[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20550-20558]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER ON CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4578, DEPARTMENT 
     OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 603 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 603

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 4578) making appropriations for the Department of 
     the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 603 is a rule waiving all points of order 
against the conference report to accompany H.R. 4578, the Department of 
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, and against 
its consideration. The rule provides that the conference report shall 
be considered as read.
  The Interior conference report appropriates $18.8 billion in new 
fiscal year 2001 budget authority, which is $3.9 billion more than the 
House passed and $2.5 billion above the President's request. 
Approximately half of this funding, $8.4 billion finances Interior 
Department programs to manage and study the Nation's animal, plant and 
mineral resources and to support Indian programs.
  Among the Interior agencies receiving increases in this conference 
report are the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, 
the Bureau of Land Management, the Minerals Management Service and the 
U.S. Geological Survey.
  The balance of the measure's funds support other non-Interior 
agencies that carry out related functions. These include the Forest 
Service in the Department of Agriculture, conservation and fossil 
programs run by the Department of Energy as well as the Smithsonian 
Institution and similar cultural organizations.
  Notably, the bill includes increased funding $300 million above the 
President's request, for wildfire readiness, wildfire suppression and 
the rehabilitation of areas damaged by wildfires this summer.
  Finally, I am particularly pleased that the bill appropriates $5 
million to be used solely for the reduction of the national debt. Mr. 
Speaker, although many Members, myself included, have concerns about 
certain sections of the bill, overall this is a responsible and 
balanced conference agreement. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to 
support both the rule and the Interior conference report itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such as time as I may 
consume and I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report has come after extensive 
negotiations to produce a bill that the President can sign. The 
underlying bill will provide $18.8 billion for fiscal year 2001, $3.9 
billion more than the current fiscal year.
  The measure will establish a new land legacy trust program which will 
provide $12 billion over 6 years for land conservation, preservation 
and maintenance and provides $1.8 billion for efforts to fight forest 
fires. Moreover, $8 million is slated for the Northeast for the heating 
oil reserve, a program of critical importance to the Northeast.
  I am especially pleased that the conferees provided $105 million for 
the National Endowment for the Arts, a $7 million increase over fiscal 
year 2000 and the first increase since fiscal year

[[Page 20551]]

1992. We still lack the funding levels that truly reflect the 
importance of arts to the American people. My colleagues may recall, 
Mr. Speaker, our earlier efforts to secure the funding increase. I was 
proud to lead the fight on the House floor and hope that this modest 
increase sparks a trend for increased funding in the years ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, the arts enhance so many facets of our lives from the 
educational development of our children to the economic growth of our 
towns and cities. We learn more every day about the ways in which the 
arts contribute to our children's learning. One recent study showed 
that children with 4 years of instruction in the arts scored 59 points 
higher on the verbal portion and 44 points higher on the math portion 
of the SATs than did students with no art classes.
  New research in the area of human brain development shows a strong 
link between the arts and early childhood development. Obviously, arts 
education pays great dividends in a wide range of fields, and no other 
Federal program yields such great rewards on such a small investment.
  The investment that we make contributes to a return of $3.4 billion 
to the Federal Treasury. The arts support 1.3 million jobs all over the 
country and has revitalized small cities such as Providence, Rhode 
Island; Rock Hill, South Carolina; and Peekskill, New York.
  The conference report also funds the new Women's Progress 
Commemoration Commission, the provision that I strongly endorse. I 
sponsored the legislation, established a commission, and was recently 
elected commission chair. The funding will allow us to fulfill our 
mandate to identify national sites significant to women's history that 
we may be in danger of losing due to lack of privatization or other 
factors.
  We will make recommendations to the Secretary of Interior for action 
to preserve endangered sites. The long-term goal is to further educate 
the public regarding significant contributions of women in America.
  Mr. Speaker, there are still other things that are important in this 
bill, but I was disappointed to see that the conference report contains 
language that will undermine the passage of the CARA act, a measure I 
long supported. The CARA would provide more than $3 billion each year 
for important conservation and recommend recreation projects. But the 
conference report contemplates less than half of the funding and at 
levels similar to recent years. Moreover, CARA would dedicate funds for 
specific programs each year while the conference report provides no 
such guarantees.
  For more than 30 years, the Committee on Appropriations has failed to 
provide funds and live up to the promise of existing conservation and 
recreation programs. Unfortunately, this report provides more of the 
same.
  With those reservations, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues 
on the conference committee for their hard work, particularly for their 
efforts in regards to the NEA.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Resources.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, of course, I rise to oppose the 
rule, not because the rule is structured incorrectly, because it did 
not include CARA, as the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) 
mentioned. Most of my colleagues are aware that this House passed my 
Conservation Reinvestment Act 315 to 100 some odd votes. That is what 
the public wants, 5,285 organizations support that legislation.
  Unfortunately, the Committee on Interior tried to have ``CARA-lite'' 
passed, but I again stressed the point that for those that are 
listening to this program and those on the floor understand this is not 
CARA. It is, in fact, a system set forth that for each part of our CARA 
bill, historical preservation, urban parks, fish and wildlife 
restoration, native lands reclamation, land purchasing, all of it has 
to come back to the appropriating committee.
  For those listening to this, this is not CARA. I will say this to the 
Committee on Appropriations, I think that my biggest concern is, my 
colleagues have asked us to authorize, and when we authorize, 
unfortunately, my colleagues have decided our authorization is not 
correct, and my colleagues are going to do the authorization. So the 
rule recognizes my colleagues' role to authorize legislation and that 
is inappropriate and I think it is against the House rules. That is one 
reason why I am voting against this rule.
  And for the leadership of this House on my side of the aisle, I have 
never voted against a rule before that my colleagues asked me to vote 
for, and it is unfortunate my colleagues have not asked me to vote for 
this rule, in fact, my colleagues have not communicated with me on this 
issue.
  This issue is not going to go away I say to the appropriating 
committee, I will be here long after my colleagues are gone. I will win 
this battle to preserve our wildlife, because my colleagues do not do 
it in this bill. My colleagues have given a great authority to fish and 
wildlife but do not say how it shall be spent. My colleagues do not 
recognize the importance of fish and wildlife; and for those sportsmen, 
I hope they understand what the appropriating committee has done.
  This is a battle that is not over. We have a long ways to go, and I 
will win this battle for the people of America. My colleagues owe us 
$13 billion dollars and have not spent it. We will not spend it in the 
future. My colleagues will spend it for land acquisition with no 
property rights. Oh, my colleagues will do that, but will not protect 
the people of this Nation and provide them for the spaces that they 
need, because my colleagues did not do it in the past and will not do 
it in the future.
  My colleagues can say all they want about how great you have done in 
this bill, I say this out of friendship, my colleagues have actually 
put forth something that is hollow, something to appease the voters. 
When they do not read this bill, they will say what a great job. But 
when they find out, I will be back. I will be able to prevail.
  I am going to make sure that the space is there for our young people, 
to have the hunting and fishing and recreation is required and the 
urbans parts are put in place and the past is preserved for us. My 
colleagues do not do it in this bill. It is a hollow promise.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very true, this is not CARA. This is not an 
entitlement. In my view, we should add no new entitlements to the 
Federal budget until we first declare that every American has an 
entitlement to basic health care. That is the first new entitlement 
that I want to see added. After that happens, I will be happy to look 
at adding others, but not before.
  But this bill is an amazing victory for those who care about 
preserving our precious natural resources, who care about preserving 
our outdoor resources, who care about setting aside crucial pieces of 
land for enjoyment by future generations.
  This bill, for the programs included in it, takes what would 
otherwise be a $4 billion appropriation level over the next 6 years and 
expands it to $12 billion. That is a huge advance forward, and has been 
described so by a variety of environmental organizations, and by, for 
instance, the Council on Environmental Quality at the White House and 
others.
  This bill essentially says that, for this year, we will set aside 
$1.6 billion for these activities, and those funds will rise each year 
for the next 5 years until we hit $2.4 billion. That money is fenced. 
It is not an entitlement, but if it is not spent on these programs, it 
cannot be spent on any others.
  It is modeled precisely after the violent crime trust account which 
we established a number of years ago, the same duration, 6 years, and 
the same principle. That virtually guarantees, for anybody who wants to 
look at legislative reality, that these funds will go

