impact upon the very objective that the 
amendment seeks to achieve.
  Finally, in response to reports that timber sales and the Timber 
Sales Program in the national forest is losing money, I think it is 
important for us to understand that we need to look at the total 
picture, because the total impact upon our Federal, State, and local 
governments is very positive in economic terms.
  The facts are that, in fiscal year 1997, the harvest of timber in our 
national forest created 55,000 jobs in this country, provided regional 
income of over $2 billion, and resulted in $309 million in Federal 
taxes. So there is a positive economic impact from the harvesting of 
the timber in the national forest.
  Timber Sales Program returned $220 million directly to the school 
districts and the counties where we have national forests. These 
dollars are needed for our school children, and they are an offset 
against the loss that all of our counties and school districts have due 
to the fact that we cannot tax under the property tax in our local 
jurisdiction those Federal lands.

[[Page 16000]]

  The bottom line is the Wu amendment threatens the health of our 
national forest, it adversely impacts the quality of public education 
in our school districts with Federal land, and it puts further strains 
upon our county government. I urge this House to reject the Wu 
amendment.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wu and Hooley amendment. I 
understand what they are trying to accomplish, trying to get our 
watershed healthier. But I just came from 3 hours of a hearing in my 
district in a town where one has to drive 100 miles in any direction 
before one hits the first stop light.

                              {time}  2215

  It is in a county where we have 15.1 percent unemployment. They have 
not participated in the economic recovery the rest of this Nation has 
enjoyed in the 1990s because they are surrounded by public lands and 
they have to have access to that resource. This amendment will hurt 
them because it will hurt forests across America, because it will 
reduce the cut that is available to be done.
  The chief of the Forest Service has admitted that he does not have 
the resources to meet the allowable sale quantity of the cut that is 
available. That is what I was told from a hearing in the last day or 
so; that even with this money it will be tight. They have not been 
meeting their targets. We all know that. This will not help that. This 
will not help our schools. This will not help jobs.
  That is part of why the Western Council of Industrial Workers issued 
a letter in opposition to this amendment, saying that legislative 
efforts to reduce funding for forest management programs would 
seriously jeopardize the livelihoods of our members and tens of 
thousands of forest products workers Nationwide. Associated Oregon 
Loggers say the timber sale program is the only major Forest Service 
program requested for a decrease in funding from fiscal year 1999.
  This amendment will hurt. And it will not help clean up our forests. 
One of the major problems in our forests comes from overgrowth and lack 
of harvest and the concentration that occurs. And when that occurs, it 
is like a garden that never gets weeded. The weeds multiply and disease 
sets in and they are ripe for fire.
  I would ask my colleagues to go to the Malheur National Forest and 
look at the summit fire and look at the result of that and the loss to 
taxpayers and the loss to jobs when 40,000 acres burned in a 
catastrophic fire. Grant County has led the State in unemployment. 
Every county in my district that relies on timberlands has been 
adversely affected and this will not help.
  I would join my colleagues if they want to do something about 
pollution to our rivers, if they want to stop allowing some of our 
urban areas to dump raw sewage into the rivers when their storm systems 
overflow, or if they want to open up some of the 800 miles of streams 
that are in pipes throughout the urban areas. That is not very good 
fish habitat, now is it?
  We are willing to do our part in the rural communities if our urban 
friends will do their part. But taking away from this program will 
neither help forest health nor help the economic situation nor the 
schools nor the counties nor the people in those communities. This is a 
bad amendment and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues, 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley).
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the subsidy for timber 
sales management by $23 million and direct the money to sorely needed 
forest restoration projects. The reduction would be to the level 
requested by the administration. Taxpayers should not be asked to 
subsidize the cost of doing business for the timber industry, 
especially at the expense of the environment.
  According to the General Accounting Office, Forest Service timber 
sales programs lose money, $995 million in a 2-year period recently. 
And in that period, taxpayers paid $245 million to construct timber 
roads in the national forests. These losses and subsidies cost 
taxpayers and the environment.
  The Wu-Hooley amendment would help the Forest Service implement a 
responsible budget by transferring harmful industry handouts to 
spending that would promote healthy streams and lakes and would help to 
protect, restore and improve wildlife habitat.
  The economic waste and environmental damage caused by the Forest 
Service timber programs have gone far enough. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Wu-Hooley amendment to help move the Forest Service budget 
in the right direction.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which 
would slash the timber sale funds to only $196.8 million. This 
critically low level is the amount the administration requested and is 
$30 million below fiscal year 1999's spending in this program.
  Now, it is interesting, even though this is the administration's 
recommendation, the chief of the Forest Service testified before my 
subcommittee yesterday that the administration's request is inadequate 
to address the agency's most urgent forest health concerns. Why is it 
inadequate? The chief is right here, the Forest Service has identified 
more than 40 million acres of the national forests that are in extreme 
risk of catastrophic fires.
  I have also heard before my committee testimony that said our 
national forest is in a state of near collapse. Now, this national 
trust, this valuable asset that is diminishing every day from lack of 
care is much like a bridge that needs repair. Mr. Chairman, I can 
assure my colleagues that if we have a bridge that needs repair, we do 
not want to risk harm to equipment and especially harm to humans 
because of catastrophic reactions from lack of care, and care takes 
money. Now, I am a fiscal conservative. I like to vote for cuts, 
because I think we need to cut government more, but not here. It is 
much like a bridge project.
  Now, these 40 million acres, most of these lands are located in the 
west, and that includes 40 million at critical risk plus 29 million 
acres that are at risk of additional insect infestation. In that 
regard, Mr. Chairman, I want to show my colleagues a map. This map was 
put together by the Forest Service, and the areas in red are the areas 
that are at extreme critical risk. This is the administration and the 
agency's own map.
  On this map we can see some red blobs. The biggest red blob is an 
area of concentration of near collapse in our national forest in the 
area of northern Idaho and in western Montana. My colleagues can see 
why I get so excited about this. These are Federal lands that have been 
let go to waste. Now, these areas, if we put them together, would 
amount to almost the size of the State of California. That is a huge 
amount of land that is going to waste because we are not caring for it 
properly. And this map, prepared by the Forest Service, does identify 
those priority areas.
  GAO calls these lands a tinderbox. And the forestry experts agree 
that it is not a matter of if these lands will burn, it is just a 
matter of when they will burn if we do not invest in taking care of 
America's garden. The timber sale program is the agency's most 
effective and efficient tool to address this emergency situation, this 
state of near collapse in our national forest. It allows the Forest 
Service to recover some of its costs through the sale of merchantable 
timber while it provides safe and controlled ways to reduce the highly 
flammable fuels.
  If we wish to preserve these lands as wildlife habitats and ensure 
good quality of water in the streams, then for goodness sakes we need 
to prevent forest fires. There is absolutely no logic in the fact that 
we let these diseased and

