[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10584-10586]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 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 524 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 524

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     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. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning with ``: 
     Provided further'' on page 18, line 6, through line 19. Where 
     points of order are waived against part of a paragraph, 
     points of order against a provision in another part of such 
     paragraph may be made only against such provision and not 
     against the entire paragraph. During consideration of the 
     bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during 
     further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
     for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     proposed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. During consideration of the bill, points 
     of order against amendments for failure to comply with clause 
     2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  2130

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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 
purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 524 would grant an open rule waiving 
all points of order against consideration of H.R. 4578, the Department 
of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001.
  The rule provides one hour of general debate, to be equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  The rule provides that the bill will be considered for amendment by 
paragraph, and waives clause 2 of rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized or 
legislative provisions in an appropriations bill) against provisions in 
the bill, except as otherwise specified in the rule.
  The rule also waives clause 2(e) of rule XXI (prohibiting non-
emergency designated amendments to be offered to an appropriations bill 
containing an emergency designation) against amendments offered during 
consideration of the bill.
  The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to 
Members who have preprinted their amendment in the Congressional 
Record. In addition, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to 
reduce the voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if a vote 
follows a 15-minute vote.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 4578 is to provide regular annual 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior, except the Bureau of 
Reclamation, and for other related agencies, including the Forest 
Service, the Department of Energy, the Indian Health Service, the 
Smithsonian Institution, and the National Foundations of Arts and 
Humanities.
  H.R. 4578 appropriates $14.6 billion in new fiscal year 2001 budget 
authority, which is $303 million less than last year and $1.7 billion 
less than the President's request. Approximately half of the bill's 
funding, $7.3 billion, finances Department of the Interior programs to 
manage and study the Nation's animal, plant, and mineral resources, and 
to support Indian programs.
  The balance of the bill's funds support other non-Interior agencies 
that perform related functions. These include the Forest Service in the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture; conservation and fossil energy programs 
run by the Department of Energy; the Indian Health Service, as well as 
the Smithsonian and similar cultural organizations.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, as a Westerner, I applaud several 
limitations on funding contained in this bill. One, for example, would 
prohibit the use of funds for lands managed under any national monument 
designation executed since 1999. These lands are already in Federal 
ownership, and may still be managed under their previous land 
management status.
  For example, just last week the Clinton administration designated 
200,000 acres along the Columbia River in my district known as the 
Hanford Reach, designated that as a national monument. This action 
pulled the plug on an extended series of negotiations among local, 
State, and Federal officials seeking to develop a shared partnership to 
manage the Hanford Reach for future generations.
  Instead, unfortunately, the administration chose to unlaterally 
assign management responsibility to these lands with the Department of 
the Interior. Unfortunately, that left State and local citizens and 
officials with no real role except to comment periodically on plans and 
decisions of Federal regulators.
  H.R. 4578 would prohibit the expenditure of funds to issue a record 
of decision or any policy implementing the Interior-Columbia Basin 
Ecosystem Management Project, or ICBMP, as we call it in the Northwest, 
unless a regulatory flexibility analysis is completed.
  This project amazingly enough started in 1993 without congressional 
authorization, and affects a huge area of

[[Page 10585]]