[[Page 20552]]

for the purposes that they are supposed to go for; namely, these 
conservation and environment programs.
  I would say to our friends from coastal States who feel that they 
have not been given a big enough break in this bill, we take the 
appropriation for their States from a little over $100 million a year 
to about $400 million. That is not bad. That is not hay. That is 
taxpayers' dollars put to a good and worthy purpose. For people to make 
or to claim that that is a defeat requires a new definition of that 
word for Webster's dictionary.
  I would also say to those conservation groups who are not happy that 
this is not CARA, there are lots of times in life when we have to 
settle for a little bit less than what we regard as perfect. But I am 
reminded of old Ben Reihle, the fellow who used to represent rural 
Marathon County, my home county, in the legislature.
  He was talking to education groups one night who were unhappy because 
he had not voted for exactly the amount of money that they wanted in 
the State budget that year for education. He had voted for an increase, 
but it was not a big enough increase.
  Old Ben looked at them and said, ``Folks, I ask you to remember one 
thing. I may not have voted for every dime you ever asked for, but I 
voted for every dime you ever got.''
  If we think about it, there is a lesson in that for every single 
person interested in preserving wildlife, in preserving land, in 
preserving pristine coastal areas. This is a terrific bill for all of 
the purposes laid out in this legislation.
  Members will hear from the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and 
others what the bill contains in more detail, but I want to 
congratulate him. I want to congratulate everyone who had anything to 
do with putting this package together. I certainly want to congratulate 
the White House for recognizing a good deal when they saw one. I want 
to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the staff.
  No, this is not CARA, but CARA was dead as a dodo bird in the Senate, 
and this bill resurrected the effort to put aside important pieces of 
land for future generations. It creates new State programs for their 
protection, and this rule should be supported, and so should the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the subcommittee 
chairman for the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  This is a bipartisan bill. It is a good bill. It is fair. As the 
gentleman from Wisconsin said, it does not give everybody everything 
they want, but I think it does a remarkable job of balancing the 
challenges to those of us wanting to preserve the good things in our 
natural heritage, along with meeting the needs immediately of the 
American public.
  I would urge all of the Members to vote for this rule. If they look 
at the facts, I am sure they will be convinced that this is a bill that 
meets the needs of the Nation in a good way. I think that is evident by 
the fact that every member of the conference, both parties, both 
Houses, every member, signed the conference report. This is the first 
time that I can remember that happening, and certainly since I have 
been chairman. I think it is evidence of the fact that there is strong 
bipartisan support for the bill.
  The White House has indicated the President will sign the bill. I 
think all of America will be benefited by that set of circumstances.
  I want to specifically address the wildlife conservation issue. There 
have been some facts bandied around about wildlife conservation which 
perhaps do not give the full picture. I just want to give Members the 
accurate facts on it.
  This bill contains $540 million for Federal and State programs under 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This number represents an 
increase of $93 million over fiscal year 2000, 21 percent. Keep in mind 
that the fiscal year 2000 bill had the Baca Ranch land acquisition in 
it, which increased that number considerably. Without that purchase, it 
would have been much greater in terms of an increase this year.
  The conference report provides $300 million for State and other 
conservation programs. That is an increase of $232 million over the 
fiscal year 2000 bill. Particularly, it has a new $50 million State 
wildlife grant program, $50 million to the States. All of this is a 293 
percent increase. That is not bad, 293 percent to the States for their 
programs.
  We have heard from a few States that said, well, you may submit a 
plan. For shame. Submit a plan? We have a responsibility for 
accountability.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman saying, there have 
to be competitive bids for wildlife. Who makes the decision what it 
will be, the Federal government or the States?
  Mr. REGULA. Is the gentleman saying as to the allocation between 
Federal and State?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The Federal government makes the decision, 
whether it is correct or not, is that correct?
  Mr. REGULA. The people who administer the funds make the decision.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. So the States do not have the say-so? If the 
Federal Government does not agree, they do not get the money?
  Mr. REGULA. That is not necessarily true. They have to submit a plan.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If they do not agree, they do not get the money?
  Mr. REGULA. States have to be accountable.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the States submit a plan for rehabilitation 
of wildlife in a certain area and if the Federal government does not 
want to do that, they do not get the money, under the gentleman's 
program?
  Mr. REGULA. There has to be accountability.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. But the gentleman is letting the Federal 
government do it and not the States. That was the whole idea of CARA. 
CARA had an an idea how to spend the money on the ground. The gentleman 
likes big government.
  Mr. REGULA. This is not CARA. The gentleman makes his point very 
clearly. This is not CARA. It requires accountability on the part of 
the States.
  I think if we are disbursing Federal dollars that we collect from the 
taxpayers throughout the Nation, then we have a right to ask for 
accountability for that money. That is what we have said.
  Nevertheless, there is a 293 percent increase for the State Wildlife 
Grant programs, $50 million for the new program, and an additional 
amount for the existing programs.
  It provides $66 million for urban parks and forests, an increase of 
$33 million, a 100 percent increase over last year, recognizing that it 
is important in the urban areas to have the development of parks, 
because this is where the compression of people exists, in our urban 
areas, and they need open spaces. For that reason we expand that 
program by 100 percent.
  Of course, it has been pointed out that there will be 12 billion 
additional dollars over the next 6 years to be spent on land programs 
and the acquisition of open spaces in the jurisdictions under this 
Nation. Certainly, this I think is a remarkable step forward in 
providing all of these funds.
  On the more practical side, we have $2.9 billion to deal with fires. 
We all recognize what has happened in the west, so we have a large 
amount of money, a very substantial increase.
  We have increased PILT by $65 million. There is a lot of concern on 
the part of Westerners that there be additional money spent on PILT. We 
have increased that very substantially.
  In the Northeast, we have doubled the funding for home heating oil 
from $4 million to $8 million. We have a substantial amount for 
backlogged maintenance. We have had testimony in our committee that 
there is over $12 billion in backlogged maintenance. We are addressing 
that problem.
  We have increased many of the other areas. In the energy field, we 
are providing for new technology, to recognize

[[Page 20553]]

the need to meet our energy challenges: fuel cells, weatherization, the 
development of an 80-mile per gallon automobile. So again, these are 
important things to the people of America.
  One that I think reflects the compassion of this bill is Indian 
health care. We have increased Indian health care $214 million. I am 
pleased that the committee has supported this funding, because there is 
a great need. We had some testimony from the American Dental 
Association that only 25 percent of Native Americans have dental care. 
That should be 100 percent; if Members can imagine, going without 
dental care. So we put a large increase in the Indian health care.
  Parks funding is up. We took care of the south Florida area. As it 
was mentioned earlier on coastal funding, we have put in $400 million, 
an increase from $100 million, to deal with the challenges of our 
coastal States. This will be managed by NOAA. Obviously, NOAA is a 
Federal agency, but these are Federal dollars. Therefore, we want to 
give this responsibility to an agency that has experience in dealing 
with coastal areas.
  I just think on balance this is a very bipartisan bill. It is very 
well balanced in meeting all of the needs. I certainly urge my 
colleagues to support this rule and support the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I do so not because 
this is a bad bill, I do so not because this bill has failed to 
dramatically increase the monies for the various environmental 
accounts. In many ways, this is the most environmentally friendly bill 
we have had out of this subcommittee in a number of years.
  I do so because I have strongly believed there was another way to 
redeem the promise that was made to the American people about the use 
of offshore oil royalties. I believed that the method by which that 
should have been done was in CARA, H.R. 701.
  It has been said several times that this appropriations bill is not 
CARA. Nobody is more aware of that than the gentleman from Alaska and 
myself. This approach is not CARA. This was devised within the 
Committee on Appropriations in responding to CARA and the grass roots 
support that was lobbying on behalf of CARA. They chose to do it in a 
Washington fashion.
  CARA was the outgrowth of grass roots organizations, over 5,000 
organizations from across the country, that looked at what the Congress 
had done over the last 20 years and decided there had to be another 
way. There had to be certainty for communities to be able to plan for 
the protection of their environmental assets, whether that was open 
space or whether that was trails or whether that was trying to solve 
endangered species problems.
  There clearly had to be a way to help those States that have suffered 
the impacts of offshore oil.
  Also, there had to be a commitment established so we could go out and 
try to secure private financing, fundraising from foundations, from 
corporations, and from individuals over the long term to help pay for 
land acquisitions. That is why the certainty of funding was a key 
feature of CARA occurs, so it is not a start-again, stop-again 
operation.
  We believed that was important, and 315 Members of this House 
believed that was important, the biggest bipartisan vote I think we 
have had on any controversial legislation in this Congress.
  We sent it to the Senate. Unfortunately, there it started to stall 
out. We ask our colleagues to oppose this rule so we can have a chance 
to pass CARA and not undermine it with the actions of the Committee on 
Appropriations. We hoped that the same kind of bipartisan support could 
be resurrected in the Senate to see this bill through to the desk of 
the President, who has promised to sign it.

