[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11380-11456]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 174 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2217.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1021


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2217) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior 
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and 
for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Interior bill that was reported out of the 
committee provides a total of $18.9 billion, $86 million above fiscal 
year 2001. The increase is less than one-half of 1 percent above 2001.
  I want to say a few things about this bill. This is a good, 
bipartisan bill. The committee members worked to put together a good 
bill for this Congress, and this is a good bill for our States and 
counties and our programs, with money that will help States, counties, 
and cities to solve their problems.
  This is a good bill for our parks. The bill fulfills President Bush's 
commitment to our parks, and continues efforts of my good friend and 
former chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Regula, 
to the parks.
  This is a good bill for wildlife stock and endangered species. There 
is money for President Bush's landowner incentive program, there is 
money for critters in this bill. This is a good bill for Indian schools 
and Indian medical facilities. New hospitals, new clinics, and new 
schools are funded in this bill. This is a good bill for weatherization 
programs across the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good and responsible bill in responding to 
our Nation's wildfire needs. This is a great bill for those who want to 
save and bring back the Everglades. This is a good bill for needed 
energy research.
  This bill is also a good bill for those who want to limit the riders 
on appropriation bills, and this is a good bill for Members who want to 
pass a noncontroversial bill. Yes, this is basically an Interior bill 
free from the normal controversies.
  I just want to add a few more things. This bill is $791 million above 
the President's request, but only $86 million above this year's budget. 
This increase is easy to explain. We have put back $164 million for 
critical wildfire needs. We put back $87 million in cuts for the U.S. 
Geological Survey. We put back $15 million for the payment in lieu of 
taxes, known as PILT, the PILT program that goes to our counties. We 
have put back $294 million to restore energy research programs 
requested by over 200 Members in the House.
  We put in $64 million in the conservation category to fulfill the 
promises we made in last year's appropriation bill.

[[Page 11381]]

We put in a $50 million increase for Indian hospitals and clinics, and 
construction and maintenance needs.
  I want to take a minute to express my sincere and lasting thanks to 
the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), for his help on this bill, and the help of the ranking 
subcommittee member, my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks). They have all worked with me boldly and in the spirit of 
bipartisan cooperation.
  I thank their staff also, especially Mike Stephens and Leslie Turner, 
who spent countless hours with the majority's staff working out 
problems.
  I thank, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for 
his support in the first year of my chairmanship of this committee.
  I also want to thank the majority staff, who have stepped up to help 
me during this transition period as a new chairman. Deborah Weatherly, 
Loretta Beaumont, Joel Kaplan, Chris Topik, Casey Stealer, and Andria 
Oliver have all chipped in to help me through this first year. Also to 
Jim Hughes, from my personal staff, a special thanks. Their knowledge 
and ability to work with both sides of the aisle and their 
professionalism is a credit to the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a table detailing the various 
accounts in the bill.
  The table referred to is as follows:

[[Page 11382]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JN01.001



[[Page 11383]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JN01.002



[[Page 11384]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JN01.003



[[Page 11385]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JN01.004



[[Page 11386]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JN01.005



[[Page 11387]]


  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to congratulate our new chairman, 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), on his first bill. He has 
done an outstanding job. As he has suggested, there has been real 
collaboration between the majority and minority, both the Members and 
the staff.
  I want to applaud the staff members of the Committee, both the 
majority and minority, particularly Debbie Weatherly and Mike Stephens 
and Lesley Turner on my staff. They have worked very hard on this bill, 
and I think it is an extraordinary bill.
  I rise in support of the FY 02 Interior appropriations act. I 
congratulate again the staff for producing a bill that I think we all 
can support. The subcommittee bill represents a significant improvement 
over the President's budget request. Most of the cuts have been 
restored, and a few very important programs received small increases.
  I want to also compliment our majority on the cooperative way the 
bill was crafted. The minority, as I suggested, was consulted 
extensively, and the majority went to great lengths to see that most of 
our concerns were addressed throughout the process.
  The most important thing to me in this bill, and to many of my 
colleagues, is the commitment to the Conservation Trust Fund which was 
negotiated last year. Under the agreement, conservation spending was 
nearly doubled in fiscal year 2001 and would gradually increase to 
fiscal year 2006. This year contains the full $1.32 billion called for 
under the agreement, but is not a new entitlement. This funding 
structure enables the committee to prioritize specific conservation 
programs, such as land acquisition, endangered species recovery, 
historic preservation, as well as provide grants to States for 
conservation activities and urban recreation.
  This agreement was a careful compromise last year during the final 
negotiation on this bill when it became apparent that the CARA 
legislation, which created mandatory spending, was not going to pass 
the Congress. The conservation spending category is a victory for the 
country.
  I am extremely pleased that this bill fully honors our commitment on 
a bipartisan basis. While I plan to support the bill today, I do plan 
to support an amendment that would increase funding to both the 
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Humanities, and would also give a small increase of funding for the 
Institute for Museum and Library Services.
  The chairman should be commended for his efforts to restore nearly 
all the cuts to energy research and conservation programs that were 
proposed by the President. These cuts were unwise, especially given the 
current energy situation we are facing out West. My State of Washington 
has seen the impacts of this energy crisis firsthand, and many more 
States are next.
  If the President is as concerned as his public statements suggest, he 
would welcome this committee's increase in these critical areas.
  Aside from some specific program levels, this is a very good bill. 
The total in the chairman's mark is $18.941 million. This is $814 
million over the President's request, and essentially the same level as 
2001.

                              {time}  1030

  After adjusting for one-time fire money in 2001, however, the bill 
provides an increase over the current year of $803 million or 5 
percent. This is on top of a 15 percent increase last year for nonfire 
programs.
  There is a $60 million increase for Stateside Land and Water 
Conservation Fund grants as well as $60 million included for the 
President's two new private landowner incentive programs, taking that 
up to about $150 million. This is one of the President's important 
programs.
  We also funded two new private landowner incentive programs proposed 
by the administration.
  Both of the President's two highest priorities in the Department of 
Energy, the weatherization program, an increase of $120 million, and 
the Clean Coal Initiative, an increase of $150 million, were provided. 
This bill also rightly continues the National Park's Services' Save 
America's Treasures program. This program, started by Mrs. Clinton 
during the last administration, has been a success, and has helped 
restore many historic structures.
  I am also pleased that the bill does not contain any objectionable 
riders like the ones that have threatened the bill in past years.
  Again, I compliment the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) on his 
first Interior bill. It is a pleasure to work with him and his staff, 
and I look forward to passing this bill today which I think we can all 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I see that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, is here, and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and I want to thank them for their help in 
helping us move this bill forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a couple of 
minutes, and I do not want to delay the consideration of this bill, but 
I want to advise the Members of the good work that was done by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  This was a new assignment for the gentleman because of our term limit 
situation in the House. He did a really outstanding job, and he had a 
great partner in the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking 
member of the subcommittee. They worked closely together. They shared 
information all of the way through the process.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) can speak for himself, but I 
think we were both pleased when we attended the subcommittee markup and 
saw what a good bipartisan bill this was.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to help us expedite the 
consideration of this bill today. It is a good bill. There will be some 
debate and discussion on a few issues that might stir up some 
controversy but, all in all, it is a good bill. It is a very good 
bipartisan bill, and the gentleman from New Mexico and the gentleman 
from Washington are to be congratulated for the work that they have 
done.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I still am experiencing some laryngitis, but 
I want to take a moment to comment on this bill.
  It is certainly not a perfect bill. And I believe it needs more 
funding for both arts and energy research and several other programs, 
but I intend to vote for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen) and his staff for handling this bill in the way in which 
every appropriation bill ought to be handled. Information was made 
fully available to the minority, and strong efforts were made to work 
out virtually all differences on the bill. In contrast to nominal 
bipartisanship, this was a truly bipartisan approach. I think it needs 
to be recognized in this House when that happens because it does not 
happen nearly enough, as evidenced by the many bills which come to the 
floor in a state of high controversy.
  Let me also congratulate the committee for adhering to an agreement 
made last year when the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) was chairman.
  As Members will recall, a number of groups wanted us to pass a new 
entitlement for land acquisition called CARA. I strongly favor added 
funding for land acquisition, but I could see no reason why we should 
create an additional entitlement which made land acquisition a higher 
priority than education or health care, for instance. Those are my top 
priorities.
  So the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and I worked out with 
the

[[Page 11388]]

gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and with the other body on a new 
agreement under which we essentially doubled conservation funding for a 
6-year period, raising what would have been a spending level of about 
$6 billion over that period to about $12 billion as part of that 
agreement. We agreed that there would be a $120 million annual 
ratcheting up of the total amount in the portion of the bill under the 
jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
  That was our way of demonstrating that we could make land acquisition 
a very high priority, make these conservation items a very high 
priority without abusing the budget process by creating another 
entitlement.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the committee was extremely wise in rejecting 
the White House's efforts to change that agreement. We have found the 
middle ground. We have found common ground on this issue; and if we 
stick together, we can accomplish a good and noble public purpose 
without abusing the processes of this Congress. I would hope that as 
this bill moves through the process, it retains the spirit of this 
agreement.
  I appreciate very much the fact that the committee rejected some of 
the funding reductions that the White House proposed in parts of these 
programs and returned to the agreement that was reached last year 
because that can be sustained, in my view, over a long period of time.
  I would also like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), if I could.
  As the gentleman knows, there was confusion regarding the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge when this matter came up in committee last 
week, and I believe that confusion has been cleared up.
  As I understand it, both the majority and the minority agree that 
this bill provides no funding to facilitate seismic studies or other 
predevelopment activities within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
and that there is no authority in law for those purposes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. That is correct.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. That is my understanding also.
  As the gentleman knows, concern has also been expressed regarding 
language on page 2 of the bill which authorizes $2.250 million for the 
assessment of the mineral potential of public lands in Alaska pursuant 
to section 1010 of Public Law 96-487, the Alaska National Interest 
Lands Conservation Act. Is it the gentleman's understanding that 
section 1010 provides no authority to undertake the activities in the 
Arctic Refuge that we all agree are not intended to be funded by this 
bill?
  Mr. SKEEN. That is correct.
  Mr. OBEY. That is my interpretation as well, but the language of 
section 1010 and its cross-reference to section 1001 are sufficiently 
convoluted, that it has been helpful to make this clarification at this 
time. I appreciate the gentleman making the clarification. I think it 
makes quite clear that there is no such authority, and I appreciate the 
gentleman's comments.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to stand in support of this bill. It is a 
balanced bill. A bill which has been worked through with the chairman 
and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), who has done a marvelous 
job, and my dear friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) on 
the minority side, to try to reach a balanced and commonsense approach 
to the management of our public lands. This bill speaks to the needs of 
our national treasures in the public lands area and certainly speaks to 
the needs of Indian peoples. It has an Indian health care measure in 
it, and Indian education assistance.
  It funds appropriately institutions like the Smithsonian and our 
museums and arts and humanities and other interests in our country.
  By and large it is a very good bill, spending adequate amounts of 
money for adequate resources within the various agencies that are 
funded by this appropriations measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the staff which has worked very hard on both 
sides of the aisle to present a balanced bill. This bill went through 
our subcommittee in record time because it was balanced and bipartisan. 
It went through the full committee in adequate and fair time because it 
was balanced and bipartisan.
  There will be amendments today that will be presented, as is our 
process, but I would urge Members to reject many of those amendments 
because they would upset the delicate balance that is in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who worked so 
hard to make this a balanced and sensible bill. I urge that the 
leadership's example be followed and that my colleagues in the House 
will support this measure, pass it through the House, and move it on 
through the legislative process so it can be enacted and it can meet 
the natural resources needs of our country.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Interior 
Appropriations Committee bringing their bill for fiscal year 2002 
appropriations to the floor for consideration today. H.R. 2217 has 
programs which address many of the health, education, lands, law 
enforcement, conservation and roads needs of American Indians and 
Alaska Natives.
  I appreciate the Interior Appropriations Committee's increase of the 
Indian Health Service (IHS) budget of $3,000,000 over the budget 
request and $124,351,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level. This 
increase is justified and will provide much needed additional program 
services to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
  However, I am concerned with language that is in both the House bill 
and Committee Report regarding Contract Support Costs (CSC) for Indian 
Health Service (IHS) programs. While I appreciate the Interior 
Appropriations Committee's increases in the last few years for CSC 
shortfalls, the current bill contains some provisions harmful to the 
tribal health delivery system. The bill would limit IHS' authority to 
enter into new and expanded contracts which is directly contrary to the 
federal policy of Indian self-determination. It would also limit 
payment of the direct costs portion of CSC; further, the Committee 
Report appears to advocate for their eventual elimination.
  In 1999, the House Committee on Resources held several hearings to 
address the shortfalls of CSC and received several recommendations from 
the General Accounting Office (GAO) to correct and meet the true need 
of CSC. One of GAO's recommendations stated that the IHS and the BIA 
should remain consistent with their payment of CSC for tribally 
contracted and compacted run programs. I agreed with the GAO 
recommendation that both programs should be consistent with their CSC 
payments. However, while the IHS pays both indirect and direct contract 
support costs, the BIA does not pay for any direct costs, a policy it 
(the BIA) now, according to its February 24, 1999, testimony before the 
House Committee on Resources, has under review. Given the fact that the 
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEA) and its 
regulations provide that CSC include direct costs, it is appropriate 
that the BIA review its policy. In fact, the GAO report (Indian Self-
Determination Act: Shortfalls on Indian Contract Support Costs Needs To 
Be Addressed (GAO/RCED-99-150, June 30, 1999) criticized the BIA for 
not paying direct costs as part of CSC.
  The FY 2002 Interior Appropriations bill states: ``no existing self-
determination contract, grant, self-governance compact or annual 
funding agreement shall receive direct contract support costs in excess 
of the amount received in fiscal year 2001 for such costs. . . .'' This 
language would unfairly prohibit tribes from negotiating an increase in 
their direct costs.
  The Committee Report language appears to question the propriety of 
paying direct CSC, indicating that capping direct CSC at the FY 2001 
level would be the beginning of a process to eliminate direct CSC 
payments. Further, the report instructs IHS to seek Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval on the payment of direct CSC for 
any new and expanded contracts in FY 2002. This violates the ISDEA by 
capping the portion of the direct costs portion of CSC payments. The 
Committee Report goes even further, suggesting that IHS should not pay 
the direct costs portion of CSC, an amount which is close to 20% of CSC 
and requiring OMB approval of direct

[[Page 11389]]

costs for new and expanded contracts. The ISDEA clearly includes direct 
costs as a part of CSC payments. Elimination of the direct costs 
portion of CSC payments would be devastating to tribal health care 
providers. We need to address this important Interior Appropriations 
issue in the Senate and in conference. Tribal health care providers 
should not be penalized because the IHS and BIA have inconsistent CSC 
payment systems. I look forward to working with my colleagues to find a 
reasonable and just resolution to the CSC issue for our American Indian 
and Alaska Native constituency.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2217, the 
Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. In this bill, we 
make clear our historic commitment to protecting and maintaining our 
nation's parks and wildlife refuges, and to preserving more open space.
  Let me start by offering my thanks to Chairman Skeen, ranking member 
Dicks and the Interior Subcommittee staff, specifically Debbie 
Weatherly and Chris Topik, for their hard work in putting this 
important piece of legislation together and working to satisfy so many 
demands!
  Overall, this bill provides $1.32 billion for the Title VIII 
Conservation Trust Fund that was established in last year's Interior 
Appropriations bill. As some may remember, last year's agreement 
created a separate budget category to support these efforts. This 
funding will help our states and the Federal government to protect and 
preserve our nation's forests, fields and wetlands--green spaces that, 
especially those of us from the Northeast know only too well, are 
disappearing much too quickly.
  I want to particularly congratulate President Bush for fully funding 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million in his Fiscal Year 
2002 Budget Request, a critical component of the conservation trust 
fund.
  This bill maintains and improves our stewardship of America's 
greatest natural resources, our national parks and wildlife refuges. 
Each year, 285 million of our constituents will visit and enjoy our 
national parks and experience the beauty of over 83 million acres of 
preserved open lands. And it just two years, we will celebrate the 
centennial of our wildlife refuges--535 national treasures that exist 
in communities across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, in my home state of New Jersey, the most densely 
populated state in the nation, the preservation of open space is a top 
priority. That is why I am especially grateful for the support of my 
colleagues for a number of key New Jersey priorities.
  At my request, H.R. 2217 contains continued funding for the 
preservation of New Jersey's Highlands, one of our state's most 
threatened, and most important watersheds. This bill provides critical 
funding for land purchases within the Highlands; in fact, it is the 
most significant Federal commitments ever to preserving this area.
  Equally as important, the bill directs the Department of Interior and 
Agriculture to work in partnership with state and local resources, 
already in place, to protect the Highlands. The Federal government 
should be a major partner in this preservation effort, as we were when 
Congress successfully preserved Sterling Forest in the same region.
  This bill also builds on our past successes in Congress to expand New 
Jersey's national parks and wildlife refuges.
  In my own Congressional District, there is funding to further expand 
our nation's oldest historic park, the Morristown National Historical 
Park, and to protect a huge collection of artifacts and Revolutionary 
War material related to George Washington. There is also money to allow 
for additional land purchases at the Great Swamp National Wildlife 
Refuge. Our delegation also appreciates your support fo the Cape May, 
E.B. Forsythe and Walkill National Wildlife Refuges and the Delaware 
Water Gap National Recreation Park.
  Finally, it is important to note that we meet these national 
priorities, and do so within the confines of our budget agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, let there be no doubt about it: with passage of this 
bill, this House is fully committed to maintaining and improving our 
nation's treasured national parks and wildlife refuges.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of some key amendments to 
the Interior Appropriations bill.
  I am pleased to join my colleague, Representative DeFazio, in our 
continued efforts to stop the extension of the misguided Recreational 
Fee Demonstration Program. Last year, I was successful in limiting an 
extension to only one year. But the bill before us irresponsibly 
extends the RFDP for four years. And it does it by circumventing the 
normal process for extending Federal programs and just tacks the 
extension on to a ``must-pass'' spending bill. This is irrresponsible 
and a disservice to those of us who would like to find alternative and 
more appropriate ways to support our National Forests.
  In my district the RFDP is known as the Adventure Pass and it 
requires my constituents to pay just to visit the Los Padres National 
Forest. This is a form of double taxation. We already pay taxes to 
maintain our National Parks, Forests and other publicly owned lands. We 
should not have to pay again just to see a sunset or have a picnic in 
our own backyard.
  I agree that our parks and forests have a backlog of maintenance and 
need more funding to address these needs. That's why I have introduced 
legislation that would end the subsidies to timber companies that 
reduce funding for our National Forests. My bill would end the 
Adventure Pass but ensure that Forest Service have enough funding to 
preserve and protect these precious lands.
  I am also pleased to join my colleague, Representative Rahall, on an 
amendment to ban new oil and gas drilling in National Monuments.
  My district is home to the new Carrizo Plain National Monument, 
located almost entirely in San Luis Obispo County. The Carrizo Plain 
contains one of the last remnants of the California Central Valley's 
wildflowers and is home to a host of wildlife, including the endangered 
San Joaquin Kit Fox and the California Condor. Carrizo contains 
significant Native American cultural sites, such as the Chumash 
``Painted Rock,'' and geological phenomena, including the most visible 
portion of the San Andreas Fault. In addition, Carrizo is the location 
of an important study on livestock grazing and how it might be used as 
an effective tool to benefit wildlife and sensitive species dependent 
on indigenous habitats.
  The protections afforded to this precious area by the Monument 
designation--including no new mineral leasing within the Monument--have 
been met with widespread support in San Luis Obispo County. My 
constituents support protection of their environment and cultural 
heritage, and understand it is a vital component of the local economy, 
of which tourism is a major element. And new oil and gas drilling does 
not play into that picture.
  Mr. Chairman, I have received letters supporting the new designation 
and its restriction on new oil and gas leasing from a broad swath of 
the community, including the 1200 member San Luis Obispo Chamber of 
Commerce, local environmental groups and ranchers, and the Chumash 
Council. I have advised both Resources Committee Chairman Hansen and 
Interior Secretary Norton of these sentiments and urged that they 
support my community's wishes to protect its environment and economy by 
allowing no new drilling in Carrizo Plain.
  The Tribune, San Luis Obispo County's major newspapers, correctly 
calls Carrizo ``a real treasure'' and notes approvingly that because of 
the Monument designation ``it will stay as it is forever.'' Our 
amendment would ensure that this prediction comes true.
  I urge my colleagues to support both of these common sense measures.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the distinguished 
Chairman, Mr. Skeen, and ranking member Mr. Dicks, for their excellent 
work on this bill. It provides funding for many programs that will 
benefit both the natural and urban environments in our country, 
although I would support further increases in several critical areas, 
including energy research and the arts.
  Mr. Chairman, with California and the West in the midst of an energy 
crisis, the last thing we should do is cut funding for energy research, 
particularly research on clean energy sources and technologies. I am 
proud that the state of California now leads the country for its 
efficient use of energy. California and the country should press 
forward to increase our energy efficiency and shift toward clean, 
sustainable energy sources. Yet the President's budget proposed a 30% 
cut in energy efficiency research and development. Although the 
Committee wisely disregarded this proposal, we should be doing much 
more in this area.
  An important element in this bill is funding for the arts and 
humanities. The arts and humanities enrich our culture, boost our 
economy, and promote creativity and self-confidence in our youth. I 
support the Slaughter-Dicks amendment on increase funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, 
and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
  The Interior bill recognizes the need to reduce the backlog of 
maintenance needs in our national parks. But it is also important to 
ensure that our parks have the operating funds they need to provide 
stewardship of wild lands and historic buildings and run informational

[[Page 11390]]

programs. The bill also takes a step in the right direction providing a 
modest increase in operating funds, although the need is much greater.
  The Interior bill contains a commendable increase in funding for 
conservation programs. While the President's budget called for full 
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million, that 
increase would have been funded by cutting a number of other important 
conservation programs. The Committee chose instead to provide $709 
million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, while maintaining 
valuable existing conservation programs, including the Urban Park and 
Recreation Fund and ``Save America's Treasures.'' I applaud the 
decision of the Committee to omit funding for studies concerning oil 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, but we could do so much more for 
our natural and cultural heritage with additional resources. 
Unfortunately, the tax cuts make it difficult to fund many of these 
valuable programs. Hopefully the President and the Congress will place 
a higher priority on the arts, recreation, and the environment in the 
future.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of the 
Interior appropriations bill.
  This Member is pleased that the funding requested by the Bush 
Administration for construction of the Indian Health Service (IHS) 
hospital located in Winnebago, Nebraska, is included in this measure.
  It appears an amendment will be offered to increase funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Humanities. The National Endowment of the Humanities serves my 
constituents and the state of Nebraska through the programs of the 
Nebraska Humanities Council. The Nebraska Humanities Council 
consistently provides high-quality humanities programming at very 
little cost to citizens of all walks of life in my state.
  The Nebraska Council has been quite active in promoting the 
commemoration of the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Corps of 
Discovery expedition. For example, the Nebraska Council has instituted 
a six-year Lewis and Clark Educational Initiative. The Council held the 
first of several Lewis and Clark Teacher Institutes earlier this month. 
Each institute will be taught by a leading Lewis and Clark scholar. 
There were almost 200 applicants for 25 available slots. The teachers 
attending the first institute sincerely appreciated the opportunity and 
are exited about sharing what they learned with their students, 
schools, and communities. The Nebraska Council uses the Federal dollars 
to leverage private grants and funds.
  These efforts to promote the Lewis and Clark expedition will greatly 
enrich the lives of Nebraskans and certainly go to the heart of the 
mission of the state councils of the National Endowment of the 
Humanities.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Pawnee Nation in Pawnee 
Oklahoma, I respectfully request increased construction phase funding 
for the Pawnee Replacement Health Center be included in the Indian 
Health Service (IHS) Budget. This funding was initially included in the 
IHS FY 2002 Budget Preparation, but was omitted from H.R. 2217 in its 
current form.
  The replacement facility has been on the IHS Health Facility priority 
list for many years. The need for a replacement building was originally 
assessed in 1981, but not until last year was the 73-year-old clinic, 
the oldest in the nation, selected for funding. However, these funds 
only covered the design phase of the replacement facility, leaving 
construction funds to be appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
  As this bill goes to conference with the Senate, I ask that Conferees 
fulfill the promise Congress made to the Pawnee Nation in 1981 by 
funding the remaining construction costs in the FY 2002 Department of 
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Thank you for 
considering this request.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend Chairman 
Skeen, Ranking Member Dicks and the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee on their efforts to draft a difficult bill this year and 
balance difficult priorities. I sincerely appreciate the subcommittee's 
efforts in assisting the State of Florida's program for the development 
of electrochromic technology. This program is an excellent example of 
successful technology transfer from a national laboratory as well as an 
example of a successful public/private partnership. Electrochromic 
technology provides a flexible means of controlling the amount of heat 
and light that pass through a glass surface providing significant 
energy conservation opportunities in the building and automotive 
markets.
  The Department of Energy estimates that placing this technology on 
all building windows in the United States would produce yearly energy 
savings of up to $28 billion per year. The technology also has 
application within the Vehicle Technology/Auxiliary Load Reduction R&D 
accounts. In recognition of the importance of this technology, the 
State of Florida has provided over $2.3 million toward the advancement 
of this Program.
  The Program is being undertaken in conjunction with the University of 
South Florida and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in 
Colorado through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 
(CRADA), and utilizes a patented technology developed at NREL. This is 
a superb energy savings opportunity important to the Nation and is 
consistent with the priorities of the industry within the U.S. and the 
goals of the Department of Energy's windows program.
  Electrochromic research is provide for within the building and 
materials section of the energy conservation division of the Interior 
Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2002. The researchers are now 
working cooperatively with DOE on the program and we hope to expand 
that cooperation in the future. This will require a recognition by the 
Agency of the value of Florida's development of Plasma Enhanced 
Chemical Vapor Deposition (PECVD) techniques for electrochromic 
technology.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, as cochairman of the congressional Native 
American Caucus, I rise to express my gratitude to the Interior 
Subcommittee Chairman Joe Skeen and senior Democratic Member Norm Dicks 
for their work on increasing the overall funding levels of the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service in the fiscal year 2002 
Interior appropriations bill.
  I must, however, voice my concern about language in the Indian Health 
Service portion of the bill and the accompanying report concerning 
contract support costs. As you know, contract support costs are the 
necessary administrative and overhead costs borne by Indian tribal 
contractors when operating a Federal program.
  The language in the bill would undermine tribal self-determination 
rights by prohibiting tribes from including in renegotiations of 
contract support costs any increase in the direct costs portion of 
those payments, by imposing a partial moratorium on new and expanded 
contracts, and by attempting to cap the portion of negotiated contract 
support costs which can be paid in any one year. The bill also cuts the 
President's budget request for contract support costs by half and 
provides only $20 million for that category. The ongoing shortfall for 
existing contracts far exceeds that amount.
  The committee report questions the propriety of direct contract costs 
and directs the Indian Health Service to secure the approval of OMB on 
any direct contract support costs payments for new and expanded 
contracts. Negotiation of contracts is a matter between the tribes and 
the Federal agency--the committee's directive would put tribes in the 
position of having to negotiate with OMB regarding their contract 
support payments.
  The Indian Self-Determination Act specifically provides that contract 
support costs include both direct and indirect costs.
  As this bill proceeds through the legislative process, I hope that we 
can all work together on a better resolution for dealing with contract 
support costs and increasing the funding for contract support costs.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my concern about the funding levels 
of two elements of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) education 
budget--student transportation and administrative cost grants.
  The student transportation item supplies funding for the operation of 
BIA school buses. This account has been underfunded for many years and 
this bill will continue that trend by providing essentially no increase 
in funding.
  Elevated fuel costs have had a devastating impact on BIA school bus 
programs. For the just completed school year, BIA schools received only 
$2.30/mile for their student transportation needs. By contrast, the 
average rate per-mile spent on student transportation by public school 
systems throughout the country was $3.21/mile. BIA estimates show that 
its school bus system is underfunded by $11 million.
  We must fund the BIA school transportation programs so that the BIA 
schools can continue to provide adequate transportation needs to their 
students.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned that bill fails to increase funding 
for administrative cost grants which is a vital program that supports 
the administrative needs of tribally-operated schools.
  Tribes and tribal school boards have taken on the responsibility for 
direct operation of two-thirds of the 185 BIA-funded schools, but 
Congress has not supplied them with the funding required to run their 
fiscal and management affairs in a prudent manner.
  The chronic shortfalls in administrative cost grants severely 
compromise the ability of tribal