[[Page 16001]]

insect infested areas to continue to expand, because that in and of 
itself destroys wildlife habitat and it invites fires. The idea that we 
can let this situation go on and still improve wildlife habitat is the 
kind of logic that leaks like a sieve.
  Mr. Chairman, I must point out that many counties across the country 
are also directly affected by the continuous annual decline in the 
Forest Service timber sale program. So I want to urge my colleagues to 
vote to preserve the Forest Service's ability to manage its forest 
lands, reduce the risk of fire, protect wildlife habitat and protect 
our roads, our rural counties and our schoolchildren.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a member of the Subcommittee on Forests 
and Forest Health of the Committee on Resources in support of the Wu-
Hooley-Miller amendment. This amendment is both fiscally responsible 
and environmentally sound. It boosts clean water efforts and improves 
the health of our national forests for recreational and commercial 
users. The Wu-Hooley-Miller amendment also redirects vital resources 
towards improving our drinking water, fish and wildlife.
  This amendment reduces what is basically a subsidy for timber sales 
management and directs the Federal funds to desperately needed forest 
restoration projects. House committees have increased the United States 
Forest Service timber sales requests by almost $24 million while 
slashing funding for fish and wildlife programs by the same amount. The 
Wu-Hooley-Miller amendment would reverse these sorely misplaced budget 
priorities and fund the restoration of watersheds, national forests and 
fisheries.
  This amendment scales spending on timber sales back to the 
President's request of $196 million from the amount in the bill now, 
some $220 million. It redirects the freed-up funds, almost $24 million, 
to vitally needed watershed improvements and to the protection of fish 
and wildlife.
  Mr. Chairman, as the representative from New York City, I recognize 
just how important these issues are throughout our Nation. By keeping 
ecosystems at a healthy level, clean air and water can be supplied to 
all communities. Protection of watersheds is important for making our 
communities more livable and making sure that we all have the safest 
and cleanest water for drinking and for recreation. There is absolutely 
no reason to put the interest of the timber industry ahead of the 
health of our forests and drinking water, especially when the two can 
peacefully coexist.
  I strongly support this environmentally sound and fiscally 
responsible amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just add that I have the pleasure of 
representing a portion of Astoria, Queens, and the prime sponsor of 
this amendment, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), represents Astoria, 
Oregon. Our joint support of this amendment is support for forests, 
fisheries and waterways from Astoria to Astoria and from coast to 
coast.
  I would also like to take a moment to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the newest member of the 
Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, for all 
his help and guidance on this matter and on so many other important 
environmental issues.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Here we go again. Rich suburban America says we should not cut 
timber. They do not live there, they do not understand the forest, but, 
boy, they are suddenly experts.
  We have heard a lot today about forest restoration. How do we restore 
a forest? We prune it. We manage it. We do not just let it die. Because 
when we let it die, nature will burn it. History shows that.
  Habitat improvement. We could give the whole Forest Service budget to 
the Fish and Wildlife Service and we could not create habitat. They 
cannot manufacture it. We do not make it in a factory. It is part of 
the forest. It is the result of good management of our land.
  We have an amendment to cut. Why would we cut less? It must mean we 
are cutting too much. That must be the reason for the amendment. So let 
us look. We are growing 23 billion board feet. Six billion are dying 
naturally. That leaves us 17 billion. Now, we cut 3 billion, so we have 
14 billion excess every year. Every 7 years that is 100 billion board 
feet in inventory.
  We will not have enough budget to cut the diseased and dying forest. 
We have 192 million acres in the Forest Service: 120 is high-grade 
commercial forest, 60 is potentially available for forestry, and we are 
practicing limited forestry on 30.