the West, including 63 million acres of Forest Service and BLM lands in 
six States, including much of my district in the State of Washington.
  The administration appears to be rushing to complete this project 
before the end of President Clinton's tenure, and the committee is 
concerned that such haste will expose the project to high-risk 
litigation for failure to comply with the requirements of the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. I applaud the committee's 
decision in that regard.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the 
Members of this committee for their willingness to address both the 
Hanford Reach National Monument and the ICBMP project, two issues that 
are of great concern in central Washington.
  More generally, Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his tireless efforts to balance protection 
and sound management of our Nation's natural resources with the 
steadily increasing demands placed on those resources by commerce, 
tourism and recreation.
  Significantly, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and his 
colleagues have done so while staying within their allocation from the 
Committee on the Budget.
  That said, Mr. Speaker, this bill, like most legislation, is not 
perfect. Individual Members will no doubt take issue with one or more 
provisions of this bill. Those wishing to offer amendments should be 
pleased that the Committee on Rules has granted the Committee on 
Appropriations's request for an open rule.
  Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support not only the rule 
but the underlying bill, H.R. 4578.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule that will allow the Members of the 
House to work their will. But the underlying bill fails to honor 
Congress' obligation as steward of America's lands and history for 
future generations.
  The measure contains several anti-environmental riders that continue 
the attack on our natural resources.
  The first major rider would stop the management and protection of 
lands designated as national monuments by the President, the right of 
every president since Theodore Roosevelt.
  The second blocks the management and protection of lands along the 
Columbia River, which contains a threatened species of salmon.
  The third rider would prohibit the establishment of the North Delta 
National Wildlife Refuge near Sacramento, California.
  Still other riders in the bill would limit funding for protection of 
endangered species, allow grazing on public lands without an 
environmental review, and delay national forest planning.
  In addition to the numerous policy riders, H.R. 4578 contains deep 
cuts that will harm our national parks, our forests, and the protection 
and enforcement of environmental laws.
  The funding in H.R. 4578 is $300 million below last year's level and 
$1.7 billion below the President's request. Such deep cuts will have a 
devastating impact on Indian health, on national park maintenance, 
which has consistently been underfunded, and on energy research and 
conservation.
  Even though the House overwhelmingly passed the land and water 
conservation bill in May by a vote of 315 to 102, this bill is $736 
million below the amount authorized in that bill. At a time of record 
surpluses, this bill cuts funding for key national priorities in order 
to fulfill the majority's commitment to fund huge tax breaks for the 
wealthy.
  The bill's funding level is simply not realistic. Moreover, the 
majority had a failed yet again to restore some of the unwise cuts made 
5 years ago in funding for those agencies responsible for the country's 
small but critically important arts and humanities education and 
preservation efforts.
  The bill funds the National Endowment for the Arts at $98 million, a 
level 48 percent below the 1995 funding level; the National Endowment 
for the Humanities at $115 million, 33 percent below the level in 1995. 
These funding levels fundamentally ignore the successfully efforts by 
both NEA and NEH to broaden the reach of their programs and to 
eliminate controversial programs, the two reforms that were requested 
by the majority when they reduced the funding in 1995.
  It is time to recognize the success of these reforms and give these 
agencies the resources they need to meet their critical needs. 
Unfortunately, the amendment offered by a Democrat committee to raise 
funding for both agencies was defeated.
  Because of the inadequate funding levels, the President's senior 
advisors are recommending that he veto this bill, making this exercise 
on the floor a redundant act in our continuing theater of the absurd 
when it comes to spending bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of the 
gentlewoman from New York. I rise in support of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the open rule for the Interior 
Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001 which protects what the 
Committee reported.
  I want to commend our Chairman, Mr. Regula, on the difficult task he 
was faced with writing this year's spending bill. Unfortunately, the 
subcommittee was given an unrealistic allocation and as a consequence, 
this bill simply falls short in too many areas and I will be forced to 
oppose it on the floor.
  I know that it would have been extremely difficult to provide all of 
the increases requested by the Administration, but I am frustrated that 
the allocation this bill received was so inadequate. With these levels, 
we will not even be able to provide fixed costs for all of the agencies 
within our jurisdiction. We are severely under-funding critical 
programs within our jurisdiction.
  When this bill was considered by the full Appropriations Committee, 
the Administration sent a letter to the Chairman expressing deep 
concern over not only the spending levels provided in the bill but also 
several ``riders'' which were added at the last minute. The letter 
threatened a veto if substantial changes were not made to the bill.
  Each of these legislative provisions jeopardizes passage of this bill 
on the floor, and guarantees another confrontation with the White House 
this fall. These riders deal with complex policy concerns and should be 
addressed by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction, not attached 
to an annual spending bill.
  I do however appreciate that the Rule provided for this bill will 
enable Members wishing to offer amendments to these provisions the 
ability to do so.
  I am forced to oppose this bill because I do not believe we have 
adequately funded dozens of important priorities within our 
jurisdiction, and I oppose the inclusion of these controversial riders. 
I do however appreciate the bipartisan cooperation and responsible 
manner with which our Subcommittee works. This bill however did not 
receive an adequate allocation to start with now faces an even greater 
hurdle with the inclusion of these riders.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New 
York for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule. It is balanced, fair, and adequate 
for the job. I only wish I could say the same for the bill.
  I do not blame the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Ohio. I do not think he is the villain in this situation. In fact, in 
my opinion he has been given an impossible task, because his own 
leadership has made it basically impossible for his bill to adequately 
provide for the important environmental and other programs that it 
covers.
  As a result, the overall bill falls short of what is needed, even 
though it does include some good provisions. If I might, I would like 
to just touch on a few of those provisions.
  The bill does provide some funds for the acquisition of a tract in 
the Beaverbrook area of Clear Creek County, part of the district I 
represent, owned by the city of Golden, Colorado. I requested inclusion 
of funds to enable these lands to be acquired for Forest

[[Page 10586]]