[[Page 11391]]

school boards to maintain proper internal management controls, to 
prepare for and pay for annual audits, and to discharge the numerous 
policymaking, supervision, program planning, procurement, personnel and 
management activities for which these tribal school boards are 
responsible. No educational institution can succeed if it is required 
to do more with less year after year.
  Mr. Chairman, unlike children in the public school system, Indian 
children in the BIA system depend 100% on funding from Congress. We 
should fulfill our responsibility to properly support these Federal 
schools and meet our obligations to the Indian students they educate. 
It is my hope that we can work together as the bill proceeds to through 
the legislative process so that we can increase the funding for these 
two very important Indian education programs.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he or 
she has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered as read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2217

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, namely:

                  TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       Bureau of Land Management


                   management of lands and resources

       For expenses necessary for protection, use, improvement, 
     development, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification, 
     acquisition of easements and other interests in lands, and 
     performance of other functions, including maintenance of 
     facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of lands 
     and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, including the general administration of the 
     Bureau, and assessment of mineral potential of public lands 
     pursuant to Public Law 96-487 (16 U.S.C. 3150(a)), 
     $768,711,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $1,000,000 is for high priority projects which shall be 
     carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps, defined in 
     section 250(c)(4)(E)(xii) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the 
     purposes of such Act; of which $2,225,000 shall be available 
     for assessment of the mineral potential of public lands in 
     Alaska pursuant to section 1010 of Public Law 96-487 (16 
     U.S.C. 3150); and of which not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be 
     derived from the special receipt account established by the 
     Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)); and of which $3,000,000 shall be 
     available in fiscal year 2002 subject to a match by at least 
     an equal amount by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 
     to such Foundation for cost-shared projects supporting 
     conservation of Bureau lands and such funds shall be advanced 
     to the Foundation as a lump sum grant without regard to when 
     expenses are incurred; in addition, $32,298,000 for Mining 
     Law Administration program operations, including the cost of 
     administering the mining claim fee program; to remain 
     available until expended, to be reduced by amounts collected 
     by the Bureau and credited to this appropriation from annual 
     mining claim fees so as to result in a final appropriation 
     estimated at not more than $768,711,000, and $2,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, from communication site 
     rental fees established by the Bureau for the cost of 
     administering communication site activities: Provided, That 
     appropriations herein made shall not be available for the 
     destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in 
     the care of the Bureau or its contractors: Provided further, 
     That of the amount provided, $28,000,000 is for ``Federal 
     Infrastructure Improvement'', defined in section 
     250(c)(4)(E)(xiv) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     such Act: Provided further, That fiscal year 2001 balances in 
     the Federal Infrastructure Improvement account for the Bureau 
     of Land Management shall be transferred to and merged with 
     this appropriation, and shall remain available until 
     expended.

  Mr. SKEEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title I is as follows:


                        wildland fire management

       For necessary expenses for fire preparedness, suppression 
     operations, fire science and research, emergency 
     rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, and rural fire 
     assistance by the Department of the Interior, $700,806,000, 
     to remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 
     $19,774,000 shall be for the renovation or construction of 
     fire facilities: Provided, That such funds are also available 
     for repayment of advances to other appropriation accounts 
     from which funds were previously transferred for such 
     purposes: Provided further, That unobligated balances of 
     amounts previously appropriated to the ``Fire Protection'' 
     and ``Emergency Department of the Interior Firefighting 
     Fund'' may be transferred and merged with this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That persons hired pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 
     1469 may be furnished subsistence and lodging without cost 
     from funds available from this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 1856d, sums received 
     by a bureau or office of the Department of the Interior for 
     fire protection rendered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1856 et seq., 
     protection of United States property, may be credited to the 
     appropriation from which funds were expended to provide that 
     protection, and are available without fiscal year limitation: 
     Provided further, That using the amounts designated under 
     this title of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior may 
     enter into procurement contracts, grants, or cooperative 
     agreements, for hazardous fuels reduction activities, and for 
     training and monitoring associated with such hazardous fuels 
     reduction activities, on Federal land, or on adjacent non-
     Federal land for activities that benefit resources on Federal 
     land: Provided further, That the costs of implementing any 
     cooperative agreement between the Federal government and any 
     non-Federal entity may be shared, as mutually agreed on by 
     the affected parties: Provided further, That in entering into 
     such grants or cooperative agreements, the Secretary may 
     consider the enhancement of local and small business 
     employment opportunities for rural communities, and that in 
     entering into procurement contracts under this section on a 
     best value basis, the Secretary may take into account the 
     ability of an entity to enhance local and small business 
     employment opportunities in rural communities, and that the 
     Secretary may award procurement contracts, grants, or 
     cooperative agreements under this section to entities that 
     include local non-profit entities, Youth Conservation Corps 
     or related partnerships, or small or disadvantaged 
     businesses: Provided further, That funds appropriated under 
     this head may be used to reimburse the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service 
     for the costs of carrying out their responsibilities under 
     the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
     to consult and conference, as required by section 7 of such 
     Act in connection with wildland fire management activities.


                    central hazardous materials fund

       For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior 
     and any of its component offices and bureaus for the remedial 
     action, including associated activities, of hazardous waste 
     substances, pollutants, or contaminants pursuant to the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), 
     $9,978,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, sums recovered from or 
     paid by a party in advance of or as reimbursement for 
     remedial action or response activities conducted by the 
     Department pursuant to section 107 or 113(f) of such Act, 
     shall be credited to this account to be available until 
     expended without further appropriation: Provided further, 
     That such sums recovered from or paid by any party are not 
     limited to monetary payments and may include stocks, bonds or 
     other personal or real property, which may be retained, 
     liquidated, or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary and 
     which shall be credited to this account.


                              construction

       For construction of buildings, recreation facilities, 
     roads, trails, and appurtenant facilities, $11,076,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                       payments in lieu of taxes

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20, 
     1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), $200,000,000, of 
     which not to exceed $400,000 shall be available for 
     administrative expenses and of which $50,000,000 is for the 
     conservation activities defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(xiii) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, for the purposes of such Act: Provided, 
     That no payment shall be made to otherwise eligible units of 
     local government if the computed amount of the payment is 
     less than $100.

[[Page 11392]]




                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out sections 205, 206, and 
     318(d) of Public Law 94-579, including administrative 
     expenses and acquisition of lands or waters, or interests 
     therein, $47,686,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to 
     be for the conservation activities defined in section 
     250(c)(4)(E)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such 
     Act.


                   oregon and california grant lands

       For expenses necessary for management, protection, and 
     development of resources and for construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of access roads, reforestation, and other 
     improvements on the revested Oregon and California Railroad 
     grant lands, on other Federal lands in the Oregon and 
     California land-grant counties of Oregon, and on adjacent 
     rights-of-way; and acquisition of lands or interests therein 
     including existing connecting roads on or adjacent to such 
     grant lands; $105,165,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That 25 percent of the aggregate of all 
     receipts during the current fiscal year from the revested 
     Oregon and California Railroad grant lands is hereby made a 
     charge against the Oregon and California land-grant fund and 
     shall be transferred to the General Fund in the Treasury in 
     accordance with the second paragraph of subsection (b) of 
     title II of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 876).

               forest ecosystems health and recovery fund


                   (revolving fund, special account)

       In addition to the purposes authorized in Public Law 102-
     381, funds made available in the Forest Ecosystem Health and 
     Recovery Fund can be used for the purpose of planning, 
     preparing, and monitoring salvage timber sales and forest 
     ecosystem health and recovery activities such as release from 
     competing vegetation and density control treatments. The 
     Federal share of receipts (defined as the portion of salvage 
     timber receipts not paid to the counties under 43 U.S.C. 
     1181f and 43 U.S.C. 1181-1 et seq., and Public Law 103-66) 
     derived from treatments funded by this account shall be 
     deposited into the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund.


                           range improvements

       For rehabilitation, protection, and acquisition of lands 
     and interests therein, and improvement of Federal rangelands 
     pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), notwithstanding any 
     other Act, sums equal to 50 percent of all moneys received 
     during the prior fiscal year under sections 3 and 15 of the 
     Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.) and the amount 
     designated for range improvements from grazing fees and 
     mineral leasing receipts from Bankhead-Jones lands 
     transferred to the Department of the Interior pursuant to 
     law, but not less than $10,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $600,000 shall be 
     available for administrative expenses.


               service charges, deposits, and forfeitures

       For administrative expenses and other costs related to 
     processing application documents and other authorizations for 
     use and disposal of public lands and resources, for costs of 
     providing copies of official public land documents, for 
     monitoring construction, operation, and termination of 
     facilities in conjunction with use authorizations, and for 
     rehabilitation of damaged property, such amounts as may be 
     collected under Public Law 94-579, as amended, and Public Law 
     93-153, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any provision to the contrary of section 
     305(a) of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1735(a)), any moneys 
     that have been or will be received pursuant to that section, 
     whether as a result of forfeiture, compromise, or settlement, 
     if not appropriate for refund pursuant to section 305(c) of 
     that Act (43 U.S.C. 1735(c)), shall be available and may be 
     expended under the authority of this Act by the Secretary to 
     improve, protect, or rehabilitate any public lands 
     administered through the Bureau of Land Management which have 
     been damaged by the action of a resource developer, 
     purchaser, permittee, or any unauthorized person, without 
     regard to whether all moneys collected from each such action 
     are used on the exact lands damaged which led to the action: 
     Provided further, That any such moneys that are in excess of 
     amounts needed to repair damage to the exact land for which 
     funds were collected may be used to repair other damaged 
     public lands.


                       miscellaneous trust funds

       In addition to amounts authorized to be expended under 
     existing laws, there is hereby appropriated such amounts as 
     may be contributed under section 307 of the Act of October 
     21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), and such amounts as may be 
     advanced for administrative costs, surveys, appraisals, and 
     costs of making conveyances of omitted lands under section 
     211(b) of that Act, to remain available until expended.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management shall be 
     available for purchase, erection, and dismantlement of 
     temporary structures, and alteration and maintenance of 
     necessary buildings and appurtenant facilities to which the 
     United States has title; up to $100,000 for payments, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, for information or evidence 
     concerning violations of laws administered by the Bureau; 
     miscellaneous and emergency expenses of enforcement 
     activities authorized or approved by the Secretary and to be 
     accounted for solely on her certificate, not to exceed 
     $10,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 501, the 
     Bureau may, under cooperative cost-sharing and partnership 
     arrangements authorized by law, procure printing services 
     from cooperators in connection with jointly produced 
     publications for which the cooperators share the cost of 
     printing either in cash or in services, and the Bureau 
     determines the cooperator is capable of meeting accepted 
     quality standards, Provided further, That sections 28f and 
     28g of title 30, United States Code, are amended:
       (1) In section 28f(a), by striking the first sentence and 
     inserting, ``The holder of each unpatented mining claim, 
     mill, or tunnel site, located pursuant to the mining laws of 
     the United States, whether located before, on or after the 
     enactment of this Act, shall pay to the Secretary of the 
     Interior, on or before September 1, 2002, a claim maintenance 
     fee of $100 per claim or site.''; and
       (2) In section 28g, by striking ``and before September 30, 
     2001'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``and before September 
     30, 2002''.

                United States Fish and Wildlife Service


                          resource management

       For necessary expenses of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, for scientific and economic studies, 
     conservation, management, investigations, protection, and 
     utilization of fishery and wildlife resources, except whales, 
     seals, and sea lions, maintenance of the herd of long-horned 
     cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, general 
     administration, and for the performance of other authorized 
     functions related to such resources by direct expenditure, 
     contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and reimbursable 
     agreements with public and private entities, $839,852,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2003, except as 
     otherwise provided herein, of which $28,000,000 is for 
     ``Federal Infrastructure Improvement'', defined in section 
     250(c)(4)(E)(xiv) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     such Act: Provided, That fiscal year 2001 balances in the 
     Federal Infrastructure Improvement account for the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service shall be transferred to and 
     merged with this appropriation, and shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That not less than 
     $2,000,000 shall be provided to local governments in southern 
     California for planning associated with the Natural 
     Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program and shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     $2,000,000 is for high priority projects which shall be 
     carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps defined in 
     section 250(c)(4)(E) (xii) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the 
     purposes of such Act: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $8,476,000 shall be used for implementing subsections (a), 
     (b), (c), and (e) of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, 
     as amended, for species that are indigenous to the United 
     States (except for processing petitions, developing and 
     issuing proposed and final regulations, and taking any other 
     steps to implement actions described in subsection (c)(2)(A), 
     (c)(2)(B)(i), or (c)(2)(B)(ii)), of which not to exceed 
     $6,000,000 shall be used for any activity regarding the 
     designation of critical habitat, pursuant to subsection 
     (a)(3), for species already listed pursuant to subsection 
     (a)(1) as of the date of enactment this Act: Provided 
     further, That of the amount available for law enforcement, up 
     to $400,000 to remain available until expended, may at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, be used for payment for 
     information, rewards, or evidence concerning violations of 
     laws administered by the Service, and miscellaneous and 
     emergency expenses of enforcement activity, authorized or 
     approved by the Secretary and to be accounted for solely on 
     her certificate: Provided further, That of the amount 
     provided for environmental contaminants, up to $1,000,000 may 
     remain available until expended for contaminant sample 
     analyses.


                              construction

       For construction, improvement, acquisition, or removal of 
     buildings and other facilities required in the conservation, 
     management, investigation, protection, and utilization of 
     fishery and wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands 
     and interests therein; $48,849,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with statutory authority applicable to the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, $104,401,000, to be derived 
     from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain 
     available until expended, and to be for the conservation 
     activities defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

[[Page 11393]]

     Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such Act: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated for specific 
     land acquisition projects can be used to pay for any 
     administrative overhead, planning or other management costs.


                      landowner incentive program

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     private conservation efforts to be carried out on private 
     lands, $50,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to 
     be for conservation spending category activities pursuant to 
     section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     discretionary spending limits: Provided, That, hereafter, 
     ``Fish and Wildlife Service Landowner Incentive Program'' 
     shall be considered to be within the ``State and Other 
     Conservation sub-category'' in section 250(c)(4)(G) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended: Provided further, That the amount provided herein is 
     for a Landowner Incentive Program established by the 
     Secretary that provides matching, competitively awarded 
     grants to States, the District of Columbia, Tribes, Puerto 
     Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, and American Samoa, to establish, or supplement 
     existing, landowner incentive programs that provide technical 
     and financial assistance, including habitat protection and 
     restoration, to private landowners for the protection and 
     management of habitat to benefit federally listed, proposed, 
     or candidate species, or other at-risk species on private 
     lands.


                           stewardship grants

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     private conservation efforts to be carried out on private 
     lands, $10,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to 
     be for conservation spending category activities pursuant to 
     section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     discretionary spending limits: Provided, That hereafter, 
     ``Fish and Wildlife Service Stewardship Grants'' shall be 
     considered to be within the ``State and Other Conservation 
     sub-category'' in section 250(c)(4)(G) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the amount provided herein is for the 
     Secretary to establish a Private Stewardship Grants Program 
     to provide grants and other assistance to individuals and 
     groups engaged in private conservation efforts that benefit 
     federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, or other 
     at-risk species.


            cooperative endangered species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out section 6 of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), as 
     amended, $107,000,000, to be derived from the Cooperative 
     Endangered Species Conservation Fund, to remain available 
     until expended, and to be for the conservation activities 
     defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(v) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the 
     purposes of such Act.


                     national wildlife refuge fund

       For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 17, 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s), $16,414,000, of which $5,000,000 is 
     for conservation spending category activities pursuant to 
     section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     discretionary spending limits: Provided, That, hereafter, 
     ``Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge Fund'' 
     shall be considered to be within the ``Payments in Lieu of 
     Taxes sub-category'' in section 250(c)(4)(I) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.


               north american wetlands conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Public Law 101-233, 
     as amended, $45,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     and to be for the conservation activities defined in section 
     250(c)(4)(E)(vi) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such 
     Act: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, amounts in excess of funds provided in fiscal year 2001 
     shall be used only for projects in the United States.


                neotropical migratory bird conservation

       For financial assistance for projects to promote the 
     conservation of neotropical migratory birds in accordance 
     with the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Public 
     Law 106-247 (16 U.S.C. 6101-6109), $5,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, and to be for conservation spending 
     category activities pursuant to section 251(c) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, for the purposes of discretionary spending limits: 
     Provided, That, hereafter, ``Fish and Wildlife Service 
     Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation'' shall be considered 
     to be within the ``State and Other Conservation sub-
     category'' in section 250(c)(4)(G) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.


                multinational species conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the African Elephant 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4203, 4211-4213, 4221-4225, 
     4241-4245, and 1538), the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 
     1997 (Public Law 105-96; 16 U.S.C. 4261-4266), the Rhinoceros 
     and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5301-5306), and 
     the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6301), 
     $4,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds made available under this Act, Public Law 106-291, 
     and Public Law 106-554 and hereafter in annual approprations 
     acts for rhinoceros, tiger, Asian elephant, and great ape 
     conservation programs are exempt from any sanctions imposed 
     against any country under section 102 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2799aa-1).


                         state wildlife grants

       For wildlife conservation grants to States and to the 
     District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin 
     Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, 
     under the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and 
     the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, for the development 
     and implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife 
     and their habitat, including species that are not hunted or 
     fished, $100,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, and to 
     be for the conservation activities defined in section 
     250(c)(4)(E)(vii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     such Act: Provided, That the Secretary shall, after deducting 
     administrative expenses, apportion the amount provided herein 
     in the following manner: (A) to the District of Columbia and 
     to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, each a sum equal to not 
     more than one-half of 1 percent thereof: and (B) to Guam, 
     American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands, each a sum equal to not more 
     than one-fourth of 1 percent thereof: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary shall apportion the remaining amount in the 
     following manner: 30 percent based on the ratio to which the 
     land area of such State bears to the total land area of all 
     such States; and 70 percent based on the ratio to which the 
     population of such State bears to the total population of the 
     United States, based on the 2000 U.S. Census; and the amounts 
     so apportioned shall be adjusted equitably so that no State 
     shall be apportioned a sum which is less than one percent of 
     the total amount available for apportionment or more than 10 
     percent: Provided further, That the Federal share of planning 
     grants shall not exceed 75 percent of the total costs of such 
     projects and the Federal share of implementation grants shall 
     not exceed 50 percent of the total costs of such projects: 
     Provided further, That the non-Federal share of such projects 
     may not be derived from Federal grant programs: Provided 
     further, That no State, territory, or other jurisdiction 
     shall receive a grant unless it has developed, or committed 
     to develop by October 1, 2005, a comprehensive wildlife 
     conservation plan, consistent with criteria established by 
     the Secretary of the Interior, that considers the broad range 
     of the State, territory, or other jurisdiction's wildlife and 
     associated habitats, with appropriate priority placed on 
     those species with the greatest conservation need and taking 
     into consideration the relative level of funding available 
     for the conservation of those species: Provided further, That 
     any amount apportioned in 2002 to any State, territory, or 
     other jurisdiction that remains unobligated as of September 
     30, 2003, shall be reapportioned, together with funds 
     appropriated in 2004, in the manner provided herein.


                         tribal wildlife grants

       For wildlife conservation grants to tribes under the 
     provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Fish 
     and Wildlife Coordination Act, for the development and 
     implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife and 
     their habitat, including species that are not hunted or 
     fished, $5,000,000, to be derived from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund and to remain available until expended, and 
     to be for conservation spending category activities pursuant 
     to section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     discretionary spending limits: Provided, That, hereafter, 
     ``Fish and Wildlife Service Tribal Wildlife Grants'' shall be 
     considered to be within the ``State and Other Conservation 
     sub-category'' in section 250(c)(4)(G) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations and funds available to the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service shall be available for purchase of 
     not to exceed 74 passenger motor vehicles, of which 69 are 
     for replacement only (including 32 for police-

[[Page 11394]]

     type use); repair of damage to public roads within and 
     adjacent to reservation areas caused by operations of the 
     Service; options for the purchase of land at not to exceed $1 
     for each option; facilities incident to such public 
     recreational uses on conservation areas as are consistent 
     with their primary purpose; and the maintenance and 
     improvement of aquaria, buildings, and other facilities under 
     the jurisdiction of the Service and to which the United 
     States has title, and which are used pursuant to law in 
     connection with management and investigation of fish and 
     wildlife resources: Provided, That notwithstanding 44 U.S.C. 
     501, the Service may, under cooperative cost sharing and 
     partnership arrangements authorized by law, procure printing 
     services from cooperators in connection with jointly produced 
     publications for which the cooperators share at least one-
     half the cost of printing either in cash or services and the 
     Service determines the cooperator is capable of meeting 
     accepted quality standards: Provided further, That the 
     Service may accept donated aircraft as replacements for 
     existing aircraft: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior may not 
     spend any of the funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     purchase of lands or interests in lands to be used in the 
     establishment of any new unit of the National Wildlife Refuge 
     System unless the purchase is approved in advance by the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance 
     with the reprogramming procedures contained in Senate Report 
     105-56.

                         National Park Service


                 operation of the national park system

       For expenses necessary for the management, operation, and 
     maintenance of areas and facilities administered by the 
     National Park Service (including special road maintenance 
     service to trucking permittees on a reimbursable basis), and 
     for the general administration of the National Park Service, 
     $1,480,336,000, of which $10,869,000 for research, planning 
     and interagency coordination in support of land acquisition 
     for Everglades restoration shall remain available until 
     expended, and of which $75,349,000, to remain available until 
     expended, is for maintenance repair or rehabilitation 
     projects for constructed assets, operation of the National 
     Park Service automated facility management software system, 
     and comprehensive facility condition assessments; and of 
     which $2,000,000 is for the Youth Conservation Corps, defined 
     in section 250(c)(4)(E)(xii) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the 
     purposes of such Act, for high priority projects: Provided, 
     That the only funds in this account which may be made 
     available to support United States Park Police are those 
     funds approved for emergency law and order incidents pursuant 
     to established National Park Service procedures and those 
     funds needed to maintain and repair United States Park Police 
     administrative facilities: Provided further, That park areas 
     may reimburse the United States Park Police account for the 
     unbudgeted overtime and travel costs associated with special 
     events for an amount not to exceed $10,000 per event subject 
     to the review and concurrence of the Washington headquarters 
     office: Provided further, That none of the funds in this or 
     any other Act may be used to fund a new Associate Director 
     position for Partnerships.


                       United States Park Police

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs of the 
     United States Park Police, $65,260,000.


                   contribution for annuity benefits

       For reimbursement pursuant to provisions of Public Law 85-
     157, to the District of Columbia on a monthly basis, for 
     benefit payments by the District of Columbia to United States 
     Park Police annuitants under the provisions of the Policeman 
     and Fireman's Retirement and Disability Act, to the extent 
     those payments exceed contributions made by active Park 
     Police members covered under the Act, such amounts as 
     hereafter may be necessary: Provided, That hereafter, 
     appropriations made to the National Park Service shall not be 
     available for this purpose.


                  national recreation and preservation

       For expenses necessary to carry out recreation programs, 
     natural programs, cultural programs, heritage partnership 
     programs, environmental compliance and review, international 
     park affairs, statutory or contractual aid for other 
     activities, and grant administration, not otherwise provided 
     for, $51,804,000.