                              {time}  2230

  Are we cutting down the American forests? No, we are not. In the 
West, and I know more about the East because that is the hardwood 
forest, but this is data on the West, the public land is 50 percent of 
the softwood inventory in this country. They are providing three 
percent to the market. We are now at 34 percent import. I guess our 
goal is to equal oil, where we are more than 50 percent import.
  Why practice forestry? We can double and triple the growth of the 
forest if we manage it. When we cut down the trees that are mature, the 
trees that are going downhill, the young trees grow two and three times 
as fast. So we double and triple the growth of the forest.
  It is also good for clean air. We do not hear much about that. When 
the air from Chicago goes over the eastern forest, there is a whole lot 
less CO2 in it when it meets the ocean. Why? Because of the health of 
the eastern forest. It is good for wildlife, as I previously stated, 
because it creates the habitat they need. And when it is all even-aged 
and there is no sunlight, and that is what happens to an untouched 
forest, there is no sun, critters leave.
  Do my colleagues know what is left? Insects and moles and voles. Not 
animals, not birds, not wildlife, but bugs.
  In Pennsylvania and Ohio, a few years ago we had seven tornadoes that 
cut paths in the forest half a mile and a mile wide, took every tree 
down, just destroyed it. That was in 1985. I flew over it 3 weeks ago. 
From the air we can hardly see the difference. That forest is 25 to 30 
feet. It is a high-quality hardwood forest, and it has recovered 
because nature in the East reproduces.
  That forest today is teeming with wildlife, wildlife that never lived 
there. Birds have been seen there that were never there because it is 
like a jungle.
  We produce another inalienable resource, timber. We used to cut 12 
billion board feet. Now we cut about 2 to 3 billion board feet. The 
timber program has been cut 75 percent since 1991. We are setting the 
stage for our forests to burn, and the gentlewoman from Idaho explained 
that so well just a few moments ago.
  Practicing forestry is good for clean air. It is good for wildlife 
habitat. It is good for doubling and tripling this resource. It helps 
us be self-sufficient. And yes, in rural America it creates a whole lot 
of jobs.
  I have left that for last because I want to tell my colleagues that 
their suburban ideas are killing rural America. We are in trouble. We 
are limiting timber production. We have all but stopped oil and gas 
production. Mineral extraction is being exported more every day, and 
now agriculture is being squeezed because the dairy farmers are going 
out of business as we talk.
  This is what we do in rural America, my colleagues. Work with us. We 
can do it right and we can have a healthier economy.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I rise as a Westerner, and I rise 
in support of this amendment.
  This amendment is about balanced forest management. This amendment is 
about putting back in the money the administration requested to manage 
our watersheds and increase the protection of our fisheries. If we do 
that, if we manage our watersheds, we are going to have more trees in 
the long-

[[Page 16002]]

run, healthier forests, and we are going to help those rural economies.
  The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and the gentlewoman from Oregon 
(Ms. Hooley) have brought an important amendment. I urge its adoption. 
This is a good amendment. This helps our western and eastern forests.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) are 
postponed.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
request for a recorded vote on the Young amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Young amendment passes by voice vote.