Service management. I want to express my appreciation to the chairman 
for inclusion of $2 million for that purpose.
  The amount provided, like the bill's total for such acquisitions, is 
simply inadequate to meet this and other urgent conservation needs.
  In a similar fashion, the bill sets up a pilot project under which 
the Forest Service can arrange for Colorado State foresters to assist 
with fire prevention and improvement of watersheds and habitat on 
national forest lands that adjoin appropriate State or private lands.
  I have had an opportunity to discuss this with Jim Hubbard, our State 
Forester, and I believe this can be very valuable, especially in the 
Front Range areas of Colorado where residential development is 
spreading into forested areas. Again, I appreciate the inclusion of 
that provision, especially since it states that all the environmental 
laws will continue to apply.
  Again, the bill does not provide enough important support for many 
other Federal land management agencies, including not just the Forest 
Service but the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and the National Park Service.
  It also fails to adequately address matters of concern to Native 
Americans. In fact, I think it takes a step backwards. The total 
funding for the Indian Health Services and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
is cut by $520 million. I think in effect the bill sends the message 
that we are no longer willing to meet our trust responsibilities to our 
American Indian tribes.
  There can be no denying the need. Information I have seen indicates 
that in 1997, the Indian Health Service could provide only $1,397 
dollars per capita for its patients compared to about $3,900 in per 
capita health spending by all Americans.

                              {time}  2154

  Even though Indians have a 249 percent greater chance of dying from 
diabetes and a 204 percent greater chance of dying from accidents than 
our general population. Since then, health care funding for our Indian 
citizens has failed to keep up with the growing Indian population and 
has also failed to rise along with inflation.
  The bill is also loaded with undesirable riders. Let me mention three 
of them. One deals with the management of new national monuments. The 
idea there may be to reign in the President, but I think it would choke 
needed management and the real victims would be the American people and 
our public lands.
  Another rider that should be thrown off is the one on global warming. 
By restricting funds that would be used to prepare to implement the 
Kyoto Treaty, this rider effectively would stop work on the most 
important tools for holding down costs as we combat global warming.
  This provision is extreme and should not be a part of this bill.
  Finally, the bill does not do enough to promote energy efficiency. We 
need to do more to invest in Energy Department research and development 
programs that reduce our dependence on imported oil while furthering 
our national goals of broad-based economic growth, environmental 
protection, national security and economic competitiveness.
  The rule properly permits amendments to address some of these 
shortcomings and I will be urging adoption of desirable amendments, but 
in my opinion unless the bill is dramatically improved it should be not 
passed.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, the bill as it is presently in front of us 
has language that notwithstanding any other provision of law, hereafter 
the Secretary of the Interior must concur in developing, implementing, 
and revising regulations to allocate water made available from Central 
and Southern Florida Project features.
  My understanding is that a point of order will be raised and that 
language will be struck from the bill. It is not protected by the rule.
  I think that that language is critical really in terms of Everglades 
restoration. I applaud the committee, the subcommittee, for an 
incredible effort, the largest ecosystem restoration in the history of 
the world that this committee has been part of. I think it is a legacy 
each of us are leaving, not just to our children and grandchildren but 
future generations as well.
  Unfortunately, though, when this language will be struck from the 
bill, the concern that some of us have that the priority until we pass 
the Everglades Restudy, the priority of this funding is not necessarily 
the priority which I think most of us want, which is that resource 
protection be the highest priority but that flood management protection 
which is critical, and water supply which is critical will be 
potentially a higher priority.
  Therefore, I look forward to working with the substantive committee 
and the Committee on Appropriations to include similar language which 
is necessary to the intent, I think which the majority of members want.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall), who mentioned Indian health services and so on, that we do have 
increases; not as much as we would like nor as much as the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Udall) would like, but we have increased Indian 
health service over last year. We have increased the BIA operation of 
Indian programs and we have increased BIA education.
  Now we are going to hear during the debate a lot about cuts, and I 
just want to say to all of my colleagues those cuts that they talk 
about will be cuts from the President's proposals. It was easy for the 
President to propose 1.7 million additional dollars without having to 
identify a source for those dollars.
  We have tried to work within the confines of the allocation that was 
provided to our committee, recognizing that it is $300 million under 
last year. But in the process, we have addressed the needs of the land 
agencies in every way.
  I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) for his comments on 
the Everglades issue, and I regret, too, that there will be a point of 
order on the language that would give the Department of Interior a 
voice in the way the water is distributed, because the whole mission of 
the Everglades restoration is to have adequate water supply so that the 
ecosystem will flourish.
  Hopefully, in the process of a conference and final wrap-up on this 
bill we can get some language that will accomplish this goal in perhaps 
a somewhat different way, because I think all the parties on the 
Everglades restoration need to be at the table. The State of Florida, 
the Southeast Florida Water District, the mako sica Indians, but also 
the Federal Government, because we are putting a billion dollars of 
Federal money from 50 States into this restoration.
  The great interest on the part of most of the people across this 
Nation would be restoring the asset and preserving the asset known as 
the Everglades.
  So we will try to address that. I do not want to take time to get 
into the other merits. We will have time during the debate to discuss 
those. I simply want to say that I think the Committee on Rules did a 
great job here. They gave us a balanced rule. It is fair, as is the 
bill. Everybody will have their opportunity to be heard through the 
amendment process. Hopefully, out of all of this will come a 
constructive addressing of the problems that confront our national 
lands, almost 700 million acres.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.




                          ____________________