                     Urban Park and Recreation Fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2501 et seq.), $30,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, and to be for the conservation activities defined 
     in section 250(c)(4)(E)(x) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the 
     purposes of such Act.


                       historic preservation fund

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the Historic 
     Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), and the 
     Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public 
     Law 104-333), $77,000,000, to be derived from the Historic 
     Preservation Fund, to remain available until September 30, 
     2003, and to be for the conservation activities defined in 
     section 250(c)(4)(E)(xi) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the 
     purposes of such Act: Provided, That, of the amount provided 
     herein, $5,000,000, to remain available until expended, is 
     for a grant for the perpetual care and maintenance of 
     National Trust Historic Sites, as authorized under 16 U.S.C. 
     470a(e)(2), to be made available in full upon signing of a 
     grant agreement: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, these funds shall be available for 
     investment with the proceeds to be used for the same purpose 
     as set out herein: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided, $30,000,000 shall be for Save America's Treasures 
     for priority preservation projects, including preservation of 
     intellectual and cultural artifacts, preservation of historic 
     structures and sites, and buildings to house cultural and 
     historic resources and to provide educational opportunities: 
     Provided further, That any individual Save America's 
     Treasures grant shall be matched by non-Federal funds: 
     Provided further, That individual projects shall only be 
     eligible for one grant, and all projects to be funded shall 
     be approved by the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations prior to the commitment of grant funds: 
     Provided further, That Save America's Treasures funds 
     allocated for Federal projects shall be available by transfer 
     to appropriate accounts of individual agencies, after 
     approval of such projects by the Secretary of the Interior: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided for Save 
     America's Treasures may be used for administrative expenses, 
     and staffing for the program shall be available from the 
     existing staffing levels in the National Park Service 2003.


                              construction

       For construction, improvements, repair or replacement of 
     physical facilities, including the modifications authorized 
     by section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and 
     Expansion Act of 1989, $349,249,000, of which $50,000,000 is 
     for ``Federal Infrastructure Improvement'', defined in 
     section 250(c)(4)(E)(xiv) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the 
     purposes of such Act.


                    land and water conservation fund

                              (rescission)

       The contract authority provided for fiscal year 2002 by 16 
     U.S.C. 460l-10a is rescinded.


                 land acquisition and state assistance

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Land and Water 
     Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 
     through 11), including administrative expenses, and for 
     acquisition of lands or waters, or interest therein, in 
     accordance with the statutory authority applicable to the 
     National Park Service, $261,036,000, to be derived from the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until 
     expended, and to be for the conservation activities defined 
     in section 250(c)(4)(E)(iii) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control of 1985, as amended, for the 
     purposes of such Act, of which $154,000,000 is for the State 
     assistance program including $4,000,000 to administer the 
     State assistance program: Provided, That of the amounts 
     provided under this heading, $16,000,000 may be for Federal 
     grants to the State of Florida for the acquisition of lands 
     or waters, or interests therein, within the Everglades 
     watershed (consisting of lands and waters within the 
     boundaries of the South Florida Water Management District, 
     Florida Bay and the Florida Keys, including the areas known 
     as the Frog Pond, the Rocky Glades and the Eight and One-Half 
     Square Mile Area) under terms and conditions deemed necessary 
     by the Secretary to improve and restore the hydrological 
     function of the Everglades watershed; and $20,000,000 may be 
     for project modifications authorized by section 104 of the 
     Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act: 
     Provided further, That funds provided under this heading for 
     assistance to the State of Florida to acquire lands within 
     the Everglades watershed are contingent upon new matching 
     non-Federal funds by the State and shall be subject to an 
     agreement that the lands to be acquired will be managed in 
     perpetuity for the restoration of the Everglades: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds provided for the State 
     Assistance program may be used to establish a contingency 
     fund.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the National Park Service shall be 
     available for the purchase of not to exceed 315 passenger 
     motor vehicles, of which 256 shall be for replacement only, 
     including not to exceed 237 for police-type use, 11 buses, 
     and 8 ambulances: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated to the National Park Service may be used to 
     process any grant or contract documents which do not include 
     the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated to the National Park Service may be 
     used to implement an agreement for the redevelopment of the 
     southern end of Ellis Island until such agreement has been 
     submitted to the Congress and shall not be implemented prior 
     to the expiration of 30 calendar days (not including any day 
     in which either House of Congress is not in session because 
     of adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day 
     certain) from the receipt

[[Page 11395]]

     by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
     President of the Senate of a full and comprehensive report on 
     the development of the southern end of Ellis Island, 
     including the facts and circumstances relied upon in support 
     of the proposed project.
       None of the funds in this Act may be spent by the National 
     Park Service for activities taken in direct response to the 
     United Nations Biodiversity Convention.
       The National Park Service may distribute to operating units 
     based on the safety record of each unit the costs of programs 
     designed to improve workplace and employee safety, and to 
     encourage employees receiving workers' compensation benefits 
     pursuant to chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to 
     return to appropriate positions for which they are medically 
     able.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the National 
     Park Service may convey a leasehold or freehold interest in 
     Cuyahoga NP to allow for the development of utilities and 
     parking needed to support the historic Everett Church in the 
     village of Everett, Ohio.

                    United States Geological Survey


                 surveys, investigations, and research

       For expenses necessary for the United States Geological 
     Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and research 
     covering topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the 
     mineral and water resources of the United States, its 
     territories and possessions, and other areas as authorized by 
     43 U.S.C. 31, 1332, and 1340; classify lands as to their 
     mineral and water resources; give engineering supervision to 
     power permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     licensees; administer the minerals exploration program (30 
     U.S.C. 641); and publish and disseminate data relative to the 
     foregoing activities; and to conduct inquiries into the 
     economic conditions affecting mining and materials processing 
     industries (30 U.S.C. 3, 21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and 
     related purposes as authorized by law and to publish and 
     disseminate data; $900,489,000, of which $64,318,000 shall be 
     available only for cooperation with States or municipalities 
     for water resources investigations; and of which $16,400,000 
     shall remain available until expended for conducting 
     inquiries into the economic conditions affecting mining and 
     materials processing industries; and of which $18,942,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2003 for the operation 
     and maintenance of facilities and deferred maintenance; and 
     of which $163,461,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2003 for the biological research activity and the operation 
     of the Cooperative Research Units: Provided, That none of 
     these funds provided for the biological research activity 
     shall be used to conduct new surveys on private property, 
     unless specifically authorized in writing by the property 
     owner: Provided further, That of the amount provided herein, 
     $25,000,000 is for the conservation activities defined in 
     section 250(c)(4)(viii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of 
     such Act: Provided further, That no part of this 
     appropriation shall be used to pay more than one-half the 
     cost of topographic mapping or water resources data 
     collection and investigations carried on in cooperation with 
     States and municipalities.


                       administrative provisions

       The amount appropriated for the United States Geological 
     Survey shall be available for the purchase of not to exceed 
     53 passenger motor vehicles, of which 48 are for replacement 
     only; reimbursement to the General Services Administration 
     for security guard services; contracting for the furnishing 
     of topographic maps and for the making of geophysical or 
     other specialized surveys when it is administratively 
     determined that such procedures are in the public interest; 
     construction and maintenance of necessary buildings and 
     appurtenant facilities; acquisition of lands for gauging 
     stations and observation wells; expenses of the United States 
     National Committee on Geology; and payment of compensation 
     and expenses of persons on the rolls of the Survey duly 
     appointed to represent the United States in the negotiation 
     and administration of interstate compacts: Provided, That 
     activities funded by appropriations herein made may be 
     accomplished through the use of contracts, grants, or 
     cooperative agreements as defined in 31 U.S.C. 6302 et seq.

                      Minerals Management Service


                royalty and offshore minerals management

       For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and 
     environmental studies, regulation of industry operations, and 
     collection of royalties, as authorized by law; for enforcing 
     laws and regulations applicable to oil, gas, and other 
     minerals leases, permits, licenses and operating contracts; 
     and for matching grants or cooperative agreements; including 
     the purchase of not to exceed eight passenger motor vehicles 
     for replacement only, $149,867,000, of which $83,344,000, 
     shall be available for royalty management activities; and an 
     amount not to exceed $102,730,000, to be credited to this 
     appropriation and to remain available until expended, from 
     additions to receipts resulting from increases to rates in 
     effect on August 5, 1993, from rate increases to fee 
     collections for Outer Continental Shelf administrative 
     activities performed by the Minerals Management Service over 
     and above the rates in effect on September 30, 1993, and from 
     additional fees for Outer Continental Shelf administrative 
     activities established after September 30, 1993: Provided, 
     That to the extent $102,730,000 in additions to receipts are 
     not realized from the sources of receipts stated above, the 
     amount needed to reach $102,730,000 shall be credited to this 
     appropriation from receipts resulting from rental rates for 
     Outer Continental Shelf leases in effect before August 5, 
     1993: Provided further, That $3,000,000 for computer 
     acquisitions shall remain available until September 30, 2003: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this Act 
     shall be available for the payment of interest in accordance 
     with 30 U.S.C. 1721(b) and (d): Provided further, That not to 
     exceed $3,000 shall be available for reasonable expenses 
     related to promoting volunteer beach and marine cleanup 
     activities: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, $15,000 under this heading shall be 
     available for refunds of overpayments in connection with 
     certain Indian leases in which the Director of the Minerals 
     Management Service (MMS) concurred with the claimed refund 
     due, to pay amounts owed to Indian allottees or tribes, or to 
     correct prior unrecoverable erroneous payments: Provided 
     further, That MMS may under the royalty-in-kind pilot program 
     use a portion of the revenues from royalty-in-kind sales, 
     without regard to fiscal year limitation, to pay for 
     transportation to wholesale market centers or upstream 
     pooling points, and to process or otherwise dispose of 
     royalty production taken in kind: Provided further, That MMS 
     shall analyze and document the expected return in advance of 
     any royalty-in-kind sales to assure to the maximum extent 
     practicable that royalty income under the pilot program is 
     equal to or greater than royalty income recognized under a 
     comparable royalty-in-value program.


                           oil spill research

       For necessary expenses to carry out title I, section 1016, 
     title IV, sections 4202 and 4303, title VII, and title VIII, 
     section 8201 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $6,105,000, 
     which shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
     Fund, to remain available until expended.

          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement


                       regulation and technology

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public 
     Law 95-87, as amended, including the purchase of not to 
     exceed 10 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only; 
     $102,900,000: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior, 
     pursuant to regulations, may use directly or through grants 
     to States, moneys collected in fiscal year 2002 for civil 
     penalties assessed under section 518 of the Surface Mining 
     Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1268), to 
     reclaim lands adversely affected by coal mining practices 
     after August 3, 1977, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That appropriations for the Office of 
     Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement may provide for 
     the travel and per diem expenses of State and tribal 
     personnel attending Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
     Enforcement sponsored training.


                    abandoned mine reclamation fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out title IV of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87, 
     as amended, including the purchase of not more than 10 
     passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, $203,554,000, 
     to be derived from receipts of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation 
     Fund and to remain available until expended; of which up to 
     $10,000,000, to be derived from the Federal Expenses Share of 
     the Fund, shall be for supplemental grants to States for the 
     reclamation of abandoned sites with acid mine rock drainage 
     from coal mines, and for associated activities, through the 
     Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative: Provided, That grants 
     to minimum program States will be $1,500,000 per State in 
     fiscal year 2002: Provided further, That of the funds herein 
     provided up to $18,000,000 may be used for the emergency 
     program authorized by section 410 of Public Law 95-87, as 
     amended, of which no more than 25 percent shall be used for 
     emergency reclamation projects in any one State and funds for 
     federally administered emergency reclamation projects under 
     this proviso shall not exceed $11,000,000: Provided further, 
     That prior year unobligated funds appropriated for the 
     emergency reclamation program shall not be subject to the 25 
     percent limitation per State and may be used without fiscal 
     year limitation for emergency projects: Provided further, 
     That pursuant to Public Law 97-365, the Department of the 
     Interior is authorized to use up to 20 percent from the 
     recovery of the delinquent debt owed to the United States 
     Government to pay for contracts to collect these debts: 
     Provided further, That funds made available under title IV of 
     Public Law 95-87 may be used for any required non-Federal 
     share of the cost of projects funded by the Federal 
     Government for the purpose of environmental restoration 
     related to treatment or abatement of acid mine drainage from 
     abandoned mines: Provided further, That such

[[Page 11396]]

     projects must be consistent with the purposes and priorities 
     of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act: Provided 
     further, That, in addition to the amount granted to the 
     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under sections 402 (g)(1) and 
     402(g)(5) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
     (Act), an additional $500,000 will be specifically used for 
     the purpose of conducting a demonstration project in 
     accordance with section 401(c)(6) of the Act to determine the 
     efficacy of improving water quality by removing metals from 
     eligible waters polluted by acid mine drainage.

                        Bureau of Indian Affairs


                      operation of indian programs

       For expenses necessary for the operation of Indian 
     programs, as authorized by law, including the Snyder Act of 
     November 2, 1921 (25 U.S.C. 13), the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450 et seq.), as amended, the Education Amendments of 1978 
     (25 U.S.C. 2001-2019), and the Tribally Controlled Schools 
     Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), as amended, 
     $1,790,781,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003 
     except as otherwise provided herein, of which not to exceed 
     $89,864,000 shall be for welfare assistance payments and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, including but not 
     limited to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as 
     amended, not to exceed $130,209,000 shall be available for 
     payments to tribes and tribal organizations for contract 
     support costs associated with ongoing contracts, grants, 
     compacts, or annual funding agreements entered into with the 
     Bureau prior to or during fiscal year 2002, as authorized by 
     such Act, except that tribes and tribal organizations may use 
     their tribal priority allocations for unmet indirect costs of 
     ongoing contracts, grants, or compacts, or annual funding 
     agreements and for unmet welfare assistance costs; and up to 
     $3,000,000 shall be for the Indian Self-Determination Fund 
     which shall be available for the transitional cost of initial 
     or expanded tribal contracts, grants, compacts or cooperative 
     agreements with the Bureau under such Act; and of which not 
     to exceed $436,427,000 for school operations costs of Bureau-
     funded schools and other education programs shall become 
     available on July 1, 2002, and shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2003; and of which not to exceed $58,394,000 
     shall remain available until expended for housing 
     improvement, road maintenance, attorney fees, litigation 
     support, the Indian Self-Determination Fund, land records 
     improvement, and the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Program: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     including but not limited to the Indian Self-Determination 
     Act of 1975, as amended, and 25 U.S.C. 2008, not to exceed 
     $43,065,000 within and only from such amounts made available 
     for school operations shall be available to tribes and tribal 
     organizations for administrative cost grants associated with 
     the operation of Bureau-funded schools: Provided further, 
     That any forestry funds allocated to a tribe which remain 
     unobligated as of September 30, 2003, may be transferred 
     during fiscal year 2004 to an Indian forest land assistance 
     account established for the benefit of such tribe within the 
     tribe's trust fund account: Provided further, That any such 
     unobligated balances not so transferred shall expire on 
     September 30, 2004.


                              construction

       For construction, repair, improvement, and maintenance of 
     irrigation and power systems, buildings, utilities, and other 
     facilities, including architectural and engineering services 
     by contract; acquisition of lands, and interests in lands; 
     and preparation of lands for farming, and for construction of 
     the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project pursuant to Public Law 
     87-483, $357,132,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such amounts as may be available for the 
     construction of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project may be 
     transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed 6 percent of contract authority available 
     to the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Federal Highway 
     Trust Fund may be used to cover the road program management 
     costs of the Bureau: Provided further, That any funds 
     provided for the Safety of Dams program pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 
     13 shall be made available on a nonreimbursable basis: 
     Provided further, That for fiscal year 2002, in implementing 
     new construction or facilities improvement and repair project 
     grants in excess of $100,000 that are provided to tribally 
     controlled grant schools under Public Law 100-297, as 
     amended, the Secretary of the Interior shall use the 
     Administrative and Audit Requirements and Cost Principles for 
     Assistance Programs contained in 43 CFR part 12 as the 
     regulatory requirements: Provided further, That such grants 
     shall not be subject to section 12.61 of 43 CFR; the 
     Secretary and the grantee shall negotiate and determine a 
     schedule of payments for the work to be performed: Provided 
     further, That in considering applications, the Secretary 
     shall consider whether the Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization would be deficient in assuring that the 
     construction projects conform to applicable building 
     standards and codes and Federal, tribal, or State health and 
     safety standards as required by 25 U.S.C. 2005(a), with 
     respect to organizational and financial management 
     capabilities: Provided further, That if the Secretary 
     declines an application, the Secretary shall follow the 
     requirements contained in 25 U.S.C. 2505(f): Provided 
     further, That any disputes between the Secretary and any 
     grantee concerning a grant shall be subject to the disputes 
     provision in 25 U.S.C. 2508(e): Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $450,000 in collections from settlements between the United 
     States and contractors concerning the Dunseith Day School are 
     to be made available for school construction in fiscal year 
     2002 and thereafter.


 indian land and water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to 
                                indians

       For miscellaneous payments to Indian tribes and individuals 
     and for necessary administrative expenses, $60,949,000, to 
     remain available until expended; of which $24,870,000 shall 
     be available for implementation of enacted Indian land and 
     water claim settlements pursuant to Public Laws 101-618 and 
     102-575, and for implementation of other enacted water rights 
     settlements; of which $7,950,000 shall be available for 
     future water supplies facilities under Public Law 106-163; of 
     which $21,875,000 shall be available pursuant to Public Laws 
     99-264, 100-580, 106-263, 106-425, 106-554, and 106-568; and 
     of which $6,254,000 shall be available for the consent decree 
     entered by the U.S. District Court, Western District of 
     Michigan in United States v. Michigan, Case No. 2:73 CV 26.


                 indian guaranteed loan program account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $4,500,000, as authorized 
     by the Indian Financing Act of 1974, as amended: Provided, 
     That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize total loan principal, any part of 
     which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed $75,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan programs, $486,000.


                       administrative provisions

       The Bureau of Indian Affairs may carry out the operation of 
     Indian programs by direct expenditure, contracts, cooperative 
     agreements, compacts and grants, either directly or in 
     cooperation with States and other organizations.
       Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (except the 
     revolving fund for loans, the Indian loan guarantee and 
     insurance fund, and the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program 
     account) shall be available for expenses of exhibits, and 
     purchase of not to exceed 229 passenger motor vehicles, of 
     which not to exceed 187 shall be for replacement only.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for central office 
     operations, pooled overhead general administration (except 
     facilities operations and maintenance), or provided to 
     implement the recommendations of the National Academy of 
     Public Administration's August 1999 report shall be available 
     for tribal contracts, grants, compacts, or cooperative 
     agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the 
     provisions of the Indian Self-Determination Act or the Tribal 
     Self-Governance Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-413).
       In the event any tribe returns appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for 
     distribution to other tribes, this action shall not diminish 
     the Federal Government's trust responsibility to that tribe, 
     or the government-to-government relationship between the 
     United States and that tribe, or that tribe's ability to 
     access future appropriations.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau, other than the amounts provided 
     herein for assistance to public schools under 25 U.S.C. 452 
     et seq., shall be available to support the operation of any 
     elementary or secondary school in the State of Alaska.
       Appropriations made available in this or any other Act for 
     schools funded by the Bureau shall be available only to the 
     schools in the Bureau school system as of September 1, 1996. 
     No funds available to the Bureau shall be used to support 
     expanded grades for any school or dormitory beyond the grade 
     structure in place or approved by the Secretary of the 
     Interior at each school in the Bureau school system as of 
     October 1, 1995. Funds made available under this Act may not 
     be used to establish a charter school at a Bureau-funded 
     school (as that term is defined in section 1146 of the 
     Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2026)), except that a 
     charter school that is in existence on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and that has operated at a Bureau-
     funded school before September 1, 1999, may continue to 
     operate during that period, but only if the charter school 
     pays to the Bureau a pro rata share of funds to reimburse the 
     Bureau for the use of the real and personal property 
     (including buses and vans), the funds of the charter school 
     are kept separate and apart from Bureau funds, and the Bureau 
     does not assume any obligation for charter school programs of 
     the State in which the school is located if the charter 
     school loses such funding. Employees of Bureau-funded schools 
     sharing a campus with a charter school and performing 
     functions related to the charter school's operation and

[[Page 11397]]

     employees of a charter school shall not be treated as Federal 
     employees for purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, United 
     States Code (commonly known as the ``Federal Tort Claims 
     Act'').

                          Departmental Offices

                            Insular Affairs


                       assistance to territories

       For expenses necessary for assistance to territories under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, 
     $72,289,000, of which: (1) $67,761,000 shall be available 
     until expended for technical assistance, including 
     maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, insular 
     management controls, coral reef initiative activities, and 
     brown tree snake control and research; grants to the 
     judiciary in American Samoa for compensation and expenses, as 
     authorized by law (48 U.S.C. 1661(c)); grants to the 
     Government of American Samoa, in addition to current local 
     revenues, for construction and support of governmental 
     functions; grants to the Government of the Virgin Islands as 
     authorized by law; grants to the Government of Guam, as 
     authorized by law; and grants to the Government of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands as authorized by law (Public Law 94-
     241; 90 Stat. 272); and (2) $4,528,000 shall be available for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of Insular Affairs: 
     Provided, That all financial transactions of the territorial 
     and local governments herein provided for, including such 
     transactions of all agencies or instrumentalities established 
     or used by such governments, may be audited by the General 
     Accounting Office, at its discretion, in accordance with 
     chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code: Provided further, 
     That Northern Mariana Islands Covenant grant funding shall be 
     provided according to those terms of the Agreement of the 
     Special Representatives on Future United States Financial 
     Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands approved by 
     Public Law 104-134: Provided further, That of the funds 
     provided herein for American Samoa government operations, the 
     Secretary is directed to use up to $20,000 to increase 
     compensation of the American Samoa High Court Justices: 
     Provided further, That of the amounts provided for technical 
     assistance, not to exceed $1,339,000 shall be made available 
     for transfer to the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Financing 
     Account of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the 
     purpose of covering the cost of forgiving the repayment 
     obligation of the Government of the Virgin Islands on 
     Community Disaster Loan 841, as required by section 504 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended (2 U.S.C. 
     661c): Provided further, That to the extent that the cost of 
     forgiving the repayment obligation exceeds the $1,339,000 
     provided in this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     transfer up to $2,161,000 of unexpended appropriations for 
     U.S. Virgin Islands construction grants provided pursuant to 
     Public Law 102-154 to the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     to meet the full costs associated with forgiveness of the 
     Hurricane Hugo Community Disaster Loan: Provided further, 
     That of the amounts provided for technical assistance, 
     sufficient funding shall be made available for a grant to the 
     Close Up Foundation: Provided further, That the funds for the 
     program of operations and maintenance improvement are 
     appropriated to institutionalize routine operations and 
     maintenance improvement of capital infrastructure (with 
     territorial participation and cost sharing to be determined 
     by the Secretary based on the grantees commitment to timely 
     maintenance of its capital assets): Provided further, That 
     any appropriation for disaster assistance under this heading 
     in this Act or previous appropriations Acts may be used as 
     non-Federal matching funds for the purpose of hazard 
     mitigation grants provided pursuant to section 404 of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c).


                      compact of free association

       For economic assistance and necessary expenses for the 
     Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 
     232, and 233 of the Compact of Free Association, and for 
     economic assistance and necessary expenses for the Republic 
     of Palau as provided for in sections 122, 221, 223, 232, and 
     233 of the Compact of Free Association, $23,245,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as authorized by Public Law 
     99-239 and Public Law 99-658.

                        Departmental Management


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for management of the Department of 
     the Interior, $64,177,000, of which not to exceed $8,500 may 
     be for official reception and representation expenses, of 
     which up to $1,000,000 shall be available for workers 
     compensation payments and unemployment compensation payments 
     associated with the orderly closure of the United States 
     Bureau of Mines.

                        Office of the Solicitor


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, 
     $45,000,000.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $30,490,000.

             Office of Special Trustee for American Indians


                         federal trust programs

       For operation of trust programs for Indians by direct 
     expenditure, contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and 
     grants, $99,224,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That funds for trust management improvements may be 
     transferred, as needed, to the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     ``Operation of Indian Programs'' account and to the 
     Departmental Management ``Salaries and Expenses'' account: 
     Provided further, That funds made available to Tribes and 
     Tribal organizations through contracts or grants obligated 
     during fiscal year 2002, as authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), shall 
     remain available until expended by the contractor or grantee: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the statute of limitations shall not commence to run on 
     any claim, including any claim in litigation pending on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, concerning losses to or 
     mismanagement of trust funds, until the affected tribe or 
     individual Indian has been furnished with an accounting of 
     such funds from which the beneficiary can determine whether 
     there has been a loss: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the Secretary shall not be 
     required to provide a quarterly statement of performance for 
     any Indian trust account that has not had activity for at 
     least 18 months and has a balance of $1.00 or less: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary shall issue an annual account 
     statement and maintain a record of any such accounts and 
     shall permit the balance in each such account to be withdrawn 
     upon the express written request of the account holder.


                       Indian Land Consolidation

       For consolidation of fractional interests in Indian lands 
     and expenses associated with redetermining and redistributing 
     escheated interests in allotted lands, and for necessary 
     expenses to carry out the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 
     1983, as amended, by direct expenditure or cooperative 
     agreement, $10,980,000, to remain available until expended 
     and which may be transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     and Departmental Management.

           Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration


                natural resource damage assessment fund

       To conduct natural resource damage assessment activities by 
     the Department of the Interior necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 
     et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 
     U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public 
     Law 101-380) (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Public Law 101-
     337, as amended (16 U.S.C. 19jj et seq.), $5,497,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                       administrative provisions

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

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or 
     office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the 
     emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft, 
     buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment 
     damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other 
     unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until funds specifically made 
     available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies 
     shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds 
     used pursuant to this section are hereby designated by 
     Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, and must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible.
       Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or 
     transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in 
     addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of 
     the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency 
     prevention of wildland fires on or threatening lands under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for the 
     emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its 
     jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or 
     actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other 
     unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to 
     actual oil spills; for response and natural resource damage 
     assessment activities related to actual oil spills; for the 
     prevention, suppression, and control of actual

[[Page 11398]]

     or potential grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on 
     lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to 
     the authority in section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 
     Stat. 1658); for emergency reclamation projects under section 
     410 of Public Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year 
     funds available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 
     and Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit 
     assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy 
     State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the 
     Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in 
     this title for wildland fire operations shall be available 
     for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding 
     fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies 
     for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in 
     connection with their use for wildland fire operations, such 
     reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently 
     available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further, 
     That for wildland fire operations, no funds shall be made 
     available under this authority until the Secretary determines 
     that funds appropriated for ``wildland fire operations'' 
     shall be exhausted within thirty days: Provided further, That 
     all funds used pursuant to this section are hereby designated 
     by Congress to be ``emergency requirements'' pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, and must be replenished by a 
     supplemental appropriation which must be requested as 
     promptly as possible: Provided further, That such 
     replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro rata 
     basis, accounts from which emergency funds were transferred.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for operation of warehouses, garages, shops, and 
     similar facilities, wherever consolidation of activities will 
     contribute to efficiency or economy, and said appropriations 
     shall be reimbursed for services rendered to any other 
     activity in the same manner as authorized by sections 1535 
     and 1536 of title 31, United States Code: Provided, That 
     reimbursements for costs and supplies, materials, equipment, 
     and for services rendered may be credited to the 
     appropriation current at the time such reimbursements are 
     received.
       Sec. 104. Appropriations made to the Department of the 
     Interior in this title shall be available for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the 
     Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; purchase of reprints; payment for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment 
     of dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library 
     membership in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members.
       Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of the 
     Interior for salaries and expenses shall be available for 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902 and D.C. Code 4-204).
       Sec. 106. Annual appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for obligation in connection with contracts issued 
     for services or rentals for periods not in excess of 12 
     months beginning at any time during the fiscal year.
       Sec. 107. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore 
     leasing and related activities placed under restriction in 
     the President's moratorium statement of June 12, 1998, in the 
     areas of northern, central, and southern California; the 
     North Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; the eastern Gulf of 
     Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude and east of 86 
     degrees west longitude.
       Sec. 108. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore 
     oil and natural gas preleasing, leasing, and related 
     activities, on lands within the North Aleutian Basin planning 
     area.
       Sec. 109. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior to conduct offshore oil and 
     natural gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the 
     eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area for any lands located 
     outside Sale 181, as identified in the final Outer 
     Continental Shelf 5-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 1997-
     2002.
       Sec. 110. No funds provided in this title may be expended 
     by the Department of the Interior to conduct oil and natural 
     gas preleasing, leasing and related activities in the Mid-
     Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas.
       Sec. 111. Advance payments made under this title to Indian 
     tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia pursuant 
     to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) or the Tribally Controlled Schools 
     Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) may be invested by the 
     Indian tribe, tribal organization, or consortium before such 
     funds are expended for the purposes of the grant, compact, or 
     annual funding agreement so long as such funds are--
       (1) invested by the Indian tribe, tribal organization, or 
     consortium only in obligations of the United States, or in 
     obligations or securities that are guaranteed or insured by 
     the United States, or mutual (or other) funds registered with 
     the Securities and Exchange Commission and which only invest 
     in obligations of the United States or securities that are 
     guaranteed or insured by the United States; or
       (2) deposited only into accounts that are insured by an 
     agency or instrumentality of the United States, or are fully 
     collateralized to ensure protection of the funds, even in the 
     event of a bank failure.
       Sec. 112. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
     National Park Service shall not develop or implement a 
     reduced entrance fee program to accommodate non-local travel 
     through a unit. The Secretary may provide for and regulate 
     local non-recreational passage through units of the National 
     Park System, allowing each unit to develop guidelines and 
     permits for such activity appropriate to that unit.
       Sec. 113. Appropriations made in this Act under the 
     headings Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special 
     Trustee for American Indians and any available unobligated 
     balances from prior appropriations Acts made under the same 
     headings, shall be available for expenditure or transfer for 
     Indian trust management activities pursuant to the Trust 
     Management Improvement Project High Level Implementation 
     Plan.
       Sec. 114. A grazing permit or lease that expires (or is 
     transferred) during fiscal year 2002 shall be renewed under 
     section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
     1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1752) or if applicable, section 
     510 of the California Desert Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 
     410aaa-50). The terms and conditions contained in the 
     expiring permit or lease shall continue in effect under the 
     new permit or lease until such time as the Secretary of the 
     Interior completes processing of such permit or lease in 
     compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, at which 
     time such permit or lease may be canceled, suspended or 
     modified, in whole or in part, to meet the requirements of 
     such applicable laws and regulations. Nothing in this section 
     shall be deemed to alter the Secretary's statutory authority.
       Sec. 115. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     the purpose of reducing the backlog of Indian probate cases 
     in the Department of the Interior, the hearing requirements 
     of chapter 10 of title 25, United States Code, are deemed 
     satisfied by a proceeding conducted by an Indian probate 
     judge, appointed by the Secretary without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing the 
     appointments in the competitive service, for such period of 
     time as the Secretary determines necessary: Provided, That 
     the basic pay of an Indian probate judge so appointed may be 
     fixed by the Secretary without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51, and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, 
     United States Code, governing the classification and pay of 
     General Schedule employees, except that no such Indian 
     probate judge may be paid at a level which exceeds the 
     maximum rate payable for the highest grade of the General 
     Schedule, including locality pay.
       Sec. 116. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Interior is authorized to redistribute any 
     Tribal Priority Allocation funds, including tribal base 
     funds, to alleviate tribal funding inequities by transferring 
     funds to address identified, unmet needs, dual enrollment, 
     overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution 
     methodologies. No tribe shall receive a reduction in Tribal 
     Priority Allocation funds of more than 10 percent in fiscal 
     year 2002. Under circumstances of dual enrollment, 
     overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution 
     methodologies, the 10 percent limitation does not apply.
       Sec. 117. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     establish a new National Wildlife Refuge in the Kankakee 
     River basin that is inconsistent with the United States Army 
     Corps of Engineers' efforts to control flooding and siltation 
     in that area. Written certification of consistency shall be 
     submitted to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations prior to refuge establishment.
       Sec. 118. Funds appropriated for the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs for postsecondary schools for fiscal year 2002 shall 
     be allocated among the schools proportionate to the unmet 
     need of the schools as determined by the Postsecondary 
     Funding Formula adopted by the Office of Indian Education 
     Programs.
       Sec. 119. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall take such 
     action as may be necessary to ensure that the lands 
     comprising the Huron Cemetery in Kansas City, Kansas (as 
     described in section 123 of Public Law 106-291) are used only 
     in accordance with this section.
       (b) The lands of the Huron Cemetery shall be used only (1) 
     for religious and cultural uses that are compatible with the 
     use of the lands as a cemetery, and (2) as a burial ground.
       Sec. 120. No funds appropriated for the Department of the 
     Interior by this Act or any other Act shall be used to study 
     or implement any plan to drain Lake Powell or to reduce the 
     water level of the lake below the range of water levels 
     required for the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam.

[[Page 11399]]

       Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     conveying the Twin Cities Research Center under the authority 
     provided by Public Law 104-134, as amended by Public Law 104-
     208, the Secretary may accept and retain land and other forms 
     of reimbursement: Provided, That the Secretary may retain and 
     use any such reimbursement until expended and without further 
     appropriation: (1) for the benefit of the National Wildlife 
     Refuge System within the State of Minnesota; and (2) for all 
     activities authorized by Public Law 100-696; 16 U.S.C. 460zz.
       Sec. 122. Section 412(b) of the National Parks Omnibus 
     Management Act of 1998, as amended (16 U.S.C. 5961) is 
     amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2002''.
       Sec. 123. Notwithstanding other provisions of law, the 
     National Park Service may authorize, through cooperative 
     agreement, the Golden Gate National Parks Association to 
     provide fee-based education, interpretive and visitor service 
     functions within the Crissy Field and Fort Point areas of the 
     Presidio.
       Sec. 124. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302(b), sums received 
     by the Bureau of Land Management for the sale of seeds or 
     seedlings including those collected in fiscal year 2001, may 
     be credited to the appropriation from which funds were 
     expended to acquire or grow the seeds or seedlings and are 
     available without fiscal year limitation.
       Sec. 125. Tribal School Construction Demonstration Program. 
     (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Construction.--The term ``construction'', with respect 
     to a tribally controlled school, includes the construction or 
     renovation of that school.
       (2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (4) Tribally controlled school.--The term ``tribally 
     controlled school'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 5212 of the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 
     (25 U.S.C. 2511).
       (5) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of the Interior.
       (6) Demonstration program.--The term ``demonstration 
     program'' means the Tribal School Construction Demonstration 
     Program.
       (b) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
     demonstration program to provide grants to Indian tribes for 
     the construction of tribally controlled schools.
       (1) In general.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, in carrying out the demonstration program 
     under subsection (b), the Secretary shall award a grant to 
     each Indian tribe that submits an application that is 
     approved by the Secretary under paragraph (2). The Secretary 
     shall ensure that an eligible Indian tribe currently on the 
     Department's priority list for construction of replacement 
     educational facilities receives the highest priority for a 
     grant under this section.
       (2) Grant applications.--An application for a grant under 
     the section shall--
       (A) include a proposal for the construction of a tribally 
     controlled school of the Indian tribe that submits the 
     application; and
       (B) be in such form as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       (3) Grant agreement.--As a condition to receiving a grant 
     under this section, the Indian tribe shall enter into an 
     agreement with the Secretary that specifies--
       (A) the costs of construction under the grant;
       (B) that the Indian tribe shall be required to contribute 
     towards the cost of the construction a tribal share equal to 
     50 percent of the costs; and
       (C) any other term or condition that the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate.
       (4) Eligibility.--Grants awarded under the demonstration 
     program shall only be for construction of replacement 
     tribally controlled schools.
       (c) Effect of Grant.--A grant received under this section 
     shall be in addition to any other funds received by an Indian 
     tribe under any other provision of law. The receipt of a 
     grant under this section shall not affect the eligibility of 
     an Indian tribe receiving funding, or the amount of funding 
     received by the Indian tribe, under the Tribally Controlled 
     Schools Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) or the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450 et seq.).
       Sec. 126. White River Oil Shale Mine, Utah. (a) Sale.--The 
     Administrator of General Services (referred to in this 
     section as the ``Administrator'') shall sell all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     improvements and equipment described in subsection (b) that 
     are situated on the land described in subsection (c) 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Mine'').
       (b) Description of Improvements and Equipment.--The 
     improvements and equipment referred to in subsection (a) are 
     the following improvements and equipment associated with the 
     Mine:
       (1) Mine Service Building.
       (2) Sewage Treatment Building.
       (3) Electrical Switchgear Building.
       (4) Water Treatment Building/Plant.
       (5) Ventilation/Fan Building.
       (6) Water Storage Tanks.
       (7) Mine Hoist Cage and Headframe.
       (8) Miscellaneous Mine-related equipment.
       (c) Description of Land.--The land referred to in 
     subsection (a) is the land located in Uintah County, Utah, 
     known as the ``White River Oil Shale Mine'' and described as 
     follows:
       (1) T. 10 S., R. 24 E., Salt Lake Meridian, sections 12 
     through 14, 19 through 30, 33, and 34.
       (2) T. 10 S., R. 25 E., Salt Lake Meridian, sections 18 and 
     19.
       (d) Use of Proceeds.--The proceeds of the sale under 
     subsection (a)--
       (1) shall be deposited in a special account in the Treasury 
     of the United States; and
       (2) shall be available until expended, without further Act 
     of appropriation--
       (A) first, to reimburse the Administrator for the direct 
     costs of the sale; and
       (B) second, to reimburse the Bureau of Land Management Utah 
     State Office for the costs of closing and rehabilitating the 
     Mine.
       (e) Mine Closure and Rehabilitation.--The closing and 
     rehabilitation of the Mine (including closing of the mine 
     shafts, site grading, and surface revegetation) shall be 
     conducted in accordance with--
       (1) the regulatory requirements of the State of Utah, the 
     Mine Safety and Health Administration, and the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration; and
       (2) other applicable law.

                              {time}  1045


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Pombo

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pombo:
       Page 17, line 24, insert before the period the following:
       : Provided, That, of such funds, $1,000,000 shall be for 
     the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District Fish Screen Project in 
     Tracy, California.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment after which I 
plan to withdraw it.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would redirect $1 million from the 
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund to the Banta-Carbona 
Irrigation District in Tracy, California, for a fish screen project 
located at the entrance to the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District intake 
channel on the San Joaquin River.
  This is a very simple amendment which would provide much needed 
financial assistance to help defray the construction, operating and 
maintenance costs of this fish screen.
  Let me point out that the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District is 
required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to put in a fish screen 
facility on the San Joaquin River to protect the delta smelt, the 
steelhead, the fall run chinook salmon and the splittail. All of these 
fish are either endangered or threatened species and fall under the 
authority of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine 
Fisheries Service. Without the fish screen project, the Banta-Carbona 
Irrigation District's agricultural water diversions could be shut down 
by these Federal agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District is facing a 
reduced allocation of water from the Central Valley Project. To make 
matters worse, high energy costs in California coupled with low 
agricultural commodity prices have made it nearly impossible for the 
water users to pay for the capital, operating and maintenance costs of 
a fish screen facility.
  The bottom line is, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has required 
the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District to facilitate the funding, 
design, and construction of this fish barrier screen facility with 
little or no assistance.
  Under the ESA, the Federal Government continues to require farmers, 
ranchers, landowners, irrigation districts, and local government and 
communities to spend millions of dollars to protect endangered species. 
In fact, let me point out to my colleagues the millions of dollars that 
the county hospital in Riverside, California, had to spend to protect a 
fly. And how about the millions of dollars homebuilders and ranchers in 
my district are spending to protect the fairy shrimp, a quarter-inch 
crustacean that lives in pools of water which we normally call mud 
puddles.

[[Page 11400]]

  Mr. Chairman, this is real money that could be used to help 
individuals offset the costs of their high utility bills. Further, this 
is real money that is being diverted away from the State and local 
government's education, infrastructure, and health care budgets. I am 
convinced that the only species that is benefiting from this process is 
the cash cow, being milked by the agencies and environmental lawyers. 
The truth is, contrary to claims made by the green conflict industry, 
people who own property do care about the survival of valued species 
and the health of our environment.
  Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is another example of why the 
Endangered Species Act is not working. The act has failed to save 
species; it has caused acrimony and gridlock, generated endless 
litigation; it has cost the American taxpayer and private-property 
owner hundreds of billions of dollars in wasted effort; and it has 
misappropriated property and lost production.
  All of these problems, Mr. Chairman, and the act has not even been 
authorized for nearly a decade. I simply cannot stand by quietly as 
farmers and ranchers, families and businesses, especially those in the 
West who depend on natural resources for a living, suffer for no 
constructive purpose. The time has come to make human species as 
important as the Endangered Species Act equation.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to take back our economic and constitutional 
rights. Ensuring that the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District receives 
Federal assistance for the fish screen project will do such a thing by 
holding the Federal Government accountable for its actions. I urge my 
colleagues to do the right thing to correct this injustice.
  I have worked with the gentleman from New Mexico in the past several 
years on these issues. I intend to continue working with him. I know 
that if it were up to him totally that we would take care of these 
problems posthaste; but in light of the situation we are in right now, 
I respectfully withdraw my amendment at this point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, pursuant to clause 
2(f) of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter:
       On page 49, line 22 after the number ``$64,177,000'' insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.
       On page 69, line 12 after the number ``$1,326,445,000'' 
     insert ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.
       On page 109, line 21 strike ``$104,882,000'' and insert 
     ``$107,882,000''.
       On page 110, line 19 strike ``$24,899,000'' and insert 
     ``$26,899,000''.
       On page 110, line 24 strike ``$7,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$17,000,000''.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, these amendments would provide a funding 
increase to three agencies that most certainly deserve it: the National 
Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and 
the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
  In fiscal year 1996, the arts and humanities sustained massive 
funding cuts. The budgets of NEA and NEH were slashed by 40 percent. 
The Congressional Arts Caucus waged a successful battle to save both of 
them from annihilation, but neither one has fully recovered from the 
cuts. Last year, we won the first budget increase for the agencies in 
nearly a decade. The fiscal year 2001 budget contained an additional $7 
million for the NEA's Challenge America initiative, as well as 
increases of $5 million and $2 million for NEH and IMLS respectively. 
It is time to reaffirm our Nation's commitment to the arts by providing 
another modest funding increase for NEA, NEH, and IMLS.
  Supporting the arts is not merely a matter of being high-minded. The 
arts produce very real benefits for individuals, for communities and 
for the Nation as a whole, with the greatest positive impact on our 
children. For example, data from the college entrance exam board shows 
that students who took 4 years or more of art and music classes 
outscored their peers on the SAT by more than 80 points in 1995, 1996 
and 1997. The arts are an economic boon to communities. More tickets 
are sold for art performances than all sports events put together and 
no community is ever required for an art project to build and sustain 
and subsidize an expensive stadium.
  Some of our Members in this House have expressed concern that the 
arts and humanities programs are not funded in their districts. In 
fact, even though the budget has been depleted, I should state again 
that NEA regularly reaches between 290 and 300 congressional districts 
and is providing a wider range of grants thanks to programs like 
ArtsREACH. Last year, Congress targeted $7 million to the NEA's 
Challenge America initiative which strengthens NEA activity in the 20 
States with the fewest NEA grants. That is very important that we 
continue.
  I would like to pay a tribute here to the present chairman of the 
NEA, Mr. Bill Ivey, who has instituted these and many other programs 
and is staying on at the NEA to make sure that his successor can have 
an increase in budget so that he can increase these important program. 
I also want to recognize the President of the United States, George 
Bush, who said recently at Ford's Theater that the arts are extremely 
important to the United States and deserve government support. I thank 
him for that.
  Similarly, the National Endowment for the Humanities is playing a 
crucial role in collecting, preserving, and sharing the Nation's 
history. Just last year, NEH grants went to projects like restoration 
of Federal War Department records which had been partially destroyed by 
fire covering 1784 to 1800; the collection of papers of suffragists 
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony; an analysis of artifacts 
from Chickasaw archaeological sites; and many, many more. An increase 
in their funding would permit this agency to expand its already 
tremendous impact on the Nation's K to 12 humanities curriculum by 
offering more seminars for teachers and exploring greater possibilities 
to use technology in the classroom sorely needed.
  The Institute of Museum and Library Services oversees America's 8,000 
museums and connects schools, libraries, and other institutions with 
the many wonderful resources within those museums. In its April round 
of conservation project support grants, they funded proposals ranging 
from the preservation of sculptures by African American folk artist 
Felix ``Fox'' Harris in Beaumont, Texas, to a survey of objects 
important to the local history of Valdez, Alaska. With additional 
funding, they could expand that reach to many worthy grant 
applications.
  The amendments, as I said, would add $10 million to the NEA, $3 
million to the NEH, and $2 million to IMLS. It does so by making a 
minor corresponding reduction in the administrative budgets of the 
Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service. My colleagues may 
not be aware that the underlying bill includes more than $4 billion for 
salaries and many billions more for other administrative costs such as 
travel, contracting and so on. The offset would reduce that budget by 
less than three-tenths of 1 percent. It is expected that this reduction 
will be absorbed through savings in travel, in printing, and normal 
vacancy rates in staffing levels. We have worked extremely hard to find 
an offset that would be reasonable and responsible. It is my firm 
belief that this offset should be acceptable to every Member of 
Congress.
  When we think about the great civilizations of the past, what comes 
to mind? The pyramids of Egypt, a spectacular architectural 
achievement; the sculptures of ancient Rome; the epic

[[Page 11401]]

poetry of ancient Greece; the cliff art and cave paintings of Native 
Americans. As opera singer Beverly Sills noted, ``Art is the signature 
of civilizations.''
  Let us reaffirm Congress' commitment to our Nation's artistic and 
cultural legacy by passing these amendments.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the position of the Member on 
this amendment, but I oppose this amendment.
  The committee-approved bill includes the President's request for the 
NEA and NEH. This is a fair amount of funding. This level sustains the 
increases the endowments received last year, and there is a small 
increase for fixed costs.
  We should not cut the Interior Department and Forest Service 
operations accounts. We have held these operations accounts down and 
not even fully funded them for inflation. Further cuts would be very 
harmful to the administration of the national parks, forests, refuges, 
and other programs.
  The Interior bill has many responsibilities. We have a documented 
backlog in repairs of over $12 billion. We have tried to make prudent 
investments in our land management agencies, in Indian programs, and in 
energy research. I ask my colleagues to join me and oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment would provide an additional $10 million 
for the National Endowment for the Arts, bringing their funding up to 
$115 million. I might point out that in 1995 we funded the arts at 
approximately $170 million, so there has been a dramatic reduction in 
funding for the arts. I would say that the National Endowment has done 
a great job, but it certainly needs this modest increase. We would also 
increase the National Endowment for the Humanities by $3 million, 
taking it up to $123 million. It was funded at about $170 million in 
1995 as well, so this is another one that needs help. And, of course, 
the Museum and Library Services, we would increase this by $2 million, 
taking it up to $26.8 million.
  Since 1996, the Endowments have been woefully underfunded, as I have 
stated. The National Endowment for the Arts, to be precise, received 
$162 million in 1995 and was level funded at $98 million until their 
small increase last year. The Humanities were funded at $172 million in 
1995, yet only received $120 million in the fiscal year 2001 bill. Even 
with requests from the previous administration of $150 million for both 
agencies, we were not able to achieve more than a nominal increase. I 
believe it is time that these programs receive at least a portion of 
this request because of the value they add to our country.
  The National Endowment for Humanities supports programs that matter 
most, enriching classroom teaching, developing programs for public 
television, supporting some of the country's finest museum exhibits, 
preserving invaluable historical materials from our past, supporting 
new research by scholars, and partnering with State humanities councils 
across the Nation. A small grant from either the National Endowment for 
Humanities or the National Endowment for the Arts spurs nearly four 
times that amount of funding in the private sector.
  But without additional funding, important programs supported by the 
NEH will not be available. Additional funding would also be used to 
preserve endangered recordings of folk music, jazz and blues. The 
National Endowment for Humanities works directly with each of the State 
humanities organizations and regional centers to support critical 
cultural programs. They also help ensure that this information is 
widely distributed into communities through technology like the 
Internet and CD-roms.
  The National Endowment for the Arts also receives an increase for the 
work that it does. As I mentioned, the NEA received $162 million in 
1995, but only $105 million last year. This is simply inadequate.