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 243, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: An amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall); an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon); an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink); amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr); an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo); and an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic votes 
after the first vote in this series.


                    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 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 273, 
noes 151, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 288]

                               AYES--273

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--151

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Combest
     Hoyer
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Rivers
     Thurman
     Wynn

                              {time}  2256

  Mr. PICKERING changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. Traficant, Ewing, Petri, Whitfield, Mrs. Roukema, and Messrs. 
Becerra, Kingston, and Deal of Georgia 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 Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
243, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes 
the period of time within which a vote by electronic device will be 
taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida

[[Page 16003]]

(Mr. Weldon) 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 pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 205, 
noes 217, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 289]

                               AYES--205

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ose
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--217

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Combest
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Thomas
     Thurman
     Wynn

                              {time}  2305

  Mr. HUNTER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BAKER and Mr. PICKERING changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Klink

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 199, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 290]

                               AYES--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner

[[Page 16004]]


     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--199

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Archer
     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Combest
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Rivers
     Thurman
     Wynn

                              {time}  2313

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


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Farr of California

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 259, 
noes 166, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No 291]

                               AYES--259

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--166

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Fowler
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Wise
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Combest
     Dreier
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Rivers
     Thurman
     Wynn

                              {time}  2320

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
on which further proceedings were

[[Page 16005]]

postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 135, 
noes 291, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 292]

                               AYES--135

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gekas
     Goode
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Ramstad
     Riley
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--291

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Combest
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Rivers
     Thurman
     Wynn

                              {time}  2328

  Ms. PELOSI and Mr. TALENT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KASICH and Mr. WAMP changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Amendment Offered by Mr. Wu

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 250, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 293]

                               AYES--174

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--250

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan

[[Page 16006]]


     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Baldwin
     Bereuter
     Brown (CA)
     Combest
     Davis (FL)
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Rivers
     Thurman
     Wynn