                              {time}  1215

  I have to admit that I am a little disappointed in the signals from 
the Senate leadership about the improbability of scheduling the CARA 
legislation this year. But I believe the underlying proposition of CARA 
is the correct way for the Congress to deal with these issues, because 
local governments and park agencies and fish and wildlife agencies are 
struggling every day where the people and the species and the open 
space and the lands and the assets meet on a daily basis.
  What they need is a diversity of funding, and a certainty of funding; 
and they need a level of funding that will let them attack those 
problems in a manner that they understand best.
  I believe that that is what the CARA legislation did. It is 
unfortunate, that we will not be able to complete acton on that 
legislation in the Congress if the current indications from the Senate 
continue to hold true, because we believe that legislation, supported 
by a bipartisan coalition would have truly redeemed the promise that 
this Congress made to the American people about taking the monies from 
exploitation of nonrenewable resources and putting them into a 
permanent fund to protect renewable resources.
  While it is very clear to anybody who reads this legislation that 
this is clearly the most dramatic increase in the environmental 
accounts that we have seen in 25 years, I would have hoped that we 
would have been able to include the CARA program that would have 
guaranteed to local communities the kind of certainty they need to 
support private and public partnerships at the local level for the 
protection of these assets.
  It is for that reason that I will ask Members to vote against this 
rule.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all 
Members it is inappropriate to cast reflections on the actions or 
inactions of the United States Senate, collectively or individually.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that, as I looked at this 
and finally got the inspired version of what was in it, I would have to 
say there are awfully good things in it. People have worked very hard 
on this bill. I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and 
others who have worked on it. I know they had to probably tear their 
hair out a lot to come up with this.
  Just last Friday or Thursday, I got a lecture from the appropriators 
saying there are certain things they could not put in the bill. Well, 
why cannot we put it in the bill? Well, it has not gone through the 
procedure of this House. We cannot do it that way, because on the House 
floor we do different things. We look at the rules, and the rules do 
not let us do that.
  So I pick this up now; and as one of the authorizers with the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) over here, I can count maybe 20 
things in here that were never authorized. Now, how come last Thursday 
I get a lecture and say we cannot do these things like San Rafael Swell 
and other areas, but we can put these 20 in it when we are behind 
closed doors somewhere? That kind of bothers me a little bit, Mr. 
Speaker. I thought if it was good for one deal, it was good for all of 
us.
  So I know there is some good things in here. I compliment the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula), two very, very fine legislators. However, in good conscience, 
I really feel, as chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and 
Public Lands, there are things in here, in this list and this list, 
that just blow my mind. I do not know where we can come up with these 
things.
  There is $12 billion over the next 6 years; $12 billion is an awful 
lot of money. My little State of Utah, the entire budget is only $6 
billion. They are going to spend $12 billion here.
  There is no protection for property rights. Who is going to be the 
wise all-knowing guru who is going to say this is right and wrong with 
some of this

[[Page 20554]]