                              {time}  1100

  I was extremely pleased that we were able to reach agreement to 
provide this small increase for the NEA last year, adding an additional 
$7 million for the NEA's Challenge America program.
  The NEA should be commended for its work to address criticism and 
concerns over their funding of controversial grants and for not 
distributing grants in a more geographically evenhanded way throughout 
the country. They have addressed those issues and I think have solved 
them, and much of the credit belongs to our subcommittee, particularly 
the work of our former chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), 
who was insistent that we emphasize quality in awarding these grants.
  The Institute for Museum and Library Services also deserves this 
small increase. Each year our Nation's 15,000 museums host 865 million 
visits, a 50 percent increase from only a decade ago. For the last 25 
years, the Institute of Museum and Library Services has used its modest 
Federal funds to strengthen museum operations, improve care of 
collections, increase professional development opportunities, and 
enhance the community service role of museums.
  An additional $2 million for the Institute of Museum and Library 
Services will have a real impact in our communities, and I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting this increase. It is my hope that 
a favorable vote on this amendment will send a message to the 
administration that these three areas are greatly deserving of these 
small increases, and we want to say that we are pleased that the 
administration was at least willing to support last year's efforts.
  I compliment the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for her 
leadership and her leadership of the Arts Caucus. We are going to 
continue this fight. We think it is a worthy one. We received some 
considerable support in the other body. I think it is time for this 
House to take a stand in favor of support for these three important 
cultural institutions.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Ms. 
Slaughter of New York and myself. The amendment seeks to raise the 
level of funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National 
Endowment of the Humanities and the Institute for Museums and Library 
Services. The increases we are seeking for the Endowments and the IMLS 
would be offset by small reductions in administrative costs at the 
Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture.
  We had originally planned to offset these amounts through a deferral 
of excess clean coal funds as we did last year. Unfortunately the Rules 
Committee did not waive the rule to allow this. Instead this amendment 
makes a very small reduction of less than .3 percent in administrative 
costs. We believe these can be absorbed with no programmatic impact on 
these agencies. The President's budget was generous in funding 
administrative costs including more than $160 million for the cost of 
the Federal pay raise and the committee has added additional funds. 
This amendment requires that approximately 10 percent of the cost of 
the pay raise be absorbed through management efficiencies. Historically 
the amount of pay costs which agencies were asked to absorb has 
averaged in excess of 25 percent. We believe that most of the cost will 
come from a higher than expected lapse rate, the savings which occur 
when positions which are assumed to be funded for all of the year are 
inevitably filled more slowly with substantial savings. This lapse 
savings is inevitably higher than expected when there is a new 
Administration which fills vacancies slowly as is the current case. In 
addition there may be some small reductions required in travel, 
printing and administrative contracts costs. In no case should there be 
any impact on existing staff.
  The amendment would: Provide an additional $10 million for the NEA, 
bringing them up to $115 million; provide an additional $3 million for 
the NEH, bringing them up to $123 million; and provide an additional $2 
million for the Institute for Museums and Library Services (IMLS), 
bringing them up to $26.8 million.
  Since 1996, the Endowments have been woefully underfunded. The 
National Endowment for the Arts received $162 million in fiscal year 
1995, and was level funded at $98 million until their small increase 
last year. The Humanities were funded at $172 million in fiscal year 
1995, yet only received $120 million in the fiscal 2001 bill. Even with 
requests from the previous Administration of $150 million for

[[Page 11402]]

both agencies, we were not able to achieve more than a nominal 
increase. I believe it is time that these programs received at least a 
portion of this request because of the value they add to our country.
  The National Endowment for Humanities supports programs that matter 
most--enriching classroom teaching, developing programs for public 
television, supporting some of the country's finest museum exhibits, 
preserving invaluable historical materials from our past, supporting 
new research by scholars and partnering with state humanities councils 
across the Nation.
  A small grant from either the NEH or the NEA spurs nearly four times 
that amount in the private sector.
  But without additional funding, important programs supported by the 
NEH will not be available. Additional funding would also be used to 
preserve endangered recordings of folk music, jazz, and blues. The NEH 
works directly with each of the state humanities organizations and 
regional centers to support critical cultural programs. They also help 
ensure that this information is widely distributed into communities 
through technology like the internet and CD-Roms.
  The NEA also deserves an increase for the work that it does. As I 
mentioned, the NEA received $162 million in 1995, but only $105 million 
last year. This simply is inadequate.
  I was extremely pleased that we were able to reach agreement to 
provide the small increase for the NEA last year, adding an additional 
$7 million for the NEA's Challenge American Program. The NEA should be 
commended for its work to address criticisms and concerns over their 
funding of controversial grants and for distributing grants in a more 
geographically even-handed way throughout the country.
  The Institute for Museums and Library Services also deserves this 
small increase. Each year our Nation's 15,000 museums host 865 million 
visits--a 50 percent increase from only a decade ago. For the last 25 
years IMLS has used its modest Federal funds to strengthen museum 
operations, improve care of collections, increase professional 
development opportunities and enhance the community service role of 
museums. An additional $2 million for the IMLS will have a real impact 
in our communities, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting 
this increase.
  It is my hope that a favorable vote on this amendment will send a 
message to the President that these three areas are greatly deserving 
of these small increases.
  I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2217, the Interior 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. It is consistent with the 
budget resolution as required under the Congressional Budget Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2217, the Interior 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. This bill is consistent with 
the budget resolution as required under the Congressional Budget Act.
  This is the first of 13 appropriations bills that the House will 
consider under the 302(a) allocation set forth in the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002.
  In accordance with the Budget Act, the Committee on Appropriations 
subdivided this allocation among its 13 subcommittees earlier this 
week.
  I am confident that the 302(b) allocations represent a good faith 
effort by the Appropriations Committee and its distinguished chairman 
to comply with the overall discretionary levels agreed to as part of 
the budget resolution.
  As reported, H.R. 2217 provides $18.9 billion in new budget authority 
and $17.8 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2002.
  The bill does not designate any of the new budget authority it 
provides as an emergency, nor does it rescind previously enacted budget 
authority.
  The bill is within the subcommittee on the Interior 302(b) allocation 
and therefore complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which 
prohibits the consideration of appropriation measures that exceed the 
appropriate subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  I would note, however, that the bill changes the classification of 
four fairly small programs under the separate spending cap that was 
adopted last year.
  Both the caps and the classification of programs under those caps is 
under the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. Accordingly, the bill 
violates section 306 of the Budget Act, which prohibits the 
consideration of legislation within the jurisdiction of the Budget 
Committee.
  I would ask the subcommittee to work with the Budget Committee on the 
appropriate classification of these programs in conference and on 
comparable measures in the future.
  In summary, this bill is consistent with the budget resolution agreed 
by the Congress and, on this basis, I support the bill.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Slaughter amendment, not 
because I do not support the arts and the humanities or museum 
services, but because I think we need to ask the fundamental question 
in this case of this amendment, which is, how much is enough?
  The subcommittee and the full committee made a conscious decision to 
increase the NEA and NEH and Museum Services accounts for the first 
time I think that I have been in the House at the committee level, the 
subcommittee level. Albeit small increases, they are in fact increases.
  I hear my colleagues who are in support of this amendment make the 
comment that $105,234,000 for NEA is not enough; that $120,504,000 for 
NEH is not enough; and that $24,899,000 for the Museum Services is not 
enough. I would urge my colleagues and the chairman that it is enough. 
Notwithstanding the fact that there has been a higher amount in past 
years, it is enough as we think about balancing this spending amount 
with other spending priorities that we have in this bill, and they are 
many.
  My concern with the Slaughter amendment, with all due respect to her 
and her commitment to the arts and the humanities, the offsets come 
from the operations of the Department of the Interior and the Forest 
Service.
  These accounts, in my humble opinion, cannot afford a reduction 
because we have already streamlined their administrative expenses in 
the bill. I come from the Pacific Northwest. The Pacific Northwest was 
devastated in Montana and Idaho, luckily not so much in Washington 
State, by forest fires last year. We are expecting another hot summer. 
We need the personnel and the administrative assistants to meet not 
only the fire needs of the region but the other needs of the region, to 
have a healthy forest service system; to have an adequate protection of 
our public lands in the Interior Department. Those are priorities as 
well.
  I just urge my colleagues to think carefully about where our 
priorities are. Why is $105 million for NEA not enough? Mr. Ivey has 
done a fabulous job. Why is $120 million not enough for NEH? There can 
never be enough if we advocate in this body only for the priorities 
that one sees as very important.
  I happened last year to be the person involved in making sure that 
Indian health service funding and adequate health service for our 
Native American populations was provided in the bill. That is 
controversial. It was controversial last year. It may be controversial 
this year. The point is, the President's request was $105 million, $120 
million, and $24 million for these three respective agencies. We have 
met the President's request. It is an increase in all three accounts.
  So, therefore, I just think we have to be careful that we do not go 
overboard with respect to a balance that exists in the accounts of the 
Department of the Interior agencies. The arts and the humanities do 
have very important values in our country. I have been concerned that 
the arts industry has not stepped up to privately try to help the NEA 
raise funds. It is a $9 billion industry, and we see the highest 
advocates in the entertainment industry coming and asking for more 
Federal Government assistance, when I would urge that the actors and 
the artists of the world and the music folks who have done so well 
through the entertainment industry step up and assist on the private 
side, put $1 million or $2 million or $5 million, or $10 million and $3 
million and $2 million in this case of their own money in to try to 
help the NEA and the NEH and the Institute of Library Services.
  So we have strived mightily in the subcommittee and the full 
committee to be fair to the NEA, the NEH, and the IMLS. We have done 
that. We have reached a balance, Mr. Chairman, that I think meets the 
needs of the community.
  Can we do more next year? Maybe we can, but for this year in this 
bill in

[[Page 11403]]

these accounts that we want to keep control over, that is balancing 
this Federal budget and making all the programs that have value fit 
within that budget, we have done a very good job. I urge a no on the 
Slaughter amendment.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the modest increase in the arts and the funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and 
the Institute of Museum and Library Services. During the past 5 years, 
our cultural agencies have experienced significant cuts in their 
budgets due to concerns that objectionable projects were being funded 
with taxpayer money and that the grants were not accessible to all 
communities.
  Today, the National Endowment for the Arts is a new institution that 
has undergone significant restructuring to address the problems that 
concern us all, and the Endowment has introduced new initiatives to 
strengthen existing programs.
  For example, the Endowment has been incredibly successful in 
implementing Challenge America, a program which ensures that people who 
live in small rural towns or underserved urban areas gain access to the 
arts by specifically targeting arts education for at-risk youth.
  Cultural preservation of our national heritage and community 
partnerships to help individuals gain access to the arts, Challenge 
America is achieving its goals.
  Furthermore, tighter reporting requirements for grantees have been 
implemented and subgranting and direct funding to individual artists 
has been eliminated to increase accountability.
  The National Endowment for the Humanities plays a crucial role in the 
education and cultural exposure of America's children.
  Specifically, the National Endowment for the Humanities provides 
training for the Nation's teachers through seminars and institutes; 
protects our Nation's heritage through preservation projects; supports 
scholarship in the humanities and facilitates the flow of research 
through books, articles, educational television, such as the Public 
Broadcasting System and radio programs of quality.
  This year, the National Endowment for the Humanities funding would 
continue to focus on helping educators incorporate technological 
resources into the learning process and would target hard-to-reach 
communities in both rural and urban America. I grew up in urban America 
and rural America.
  Lastly, the Institute of Museum and Library Services supports the 
educational role of various museums, aquariums and zoos, by funding 
hands-on opportunities for learning. These types of experiences are 
often the most effective and memorable because they allow students to 
view rare manuscripts, see marvelous paintings and exotic animals 
firsthand.
  Institute of Museum and Library Services will focus new funding on 
increasing technological access to museum and library resources for all 
Americans, building community partnerships by funding after-school 
programs and building institutional expertise in local museums and 
libraries.
  The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the 
Humanities, the Institute of Museum and Library Services work to 
educate, empower and provide enrichment to communities across America. 
Without these crucial agencies, many would miss the opportunity to 
experience the delights of an opera, a symphony, a ballet, or a museum. 
These types of opportunities foster imagination, spark creativity, and 
broaden future ambitions.
  We urge support of the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment that 
increases funding for the National Endowment for the Arts by $10 
million, the Endowment for the Humanities by $3 million, the Institute 
of Museums and Library Services by $2 million. This modest, yet 
effective, increase in the Interior appropriations bill will help 
continue our commitment to cultural and educational importance of the 
arts. Vote for that amendment and with the small amount I cannot see 
anyone would be voting against it. The children of the world in K 
through 12, elementary and high school students see new opportunities 
and even in colleges, they can see the rotating exhibits. Let us vote 
``aye'' on this amendment and educate individuals to be part of our 
culture and our great history as well.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further debate 
on the pending amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), and any amendments thereto, be limited to 50 minutes, to be 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New Mexico?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would ask 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), it is 50 minutes, 25 on each 
side. The gentleman will control 25 and our side will control 25?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unanimous consent request was that the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) would each control 25 minutes.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, what an embarrassment. Once again, the 
House of Representatives is considering an appropriations bill that 
includes level funding for the arts, the humanities, museums and 
libraries, programs that teach us to think; programs that encourage us 
to feel and to see in a new way; to speak. The arts and the humanities 
help us to grow. The Slaughter-Dicks-Horn amendment to increase funds 
for the National Endowment for the Arts and the other programs is a 
small investment with a return as vast as one's imagination.

                              {time}  1115

  Last year, we increased funding for the National Endowment for the 
first time since 1992, and this year we must increase the funding 
again.
  Anyone who has ever managed a budget knows that level funding means a 
decrease in funds. Opponents of the NEA cry ``fiscal discipline,'' as 
if the richest nation in the world need be the most culturally 
impoverished. The dollars we invest in the NEA leverage matching grants 
and multiply many, many times over.
  The nonprofit arts industry generates more than $3 billion annually. 
It supports more than 1 million jobs. In fact, the arts industry is a 
money maker, not a money taker.
  In addition, funding for the NEA supports programs like Challenge 
America, which brings art projects to underserved areas across our 
Nation. It funds programs like Positive Alternatives for Youth, which 
lowers the rate of juvenile crime by creating artist-led after school 
programs for our youth.
  When we deprive the NEA, the NEH, our museums and libraries of 
adequate funding, we deprive this entire Nation of an active cultural 
community. It is a battle as old as the stockades in Puritan times, and 
it is just wrong-headed.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative 
Skeen for yielding me time, and I appreciate the support that the 
subcommittee has shown for the NEA, the NEH and the IMLS. But I do rise 
in support of this amendment, because I think we as a Nation need to 
support

[[Page 11404]]

the Challenge America initiative that the NEA has led.
  The Challenge America initiative has two primary goals: One, to 
literally press arts dollars down to the small communities. This is 
extraordinarily important, because these communities are far more 
conscious of their cultural life than they used to be. There are many 
more small theater groups developing, many more chamber groups, many 
more instrumentalist groups and choruses developing, and they need the 
help that small dollars can give them to organize, to publicize their 
concerts and to grow their position in the cultural life of our small 
communities. That is where the arts take on their greatest vitality.
  The second thing that these dollars do is to help their communities 
begin to record and cherish and revitalize their own knowledge of their 
heritage and to use that revitalization of their cultural heritage and 
the revitalization of current cultural institutions to develop the 
economy of rural areas, small cities, and those kinds of sectors of 
America that too long have had no support in developing the arts on a 
local and neighborhood and community basis.
  The third thing that Challenge America tries to do is to try to press 
these dollars down into our schools. If you have never stood in a 
school and had some kid tell you what a HOT school is, a Higher Order 
of Thinking school is, you really cannot get it, how important the arts 
are to developing our children's understanding of knowledge and how 
powerful knowledge is in our lives.
  Math can teach you certain logical truths; the arts can help you 
develop a level of intuitive thinking that is equally important.
  So I urge support of this amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of 
it. But I thank the committee for their general recognition of the 
importance of these institutions in our Nation's lives.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter 
amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, 
the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Museum Services. 
Frankly, this amendment is just a drop in the bucket compared to the 
increase these cultural agencies need and deserve. But it is finally a 
step in the right direction.
  I hope that the senseless battles over Federal funding for the arts 
is finally behind us. We have debated the proper role of government in 
supporting the arts time and again, and the facts are clear, the NEA is 
a good investment for our country.
  I will not rehash all the arguments in favor of Federal funding, from 
the economic stimulus it provides, to the private and local public 
money it leverages. We know about the broad geographic reach of the 
NEA, with grants to all 50 States. The Challenge America initiative is 
touching hundreds of rural communities across the country. We know that 
NEA supports numerous educational projects for young children and 
lifelong learners alike.
  And then there are the intangible benefits of the arts, their ability 
to lift our spirits and forge a sense of community. We need only think 
of the stirring presentation by Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary at 
the Republican and Democratic Caucuses this week to understand the 
power that music has to bring people together.
  So the debate is over. The question is no longer should the 
government subsidize the arts; the question is how much. With this 
amendment, we take a very modest step forward, but we must do much 
more. We must fund the NEA at a level that enables it to carry out its 
mission.
  Today, the NEA is nearly 40 percent below where it was before the 
drastic cut of 1995, and resources are stretched too thin to adequately 
fund worthy projects. The average grant size has dropped by half and 
will drop even further without sufficient funding. When we limit 
funding, we also hamper the ability of the NEA to continue reaching out 
to underserved areas.
  Mr. Chairman, last year the NEA closed a dark chapter in our history 
when Congress approved the first budget increase in nearly a decade. 
Today we must build on that important victory and pass the Slaughter 
amendment. It is a minimal increase, a very minimal increase, but it is 
the very least we can do. Let us begin a new era in which we respect 
and support the arts and humanities and the contribution they make to 
our society, and back up that respect with some real resources.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula), the former chairman and a current valued member of the 
Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to compliment Mr. Ivey and Mr. 
Ferris. I think both Mr. Ivey and Mr. Ferris, and they will be leaving 
in the next several months, have done a great job of administering 
these agencies. The fact that we are here debating the amount of money 
is indicative that we have had a good administration. We are not 
talking about egregious projects. It is just a matter of priorities in 
the expenditure of Federal funds.
  What I am somewhat concerned about here is the fact that we still 
have a $5 billion backlog of maintenance in the national parks. Art 
takes on many forms. Art is also to go out in a national park, such as 
the Grand Canyon, and look down in that enormous landscape in terms of 
the beauty of it, or to go to Yosemite.
  So I think we have to make priority judgments, and it is not a matter 
of one art against the other. You have the visual art, but you also 
have the natural art that is part of our national parks, national 
forests, all these wonderful resources.
  When we have a $5 billion backlog of maintenance, when people will 
necessarily have to be RIFed in the Park Service because there is not 
enough money here to give them an adequate pay raise, I think probably 
priority-wise that we are not in a position to be spending more money 
on these projects now. As we all know, we did increase art funding in 
the past year, and I think the gentlemen who have led these two 
agencies have done a good job of using the money very wisely.
  But I think in terms of the priorities of this Nation, that our first 
priority has to be to take care of what we have in our parks and 
forests, to ensure that future generations will have the same pleasures 
that we do in visiting these facilities.
  It seems to me that before we start adding to the expenditures, and I 
think the committee did a balanced job in making the priority choices, 
that we ought to weigh carefully whether we want to limit the amount of 
pay increase for our people that serve us in the national parks and 
forests, whether we want to continue addressing the backlog of 
maintenance. When we are talking about maintenance, it is trails, it is 
roads, it is camp facilities, and I think probably priority-wise we 
should leave this bill as it is as far as the numbers for the 
humanities and for the arts and address some of these other needs, 
because a beautiful vista in a national park or a national forest is 
every bit as important as a piece of art.
  I hope prospectively that the resources will be enough that we can 
make the priority judgments to do both. I think there is an opportunity 
to expand the arts and humanities. But in terms of our priorities, I 
believe the committee made the right judgment in saying, to start with, 
we need to emphasize the maintenance of the facilities we have; we need 
to give these people who serve us in the national parks and forests an 
adequate pay raise, because they are very selfless to begin with.
  If you visit the parks and some of the facilities that people have to 
live in and housing and so on, you realize that those that are public 
servants in parks and forests are truly dedicated, that they do this as 
a labor of love, and, therefore, I think it is important that we 
adequately compensate them.
  I do not have any quarrel with the need to have more money, but it is 
a priority choice, and I believe today we

[[Page 11405]]

should stay with the committee's numbers.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would remind the previous speaker that we are talking 
about three-tenths of 1 percent, it does not touch salaries, and it is 
not very much. It comes out of a cushion inserted in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-
Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment. We need to increase the funding for the 
National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the 
Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences. These are 
the agencies that are charged with bringing the history, the beauty, 
the wisdom of our culture into the lives of all Americans, young and 
old, rich and poor, urban and rural.
  We in the Congress have said that preserving our national heritage 
and bringing the arts into the lives of more Americans is a goal that 
is worthy to support. Last year we made an important investment in the 
NEA's new Challenge America program. This program focuses on arts 
education and enrichment, after school arts programs for young people, 
access to the arts for underserved communities and community arts 
development initiatives.
  Many years ago I spent several years as chair of the Greater New 
Haven Arts Council in Connecticut, and I know firsthand that the arts 
not only enrich lives, but they contribute to the economic growth of 
our communities.
  The Federal investment in the arts is not the only means of support 
for this endeavor. Rather, our dollars, which represent only a small 
fraction of our annual budget, are used to leverage private funding and 
fuel what is really an arts industry. The industry creates jobs, 
increases travel and tourism and generates thousands of dollars for a 
State's economy.
  Arts have a real value in restoring civility to our society, 
providing children and our communities with real alternatives. 
Participation in the arts programs helps children to learn to express 
anger appropriately and enhance their communication skills with adults 
and peers. Youngsters who have benefited from these programs show 
better self-esteem, an improved ability to finish their tasks, less 
delinquent behavior, and a more positive attitude towards school.
  We know that arts build our economy, enrich our culture, and feed the 
minds of adults and children alike. We need to increase the opportunity 
through these organizations, to help them to fulfill their missions, 
and it is time that we gave them this support.
  Vote for this amendment, preserve our heritage, make it accessible to 
all.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Chairman Skeen) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for the 
great job they have done on this Interior appropriation. There is one 
exception, however, and that is why I am rising in strong support of an 
amendment that is currently being discussed, the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-
Johnson amendment, which would increase funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts, for the National Endowment for the Humanities, 
and also for the Institute of Museum and Library Services, not by very 
much money, altogether $15 million.

                              {time}  1130

  It is critical that we support Federal funding for these programs. 
These programs serve to broaden public access to the arts and 
humanities for all Americans to participate in and enjoy. The value of 
these programs lie in their ability to nurture artistic excellence of 
thousands of arts organizations and artists in every corner of the 
country. The NEA alone awards more than 1,000 grants to nonprofit arts 
organizations for projects in every State.
  These programs also are a great investment in our Nation's economic 
growth. The nonprofit arts industry alone generates more than $36.8 
billion annually in economic activity. It supports 1.3 million jobs and 
returns more than $3.4 billion to the Federal Government in income 
taxes.
  I know that each of us in Congress can point to numerous worthwhile 
projects in our districts that are aided by the NEA, by the NEH, by the 
Institute of Museum and Library Services.
  For instance, in my district of Montgomery County, Maryland the NEA 
provides a grant to the Bethesda Academy of Performing Arts to support 
their Arts Access Program. This inspirational program exists to offer 
introductory and integrated performing arts to children, teens and 
young adults who have physical, emotional, learning or developmental 
disabilities. Through Arts Access, BAPA witnesses firsthand the 
incredible amount of growth and development that occurs when the arts 
are incorporated into lives of students who have special needs.
  The NET and the Maryland Humanities Council, in turn, have aided 
institutes and individuals in Maryland by providing over $18.2 million 
of seed funds over the last 5 years for projects that help preserve the 
Nation's cultural heritage, foster lifelong learning, and encourage 
civic involvement.
  On just March 24 of this year, I spoke at the awards ceremony for the 
Maryland History Day district contest in Montgomery County, Maryland. 
The Maryland Humanities Council conducts History Day in partnership 
with the Montgomery County Historical Society and other cultural and 
educational organizations throughout the State. It was made possible 
with funds from the National Endowment for the Humanities.
  By supporting the arts and humanities, the Federal Government has an 
opportunity to partner with State and local communities for the 
betterment of our Nation with all kinds of programs.
  I also want to point out something I think is significant. Students 
who engage in arts and humanities programs over a period of time show a 
tremendous increase in their SAT scores, so it helps them also 
intellectually. Both the arts and humanities teach us who we were, who 
we are and who we might be, and both are critical to a free and 
democratic society.
  So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson 
amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment 
proposing a modest increase in America's arts budget. I represent a 
district in California that lost thousands and thousands of jobs in the 
defense industry with the defense contractor downsizings of the last 
couple of decades, but we were fortunate. We gained these jobs back and 
many more in the high-tech and entertainment industries.
  In those industries, artistic skill and the creative thinking skills 
that are developed through arts education are essential, and support 
for the arts and support for arts education is as much a part of the 
economic infrastructure of States like California and many communities 
around the country as any other industry and, indeed, more than many 
other industries. We thought nothing of developing the infrastructure 
of other industries through focused educational efforts. We should do 
no less in this critical high-tech industry throughout the country.
  Objection is made that if this is so important to the entertainment 
industry or the high-tech community, why do they not fund it? The 
answer is, they do. They do. In thousands of communities around 
America, the high-tech community and the entertainment industry do fund 
local theaters and symphonies and ballet companies, et cetera, but they 
cannot do it alone. They cannot do it alone.
  Mr. Chairman, this modest increase in America's arts budget will 
allow not only the development of this industry and this economic 
infrastructure, but

[[Page 11406]]

also support the cultural well-being of all of our communities by 
helping struggling theaters to survive and struggling ballet companies 
and museums and artists.
  NEA grants have gone to things as varied as, for example, the Vietnam 
Veterans Memorial here in Washington. So it is not simply for our own 
economic well-being that we should strengthen our arts infrastructure 
in this country, but our cultural well-being and richness as well. It 
is the reason many of us live in the communities we live in. It is 
deserving of our support, and it is good for the heart and soul of 
America. I urge the continued support of my colleagues.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a valued member of the Subcommittee on the 
Interior.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this 
amendment. I am not going to argue that the spending is wrong, but the 
cuts are wrong. We heard that it was just coming from the cushion. 
There is no cushion in the Forest Service. There is no cushion in the 
Forest Service. This is an agency that has not been adequately funded 
for many years. Backlogs exist. Mr. Chairman, 250 million people a year 
visit the Forest Service lands, 250 million, almost equal to the Park 
Service.
  These people depend on facilities to be maintained, trails to be 
maintained, wildlife to be managed. These are the accounts that we are 
going to be taking this money from: recreational facilities that are 
badly in need of maintenance; law enforcement so that it is safe and 
secure for our families who are touring these facilities. This money is 
being taken from the wrong accounts.
  The Interior budget has a $12 billion backlog in maintenance on the 
facilities that are publicly visited in the Park Service and in the 
Forest Service and on BLM lands. I say to my colleagues, this is not 
taking from a cushion. There is no cushion. There is inadequate funding 
in these departments historically. The backlog is huge. We are taking 
money away from where hundreds of millions of Americans depend and will 
tour this summer and expect facilities to be in shape, expect trails to 
be in shape, expect wildlife to be adequately managed and expect law 
enforcement to be adequately funded; and we are taking the money away 
from the heart and soul of the Forest Service and the Department of the 
Interior.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is wrong. There was a good balance in 
this bill, and I urge the defeat of this amendment. It is not taking 
from a cushion, it is being taken right out of the heart.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy 
in allowing me to speak in support of her amendment.
  I wish to just add one point to the discussion here today. The 
funding trend that we have had ultimately moving upward is one that 
needs to be continued, and it needs to be continued because of the 
massive ripple effect that this has throughout the country.
  In Oregon, communities like mine have had difficulty of late, but the 
Federal resources have enabled them to bootstrap. Portland arts groups 
have obtained a 68 percent rate of return at the box office, far ahead 
of the national average. It has encouraged private sector business to 
step forward doubling their investment in the first 5 years of the last 
decade alone. If we were to rely solely on public support, we would be 
cutting off access to people in our communities who need and deserve 
these opportunities.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will join together and support the 
gentlewoman's amendment. It is going to be very critical to promoting 
communities that are livable where our families are safe, healthy and 
more economically secure.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I 
rise in support of her amendment to increase funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and 
the Institute of Museum and Library Services. The arts and humanities 
are important both socially and economically to our Nation as a whole.
  Studies have shown students benefit from exposure to both the arts 
and humanities. These students have a better chance to increase their 
SAT scores, develop increased self-confidence and are more likely to 
create multiple solutions to problems and work collaboratively with one 
another. These skills are essential for their future in the American 
workforce.
  Arts and humanities funding are increasingly allocated to State 
agencies for grant programs that reach out to underprivileged and 
smaller suburban and rural areas that do not have the benefits of big 
city arts programs. In correlation, 79 percent of businesses believe it 
is important to have an active cultural community in the locale in 
which they operate. For instance, the Delaware Art Museum offers 
educational programs which are supported by corporate giants, the 
Delaware Division of the Arts and the NEA.
  I have seen firsthand the impact cultural agencies have on 
communities producing results that benefit all. For example, the 
Delaware Theater Company, through grants provided by the NEA, has 
created a partnership with Ferris School, a maximum security facility 
for improvisational play-writing residencies that incorporate writing 
skills and art for incarcerated boys between the ages of 14 and 18. The 
NET has also supported projects at the University of Delaware that have 
both local and national impact, including preservation and access funds 
for education and the conservation of material cultural collections.
  It is important for us to remember as a body the collective benefits 
that this does, not only for our districts, but for the country as a 
whole. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
  Ms. McCarthy of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) to 
increase by $15 million dollars funding for our national arts agencies: 
the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the 
Humanities and the Institute for Museums and Library Services. These 
additional funds will enable children, youth, and adults to create, 
produce, learn from, and enjoy our Nation's arts and humanities.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Reauthorization Act which we approved in the House by a bipartisan vote 
authorized numerous structural changes to assure our children would be 
well read, well educated, and well adjusted. As a former educator, I 
value all that we did in H.R. 1.
  But we must do more for our children than structural changes alone. 
We must also provide opportunities for their creativity to flourish and 
for them to gain a sense of our Nation's rich culture so that they may 
be the best leaders for the future.
  Even more significant, we know that exposure to and participation in 
the arts reduces youth violence. H.R. 1 also authorized increased 
funding for arts education. This amendment, using NEA and NEH funds, 
provides such opportunities for our children.
  For example, the NET is helping to fund a new project in my district, 
the Lewis and Clark Centennial Celebration. This project will be 
inclusive of Native American populations living in the region during 
this historic period of exploration, and will employ experts from 
Science City at Kansas City's Union Station to discuss the scientific 
methods employed by Lewis and Clark to map our frontier. This project 
will make history come alive through experiential learning and historic 
representations.