                              {time}  2335

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak briefly about a 
small but important provision in the Interior Appropriations Bill 
having to do with breast-feeding.
  When the Appropriations Committee marked up the bill on July 1, I 
offered an amendment which was supported by Chairman Ralph Regula and 
Ranking Democrat Norm Dicks, and I appreciate their support as well as 
the broad support given by the full committee. The amendment was added 
as a general provision to the bill, and it was approved unanimously.
  I would like to highlight the importance of my amendment by sharing 
several stories, some of which may appear on the surface to be humorous 
but some of which I assure you illustrate a very serious issue: the 
issue of breast-feeding.
  My first quote is from a story that was recently related to me:
  ``My friend and I were visiting the Holocaust Museum. I began nursing 
my son in the back corner of the bookstore. I was harassed by the 
bookstore clerk and 4 security guards before being allowed to leave.''
  In another incident, while visiting the National Museum of Natural 
History, a guard instructed a Maryland woman who was breast-feeding her 
child to leave because, and I quote: ``no food or drink is allowed in 
the museum.'' It is important to note that a mother who was nearby 
feeding a child with a bottle was undisturbed.
  In yet another incident, a mother wrote about a confrontation at the 
National Gallery of Art.
  ``I was recently asked to leave the Sargent exhibit for breast-
feeding my baby. The guard stated that I was ruining the gallery 
experience of other patrons--some of whom were viewing a portrait 
directly opposite me of the Madonna and child--breast feeding.''
  Sadly, such incidences even happen in my own state of California.
  For example, a park ranger asked a woman visiting Yosemite National 
Park to stop nursing her child. It was only after the woman and her 
husband--who happened to be pediatrician--objected, that the ranger 
backed down.
  Although these are just anecdotes, I think they are indicative of a 
disturbing pattern--nursing mothers with their families on an outing to 
our parks and museums can't feed their hungry babies.
  The undeniable fact of life, however, is that hungry babies demand to 
be fed no matter where they are.
  Unfortunately, we don't know the full extent of the problem because 
most mothers when confronted, are publicly humiliated and quietly leave 
without protesting.
  However, our national parks and Washington-based museums and cultural 
attractions--which epitomize family-centered activities--should lead 
the way in promoting and defending the practice of breast-feeding.
  This important provision in the bill simply allows a woman to breast-
feed her baby in a national park or a museum, if they are otherwise 
permitted to be there.
  Breast-feeding is a very natural and healthful activity, one of the 
best things that a mother can do to give her child a healthy start in 
life.
  We know that the benefits are not just confined to infancy--breast-
fed babies are healthier, they have fewer allergies, and they have 
higher IQs.
  We know that breast-feeding is also good for mothers because it 
provides maternal protection against breast cancer and osteoporosis.
  I was frankly overwhelmed by the number of colleagues who came to me 
after my amendment was adopted to express support for protecting 
breast-feeding.
  In fact, based on the feedback we have received for this amendment, I 
believe this provision has much wider applicability, and I also support 
legislation introduced by our colleague, Carolyn Maloney, to extend 
this protection for breast-feeding nationwide as 13 states have already 
done.
  In the meantime, we should certainly be supporting family-friendly 
parks and museums, and I am grateful for the wide support that has 
permitted it to become part of this bill. I ask that Chairman Regula 
and Mr. Dicks try to retain this important provision during conference 
negotiations with the Senate. It sends a strong signal in support of 
American families across the Nation, and I believe it is something the 
House can take enormous pride in.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to 
the Sanders Amendment which provides increased funding for the low-
income weatherization program.
  I have always been a strong supporter of the weatherization program. 
This program is highly successful in providing critical funding to 
improve the energy efficiency of homes for low-income households. In my 
home state of North Dakota which confronts bitterly cold winters every 
year, the program provides assistance to an average 1,200 households 
annually. This investment saves a household nearly $200 in annual 
energy costs, yielding $2.40 in energy, health and safety benefits for 
every federal dollar invested. In the environment of utility 
deregulation and welfare reform, I believe that the funding commitment 
of the federal government to this program must reflect our commitment 
to energy efficiency and self-sufficiency for low income families, and 
this can only be done through continued strong funding.
  Unfortunately, the amendment before us today, while providing 
important funding for the weatherization program, cuts funding for the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time when we are facing a severely 
depressed world-wide oil market. To help alleviate the crisis in the 
oil industry we have used this funding to purchase oil and place it in 
the strategic reserve. At this time, we cannot cut back on our efforts 
to assist this industry by cutting funding for the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. The Sanders amendment presents us with a false choice between 
making an investment to place more oil in the strategic reserve which 
will aid a depressed industry and funding a program which will provide 
critical weatherization assistance to low income families. This should 
not be the trade off.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
concern over provisions in H.R. 2466, the Interior Appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2000, which limit resources to develop clean 
technologies essential to achieving economic growth and to reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions. Consensus exists in the scientific community 
that global warming is a problem that we must address now. As the 
world's economic leader, we have the ability and the responsibility to 
improve the environment and foster economic activity. Technology 
research and development will put the United States at the forefront of 
this emerging market and allow our nation to benefit from the global 
market for energy technologies.

[[Page 16007]]