stuff? I wish somebody would tell me this. So a blank check goes to 
somebody.
  Even though there are some awfully good things in this bill, I very 
reluctantly have to vote against the bill and the rule. I say that 
feeling bad in a way because it has got the genesis of being a fine 
piece of legislation. But where we are now I think we are taking the 
American people down the primrose path.
  I honestly urge my colleagues to vote against this and hope we can 
come up with something a little better and hope we can authorize from 
now on.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I rise in very strong support 
of this rule. I think it is a very good rule, a very fair rule. I want 
to compliment the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who worked 
with me on the floor of the House and has been one of the advocates for 
increasing the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
  We were able to add $7 million in this bill for the endowment. Also a 
program that is very important to the gentlewoman from New York is the 
home heating oil provision, $8 million, which will help every 
Northeasterner in this country.
  I am here today to talk to my colleagues a little bit about this 
superior appropriations bill and the land conservation preservation and 
infrastructure improvement program. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) and I worked on this. We offered it in the conference. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Byrd, they all 
agreed to this.
  I think it is a day we should be here celebrating. I would say to my 
friends who worked so hard on CARA, and I realize 4 years of effort on 
CARA, but I want my colleagues to understand something. I believe that 
that work was translated into this legislation. This is a blend between 
the President's Land Legacy Program and CARA.
  We have the most dramatic increase in conservation spending in the 
history of this country. Last year, we spent about $782 million. This 
year, for the same programs, it goes up to $1.6 billion. Then in 
increments of $160 million a year, it goes up to $2.4 billion in the 
year 2006. These are some of the most popular programs in our country 
for protecting precious lands in both the Federal and State categories, 
for urban parks, for historic preservation, for restoring our salmon 
runs. There is also $400 million that goes through the State, Justice 
and Commerce appropriations for coastal programs, including the Pacific 
salmon recovery program. This is the most dramatic increase in 
conservation spending in the history of the country.
  Let me just read to my colleagues a few quotations from people who 
have looked at this program. A good friend of mine, a fellow University 
of Washington graduate, Roger Schlickeisen, president of the nonprofit 
Defenders of Wildlife Society called it ``probably the best 
conservation funding bill in our lifetime.'' Then George Frampton, 
chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. ``This 
represents a historic breakthrough in conservation funding,'' said 
Frampton. ``It is a fantastic step forward.''
  Today, the New York Times in an editorial, lead editorial said 
``Congressional Dos and Don'ts. Land conservation. The White House and 
Congressional negotiators reached agreement last Friday on a plan to 
set aside some $12 billion over 6 years for a range of Federal and 
State land conservation programs. It is the most important land 
conservation bill in many years and deserves prompt approval on the 
House and Senate floors. Budget purists are annoyed that the money will 
be fenced off in a special conservation account similar to the Highway 
Trust Fund. But open space has been shortchanged for years, and this is 
a way to make restitution.''
  Then finally, the White House, the President supports this bill. He 
also, in his statement of administration policy, it says, ``By doubling 
our investment next year in land and water conservation, and 
guaranteeing even more funding in the years ahead, this agreement is a 
major step toward ensuring communities the resources they need to 
protect the most precious lands, from neighborhood parks to threatened 
farmland to pristine coastal areas.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is, as the Washington Post said, landmark 
legislation. This is legislation that this Congress can be proud of. I 
am proud of the fact that this amendment was adopted in a bipartisan 
spirit. It will be the most important step forward in conservation 
spending probably in our lifetime.
  I would urge my colleagues who support CARA to think about this. We 
have moved dramatically in the direction that they laid out in their 
legislation. No, it is not an entitlement. This money is in a special 
account. The money must be spent for the purpose, or it remains in the 
account.
  If we look at the precedent of the Violent Crime trust fund, all of 
that money is spent because these are important programs to the 
American people.
  As the ranking Democrat, I want to tell my colleagues that it is my 
intent that this money gets spent for all the people. I would say to 
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) this bill has so much money. This 
bill has so much for the great State of Alaska. This is one of the 
greatest funding bills in Alaska's history. I would hope that the 
gentleman, after he has his vote on the rule, would think about all of 
that money for all of those Alaskan programs and that he would be with 
me on final passage on the bill.
  I would say to the gentleman from Alaska, I want to correct one thing 
that was in his letter. The money for the State games is not just for 
nongame. It is for game and nongame.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, that shows my colleagues how deeply 
I believe that CARA was the right way to go when I can take and 
sacrifice the great work that has been done for the State of Alaska 
that I worked on for the benefit of the Nation as a whole.
  Mr. DICKS. Also, Mr. Speaker, I think it is because the gentleman 
from Alaska knows that the chairman of the appropriations committee in 
the other body is going to make sure that the money remains in there.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I 
appreciate his hard work and his guidance and his effort on this 
legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that some of the 
environmental groups who think they are getting a bad deal remind me of 
what some of the senior citizen groups did when Social Security was 
passed in the 1930s. They opposed Social Security, which is a 
compromise with the Townsend plan. Some of those senior citizen groups 
opposed the creation of Social Security because they wanted the 
Townsend plan to pass, which was a straight $100 a month check to 
seniors with no contributions or anything else. So they savaged Members 
who voted for the compromise.
  This is a similar compromise. Five years from now they will be out to 
ring the neck of anybody who tries to cut this program.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read, by the way, the names 
of the conservation groups that are supporting this rule and the bill: 
the American Oceans Campaign, Center for Marine Conservation, Defenders 
of Wildlife, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, National 
Audubon Society, National Parks Conservation Association, the National 
Trust for Historic Preservation, the Natural Resource Defense Council, 
Scenic America, the Wilderness Society, and the Worldwide Fund. I mean, 
this is an amazing group of people supporting this. The President 
supports it.
  I want my colleagues to know, I believe that this is one of the most 
important things on a bipartisan basis done in this Congress. So we 
should be celebrating today. We should be happy with this work product. 
Let us get on with it. Let us vote for the rule and pass this excellent 
conference report.

[[Page 20555]]




                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members it is not 
in order during debate to characterize the legislative positions of the 
Senate or individual Senators.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining 
on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
has 16 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake about it, CARA is 
not in this bill. CARA is not in this bill. Everybody should know that.
  I want to speak especially to the 102 Members of this body who voted 
against CARA. If my colleagues will examine their conscience, they will 
have to admit with me that most of them voted against CARA because they 
did not think there was enough property rights protection in a bill 
that was going to authorize an enormous amount of land acquisition in 
this country.
  Some of my colleagues are from western States where the government 
already owns 60, 70, 80 percent of the property in their State. They 
were concerned about the government acquiring some more land without 
real strong private property protections.
  Well, guess what we are going to vote on today when we vote on this 
Interior appropriations bill. We are going to vote on $540 million of 
new land acquisitions in this country with no private property 
protections. CARA had 21 separate provisions in it protecting private 
property. That is not in this bill. There is no provision saying one 
can only buy from a willing seller.
  In other words, under this bill, one can spend $540 million of 
acquiring property from people who do not want to sell their land. That 
is called expropriation. When we vote for this bill without CARA, that 
is what we will be getting. Keep in mind that CARA guaranteed for the 
first time a distribution of funds to the coastal States of America.
  What kind of distribution was that all about? It was simply to try to 
give coastal States some contribution for the minerals produced 
offshore in some kind of way commensurate with the money that America 
automatically mandates is provided to interior States for minerals 
produced on Federal lands in interior States.
  The law currently mandates 50 percent of all Federal royalties on 
interior States' federally owned property goes to the States. Committee 
on Appropriations does not spend it. No yielding of appropriations. It 
is a mandate to the interior States. This bill would have provided 27 
percent to be shared among all coastal States. That is gone. There is 
no guarantee for coastal money. There is just a lot of Federal land 
acquisition with no private property rights. That is not the deal that 
CARA would have offered us.