[[Page 11407]]

  NEA also grants help to The Writer's Place to produce the Poets at 
Large event where critically acclaimed poets from across the United 
States inspire children and adults to embrace the written word as an 
art form. NEA funding enables children around the country to explore 
and appreciate our individual and collective identities as both 
Americans and global citizens, helping children to nurture their own 
love of reading, writing poetry, creating song lyrics, and drama.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment to increase support 
for this funding. This support sends a message that art and music in 
the classroom and the community expand and enrich our lives and make 
our Nation a better place.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to the 
previous gentleman who spoke about the cut to the National Forest 
Service.
  If we leave the forests alone, our national forests, they are going 
to grow just fine, but if the most prosperous nation in the history of 
western civilization does not make an investment in the arts in this 
country, then a whole lot of cultural initiatives are going to die on 
the vine. We cannot let that happen.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been beating up and gutting the National 
Endowment for the Arts now for the last several years. Of 117,000 
grants that have been awarded by the NEA, fewer than 20 have been 
controversial. That is a much lower percentage than any of the other 
arts granting agencies: the Pulitzer prizes, the National Book Awards, 
you name it. There ought to be some controversy in the arts.
  But the strongest argument for supporting this increase is our own 
experience in our own communities. Last week I went to a performance of 
the Classica Theater in Arlington. Here are a group of Russian emigres 
who brought with them an invaluable experience in the classical Russian 
theatrical tradition.
  What they are doing with a very small grant from the NEA is 
extraordinarily impressive. The NEA grant gave them the credibility to 
go out and raise substantially more money. Then they went to the school 
system, and they found about 100 immigrant kids from Somalia, Bosnia, 
and Afghanistan, who were suffering from the same kind of language and 
cultural barriers that they had. These kids were not succeeding in 
school. They taught them how to succeed through their theatrical 
tradition. They brought the history of Virginia to life in a play that 
employed their vocal and dramatic talents.
  That theater was crowded and not just with their parents. They got a 
sustained ovation, but most importantly, every one of those kids saw 
their lives transformed. They were proud of themselves. For a few 
thousand bucks, we had a wonderful artistic expression by people who 
now know that they have tremendous potential for the rest of their 
lives. That is happening in communities all over the country.
  Mr. Chairman, this is good money. It is a good investment. We ought 
to be increasing the NEA, not bashing it. The fact is the NEA, the NEH, 
and our museums are something we ought to be proud of all over the 
world. The rest of the world is proud. This Congress ought to be proud 
and support it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  A previous speaker from the podium a few moments ago decried the fact 
that this bill funds inadequately the National Park Service, and that 
this amendment takes money away from that very much needed program.
  This is true. It is true. But the fact of the matter is that there 
are many things that are underfunded in this overall budgetary program. 
The reason for that is that the majority party insisted on a $3 
trillion tax cut earlier this year, and that is why we do not have 
enough money to do the kinds of things that we really ought to be 
doing.
  We are here today to talk about giving a little bit more money to the 
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Humanities, one of the tiniest programs in the Federal budget, I would 
say much to our chagrin, much to our shame. It ought to be much bigger.
  But where is that program today? In this budget, it is funded at $105 
million for the National Endowment for the Arts and $120 million for 
the National Endowment for the Humanities. In 1995, NEA was funded at 
$57 million higher than it is today. NEH was funded at $52 million, 
higher than it is today in this budget.
  One of the most shameful things that the majority party did when it 
came into power here in 1995 was to dramatically slash funding for the 
arts and the humanities. Programs in schools all across our country and 
museums all across our country were slashed.
  Now, to their credit, our previous subcommittee chairman and our 
present subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen), have worked to try to bring the funding level back up. I 
applaud them for it. But we are still woefully below where we ought to 
be, $57 million lower than in 1995 for the arts, $52 million lower than 
this 1995 for the humanities.
  We have got to fund these programs adequately. It is shameful the way 
we have treated these programs in the Congress. That is why this 
amendment is so important, because it moves these funding levels up 
slightly, and brings them back in the right direction.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time to speak here.
  Mr. Chairman, many critics for the national endowments believe 
funding given to the NEA goes only to museums in big cities. As a 
former member of the National Council, I can assure the Members that 
rural communities receive more funding than ever through Challenge 
America and arts education programs.
  Challenge America is a major NEA initiative that was newly funded by 
Congress in fiscal year 2001. The legislation provided $7 million for 
arts education and public outreach activities.
  One of the challenges of the Challenge America program is to target 
areas of this country that have been underrepresented among NEA grant 
recipients. This year, 400 small grants will be provided for these 
underserved communities. Of the funding appropriated for NEA by 
Congress, more than 40 percent is directed to State and regional art 
agencies, which in turn make grants and offer services to community-
based arts organizations in our communities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I think everybody 
here could get a map. This is a map of North Carolina, with all of the 
direct grants and indirect grants that are applied using the National 
Endowment. Each State can have this map.
  In North Carolina. We had ten direct grants and 75 indirect grants. 
One of the really important ones, as far as I was concerned, is that we 
brought into Hickory, North Carolina, a thing called a Fry Street 
Quartet. It was helped paid for by the NEA.
  The Hickory school system had a spring program founded by a teacher 
there named Dellinger, currently the director of an orchestra at the 
Hickory school. Chamber music study has always been part of the program 
at Hickory, North Carolina. It has been expanded. Currently the program 
has 198 students in grades six to twelve.
  It is unbelievable what has been used by our community to attract new 
industry and new jobs by the outstanding effort by the community in 
developing the National Endowment. It is hard to say how many 
industries and jobs we have brought into our community because of its 
support of the arts.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, there is no reason, other than an ideological 
one,

[[Page 11408]]

to oppose this amendment. As has been already pointed out, the 
Endowment for the Arts as recently as 1995 was funded at $170 million 
level. This amendment simply seeks to fund it at $115 million.
  For those people who live in big cities or for those Members of 
Congress who regularly frequent Washington, D.C., any time they want 
they can go to the Kennedy Center, they can go to the Folger Library, 
they can go to the Corcoran, they can go to many of the cultural 
institutions in this town.
  It is a lot different if your are a child in small town America. Very 
often the endowment is the only thing that will introduce children in 
smaller communities in this country to the fine arts and to many other 
experiences that come under the rubric of the arts and humanities.
  I think of one entertainer in my district, for instance, who goes 
into schools, who helps schoolchildren to write down their thoughts 
about life and then put those thoughts to music. Then he turns that 
into CDs for those local schools. The value in that kind of an effort 
is immeasurable.
  As far as I am concerned, the Endowment for the Arts is one of those 
tiny facilities of government that helps children from all over this 
country dig much more deeply into their own souls than they even know 
is possible. I think that to oppose this amendment for ideological 
grounds or on ideological grounds is shortsighted. I think it neglects 
the fact that the Endowment helps children to grow in many, many ways.
  I would urge support for the amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am so proud to join with many of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to support her amendment.
  Economically, support for the arts and humanities just makes sense. 
The arts industry contributes nearly $4 billion into our economy, and 
provides more than $1.3 million full-time jobs. Furthermore, the arts 
industry returns $3.4 billion to the Federal Government in taxes, and 
arts education improves life skills, including self-esteem. It costs 
each American the equivalent of a postage stamp to support the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  In turn, last year the NEA awarded over $83 million in grants 
nationwide, and over $1.7 million in my home State of Illinois. There 
we have the Illinois Arts Council and the Illinois Humanities Council 
providing critical leadership and support and development of programs 
that touch the lives of thousands and thousands of Illinoisans.
  For example, there is the Lyra Ensemble in Chicago, the only 
professional performing arts company specializing in the performance, 
research, and preservation of Polish music, song, and dance. Another 
project is the Beacon Street Gallery Theater, a program that supports 
the uptown youth and cultural heritage preservation program.
  This initiative promotes cross-cultural understanding, strengthens 
intergenerational ties, enhances literacy, and builds job readiness.
  These kinds of programs deserve our support.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the 
following specified amendments to the bill and any amendment thereto be 
limited to the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent: one, an amendment to be offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) related to payment in lieu of 
taxes for 30 minutes; and two, an amendment to be offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) regarding the Mineral Leasing 
Act for 30 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. DICKS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, as I 
understand it, there would be 15 minutes on each side for both 
amendments?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the vice-chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this amendment, but I want to 
say I am a supporter of art. I support, and have every year since I 
have been in Congress, the Congressional Art Award in my district. My 
father is a docent at an art museum. I have two children who are 
artists, and one who would like to continue being one in the form of 
acting for a career.
  But Mr. Chairman, I think we in Congress always fall in a trap that 
the NEA is the arts statement for America. I would like to speak about 
that.
  First of all, I want to say to the proponents of this that I am glad 
that the NEA has reformed somewhat. They have eliminated a lot of the 
art that was so controversial, the Mapplethorpe exhibits, the 
watermelon women, and the things that caused so much controversy. I am 
glad that they have reduced that.
  I will point out that they did it very reluctantly. It was a Supreme 
Court decision that said if the Federal government is funding art, then 
the artist does give up some freedom of expression and has to work as a 
contractor for the taxpayers. So there has been progress made, for 
whatever reason.
  One area they have not made any progress in, as so many of the 
proponents have pointed out, is that in 1975, the funding for the arts 
was about $150 million. It has been reduced, and that vacuum, that 
void, should have been replaced by private dollars. We have done this 
in lots of other Federal Government programs, and it was the job of the 
NEA to go out and seek alternative funds. I think they have done a 
little bit of that, but they certainly have a long way to go.

                              {time}  1200

  Does the Federal Government support art beyond the NEA, which every 
year we hear, oh, this is what sophisticated countries do? They take 
the money out of the people who work in paper mills. They take the 
paycheck from the guy who works in the chicken factory.
  They take the paycheck from the guy who is out there driving a long-
haul truck right now and spend it on art and that is the sign of a 
sophisticated and compassionate country.
  Mr. Chairman, we, in America, spend a lot of money on art education 
on our State level and on our Federal levels, teaching kids in all 
levels of school about art. We also have tremendous tax advantages, 
billions of dollars for write-offs if you donate to art museums or give 
generously.
  In my town, in Savannah, Georgia, we have one of the largest private 
art colleges in the country, the Savannah College of Art and Design. It 
is not only one of the largest ones, but it is privately funded and one 
of the most successful ones, turning out hundreds of artists into our 
society from all over the country every year.
  And, thirdly, our Federal Government does a lot of art purchasing. We 
buy objects of arts to put on the walls in Federal buildings and to put 
on the plazas, and we are major purchasers of arts and there is no ban 
against that.
  Fourth, we fund lots of art beyond this and lots of museums.
  I will give my colleagues an example. The Smithsonian alone gets 
nearly $500 million from this bill, and people should realize that we 
are very committed to cultural history.
  Finally, let me talk about art versus nature. It is as the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has said, art and beauty is in the eye of the 
beholder. If

[[Page 11409]]

we look at the Grand Canyon or if we look at the forest, is it not art, 
maybe made by God versus made by man, but it certainly is art.
  What we are doing here is we are taking money out of one resource and 
putting it into this man-made resource. I have to say there are some 
provincial politics driving this. It is interesting the disproportion 
of speakers who have spoken today who are from New York. Well, there is 
a reason for that. For the NEA, 70 percent of their money is spent in 
New York.
  I know that is where lots of the art and theater companies are, but 
they come down South or they come down to the heartland of America, 
dusting off their halo and they put on an exhibition during the 
summertime and they feel good about themselves and then they go back 
home and we appreciate the visit. The reality is, 70 percent of the 
money for the NEA goes to New York.
  Where are they getting the money from? They are getting it from fire. 
Is there anybody in the U.S. Congress that does not know about the 
fires that we suffered throughout the West? This money comes out of 
fire suppression accounts.
  It comes from hazardous fuel accounts, facility backlogs, 
rehabilitation and restoration accounts, joint fire science so that we 
can prevent forest fire and volunteer fire services so that people in 
small rural areas can fight forest fires. That is where this money 
comes from.
  Let us talk about needs versus wants. In my opinion, we need 
firefighting. We might want NEA, but we do not need to have it; and we 
certainly do not need to have this increase.
  Mr. Chairman, lots of Members of this Congress would eliminate the 
NEA if it was up to them, but we are not on the committee doing that. 
We are keeping the funding level, and it is odd that a friend on the 
other side of the aisle has said that level funding in Washington means 
a cut. Well, maybe it is time to go back home and bounce that off your 
kid, because my daughter, Ann, who is 13 years old, she gets $3 a week 
allowance if she does her chores. I do not consider myself cutting her 
allowance 1 week to the next when I give her $3 on one Sunday and $3 on 
the next Sunday.
  That is what we have been told. Level funding is a cut; go sell that 
to the taxpayers back home. Again, these are the people who drive 
trucks, who work in paper mills, who work in farms, who work in chicken 
factories. They are the ones who are paying for this. This is not 
Congress' money. This is not Washington's money. This is not 
government's money.
  This is hard-earned taxpayers' money, and we need to be very careful 
how we spend it. It is 12 o'clock in the Eastern Standard Time zone. 
That means that there are a bunch of folks right now who are wearing 
hardhats who will be taking them off for 30 minutes to eat a lunch out 
of a lunch pail, and then at 12:30 they will be back, they will punch 
the timeclock and they will be back.
  Mr. Chairman, they are the ones paying for this, not Washington, not 
the Department of the Interior; and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, we should 
pay them the honor that they deserve for the hard work that they are 
doing, and we should reject this amendment and stick with what the 
committee has worked out under a careful compromise.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Interior.


  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment all of our speakers 
here today. They have done an outstanding job of presenting a strong 
case for a very modest amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is increasing the funding for 
the National Endowment for the Arts by $10 million, $3 million for the 
National Endowment for the Humanities, and $2 million for library 
services.
  I have served on this subcommittee for 25 years, and I can remember 
when I was first on this committee we had two significant challenge 
grants for the State of Washington, and we saw our Pacific Northwest 
Ballet grow into a major institution.
  We saw our symphony grow. We saw the theaters in Seattle grow, and 
people talk about this all being New York and Chicago. I can tell my 
colleagues that the work of the Endowment has helped spread the arts 
throughout the country. Sometimes we have to accept a win.
  The committee has insisted that the Endowments emphasize quality; 
they do. The grants that are going out today are for the best art, the 
best humanities in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say, I think it helps our country to have 
this diversity. I bet a lot of people go down to Georgia to attend the 
performing arts just like they do in the Northwest or for the 
Shakespeare Festival in Oregon.
  Each community is proud of its art institutions, and I can tell my 
colleagues that the young people in my district enjoy being in the 
symphony, enjoy being members of their theater group; and I think for 
our children giving them a chance to have something to do after school, 
to be involved, like the kids are at the Middle School in Tacoma that 
help develop ``Chihuly's Glass.''
  These are the kind of important things that will help our kids 
throughout their entire lives. Let us vote for this amendment. If there 
is any difficulty with the offset, we will work that out in the 
conference. Everybody knows that. This is a chance to support the arts, 
the humanities, and our museums.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Slaughter) has 30 
seconds remaining and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has the 
right to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my colleagues who just simply 
love art but do not want to fund any of it, see how important it would 
be, I would like to challenge them to go back into their districts and 
talk to the art programs that are there, see how many of them are seed 
money from the National Endowment for the Arts and see when those 
troops come through and buy tickets in their areas, how much that adds 
to the local economy.
  Mr. Chairman, if they want to make these programs available to more 
people in the country then pass this small amount of money, the truck 
drivers on the long hauls who enjoy the good music at night, then, will 
be grateful as will the country.
  The vast majority of Americans approve of this and want it, and I 
urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston) the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen) for the time, and I wanted to also join with the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in complimenting everybody who has 
participated in this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I do want to say to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), my good friend, that that is one of the problems with the 
NEA and the rest of the country. As I go around to my art community, 
Savannah, Georgia, is blessed with a great and a very strong active art 
community; but there is no NEA presence there whatsoever.
  I would just say, again, if I was from New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Actually, I have not yielded to the gentlewoman from 
New York, but I did overhear the statement. Let me say this: again, 
that is one of the situations with the NEA that it is 
disproportionately spent in New York.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I would say that this is one of the 
problems, and I would urge the NEA in their own distribution to go out 
to the rest of the country and make the their presence known. I can say 
this, we do not get any letters. Yes, let us do something for the NEA 
back home, because they are invisible.

[[Page 11410]]

  We get lots of art, locally State-funded stuff, privately funded. We 
have a great symphony. We have a great art museum, a huge fund-raiser 
and lots of good things going on.
  But one of the big vision differences here, Mr. Chairman, is that 
there are those who believe that government has to be the only funder 
and the only provider of things. Then there are others who think that 
funding as much as possible whenever possible should be driven by the 
private sector and locally.
  I am going to support NEA funding, and I will support the committee 
mark, as I did at the subcommittee and the full committee level; but I 
will not support an increase.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of the Slaughter/Dicks Amendment and to highlight the 
importance of NEA and IMLS funding for the smaller towns in my own 
district.
  Last year's NEA funding increase created the Challenge America 
program, to help smaller communities gain access to the arts. The Arts 
Council of Snohomish Country in my home district was one of the first 
organizations to receive this grant. This organization offers weekly 
art classes to juvenile offenders, many of which have no adult role 
models in their lives, and provides them with opportunities to express 
creatively and interact in a forum outside of a detention center. 
Without this grant, the program would have had to cut back drastically 
or even be eliminated. That would be truly unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, 
because it is programs like these where the arts can provide hope and 
opportunity for troubled youth. Challenge America is doing great things 
for youth in my district, yet this program would not exist if the NEA 
did not receive increased funding last Congress.
  I would also like to offer my support for IMLS, which also funds key 
services in my district. The Museum of Northwest Art in La Conner--a 
town of 900--received a key grant from the IMLS to help attract more 
tourists to the Skagit Valley region in my district. Because of the 
IMLS grant, La Conner brings in many more visitors who come to 
experience the Skagit Valley, thereby boosting their economy. 
Unfortunately, other museums in my district do not receive funding 
because of the lack of IMLS funding. The executive director of the 
Whatcom Museum contacted me earlier this year to share his frustration 
that the Whatcom Museum and Bellingham Library were denied important 
funding, not because of their qualifications, but because of the lack 
of funding for the IMLS. The Slaughter/Dicks amendment will provide key 
funding increases for the IMLS, and help small libraries and museums in 
districts like mine continue to flourish and reach out to the 
community.
  Mr. Chairman, let's continue to show our support for the arts, the 
humanities and our museums and libraries by supporting the Slaughter/
Dicks amendment. Thank you.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-
Dicks-Horn-Johnson Amendment, to make important increases to the NEA, 
NEH, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
  We know that the arts are crucial to the development of our culture 
and our economy, and beneficial to all our citizens. As a recent member 
of the National Council on the Arts, I have seen first-hand the grant 
selection process, and I applaud the NEA for successfully increasing 
all Americans' access to the arts, through programs such as ``Challenge 
America.''
  I was very proud last year, when for the first time since 1992, we 
increased funding year after year, and had repeatedly battled threats 
to the very existence of this important program.
  We must recognize, however, that last year's funding increase was not 
the conclusion of a struggle, but rather, a first step toward funding 
the arts and humanities at levels appropriate for the importance we 
place on them in our society. A $10 million increase to the NEA budget 
would not only support extraordinary artistic work, but would also 
generate federal revenue and foster local economic activity.
  Let's use this opportunity to continue providing a level of resources 
to the NEA and the NEH of which we can all be proud.
  My colleagues, I urge you to support the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson 
amendment.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my 
strong support for the Slaughter/Dicks amendment to the FY02 Department 
of the Interior Appropriations bill (HR 2217) to increase funding for 
the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities and the 
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).
  A small investment in these agencies will provide our nation with 
limitless cultural, educational, and economic returns. Yet, each has 
been subject to massive budget cuts over the past six years, with the 
NEA receiving its first budget increase last year since 1992. The 
modest increases proposed by this amendment represent a step in the 
right direction toward ensuring that the arts and humanities have the 
increased funding they richly need and deserve.
  The mission of these agencies is to provide access to the arts for 
all Americans, thus nurturing our nation's diversity and creativity, 
fostering community spirit, educating our citizens, and helping our 
struggling youth. The arts teach us to think, encourage us to feel, 
challenge us to see the world from different perspectives, and help us 
to grow. They improve the critical thinking skills and raise the self-
esteem of our children through highly successful arts in schools and 
after-school arts programs. They reach into underserved areas, exposing 
smaller communities to the many intangible benefits the arts have to 
offer. That is why when we deprive our arts, humanities, and museums 
agencies of necessary funding, we are really depriving the heart and 
soul of this entire nation.
  And investment in the arts and humanities just makes ``cents.'' The 
NEA budget represents less than one-hundreth of one percent (0.01%) of 
the Federal budget and costs each American the equivalent of one 
postage stamp per year. Each year, the nonprofit arts industry returns 
$3.4 billion to the federal treasury, generates $36.8 billion in 
economic activity, and supports at least 1.3 million jobs. Without a 
doubt, the arts contribute to the economic health and growth both of 
our communities and of the nation as a whole.
  The Central Coast of California has a vibrant arts community, and I 
want to ensure that our well-loved cultural traditions--like the 
Monterey Jazz Festival, the Cabrillo Music Festival, and the Kuumbwa 
Jazz Society--continue to thrive and are accessible to all. We must 
increase funding for the NEA, NEH and IMLS and ensure that they have 
the resources to help our diverse local arts community continue to 
shine.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment to add 
much-needed funds to the National Endowment of the Arts, the National 
Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute for Museum Services.
  The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for 
the Humanities play crucial roles in American cultural life. Since 
1965, the NEA has provided over 111,000 grants for projects ranging 
from theater and film festivals, to poetry readings and workshops, to 
radio and TV broadcasts, to museum exhibitions, to city design and 
downtown renewal. NEA funds often help to bring excellent performances 
and exhibitions beyond big cities to small towns and rural areas 
throughout the United States. Also, together with the state arts 
agencies, the NEA provides some $30 million in annual support for more 
than 7,800 arts education projects in more than 2,400 communities.
  The NEH serves to advance the nation's scholarly and cultural life. 
The additional funding contained in this amendment would enable NEH to 
improve the quality of humanities education to America's school 
children and college students, offer lifelong learning opportunities 
through a range of public programs, and support new projects that 
encourage Americans to discover their wonderful American heritage.
  The IMLS supports museums, including art, history, science, as well 
as zoos and aquariums. Increased funding in this area would help 
reinforce museum's educational role, encourage public access, and 
enable museums to care for our national treasures.
  In central New Jersey, the NEA has supported arts opportunities for 
local residents in places like Lambertville, where a grant is helping 
support the annual New Jersey Teen Arts Festival and in New Brunswick 
where the NEA is helping the George Street Playhouse stage writing 
workshops for seventh to 12th grade students in local schools. The NEH 
and the Institute for Museum Services help support other important 
cultural opportunities for citizens throughout the state of New Jersey.
  As a former teacher, I can tell you, arts education helps children be 
better students and helps them learn critical thinking skills. This is 
a long overdue, modest funding increase to build programs that use the 
strength of the arts and our nation's cultural life to enhance 
communities in every state of America.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support the Slaughter amendment.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Slaughter/Dicks/Horn/Johnson amendment. I believe that the NEA funds 
extremely valuable and important educational programs and worthwhile 
events. The NEA provides funding for many programs in Tennessee, 
including the Nashville Symphony

[[Page 11411]]