  This measure is 15% below the Administration's budget request for 
energy conservation programs. The energy conservation program of the 
Department of Energy funds cooperative research and development 
projects aimed at sustaining economic growth through more efficient 
energy use. An inadequate appropriation could actually cost more money 
in the long run through lost efficiency. Activities financed through 
this program focus on markedly improving existing technologies as well 
as developing new technologies, which ultimately will displace some of 
our reliance on traditional fossil fuels.
  Mr. Chairman, the world is waiting for the U.S. Congress to act on 
global climate change. Our country is the world's largest contributor 
to the problem; we have the greatest resources to help solve it, yet we 
retreat from the task. The bill is but another symbol of our failure to 
recognize that we have a global responsibility to help bring the 
nations of the world back from the brink of a massive alteration of our 
planet's climate system. Here we have another chance to help turn this 
problem from an enormous environmental and economic risk into a chance 
for U.S. industry to lead the world in what will be the energy 
technologies of the 21st century.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The 
Weatherization Assistance Program serves a dual purpose. It provides 
health and economic benefits to the poor, by assisting in keeping low-
income homes warm. And it improves the environment by reducing energy 
loss from those homes. The program achieves these benefits in an 
efficient and effective manner in cooperation with local groups 
experienced in on-the-ground work. Funding from the Weathernization 
Assistance Program is used to leverage other federal and non-federal 
funds to weatherize roughly 200,000 homes each year. This work is 
especially important in Massachusetts and other states that face harsh 
winters; last year $3.8 million went to assist low-income homes in 
Massachusetts. The amendment sponsored by Mr. Sanders would provide an 
additional $13 million to this program, which would only restore it to 
last year's funding level. I strongly support restoring the funding for 
this excellent program.
  I do, however, regret that the sponsors of this amendment have chosen 
to take the money from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve is intended to serve the same consumers by ensuring a 
steady supply of oil in a crisis. Particularly for many low-income 
residents in the Northeast, adequate and reasonably priced oil supplies 
are crucial both for transportation and for winter heating. In recent 
years some of the petroleum reserve has been sold off for budgetary 
reasons. It is very important to fund the reserve adequately, and I 
hope that if this amendment passes, members will seek more appropriate 
offsets in conference.
  Despite this reservation, I strongly support this amendment and urge 
my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Regula for the 
wonderful job that he has done in bringing this bill before us on the 
floor. Preparing an appropriation bills is a difficult task. I 
appreciate the work that has been done by each of the committee members 
and the committee staff. Today I have the opportunity to share with my 
colleagues information about one of America's most important historical 
incidents, but often forgotten.
  I will be withdrawing my amendment in hopes of working with Chairman 
Regula in conference to ensure that this land be studied to ensure its 
preservation in the future.
  I rise to offer the Fort King amendment to HR 2466. This amendment is 
of historical importance not only to Ocala, Florida, home to Fort King, 
but to the whole nation. This Fort played a direct role in the founding 
of Florida as a state.
  If you have travelled through Florida in the last ten years, it would 
be hard for you to imagine that the first settlers deemed most of 
Florida's interior as inaccessible. It is on this land that a little 
more than a hundred years ago a battle raged.
  Beneath the tropical landscape of palm trees and flowers lie the 
weapons of a forgotten war and the bones of forgotten men. Where broad 
highways now wrap the state with concrete, tenuous trails were once 
flattened by Indians' moccasins and soldiers' boots. The dark river 
waters that now sustain pleasure boats have known far longer the dugout 
of the Seminole and the log raft of the trooper. In parks where 
tourists now scatter trash, valiant men once fought and died.
  The Florida War was ``the longest, costliest and bloodiest Indian war 
in United States history'' spanning almost seven years and costing the 
government thirty million dollars. Before the end more then fifteen 
hundred soldiers were dead and all but three hundred of the surviving 
Indians traveled the Trail of Tears to far Oklahoma.
  This was a significant incident in our nation's history. On December 
28, 1835, Fort King was the site of an outbreak of hostilities between 
the United States Government and the Seminole Indians. The Seminoles, 
were led in this attack by Chief Osceola. This attack began the Second 
Seminole War, which laster longer than any other United States armed 
conflict, except for the Vietnam War.
  Fort King and the surrounding area contain artifacts used in the 
attack and in the life of the Seminole Indians. This bill would help 
preserve Seminole history in Florida.
  This study would identify a means of preserving and developing Fort 
King. Preserving our past for our children and grandchildren is 
imperative. Fort King is a historical gem that should be accessible to 
all.
  I withdraw my amendment and look forward to working with the chairman 
in ensuring the success of this project.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to express my opposition to 
language included in H.R. 2466, the fiscal year (FY) 2000 Interior 
Appropriations bill that would mandate a ``pro-rata proportionate'' 
distribution of contract support cost funding for Indian Health Service 
(IHS) programs administered by tribes and tribal organizations.
  I commend Chairman Regula's inclusion of an additional $35 million 
over FY 1999 funding for contract support cost funding, for a total of 
$238.8 million. The increase includes an additional $30 million for 
existing contracts and $5 million for new and expanded contracts. These 
additional funds are crucial to meet the federal government's legal 
obligation to help tribes carry out the management of tribal health 
care programs.
  However, I oppose the legislative provisions within H.R. 2466 that 
purports to ``fix'' the contract support cost funding backlog by 
requiring a pro-rata distribution of contract support cost funding for 
all self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts. This 
language is inconsistent with an agreement reached on this issue among 
affected Members of Congress during debate of the FY 1999 Interior 
Appropriations bill.
  Abruptly imposing such a pro-rata system will disrupt on-going, 
viable tribally operated health care systems. This system 
disproportionately punishes those tribes with the longest history of 
providing their own health services and breaks a government commitment 
to these tribes. This issue is too important and complex to be 
adequately addressed without full review by the Resources Committee, 
the committee of jurisdiction.
  In addition, the massive redistribution of these funds would cause 
severe hardships in many of the health care programs serving Native 
Americans across the United States, a population that already is at the 
bottom of every health care indicator in the United States.
  To date, the Resources Committee has taken many constructive steps in 
an open process to develop a solution. The Resources Committee held its 
first hearing on February 24, 1999, at which the committee heard from 
both government and tribal representatives. The Resources Committee is 
reviewing a report recently released by the General Accounting Office 
(GAO) on contract support cost funding and how to ensure more 
consistency in payments. In addition, the committee is working with the 
Administration to develop recommendations on contract support cost 
funding that are fair and within budget. I look forward to 
participating in a second hearing that is scheduled for August 3, 1999, 
to discuss both sets of recommendations.
  I strongly oppose the pro-rata language in the FY 2000 Interior 
Appropriations bill. I pledge to continue working with the Resources 
Committee, tribal organizations, and the Administration, to develop a 
thoughtful and participatory long-term solution to the contract support 
cost issue.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2466, the Department of 
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 
includes funding for the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Clean Coal 
Technology, Fossil Energy and the Energy Conservation Research and 
Development programs.
  The bill represents the hard work of Mr. Regula and the members of 
the subcommittee and reflects Republican commitment to the balanced 
budget discretionary