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I express my thanks to the distinguished 
gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I want to commend and 
compliment my good friends from the Committee on Appropriations. They 
have ``done good.'' The problem is, they have not done good enough.
  I want to express my respect and affection for the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). They are 
good Members, and I do not want them to take anything I say here today 
as being hostile to them. However, they have chosen to legislate 
without hearings; without opportunity to perfect.
  What those of us who oppose the rule want the House to do is to allow 
us to vote the rule down so that we may come up with a better piece of 
legislation, one which was approved by the House by an overwhelming 
vote. I refer to CARA, H.R. 701. It passed the House by a very heavy 
margin, 315 to 102. It is interesting to note that this was one of the 
most bipartisan bills that I have ever seen, but also certainly the 
single most bipartisan piece of legislation that has passed this 
Congress.
  Those of us who led that effort to pass CARA share a common passion, 
providing a meaningful and dedicated and continuing source of 
conservation funding for fish, for wildlife, for lands and waters, for 
recreation and open spaces, and to meet the concerns that confront so 
many of our States and our communities. Remember, we will not have many 
opportunities to pass a piece of legislation like this. This is an 
opportunity that will probably come once in a lifetime. In all the 
years that I have served in this body, never once have I seen an 
opportunity of this magnitude to do good for Americans, for 
conservation, for fish and wildlife that matched this. And never once 
have I seen anything which did so much to realize the hopes and the 
ideals of those of us who love the out-of-doors.
  Now, I have no doubt that the language contained in the Interior 
appropriation bill and this land conservation program was drafted with 
the best of intentions. It is again, I note, an effort by my good 
friends on the Committee on Appropriations to legislate well. And part 
of that legislating well is preserving the jurisdiction of that 
committee and part of it is in sidetracking CARA, something which that 
committee found to be highly offensive, as we had this legislation on 
the floor at an earlier time, because it did take away from the 
Committee on Appropriations the ability to function by whim and 
caprice, to deny new conservation money and, in effect, to supplant the 
efforts of the legislative committees around here which are strongly 
and deeply and sincerely conversed in this.
  The premise of CARA was to take Federal resource revenues from the 
Outer Continental Shelf to reinvest them for conservation purposes. And 
it was originally intended, when the Congress passed the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund in the 1960s, that this would be done. Since that 
time, the Committee on Appropriations has had the opportunity to do the 
kinds of things we are talking about today. Without the pressure of 
CARA, they never would have done them.
  So I say let us assist our good friends on the Committee on 
Appropriations. Let us help them. Let us see to it that we have an 
opportunity, if we are going to legislate, to legislate well. Vote the 
rule down. A new rule can be brought back, and we can have a full 
opportunity then to address all of the important questions that exist 
with regard to conservation, and with regard to spending proper levels 
of funds to save and protect open spaces and the conservation and 
environmental values that are so important to this country.
  The language of the conference report is quite clear. It says the 
program is not mandatory and does not guarantee annual appropriations. 
If Members need a reason to vote against this rule so that they can 
vote for something which is of more lasting and permanent character, 
this is the reason right here. This is what the Committee on 
Appropriations is saying to us. This is not permanent. I am sure that 
they have the best of intentions at this time, but within a year there 
will be new pressures upon the Committee on Appropriations which will 
tell the Committee on Appropriations that they should perhaps cavil 
just a little bit on the commitment that they make today and come 
forward with less money.
  Now, they will tell us about the violent crime reduction trust fund. 
That expired the other day, and it was never fully funded. They have 
always told us what a great thing it was. And it was great, and I 
commend them for it. But it did not come through a legislative 
committee and it did not have the supervision and the care and the 
attention that goes to it. And it also was not as fully honored as it 
could have been

[[Page 20556]]