Association, Fisk University, and the Tennessee Arts Commission. I 
believe it is important to ensure that adequate funding for these 
programs continues.
  NEH has also funded numerous worthwhile programs in my district and 
across the state--from Vanderbilt University's Robert Penn Warren 
Center for the Humanities to the Tennessee Performing Arts Center's 
Humanities Outreach programs to the Southern Festival of Books. NEH 
funding has allowed outstanding K-12 humanities teachers to conduct 
research that enhance their classroom lessons. And NEH grants have 
permitted the Tennessee Literacy Coalition to promote their adult 
education classes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is just a small sampling of what NEA and NEH have 
done in my state. But the need is so much larger than the funds 
available. For every worthwhile request that receives funding, many 
other equally worthwhile proposals are rejected simply for a lack of 
available funds. I urge my colleagues to support the cultural events 
that these agencies support. These programs preserve and provide access 
to cultural and educational resources to our citizens. They provide 
opportunities for lifelong learning in arts and humanities. And they 
strengthen teaching and learning in history, literature, language and 
arts in schools, colleges and the surrounding communities.
  Just as we need to continue to fund scientific research, we must 
continue to fund the arts and humanities. A world without the arts and 
humanities would be devoid of cultural meaning. Research shows that the 
arts and humanities benefit our nation's young people by improving 
reading, writing, speaking and listening skills and by helping to 
develop problem-solving and decision-making abilities essential in 
today's global marketplace.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and enhance the arts 
and humanities across our great country.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter-Dicks-
Johnson-Horn amendment which calls for increases of $10 million for the 
National Endowment for the Arts, $3 million for the National Endowment 
for the Humanities, and $2 million for the Institute for Museums and 
Library Services. Over the past 30 years, our quality of life has been 
improved by the arts. Support for the arts and federal funding for the 
NEA illustrates our Nation's commitment to freedom of expression, one 
of the basic principles on which our nation is founded. Cutting funding 
for the arts will deny citizens this freedom, and detract from the 
quality of life in our nation as a whole.
  Recent reports have made several recommendations about the need to 
strengthen support for culture in our country. In addition to 
applauding our American spirit, and observing that an energetic 
cultural life contributes to a strong democracy, these reports also 
highlighted the United States' unique tradition of philantrophy. 
However, it was also noted that the ``Baby-Boomer'' generation, and new 
American corporations, are not fulfilling this standard of giving. It 
saddens me that something as important as the Arts, which has been so 
integral to our American heritage, is being cast aside by our younger 
generations as something of little value.
  By eliminating funding for the Arts, our nation would be the first 
among cultured nations to eliminate the Arts from our priorities. As 
Chairman Emeritus of the International Relations Committee, I recognize 
the importance of the Arts internationally, as they help foster a 
common appreciation of history and culture that are so essential to our 
humanity. If we eliminate the NEA, we would be erasing part of our 
civilization.
  Moreover, let us consider the importance of the Arts on our nation's 
children. Whether it is music or drama or dance, children are drawn to 
the Arts. Many after school programs give children the opportunity to 
express themselves in a positive venue, away from the temptations of 
drugs and violence. By giving children something to be proud of and 
passionate about, they can make good choices and avoid following the 
crowd down dark paths. However, many children are not able to enjoy the 
feeling of pride that comes with performing or creating because their 
schools are cutting arts programming or not offering it altogether. We 
need to ensure that this does not continue to happen. I am doing my 
part by introducing legislation to encourage the development of after 
school programs at schools around the country that not only offer 
sports and academic programming, but also music and arts activities. 
Increasing children's access to the Arts will benefit this country as a 
whole.
  It is our responsibility to ensure that our children have access to 
the Arts. I strongly support increased funding for the NEA and I urge 
my colleagues to oppose any amendments which seek to decrease NEA 
funding and I support the Slaughter-Dick-Johnson-Horn amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter/
Dicks amendment which calls for increased funding for the NEA/NEH and 
IMLS.
  I commend Mr. Dicks, the ranking Member of the Interior Subcommittee, 
for his support of this important priority and Ms. Slaughter for her 
leadership as Chair of the Arts Caucus. We owe a debt of gratitude to 
Louise for the time and energy she has given to promoting the arts on 
behalf of her colleagues and on behalf of the citizens of this country 
and to Norm for his continued steadfast support.
  National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Bill Ivey envisions ``An 
America where the arts play a central role in the lives of all 
Americans,'' and the NEA has indeed had great success in bringing the 
arts to the center of community life. Through its Challenge America 
initiative, the NEA has been focusing on access to the arts, cultural 
heritage preservation and alternatives for at-risk youth. An increase 
in funding is critical for ensuring access to the arts for citizens of 
all economic backgrounds and in all regions of the country. The NEA has 
substantially increased arts activity in every state in the country but 
it is imperative that we do more to ensure that art is reaching all 
Americans in communities across the nation.
  The arts are important for our economy and yield major economic 
benefits: the industry generates $3.86 billion annually, supports $1.3 
million jobs and returns $3.4 billion in income taxes to the federal 
government. The NEA represents less than one-hundredth of one percent 
of the federal budget and costs each American the equivalent of one 
postage stamp per year.
  More importantly, the arts are important for our children. Research 
continues to show that students exposed to the arts often perform 
better in school. The confidence children find through the arts better 
equips them to face both academic and other life challenges more 
effectively.
  But the founding fathers of our country knew this without the benefit 
of research. In a letter written to Abigail Adams, our second 
President, John Adams, wrote:

       ``I must study politics and war that my sons may have 
     liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to 
     study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, 
     naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture in 
     order to give their children a right to study painting, 
     poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and 
     porcelain.''

  Let's fund the arts so that we can guarantee our children the right 
to develop their creativity and imagination in order to express 
themselves freely while gaining confidence.
  The Poet Shelley once wrote that ``the greatest force for moral good 
is imagination.'' With all the challenges facing our nation's children, 
it is clear that we need all of the imagination they can muster. We 
must encourage a child's creativity for its own sake and for the 
confidence it engenders in the child.
  Support creativity, support imagination, support the Slaughter/Dicks 
amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlelady from New York, and Representatives Horn, 
Johnson and Dicks.
  I am a strong supporter of the NEA, the NEH and the IMLS. This 
amendment provides for a very modest increase in funding for these 
important programs.
  Yesterday we found several billion dollars to increase funding for 
the Pentagon.
  Today, we need to support our school, libraries, museums, and 
artistic programs, programs that make our communities more livable and 
our children more likely to succeed.
  I would like to point out that schools in my congressional district, 
in Attleboro, Foxboro, Worcester, Wrentham and Fall River, have all 
benefited from NEA grants and NEA-funded programs just in this last 
year.
  The NEA brought performing artists and companies to communities 
across the country, including Worcester and Fall River, Massachusetts.
  I have spoken before on this floor about the programs funded by the 
NEH and the Institute for Museum and Library Services program that have 
helped preserve history and protect important collections in my 
district. The arts, scholarship, research, collaboration--these are the 
fundamental services provided by these programs.
  I believe it is important to protect and promote our artistic and 
historical heritage. I believe it is a fundamental obligation for 
government at all levels--federal, state and municipal--to support 
these efforts.
  I fully support this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in 
support of this modest increase.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to voice my 
strong support

[[Page 11412]]

for this amendment which will add additional funding for the National 
Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and 
the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
  Mr. Chairman, the NEA serves a vital role in benefitting our 
communities, our children, and our economy. By providing grants to 
local communities, millions of children are exposed to the rich rewards 
of the arts. Studies have shown that children who experience the arts 
develop improved reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills, and 
are more likely to stay out of trouble.
  Aside from the benefits to young people, we cannot overlook the 
tremendous economic value that the arts provide.
  The creative industries reap more than $60 billion annually in 
overseas sales, and represent our nation's leading export.
  Additionally, the arts employ millions of Americans who depend upon 
this critical federal funding for their livelihoods.
  The Congress took an important step last year in approving a $7 
million increase for the NEA, the first increase since 1992. We must 
continue this trend, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the 
Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of the 
amendment offered by the distinguished gentlelady from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) and the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). 
The amendment would increase funding for the National Endowment for the 
Arts (NEA) by $10 million, the National Endowment for the Humanities 
(NEH) by $3 million and the Institute for Museums and Library Services 
by $2 million. The funds would be taken from the Clean Coal Technology 
Program and which would not be available until September 29, 2002.
  Nebraska is extremely well-served by the Nebraska Arts Council. For 
FY2001, the Council received a total of $522,600, from the formula NEA 
grant and additional competitive grants. This Member has been 
particularly supportive of the Nebraska Arts Council efforts to provide 
arts education and artists visits to rural schools, where there would 
be little or no access to arts education without the Council's 
involvement. Additionally, as part of a state-wide effort, the Nebraska 
Arts Council is hoping to have sufficient resources to provide funding 
for a series of murals in Nebraska City to commemorate the bicentennial 
of the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery expedition. This effort will 
contribute to the success of the Lewis and Clark events scheduled in 
Nebraska City and will enhance the experience of those visiting for the 
Lewis and Clark bicentennial.
  Federal funding for the arts allows small towns and communities 
across Nebraska to bring dancers and poets to schools, and lectures on 
Impressionist painting to town halls in the Sandhills. Federal support 
of the arts means that Lincoln, Nebraska, has a Civic Symphony and 
Omaha, Nebraska, a children's theater. These programs and institutions 
enrich all Nebraskans and are deserving of our wholehearted and 
enthusiastic support.
  In addition, this Member is strongly supportive of the excellent work 
done by the Nebraska Council on the Humanities. In an earlier statement 
today, this Member mentioned, as an example, the Humanities involvement 
in the Lewis and Clark bicentennial.
  In addition to the Teacher Institute, which will be held over the 
next few years, the Nebraska Humanities Council has many other programs 
that are related to the Lewis and Clark commemorations in Nebraska. 
There is a scholar-in-residence program, in which a nationally known 
expert share his knowledge and enthusiasm with students in six to ten 
schools over several years. Several annual Chautauquas will be devoted 
to the Lewis and Clark bicentennial through 2005. There will be teacher 
seminars and lectures in addition to the continuing availability of the 
existing speakers bureau.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support 
the Slaughter/Dicks amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I urge you today to vote in 
favor of the bi-partisan amendment introduced by Representatives 
Slaughter, Horn, Dicks and Johnson. The amendment will increase funding 
for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Humanities 
Council and the Office of Museum Services by $15 million, of which $10 
million will go to the NEA.
  This increase would take the NEA budget to $120 million. Though not 
the $150 million the agency requested to fully support the Challenge 
America initiative, it makes important inroads into funding the arts in 
parts of our country which have not received NEA support before. In a 
community like my own, these new monies will reach out to community 
organizations and cultural groups, previously unfunded, working to 
bring the arts to our children in after school programs.
  Challenge America is designed to strengthen communities through the 
creation of partnerships that support arts programs. This program funds 
projects serving arts education, access for underserved areas, youth-
at-risk, cultural heritage preservation and community arts 
partnerships. These partnerships represent what the arts do so well. 
Arts organizations working with schools, libraries, local businesses to 
make the arts available for everyone.
  There are numerous studies that point to the benefits of art 
experience and instruction. The arts increase the ability of students 
to perform better in all areas of education. There are numerous studies 
that point out the economic impact of the arts in communities small and 
large. And we all know that quality of life is enhanced when the arts 
are a central part of a community's life.
  The NEA has for over 30 years been a partner in those partnerships. 
Challenge America will being federal dollars into more communities to 
help more children and families. I urge you to support the Slaughter 
amendment and increase the budget of the federal cultural agencies by 
$15 million.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221, 
noes 193, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 177]

                               AYES--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--193

     Akin
     Armey
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr

[[Page 11413]]


     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McIntyre
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     DeFazio
       

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Aderholt
     Baca
     Bachus
     Callahan
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Dingell
     Everett
     Fattah
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     McInnis
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush

                              {time}  1234

  Messrs. HUNTER, SHUSTER, HUTCHINSON, HILLEARY and GUTKNECHT changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I regret that due to a physician's 
appointment I was unable to cast a vote on the Slaughter amendment to 
H.R. 2217 (Roll 177), to increase funding for the National Endowment 
for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the 
Institute of Museum and Library Services by $15 million.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 
I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee 
in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico for his 
hard work and leadership on the interior appropriations bill and 
mention that it is not the same on the agriculture appropriations bill 
without the gentleman's presence.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to address an issue concerning a devastating 
disease. It is called the sudden oak death syndrome; and as the 
gentleman knows, sudden oak death has left miles of dead tanoaks and 
oaks in woodlands across California. In addition to its forest impacts, 
this disease has a potential impact on interstate and international 
trade. Both Canada and the State of Oregon have issued emergency 
quarantines banning the importation of nursery stock such as 
rhododendrons, azaleas and huckleberries.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that this bill does not include the 
resources necessary to address the lack of fundamental knowledge and 
tools for effective eradication or containment of sudden oak death.
  I am prepared to offer an amendment to increase the funding for the 
Forest Service and Range Land Research Account. However, I am 
encouraged to hear by the gentleman's efforts that he has agreed to 
work with me; and will, therefore, withhold offering my amendment at 
this time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind words, 
and I assure the gentleman that I will work in conference to address 
his concerns regarding the search for funds for sudden oak death.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I look 
forward to working with him in solving this problem in much of the 
West.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word. I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the subcommittee, as well as the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, it was my initial intention to offer an amendment to 
increase funding for the Indian Health Services Loan Repayment Program 
by $17 million. The Indian Loan Repayment Program is designed as a 
recruitment and retention tool for health care professionals who are 
willing to serve in the American Indian and Alaskan Native communities 
in exchange for relief from their substantial loan burdens.
  As my colleagues from New Mexico and Washington know, the state of 
health care in Indian country is far from ideal. American Indians and 
Alaskan Natives have incidences that are 950 percent higher for 
diabetes, 630 percent higher with respect to tuberculosis, and 350 
percent higher when it comes to diabetes when compared to their non-
Native counterparts.
  In the area of mental health, the incidence of suicide among Native 
Americans is 72 percent higher, and greater than the rate for all other 
races in the United States.
  As a new member of the Committee on Appropriations, let me commend 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) for increasing the overall Indian Health 
Services budget by $124 million, for a total of almost $2.4 billion. I 
have been witness to the difficult budget decisions that the gentlemen 
must have made; and given the accounts in this bill, I appreciate their 
consideration on this issue. I think we all can agree that historical 
funding levels for IHS have represented only a fraction of the 
resources necessary to equalize the health care between Native and non-
Native communities.
  I believe that the subcommittee has approached the pressing need of 
Indian health with the utmost sincerity, and to this point has made the 
most of what has been allocated. For this reason I have decided not to 
offer my amendment, instead opting to ask that the gentleman from New 
Mexico and the gentleman from Washington proceed to conference with the 
United States Senate so they can consider increasing the allocation for 
the loan repayment program.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. As a strong 
proponent for programs of American Indians and Alaskan Native people, I 
share his concerns about the condition of health care in Indian 
country. I want to assure the gentleman that funding for the Indian 
Health Service remains a top priority. I look forward to working with 
the gentleman to try and increase IHS funding as the process moves 
forward.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues in their assertion that 
the IHS needs more resources to address the health care disparities 
within Indian country. The health care needs of many American Indian 
and Alaskan Natives are not being met. Clearly it is our responsibility 
to address these health disparities. I appreciate the gentleman's 
efforts, and look forward to

[[Page 11414]]

working with him as we complete the fiscal year 2002 budget process. I 
appreciate his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
and the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like 
to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee On 
Interior of the Committee On Appropriations.
  Much of the land within the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge in 
Maine is protected today. However, several in-holdings and other areas 
of critical concern are not. The Rachel Carson Wildlife Refuge consists 
of tidal creeks, coastal uplands, sandy dunes, salt ponds, and various 
types of wetlands that provide precious nesting and feeding habitat for 
a variety of migratory waterfowl, and a nursery for many shellfish and 
fin fish.
  The refuge also serves our communities by providing countless 
individuals and school groups the opportunity to gain firsthand 
knowledge of the critical and unusual nature of Maine's coastal 
habitats.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an opportunity in fiscal year 2002 to purchase 
properties for the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge. Southern 
Maine is witnessing rapid development. Without preservation, coastal 
and wetland habitats are at great risk. I ask for the gentleman's 
assistance to identify funding for a $3 million appropriation from the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund. This would ensure that the 
opportunity to protect these properties is not lost.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this 
project to the committee's attention; and we will give his request 
serious consideration as we move to conference.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, last night I should have voted ``yes'' as 
opposed to ``no'' on the final passage of the supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman needs to make his unanimous consent 
request when the body sits in the House, not the Committee of the 
Whole.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 7, line 11, insert ``(increased by $12,000,000)'' 
     after ``$200,000,000''.
       Page 87, line 13, insert ``(reduced by $52,000,000)'' after 
     ``$579,000,000''.
       Page 89, line 5, insert ``(increased by $36,000,000)'' 
     after ``$940,805,000''.
       Page 89, line 6, insert ``(increased by $24,000,000)'' 
     after ``$311,000,000''.
       Page 89, line 11, insert ``(increased by $24,000,000)'' 
     after ``$249,000,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this tripartisan amendment which 
is cosponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  This amendment is similar in many ways to an amendment that was 
passed by voice vote last year, and that passed with 248 votes 2 years 
ago. This amendment is also supported by a broad coalition of 
environmental and public interest groups, including the League of 
Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, Public Citizen, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and the 
National Association of State Energy Officials.

                              {time}  1245

  This amendment accomplishes three primary goals. First, in the midst 
of the worst energy crisis that this country has faced in 25 years, 
this amendment adds $24 million to the very successful weatherization 
program. All over this country, lower income people and senior citizens 
are wasting huge amounts of energy because their homes are inadequately 
insulated. While I appreciate the good work of Ranking Members Obey and 
Dicks and Chairmen Young and Skeen to increase funding for this program 
from last year, it is still not enough. In fact, the $249 million 
provided in this bill for weatherization is $24 million less than the 
President's budget request. In other words, all that we are doing here 
is funding the weatherization program at the same level the President 
has requested. I should tell Members that I have been very critical of 
the President's funding for energy in general.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides an additional $12 
million for a number of other energy conservation programs. The various 
programs have been highly successful in leveraging State and private 
funds in terms of reducing the energy used by homeowners, schools, 
hospitals, farmers and others. No one denies that our country can do 
much more in a wide range of energy conservation efforts, and this 
additional funding will provide some help in that direction.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, this amendment also increases the payments in 
lieu of taxes program by $12 million, something that I and many other 
Members have been deeply interested in for a number of years. Mr. 
Chairman, the PILT program was established to address the fact that the 
Federal Government does not pay taxes on the land that it owns. These 
Federal lands can include national forests, national parks, fish and 
wildlife refuges and land owned by the Bureau of Land Management. Like 
local property taxes, PILT payments are used to pay for school budgets, 
law enforcement, search and rescue, fire fighting, parks and recreation 
and other municipal expenses. The PILT program benefits 1,789 counties 
in 49 States throughout the country. I appreciate the committee's 
increasing funding for this program. They have. But once again because 
of woefully inadequate funding in recent years, we have got a long way 
to go. We cannot talk about respect for local government and then not 
pay them the amounts of money that we have to.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of the Sanders-Quinn-Kind amendment. This amendment 
to the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill increases funding 
to provide $48 million for the weatherization assistance program, for 
PILT and for energy conservation. The weatherization assistance program 
has been highly successful and helped so many of our constituents. 
Increasing the weatherization assistance program by $24 million raises 
funding to the level that President Bush has requested in his fiscal 
year 2002 budget, as the gentleman from Vermont has pointed out.
  Mr. Chairman, weatherization does work. It is a vital program that 
improves the energy efficiency for low-income families throughout our 
great Nation. These programs assist those most in need, those least 
able to afford the high cost of energy. This beneficial program saves 
our low-income constituents about $200 a year in heating costs. That is 
$200 more that our hardworking families can now spend on food, 
clothing, housing costs and for other necessities.
  Mr. Chairman, in this energy crisis, energy conservation is and 
should be on everyone's mind. The energy conservation program has a 
proven track record. This program assists our hospitals, our farmers, 
our homeowners, our schools and others to be able to reduce their cost 
of energy. The savings on energy allow our hospitals and schools to use 
the funds that would have gone towards energy costs to go towards 
education and medical care.

[[Page 11415]]

One reason for the success of the energy conservation program is the 
effective leveraging of significant amounts of State and private funds.
  Mr. Chairman, the exorbitant costs of gasoline and other sources of 
energy have been devastating to our small businesses, to our truckers 
and so many of our constituents. In order to remedy this energy crisis 
and to mitigate its effects on the future, we need to invest in energy 
efficient technologies. We need these technologies now. We must invest 
in our future and in the future of our children.
  Mr. Chairman, another important provision of the Sanders-Quinn-Kind 
weatherization/PILT amendment is the $12 million allocated towards 
payments in lieu of taxes which provides our counties and towns with 
welcome relief from the burden of supporting nontaxable Federal lands. 
I have a good portion of those lands in my district. In addition, 
through PILT, the Federal Government has the opportunity to give back 
to the communities for the services they provide to the lands. My 
congressional district is among the 1,789 counties throughout 49 States 
that benefit from PILT.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, in the face of this energy crisis, we need 
to be proactive in order to combat the high prices for energy and to 
create energy-saving and energy-efficient technologies. The Sanders-
Kind-Quinn amendment is proactive and laudable. Accordingly, I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia will be recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, no one in this House has been a more 
longstanding supporter of the weatherization program than I have, but 
this amendment deserves to be defeated. I oppose it on two grounds: 
First of all, we had a major victory in the committee on the issue of 
weatherization. This bill includes $311 million. That is a 63 percent 
increase over last year. The committee's original number was $60 
million lower. We negotiated it up to double that amount.
  The gentleman mentions the $24 million by which it is below the 
President. That is only because that $24 million was used to insulate 
schools and hospitals which is an equally deserving requirement. None 
of us should be ashamed of doing that.
  Secondly, I would point out that this amendment actually reduces 
funds for fossil energy research. We need a balanced research program 
in all areas of energy research. That includes research on more 
efficient power plants and distributed generation technologies which 
are part of the fossil energy program that this amendment seeks to cut. 
In fact, the Democratic minority in the committee supported an 
amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) to increase 
fossil fuel energy research along with energy conservation by $200 
million. I think it would be foolish for us to support an amendment 
today which reduces funding for any energy research program.
  This amendment seeks to increase a fund which we have already 
increased by 63 percent by cutting further a fund which is already $4 
million below last year. That makes no sense if we are trying to 
achieve a balanced program.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. No one in the House is a bigger supporter of the 
weatherization program than this Member. Weatherization funds are 
critical to lower income families who look for long-term savings in the 
cost of home energy through conservation, in particular insulating 
their homes.
  I oppose this amendment, however, for two important reasons. First, 
the chairman and the committee have been extremely generous, as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out, to the 
weatherization program in the committee bill. The bill includes $311 
million for weatherization and State energy assistance. This is a $120 
million, 63 percent increase over last year. Yes, the gentleman is 
correct, the committee has allocated $24 million of this increase to 
programs to insulate schools and hospitals. I personally believe that 
this is a reasonable accommodation given the energy use of these 
facilities. The bottom line is that I want to support the chairman in 
his overall generosity to these programs.
  Second and equally important, I cannot support an amendment which 
reduces funding for fossil energy research. I believe that the lesson 
of the current energy crisis is that we need a larger and a balanced 
research program in all areas of energy research. This includes 
research on more efficient power plants and distributed generation 
technologies, which are part of the fossil energy program. The minority 
supported an amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) in 
committee to increase fossil energy along with energy conservation 
research by $200 million. I do not think we should support an amendment 
today which reduces funding for energy research programs. Therefore, I 
rise in very strong opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friends, of course, are right. We do take money from the fossil 
fuel energy research and development program in order to fund 
weatherization, in order to fund energy conservation, in order to fund 
the long overdue efforts to bring PILT payments to where they should 
be.
  Mr. Chairman, regarding the fossil fuel energy research and 
development program, let me quote from the report of the fiscal year 
1997 Republican budget resolution:
  ``The Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars on research 
and development since the oil crisis in 1973 triggered this activity. 
Returns on this investment have not been cost effective, particularly 
for applied research and development which industry has ample incentive 
to undertake. Some of this activity is simply corporate welfare for the 
oil, gas and utility industries. Much of it duplicates what industry is 
already doing. Some has gone to fund technology in which the market has 
no interest.''
  That is the Republican budget resolution of 1997, not Bernie Sanders.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kind).
  Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. First of 
all, we appreciate the work that is being done in the Committee on 
Appropriations between the chairman and the ranking member and the 
subcommittee chairman and ranking member, but the fight is not here 
with this amendment. The fight is with an administration that submitted 
a budget that drastically reduced energy research programs by between 
48 and 52 percent across the board, whether it was alternative or 
renewable energy sources. It is also an administration that claims that 
they will restore funding to these programs but only after they collect 
oil royalties from drilling up in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 
If there is a skewing of priorities here, I would submit it is with the 
administration in their energy plan and the budget that they had 
submitted.
  This weatherization program is important to people across the 
country, not only in my district in western Wisconsin but throughout 
the United States. In light of the fact that we just passed a large tax 
cut about a month ago which disproportionately benefits the wealthiest 
of the wealthy in this country, this weatherization program assists 
low-income families in order to weatherize their homes and businesses 
so that they can better deal with the rising energy costs that are 
sweeping across the country right now.
  Just a couple of short months after the Vice President's now infamous 
statement that conservation may be a noble value but it is not any real 
underpinning of a sensible energy policy,

[[Page 11416]]

the State of California has reduced their energy consumption by 11 
percent, which shows you the value of conservation and increased energy 
efficiency in this country.
  That is all this amendment is trying to do, bolster those types of 
programs in energy conservation, in energy efficiency for low-income 
families, as well as provide some much needed revenue relief back to 
local districts with the PILT program who are financing the nontaxable 
Federal property that exists in their local communities. That is why we 
feel that this amendment is eminently fair, why we need to make this 
investment. I appreciate my friend from Vermont highlighting some of 
the difficulties a lot of analysts have revealed in regard to the coal 
research program, which I think needs further exploration.
  Mr. Chairman, much of the focus on our current energy crisis has been 
the rising price of gasoline. But in my district and throughout the 
country, the price of heating oil has risen as much as 40 percent in 
the past year. Conservation efforts such as the Weatherization 
Assistance Program go a long way to helping us become less dependent on 
foreign oil.
  The Weatherization Assistance Program helps correct the 
disproportionate energy burden faced by low-income Americans. The 
program has helped make over five million homes more energy efficient 
and the average home has seen heating savings of 23 percent. With many 
low-income households spending over $1,100 on energy costs annually, 
this energy efficiency savings can further help these families afford 
the basic necessities of life. Mr. Chairman, we do not want any of our 
citizens having to make the difficult choice between food and fuel. I 
urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the past chairman of the subcommittee 
and an active and current member.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). I 
do not want to be repetitive, they had it exactly right.
  There are a couple of other things I would like to point out and, 
that is, this takes money from research on pipelines. Last year, in 
connection with the Northeast heating oil program, we put tanks in New 
York Harbor because there are not enough pipelines in the Northeast to 
deliver fuel. Here we have a chance to do research on putting these 
pipelines in without disturbing the surface. That program of research 
is cut.
  Something else I want to point out, and that is that in the LIHEAP 
program, which is in the Labor, Health, Human Services and Education 
bill, 15 percent of the LIHEAP money goes to weatherization. So the 
effect of the $300 million that we added in the supplemental this week 
actually provides 45 million additional dollars for weatherization.
  What we are talking about here today in effect is a double dip. I 
think this is a bad amendment. It takes money from research that is 
vitally important for fuel cells and for other forms of alternative 
fuels.