[[Page 16008]]

caps that were agreed to in 1997. Abiding by these caps meant that hard 
decisions had to be made on a wide variety of issues including those 
related to research and development at the Department of Energy. While 
breaking the caps and simply spending more of the taxpayer-earned 
surplus is the easy thing to do, Mr. Regula has chosen the right thing 
to do and reined-in spending.
  The Science Committee has responsibility for setting authorization 
levels for funding research at the Department of Energy. The committee 
has passed two authorization bills which address Department of Energy 
funding needs, they are: H.R. 1655, the Department of Energy Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999 and H.R. 1656, 
the Department of Energy Commercial Application of Energy Technology 
Authorization Act of 1999. H.R. 2466 appropriates $524,822,000 for 
energy conservation programs, H.R. 1655 and H.R. 1656 provide a 
combined $542,375,000 for similar programs. Furthermore, H.R. 1655 and 
H.R. 1656 provide $366 million for fossil energy research and 
development while H.R. 2466 provides $335,292,000 for similar accounts. 
While H.R. 2466 does not fully fund these accounts to their authorized 
levels, it is a reasonable attempt to fund R&D in a tight fiscal 
framework.
  In addition, much of the R&D included in H.R. 2466 has a profound 
impact on climate research. While the administration jumped on the 
Kyoto bandwagon, I think a more science-based assessment of our climate 
and energy resources is necessary before we use taxpayers money to 
support a flawed policy approach.
  I have spent a great deal of time analyzing the Kyoto Protocol, the 
U.N. treaty that mandates the U.S. to cut our greenhouse gas emissions 
by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012.
  In 1997, the Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a series of three ``Countdown to Kyoto'' hearings on 
the science and economics of climate change. In December 1997, I led 
the bipartisan congressional delegation at the Kyoto climate change 
negotiations. Upon my return, I chaired three Science Committee 
hearings on the outcome and implications of the climate change 
negotiations. Most recently I attended the latest round of negotiations 
at Buenos Aires this past November. In the midst of the Buenos Aires 
negotiations, the Administration signed the Protocol without fanfare. 
This fact alone should raise our suspicions, giving this 
administration's willingness to take credit for, well, just about 
everything. Through all of these experiences, it's become clear to me 
that Vice President Gore is determined to implement this flawed 
protocol.
  Last October, the administration's own Energy Information 
Administration found the Kyoto Protocol would have significant negative 
impacts on the U.S. economy, including increased annual energy costs 
for the average household of $335 to $1,740; electricity price 
increases of 20 to 86 percent; gasoline price increases of 14 to 66 
cents per gallon; fuel oil price increases of 14 to 76 percent; natural 
gas price increases of 25 to 147 percent; and actual GDP declines of 
$60 to $397 billion. In addition, EIA estimates a decline in coal use 
of 20 to 80 percent, and an average coal price increase by 154 to 866 
percent, with additional coal mining job losses of 10,000 to 43,000. 
This approach is unacceptable.
  H.R. 2466 addresses this issue through its inclusion of language, 
known as the Knollenberg amendment, that prohibits any funds from being 
used to implement the Kyoto Protocol. This language is consistent with 
language from Representative Zoe Lofgren's amendment that was adopted 
by the Committee on Science as part of H.R. 1742, the Environmental 
Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Act of 1999, on 
May 25, 1999. Mr. Knollenberg's language assures taxpayers that Senate 
ratification must precede actions to implement the Kyoto Protocol. 
Given the glaring problems with this unfunded, unsigned, and unratified 
protocol, such a limitation is proper and necessary and I commend the 
Appropriations Committee for including it in H.R. 2466.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2466) 
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 243, he reported the bill back 
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, since Gettysburg is in my district, I 
demand a separate vote on the Klink amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the Klink amendment, the vote on the motion to recommit, and the vote 
on final passage all be confined to 5 minutes apiece.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair will advise all 
Members that the first vote on the Klink amendment if ordered will be 
15 minutes, followed by 5-minute votes on recommittal and passage.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the remaining amendments 
en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment on which 
a separate vote has been demanded.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:
       SEC. 332. No funds made available under this Act may be 
     used to implement alternatives B, C, or D identified in the 
     Final Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for 
     Gettysburg National Military Park dated June 1999.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220, 
noes 206, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 294]