and should have been. Certainly we are going to meet the same 
situation, where the Committee on Appropriations will shave 
conservation values just is a little here and just a little there, 
because it is easy to do when the pressures are on to expend monies for 
other purposes.
  Again, I announce my respect for my good friends, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and my colleagues on the Committee on 
Appropriations; but they are not meeting the real challenges of 
greatness. They are passing aside an opportunity. They are urging this 
body to reject something which is perhaps the greatest piece of 
conservation legislation we can pass in this Congress or indeed in any 
other.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Today, we have an opportunity to reward an agency which has 
completely turned itself around. For the first time in over 8 years, we 
have the chance to give the National Endowment for the Arts a small 
increase. It should be noted that this increase is dedicated to grants 
such as Challenge America.
  Challenge America is an opportunity to serve smaller communities 
around the United States. Sixty percent of Challenge America grants 
will be distributed to communities under 200,000 in population in all 
50 States. The intent of this program is to reach previously unserved 
communities in the same way that ArtsREACH programs work.
  My colleagues may recall that in the first 2 years of ArtsREACH 
grants were made to the 123 mostly new communities, including places 
like Ft. Washakie, Wyoming; Deadwood, South Dakota; and Hattiesburg, 
Mississippi.
  The remaining 40 percent of the Challenge America grants will be 
passed through the 56 State and Territorial arts agencies in keeping 
with the congressional practice of splitting NEA funds between State 
and national programs.
  These new grant initiatives are part of a new NEA which supports 
projects in over 4,000 locations in the country. Today, NEA is doing 
more for communities in need than ever before, and I urge my colleagues 
to pass this bill which gives NEA a minimal but monumental increase.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. John).
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. With all 
due respect to the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from 
Washington, my friends on this side of the aisle and the other side of 
the aisle, who have done a pretty good job putting a piece of 
legislation that is controversial year to year on the floor before us, 
we have heard other speakers before me say that this is not CARA and I 
can tell my colleagues that this is not CARA.
  The energy behind the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 701, is 
about one thing, it is about permanency. It is about making sure that 
they can plan for the future. Coastal programs, ball parks, 
conservation, wildlife management programs, they can all function if 
they know that they are going to have a revenue stream that is certain 
from year to year. That is the energy behind CARA and why 3,000 groups 
supported this piece of legislation and 300 Members of the House voted 
for it.
  Let me remind my colleagues that it is not CARA, if I take just an 
excerpt of the conference report of the Interior bill that we are 
voting on today in the rule, and see where it says this program is not 
mandatory and does not guarantee annual appropriations. That is 
obviously what they have meant because they put it in black and white. 
Well, that undermines, I believe, and unravels the energy and the 
excitement behind a piece of legislation that is, I believe, one of the 
greatest pieces of legislation that we have had.
  We have a wonderful opportunity here. The year is 2000. We have 
surpluses that we are dealing with. We have the greatest opportunity, I 
believe, in our lifetime to put in permanent funding for building ball 
parks, to save our coastline in Louisiana. We talk about an energy 
policy and the suspect of time that we are entering into with oil and 
gas prices. Well, Louisiana, which produces 80 percent of that, is 
eroding.
  I firmly believe that we still have time for CARA. Let us not go 
forward with the rule that halfway gets us to where we need to go. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand in favor of this rule and stand in 
favor of this Interior Conference Report. As a member of the 
Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, I have 
been proud to work with the Democrats and Republicans. Certainly my 
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), has done a masterful 
job of being sensitive to all sides of these issues of conservation and 
reinvestment and fire protection and all the things that go into the 
Interior Appropriation Bill.
  One thing is certain about this business: Nobody is ever satisfied. 
We cannot ever get perfection, but the conference committee, Democrats 
and Republicans alike, struggled over this bill to try to make it 
right, to get it the best we could for everybody concerned. People in 
my part of the State of Washington are very concerned about CARA and 
the mandatory spending requirement. Whether it is needed or not, it is 
mandatory.
  I think our system of appropriations and discretionary spending in 
the years ahead is going to be better to have the Committee on 
Appropriations and the Congress as a whole making these judgments about 
conservation lands on an annual basis rather than forcing a mandatory 
spending program whether it is needed or not.
  So I have great respect for the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). 
But I think he has to have great respect for the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), as well as myself and others who 
worked so hard to craft this compromise to make sure that it meets the 
White House's needs and the Republicans and the Democrats needs, and 
that is fair under the circumstances.
  If we vote against this bill, we are voting against National Park 
Service operations; against fire remedies that occurred this summer in 
the West; we will be voting against Indian Health Service. That is 
critically important in my part of the country and across this Nation, 
as Indian populations have increased in their health needs. We will be 
voting against the weatherization grants if we vote against this bill.
  The bottom line for me is this is a fair compromise. It puts the 
conservation decision-making right where it ought to be, on Congress, 
making its best judgments on an annual basis, and I hope the membership 
will approve it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of the rule and, indeed, the underlying 
measure, the conference report on the fiscal year 2001 interior 
appropriation bill.
  Contained in this legislation is up to $94.5 million to bolster the 
financially ailing, congressionally mandated program that provides 
health care to certain retired coal miners and their dependents. If 
this funding is not forthcoming, some 60,000 beneficiaries, whose 
average age is 78 years old, will see their health care cut. So I ask 
that my colleagues who represent coal field communities, whether they 
be in Appalachia, in the Midwest or the western States, not turn their 
backs on these retirees. They were made a promise, a promise endorsed 
by the Federal Government, of lifetime health care. This

[[Page 20557]]

legislation keeps faith with that promise.
  Mr. Speaker, we are currently dealing with a situation where what is 
known as the Combined Benefit Fund (CBF) is facing financial 
insolvency. In this regard, Senator Robert C. Byrd championed a 
provision in the pending legislation that would transfer up to $94.5 
million to the CBF to insure that health care benefits are not 
curtailed or halted in the immediate future. This provision is modeled 
after legislation I sponsored in the House, H.R. 4144, known as the 
CARE 21 bill.
  By way of background, the CBF was created in the Coal Act of 1992 to 
provide health care benefits for retired United Mine Workers of America 
coal miners who were eligible to receive benefits as of July 20, 1992, 
under one of two prior multi-employer funds. Under the terms of the 
Coal Act, companies which signed past National Coal Wage Agreements 
with the union are responsible for paying premiums for retired miners 
assigned as being their responsibility. For those retirees where there 
is no responsible company can be identified, the Coal Act provides for 
an annual transfer to the CBF of a portion of the interest which 
accrues to the unspent balance of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund 
to pay premiums for these unassigned beneficiaries.
  Today, however, the CBF is facing funding shortfalls primarily due to 
a rash of litigation brought by companies on a variety of fronts. 
First, under the Eastern case, the Supreme Court relieved what are 
called the ``super reachback'' companies from responsibility to their 
former employees thereby adding some 8,000 retirees to the unassigned 
beneficiary roles. These companies had at one time been signatories to 
the National Coal Wage Agreement, but were not parties to the 1978 
Agreement which included what is known as the ``evergreen clause'' in 
which companies committed to a continuing payment obligation. 
Litigation has also been brought in what are called the Dixie Fuel 
cases where companies challenge the validity of assignments made to 
them. And a third round of major litigation is taking place challenging 
beneficiary premium rates under what is known as the Chater decision.
  This litigation is chipping away at the financial solvency of the CBF 
and it should be noted these cases are being brought by companies that 
are both current signatories to the National Coal Wage Agreement as 
well as what are called ``reachback'' operators who were parties to the 
1978 Agreement but not to the current agreement. In effect, and there 
is no way to get around this fact, these companies are seeking to 
reduce or walk away from their past collectively bargained obligations 
to provide lifetime health care coverage for their former employees. 
This creates a certain dilemma for the Congress as it is the Congress 
which created the CBF and I believe we have a moral obligation to these 
retirees despite the actions being taken by their former employers. 
However, at the same time, I do not believe it is prudent to use 
General Fund revenues for this purpose. Instead, the provision in the 
pending legislation would tap additional amounts of interest in the 
reclamation fund to provide for the cash infusion into the CBF. This is 
an important consideration because it is the coal industry itself which 
pays a fee that finances the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. It is, as 
such, the coal industry which is still paying for the health care 
benefits of these retirees under the provision contained in this 
legislation.
  There is no doubt in anyone's mind involved with this issue that a 
long term solution must be devised. My CARE 21 legislation would have 
done just that. Unfortunately, it has not been brought to the House 
floor and its counterpart has not been considered in the other body. 
Indeed, there is still a level of greed among certain entities involved 
in this issue as reflected in the litigation they are bringing against 
the CBF that is stymieing legislative efforts in this matter. This is 
going to have to change because the current impasse on devising a long 
term solution has in my view no benefit. It certainly does not benefit 
the many thousands of elderly retired coal miners and their widows who 
are being held hostage to this situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, and I commend the ranking 
minority member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks); the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula); and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for their help in 
including this provision in the legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I certainly sympathize with the 
appropriators, and I sympathize with the authorizers as well.