                               AYES--220

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher

[[Page 16009]]


     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--206

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Combest
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Paul
     Rivers
     Thurman
     Wynn

                              {time}  2356

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OBEY. In its present form I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that the bill, H.R. 2466 be recommitted to 
     the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report 
     back forthwith with an amendment as follows:
       On page 6, line 13, after ``$20,000,000'' insert: 
     ``(increased by $28,000,000)''
       On page 13, line 23, after ``$42,000,000'' insert: 
     ``(increased by $27,000,000)''
       On page 17, line 13, after ``$45,449,000'' insert: 
     ``(increased by $4,000,000)''
       On page 19, line 16, after ``$102,000,000'' insert: 
     ``(increased by $28,000,000)''
       On page 71, line 19, after ``$159,000,000'' insert: 
     ``(increased by $13,000,000)''
       On page 87, line 19, after ``$83,500,000'' insert: 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''
       On page 88, line 18, after ``$96,800,000'' insert: 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''

  Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask every Member how many times 
have you told your constituents that you are for a program but you just 
cannot help them because we do not have the resources? How many times 
have you told your constituents you want to protect national parks, you 
want to protect wildlife refuges but you simply do not have room in the 
budget?

                              {time}  0000

  Well, tonight we have unusual circumstances. Tonight Members can do 
something about it.
  With the passage of the Young amendment, there is now room in this 
bill to do the following. We can restore $87 million to the President's 
budget for the Land Legacy Program to protect our national parks, to 
protect our wildlife refuges, to protect our precious natural 
resources.
  Members can restore $13 million to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 
which was cut earlier in debate on this bill, and still keep the 
Sanders amendment on weatherization.
  Members can restore $20 million to the President's budget for the 
National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities.
  Those who went down to the rally 2 weeks ago when the Denver Broncos 
were in town and told everybody that they are for urban parks programs, 
they can vote to put their vote where their rhetoric was 2 weeks ago 
and vote to put $4 million into the urban parks initiative.
  Members can do all of that and still stay below the 302(b) 
allocation, still stay below the budget, and still bring this bill in 
below last year's spending.
  We have a lot of talk around this town about legacies. I think it is 
important to remember one that is not often talked about. For every 
child born in this country, that child's share of our precious national 
assets, like national parks and wildlife refuges and all the rest, is 
the dollar equivalent to about $17,000 per child.
  That legacy is worth investing in. That legacy is worth protecting 
and cherishing and nourishing. Members can do that tonight by voting 
for this motion to recommit.
  This motion to recommit will not kill the bill, it will mean the bill 
will be reported back to the House forthwith, with these fix-up items. 
It will mean that it will make this bill just a little bit better than 
it is, and it will mean that it can be passed by the House on a 
bipartisan basis. I urge a yes vote on the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) opposed to the motion to recommit?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman from Florida is opposed to the 
motion, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, when the House earlier this 
evening overwhelmingly adopted the Young amendment, it did so with the 
intent of reducing the overall amount appropriated in this bill. That 
was the intent. That is why the amendment was offered.
  This motion to recommit will undo the good work that the House did 
earlier this evening, so I would ask my colleagues to stick with their 
original vote when they overwhelmingly voted for the Young amendment. 
Defeat this motion to recommit the bill. Let us get on to final passage 
and try to get home sometime this morning.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.

[[Page 16010]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 239, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 295]

                               AYES--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--239

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Combest
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Peterson (MN)
     Rivers
     Thurman
     Wynn

                              {time}  0009

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 377, 
nays 47, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 296]

                               YEAS--377

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)

[[Page 16011]]


     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--47

     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goodling
     Hefley
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Jackson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Larson
     Lee
     Markey
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Obey
     Olver
     Paul
     Payne
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Royce
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tiahrt
     Weiner
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Baldwin
     Brown (CA)
     Combest
     Gutierrez
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Nussle
     Pickering
     Rivers
     Thurman
     Wynn

                              {time}  0015

  Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. PAYNE and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________