                              {time}  1245

  We are always faced as to whether or not we are going to be able to 
come along with a rider, whether or not this time it is okay, or this 
time it is not okay. But in this particular case I think the House's 
will is not being taken into consideration.
  When we passed the CARA legislation through the House with 315 votes, 
I think that is a pretty good expression of what this House of 
Representatives wants us to do. When the chairmen of the authorizing 
committees come to the chairmen of the appropriation committees and say 
we want you to put this rider on here, then we are faced with a 
different situation, Mr. Speaker. We are in a dilemma.
  I am going to vote for the rule today, but I disagree with the fact 
that we are not given the opportunity to bring forth the will of the 
House somewhere during this process. If it were possible to recommit 
this to the Committee on Rules, then I would recommit it and ask the 
Committee on Rules to give us an opportunity to amend the rule so we 
could bring forth an amendment which could be set back. Maybe there 
will be an opportunity of recommittal, maybe we will have a voice, but 
I think that those of us that are interested in CARA have been 
shortchanged.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues, this is an 
indication of where the money will go under the amendment that I and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered. First of all there 
would be $550 million for the Federal and State Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. State and other conservation programs would get $300 
million. Urban parks and historic preservation, $150 million; $150 
million for the maintenance backlog; and $50 million for PILT.
  This is not guaranteed, but this money is prioritized in the budget 
allocation and Congress is going to spend this money as we have spent 
the money on the Violent Crimes trust fund. So it is not a guarantee, 
but it is about as close as we are going to get to one and still let 
the Congress have some oversight over these programs. This is a 
tremendous increase. The President supports it. Most of the outside 
conservation groups support it. It is a chance for us to triple the 
amount of funding spent on these programs.
  Now, it is not CARA; but I actually think it is better than CARA 
because it is a blend between the President's land legacy and the CARA 
program.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said about 
George Frampton supporting it. That is probably the biggest reason to 
vote against the rule.
  The second thing is that every governor in the country now has 
blasted this agreement. Every governor. The mayors, the legislative 
bodies have blasted this so-called Interior appropriations.
  So do not give everybody how much they support it. In reality, the 
governors know right now we are back to square one. We have got to go 
back to the appropriators and grovel, hold our hand out and beg at the 
end of the session.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, this has happened to us now for 6 years, 8 
years, 10 years. Wait until the last moment, the Senate does not do 
anything, they hold it; and then the appropriators get together in the 
back room, and the cardinals decide what legislation is going to pass 
and not pass. The natives are getting restless, buddy. I am going to 
suggest respectfully, that is not the way this Congress was set up. It 
is not good legislation; it is wrong and against the House rules, but 
we are ready to go home, so everybody wants to vote for this thing.
  I am voting no and I am going to ask for a vote on the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

[[Page 20558]]


  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what we hear today is that there are four oil-
producing coastal States who this year get $100 million and who under 
CARA want to get $1 billion, and they are unhappy because we only gave 
them $400 million. That is the truth. We spread the money around more 
fairly among all the States, and we make no apology for it.
  The fact is this is a historic bill. It is the best conservation 
funding bill that we have seen in a generation. This raises 
conservation funding from $4 billion to $12 billion over a 6-year 
period, and that money if it is not spent on these conservation 
programs cannot be spent on any other item. That is as close to a 
guarantee as we can get. It is a phenomenal victory for the 
environmental movement and a phenomenal victory for those who want to 
protect our outdoor resources.
  The rule should be supported. The bill should be supported. This is 
something we can all go home and be proud of.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule so we can get on with this process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 354, 
nays 65, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 506]

                               YEAS--354

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--65

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Blagojevich
     Bono
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Conyers
     Crane
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Holt
     Isakson
     Jefferson
     John
     Jones (NC)
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Luther
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Shuster
     Souder
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Dunn
     Eshoo
     Franks (NJ)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Lazio
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Napolitano
     Paul
     Riley
     Vento
     Wexler

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. VITTER and Mr. HINOJOSA changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 506, the Rule for 
Interior Appropriations Conference Report, I was unavoidably detained 
in a business meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________