                              {time}  1300

  As we face an energy crisis, one of the great hopes we have is to 
develop alternative ways of providing fuel rather than to just scatter 
this in other programs. For all the reasons, and particularly as they 
were outlined by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), it is a bad amendment in terms 
of our overall energy policy; and I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is true, this would take some money from fossil 
energy. For instance, Chevron, whose profits last year were $5.2 
billion, up from $2 billion in 1999, that is a $3 billion 1-year 
increase, they will get $5 million or more under this bill as they did 
last year. The Phillips Petroleum, profits 1999 only $700 million, last 
year $1.9 billion. They got $7 million from this program last year.
  Am I being told that Phillips Petroleum and Chevron will not make 
these investments themselves, and they cannot afford to make it 
themselves? That is not true. There are millions of Americans who 
cannot afford to make even more cost-effective investments themselves 
in weatherization. We can get three or four times as many kilowatts 
with weatherization for the price in today's market. We can get three 
or four times more with conservation programs than we can in the most 
efficient fossil-fired fuel plants in this country.
  This amendment makes sense for individual Americans and for 
residential ratepayers; but it does not, I must admit my colleagues are 
right, it does not make sense for Westinghouse, Phillips Petroleum, GE, 
and other companies that just cannot afford to make these investments 
on their own.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we have 600 years of coal reserves 
underneath the ground. Even in my district people want to burn coal 
cleanly, and in order to burn coal cleanly we have to have research to 
do that. It is absolutely essential to my district, as well as western 
Pennsylvania.
  We have lost 10,000 or 12,000 coal miners in western Pennsylvania in 
the last 20 years. The thing that worries us is that if we do not do 
the research, in the end we will not be able to burn the coal cleanly.
  Every year, we try to balance in this bill all the agencies that need 
money. We increased weatherization. We increased fossil research. The 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) offered the amendment. We 
supported the amendment. Now that we are going through an energy 
crisis, when 52 percent of our electricity is produced by coal 
production, it would be foolish for us to eliminate this resource.
  So I would urge all the Members in the House to vote against this 
amendment. It is essential to the future of this country to have a 
consistent, low-cost energy resource. So I would hope that we would 
vote against this amendment and get on with the bill.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), a member of the committee.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston) very much for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sanders amendment. I want 
to offer a little different perspective. Certainly we can acknowledge 
that the increase in the weatherization has been substantial, 64 
percent I think it is in the committee, and yet we have reduced the 
energy research account as well; but now the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) wants to reduce it even more. I think that is a mistake.
  My perspective is this: energy research on fossil fuels, oil and gas 
and coal in this country, is conducted primarily by small outfits, 
small independent companies that have either family owned or small 
entrepreneurial operations that have small numbers of employees. So 
this is not a big oil-and-gas reduction attempt. This is going to hurt 
small companies and jobs in smaller communities that will add to the 
research that we need to make sure that we do achieve greater 
independence in the years ahead on fossil fuels. Whether we like it or 
not, we are dependent on fossil fuels in this country; 52 percent coal 
dependent, substantial oil and gas dependence.
  What we do not want to do is be dependent for our national security 
interests on foreign imports from countries around the world. That is 
dangerous for our country. This energy fossil fuel research and 
technology development will allow us to be more independent in the 
coming years, and it is critically important that we do that research 
to become more independent and become technologically adept at meeting 
the challenges of energy supply.

[[Page 11417]]

  I am one who favors PILT, increase in the PILT account; but I think 
under this circumstance it is a balanced approach that we have adopted, 
and I urge a rejection of the amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). At a time when the 
entire country's attention is focused on the need for a national energy 
policy which is comprehensive, balanced and improves the overall 
national security by reducing our dependency on foreign sources, I 
believe a move to slash $52 million from energy R&D will produce 
unwarranted and detrimental effects that will only make the current 
situation worse. Now is not the time to be short-sighted in making our 
funding decisions.
  We have heard the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) speak eloquently to the fact that 
both of these programs, which we all support, PILT and weatherization, 
have been adequately funded in this bill. The gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) talks about the benefit of energy R&D research. If 
Members do take time to do a brief cost-benefit analysis, they will 
find that supporting energy R&D efforts is the most efficient, 
effective, and timely investment we can make; and for those Members who 
think that slashing $52 million from fossil energy research, that they 
are somehow going to improve the environment, they should think again 
about that disjointed logic of such a conclusion.
  Consider the following that has occurred as a result of energy R&D: 
we now see the possibility of zero-emission power plants using coal, 
natural gas, municipal waste and biomass; and research is under way to 
capture and sequester carbon dioxide. DOE's FE research program has a 
solid record of success. We have over $9 billion of commercial sales, 
of fluidized bed combustors that have been made, a commercial return of 
over $9 for every $1 of DOE investment. More than 200 commercial fuel 
cells operate in the United States and overseas and the most efficient, 
cleanest gas turbine in the world has ``Made in America'' stamped on 
it.
  Without question, FE R&D is a lot more than just coal and fossil 
energy research, and development does more than one might have imagined 
to help all of our constituents meet their needs when it comes to 
paying their energy needs. Please defeat this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my friends talk about slashing fossil fuel research. If 
our amendment passes, it would represent an increase of $58 million 
more than the President wanted and $75 million more than fiscal year 
2001. That is not exactly slashing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment, and I do so with the full understanding and appreciation for 
the increase in the weatherization program. I appreciate that, but the 
realty is that if there is not enough in the pot to begin with, we 
cannot get out of it what is not there.
  I come from an environment where it is always too hot or too cold, 
always. I have more than 165,000 low-income consumers who live at or 
below the poverty level in a high-priced economic market. All of the 
time, every day of their lives, they are always moaning, groaning, 
crying about the inability to have a comfortable environment in which 
to live.
  While I appreciate research, am a strong proponent of it, we know 
that weatherization works. We know that it works. I support this 
amendment and would urge its passage to give relief to those 
individuals who need it now because we know that weatherization does 
work.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), not 
because of the programs that he wishes to fund, but from where he is 
taking the money from.
  We are in an energy crisis, and we need to take full advantage of all 
of our own natural resources. We should be increasing investment in 
research and development, not decreasing it.
  I represent the androcyte coal fields of Pennsylvania, and there is a 
DOE-funded program there taking advantage of a decades' old technology 
of converting coal and waste coal into gasoline.
  We need to do that. We are too dependent upon foreign oil.
  I had the opportunity to visit Penn State University a few months ago 
and look at the noncombustible applications that are being done there 
in their research and development, where they can convert coal and 
waste coal again into graphite, which is strong and light; and the 
automobile industry and the aircraft industry are looking at it for 
applications there because of its strength and how light it is.
  We need to up our investment in research and development of fossil 
fuels, not decrease it. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against 
this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple of points. According to the 
Republican Committee on the Budget, the fossil fuel research program is 
largely corporate welfare and ineffective. According to the CBO, let me 
quote, ``The appropriateness of Federal Government funding for such 
research and development is questionable,'' CBO.
  Mr. Chairman, I can understand why some of my good friends want to 
see this research, fossil fuel research, expanded. Thirty-eight percent 
of the money goes to two States. Weatherization goes to 50 States. The 
bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that we are increasing funding for 
weatherization desperately needed. Hundreds of thousands of Americans 
cannot get into a program which saves them money and protects the 
environment. We are expanding money for other energy conservation 
programs, and we are putting more money in to programs that compensate 
local governments when the Federal Government is using their property, 
the PILT program.
  Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of a major energy crisis, the worst 
crisis this country has experienced in over 25 years. Let us stand with 
lower-income people all over this country. Let us help them weatherize 
the homes in which they are living. Let us stand with small communities 
all over this country who deserve fair PILT funding. Let us stand with 
those people who say we are doing nowhere near enough in terms of 
energy conservation.
  This is a good amendment, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), because I know he had some points he wanted to 
make.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me repeat again, this amendment increases a program 
which we have already increased by 63 percent. It cuts fossil fuels 
which we have already cut by 4 percent. There is nothing wrong with 
research for more efficient power plants or distributed generation 
technologies or pipeline improvement. Those are some of the programs 
this amendment would cut. This amendment is well meaning but it is ill 
advised and ill targeted.
  I have defended weatherization longer than any other person in this 
Chamber, and I stand here today urging a no vote on this amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say this, again summarizing our bipartisan 
opposition to this amendment, that PILT is funded at the historically 
high level in this bill of $200 million. That is $50 million above the 
budget request.

[[Page 11418]]



                              {time}  1315

  Weatherization programs receive a 70 percent increase in funding 
above last year.
  Here we are in an energy crisis, and energy conservation research 
funding has been restored to last year's historically high level, which 
is a good increase. But we need to continue that research. We need to 
keep the commitment. Fossil energy research after deducting the 
President's clean coal power initiative is below last year's level. 
Further cuts would be foolhardy.
  This amendment is bad for our energy security, bad for the consumer 
who purchases energy, and bad for the economy. We need to continue our 
research. We need to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders-
Quinn-Kind amendment to increase funding for low-income weatherization 
and energy efficiency.
  What we do in this amendment is fairly simple. Most significantly, we 
increase weatherization by $24 million which would bring overall 
funding up to the Bush administration requested level of $273 million. 
Weatherization is a program that is proven and really works to increase 
energy conservation.
  Through this program, low income families save $200 a year in heating 
costs, and these modest savings can be used for other important family 
needs such as food, clothing, housing and other basic necessities of 
life.
  In addition, we increase overall state conservation programs by $12 
million, and increases the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program by 
$12 million.
  We would offset these increases by cutting the Fossil Fuel R&D 
program by $52 million.
  Last year's amendment on this issue passed by a voice vote, and I 
hope that this year we will have a similar level of support from this 
Body. I urge Members to pass the Sanders-Quinn amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
will be postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
       Page 36, beginning at line 1, strike ``under a comparable 
     royalty-in-value program'' and insert ``under the existing 
     royalty-in-value program, including the royalty valuation 
     procedures established by the final rule published by the 
     Minerals Management Service on March 15, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 
     14022 et seq.)''.

  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking member and the Chair 
for working with me on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in an attempt to stop giving 
corporate welfare to America's oil companies. This amendment simply 
clarifies that royalty-in-kind must earn at least as much money for the 
Federal Government as a royalty-in-value program operating under the 
new rules put in effect last year.
  For too long, major oil companies were paying fees to the Federal 
Government based on prices that were lower than market value. Basically 
the oil companies kept two sets of books; one which they paid each 
other based on market value, and one which was much lower that they 
paid to the Federal Government and the American taxpayers. Now, it is 
one thing for oil to be slick; it is quite another for oil companies to 
be slick at the expense of the American taxpayer.
  In a bipartisan way, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and I 
held hearings to investigate money that major oil companies owed the 
Federal Government. Our hearings showed that many of these companies 
were underpaying fees, costing the American taxpayer nearly $100 
million a year.
  Many companies were sued by the Federal Government for deliberate 
underpayment of fees. Most have elected to settle, and to date over 
$425 million has been collected. Combined with State and private 
lawsuits, the oil industry has reluctantly paid to the government close 
to $5 billion to settle these underpayment claims.
  The Interior Department's new oil valuation rule, which was announced 
last year, will save taxpayers at least $67 million each year by 
ensuring that oil companies pay the fair market value for the oil that 
is taken from Federal lands.
  Now that we have finally put a stop to the industry's secret scheme 
and are collecting a fair amount for fees for the American taxpayer, we 
are now being asked to examine an entirely new system of fee 
collection. Now the oil industry is telling us that they do not want to 
pay in money, they want to pay in oil.
  The last I heard, money was still the currency of the United States, 
and the American taxpayer should demand no less. The oil companies call 
it a new way to pay; I call it a new way to stiff America's taxpayers.
  Today I offer an amendment to guarantee that the industry fees, the 
so-called royalty-in-kind program, earns at least fair market value or 
more. Why the need for this amendment? Independent analysis shows that 
in almost all cases, the government, under the oil industry plan, would 
have lost revenue compared to actual market prices. In fact, the 
government actually lost almost $3 million when you compare what was 
received via royalty-in-kind with what would have been collected with 
fair market value.
  Mr. Chairman, the royalty-in-kind program puts the Federal Government 
into the oil business; not because it will save taxpayers money. It 
will actually cost them more. Not because it is more efficient; that 
has not been shown. No, we are asking the Federal Government to enter 
into the oil business because big oil can no longer get away with 
cheating taxpayers out of their fair share of royalties received for 
value. That is the only reason that I have seen to support this 
particular program.
  Today, all we are asking is that if you are going to move ahead with 
this program, we should make sure that it is not costing taxpayers 
money, that it in fact is tied to fair market value.
  I hope that my colleagues will support in a bipartisan way this 
amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the gentlewoman's 
amendment. My reading of the amendment is it just codifies the current 
program.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Chairman Skeen) that we appreciate his willingness to accept 
the amendment, and compliment the gentlewoman for her hard work on this 
issue.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title II be 
considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The text of title II is as follows:

                       TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             Forest Service


                     forest and rangeland research

       For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as 
     authorized by law, $236,979,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                       state and private forestry

       For necessary expenses of cooperating with and providing 
     technical and financial assistance to States, territories, 
     possessions, and others, and for forest health management,

[[Page 11419]]

     cooperative forestry, and education and land conservation 
     activities and conducting an international program as 
     authorized, $277,771,000, to remain available until expended, 
     as authorized by law, of which $60,000,000 is for the Forest 
     Legacy Program, $8,000,000 is for the Stewardship Incentives 
     Program, and $36,000,000 is for the Urban and Community 
     Forestry Program, defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(ix) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, for the purposes of such Act: Provided, That, 
     hereafter, ``Forest Service State and Private Forestry, 
     Stewardship Incentives Program'' shall be considered to be 
     within the ``State and Other Conservation sub-category'' in 
     section 250(c)(4)(G) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds provided under this heading for the 
     acquisition of lands or interests in lands shall be available 
     until the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate 
     Committee on Appropriations provide to the Secretary, in 
     writing, a list of specific acquisitions to be undertaken 
     with such funds.

                         national forest system

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided, for management, protection, improvement, and 
     utilization of the National Forest System, $1,326,445,000, to 
     remain available until expended, which shall include 50 
     percent of all moneys received during prior fiscal years as 
     fees collected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
     of 1965, as amended, in accordance with section 4 of the Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)): Provided, That unobligated balances 
     available at the start of fiscal year 2002 shall be displayed 
     by budget line item in the fiscal year 2003 budget 
     justification: Provided further, That the Secretary may 
     authorize the expenditure or transfer of such sums as 
     necessary to the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 
     Management for removal, preparation, and adoption of excess 
     wild horses and burros from National Forest System lands.


                        wildland fire management

       For necessary expenses for forest fire presuppression 
     activities on National Forest System lands, for emergency 
     fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands 
     under fire protection agreement, and for emergency 
     rehabilitation of burned-over National Forest System lands 
     and water, $1,402,305,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That such funds including unobligated 
     balances under this head, are available for repayment of 
     advances from other appropriations accounts previously 
     transferred for such purposes: Provided further, That not 
     less than 50 percent of any unobligated balances remaining 
     (exclusive of amounts for hazardous fuels reduction) at the 
     end of fiscal year 2000 shall be transferred, as repayment 
     for past advances that have not been repaid, to the fund 
     established pursuant to section 3 of Public Law 71-319 (16 
     U.S.C. 576 et seq.): Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, $8,000,000 of funds appropriated 
     under this appropriation shall be used for Fire Science 
     Research in support of the Joint Fire Science Program: 
     Provided further, That all authorities for the use of funds, 
     including the use of contracts, grants, and cooperative 
     agreements, available to execute the Forest and Rangeland 
     Research appropriation, are also available in the utilization 
     of these funds for Fire Science Research: Provided further, 
     That funds provided shall be available for emergency 
     rehabilitation and restoration, hazard reduction activities 
     in the urban-wildland interface, support to federal emergency 
     response, and wildfire suppression activities of the Forest 
     Service; Provided further, That of the funds provided, 
     $227,010,000 is for hazardous fuel treatment, $81,000,000 is 
     for rehabilitation and restoration, $38,000,000 is for 
     capital improvement and maintenance of fire facilities, 
     $27,265,000 is for research activities and to make 
     competitive research grants pursuant to the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 1641 et seq.), $50,383,000 is for state fire 
     assistance, $8,262,000 is for volunteer fire assistance, 
     $11,974,000 is for forest health activities on state, 
     private, and federal lands, and $12,472,000 is for economic 
     action programs: Provided further, That amounts in this 
     paragraph may be transferred to the ``State and Private 
     Forestry'', ``National Forest System'', ``Forest and 
     Rangeland Research'', and ``Capital Improvement and 
     Maintenance'' accounts to fund state fire assistance, 
     volunteer fire assistance, and forest health management, 
     vegetation and watershed management, heritage site 
     rehabilitation, wildlife and fish habitat management, trails 
     and facilities maintenance and restoration: Provided further, 
     That transfers of any amounts in excess of those authorized 
     in this paragraph, shall require approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with 
     reprogramming procedures contained in House Report No. 105-
     163: Provided further, That the costs of implementing any 
     cooperative agreement between the Federal government and any 
     non-Federal entity may be shared, as mutually agreed on by 
     the affected parties: Provided further, That in entering into 
     such grants or cooperative agreements, the Secretary may 
     consider the enhancement of local and small business 
     employment opportunities for rural communities, and that in 
     entering into procurement contracts under this section on a 
     best value basis, the Secretary may take into account the 
     ability of an entity to enhance local and small business 
     employment opportunities in rural communities, and that the 
     Secretary may award procurement contracts, grants, or 
     cooperative agreements under this section to entities that 
     include local non-profit entities, Youth Conservation Corps 
     or related partnerships with State, local or non-profit youth 
     groups, or small or disadvantaged businesses: Provided 
     further, That:
       (1) In expending the funds provided with respect to this 
     Act for hazardous fuels reduction, the Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture may conduct fuel 
     reduction treatments on Federal lands using all contracting 
     and hiring authorities available to the Secretaries 
     applicable to hazardous fuel reduction activities under the 
     wildland fire management accounts. Notwithstanding Federal 
     government procurement and contracting laws, the Secretaries 
     may conduct fuel reduction treatments on Federal lands using 
     grants and cooperative agreements. Notwithstanding Federal 
     government procurement and contracting laws, in order to 
     provide employment and training opportunities to people in 
     rural communities, the Secretaries may award contracts, 
     including contracts for monitoring activities, to--
       (A) local private, nonprofit, or cooperative entities;
       (B) Youth Conservation Corps crews or related partnerships, 
     with State, local and non-profit youth groups;
       (C) small or micro-businesses; or
       (D) other entities that will hire or train a significant 
     percentage of local people to complete such contracts. The 
     authorities described above relating to contracts, grants, 
     and cooperative agreements are available until all funds 
     provided in this title for hazardous fuels reduction 
     activities in the urban wildland interface are obligated.
       (2)(A) The Secretary of Agriculture may transfer or 
     reimburse funds to the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service of the Department of the Interior, or the National 
     Marine Fisheries Service of the Department of Commerce, for 
     the costs of carrying out their responsibilities under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to 
     consult and conference as required by section 7 of such Act 
     in connection with wildland fire management activities in 
     fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
       (B) Only those funds appropriated for fiscal years 2001 and 
     2002 to Forest Service (USDA) for wildland fire management 
     are available to the Secretary of Agriculture for such 
     transfer or reimbursement.
       (C) The amount of the transfer or reimbursement shall be as 
     mutually agreed by the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of Commerce, as 
     applicable, or their designees. The amount shall in no case 
     exceed the actual costs of consultation and conferencing in 
     connection with wildland fire management activities affecting 
     National Forest System lands.
       For an additional amount, to liquidate obligations 
     previously incurred, $274,147,000.


                  capital improvement and maintenance

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service, not otherwise 
     provided for, $535,513,000, to remain available until 
     expended for construction, reconstruction, maintenance and 
     acquisition of buildings and other facilities, and for 
     construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance of 
     forest roads and trails by the Forest Service as authorized 
     by 16 U.S.C. 532-538 and 23 U.S.C. 101 and 205, of which 
     $50,000,000 is for ``Federal Infrastructure Improvement'', 
     defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(xiv) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for 
     the purposes of such Act: Provided, That fiscal year 2001 
     balances in the Federal Infrastructure Improvement account 
     for the Forest Service shall be transferred to and merged 
     with this appropriation, and shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That up to $15,000,000 of the 
     funds provided herein for road maintenance shall be available 
     for the decommissioning of roads, including unauthorized 
     roads not part of the transportation system, which are no 
     longer needed: Provided further, That no funds shall be 
     expended to decommission any system road until notice and an 
     opportunity for public comment has been provided on each 
     decommissioning project.


                            land acquisition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4 through 11), including administrative expenses, 
     and for acquisition of land or waters, or interest therein, 
     in accordance with statutory authority applicable to the 
     Forest Service, $130,877,000 to be derived from the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund, to remain available until expended, 
     and to be for the conservation activities defined in section 
     250(c)(4)(E)(iv) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, for the purposes of such 
     Act.

[[Page 11420]]




         acquisition of lands for national forests special acts

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


            acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges

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


                         range betterment fund

       For necessary expenses of range rehabilitation, protection, 
     and improvement, 50 percent of all moneys received during the 
     prior fiscal year, as fees for grazing domestic livestock on 
     lands in National Forests in the 16 Western States, pursuant 
     to section 401(b)(1) of Public Law 94-579, as amended, to 
     remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 6 
     percent shall be available for administrative expenses 
     associated with on-the-ground range rehabilitation, 
     protection, and improvements.


    gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research

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


        management of national forest lands for subsistence uses

       For necessary expenses of the Forest Service to manage 
     federal lands in Alaska for subsistence uses under title VIII 
     of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 
     (Public Law 96-487), $5,488,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


               administrative provisions, forest service

       Appropriations to the Forest Service for the current fiscal 
     year shall be available for: (1) purchase of not to exceed 
     132 passenger motor vehicles of which eight will be used 
     primarily for law enforcement purposes and of which 130 shall 
     be for replacement; acquisition of 25 passenger motor 
     vehicles from excess sources, and hire of such vehicles; 
     operation and maintenance of aircraft, the purchase of not to 
     exceed seven for replacement only, and acquisition of 
     sufficient aircraft from excess sources to maintain the 
     operable fleet at 195 aircraft for use in Forest Service 
     wildland fire programs and other Forest Service programs; 
     notwithstanding other provisions of law, existing aircraft 
     being replaced may be sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in 
     value used to offset the purchase price for the replacement 
     aircraft; (2) services pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2225, and not to 
     exceed $100,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; (3) 
     purchase, erection, and alteration of buildings and other 
     public improvements (7 U.S.C. 2250); (4) for expenses 
     pursuant to the Volunteers in the National Forest Act of 1972 
     (16 U.S.C. 558a, 558d, and 558a note); (5) the cost of 
     uniforms as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and (6) for 
     debt collection contracts in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 
     3718(c).
       Any appropriations or funds available to the Secretary may 
     be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management appropriation 
     for forest firefighting, emergency rehabilitation of burned-
     over or damaged lands or waters under its jurisdiction, and 
     fire preparedness due to severe burning conditions if and 
     only if all previously appropriated emergency contingent 
     funds under the heading ``Wildland Fire Management'' have 
     been released by the President and apportioned.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for assistance to or through the Agency for International 
     Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service in 
     connection with forest and rangeland research, technical 
     information, and assistance in foreign countries, and shall 
     be available to support forestry and related natural resource 
     activities outside the United States and its territories and 
     possessions, including technical assistance, education and 
     training, and cooperation with United States and 
     international organizations.
       None of the funds made available to the Forest Service 
     under this Act shall be subject to transfer under the 
     provisions of section 702(b) of the Department of Agriculture 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2257) or 7 U.S.C. 147b unless 
     the proposed transfer is approved in advance by the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in compliance with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in House Report No. 105-
     163.
       None of the funds available to the Forest Service may be 
     reprogrammed without the advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the 
     procedures contained in House Report No. 105-163.
       No funds available to the Forest Service shall be 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund of the Department of 
     Agriculture that exceed the total amount transferred during 
     fiscal year 2000 for such purposes without the advance 
     approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Funds available to the Forest Service shall be available to 
     conduct a program of not less than $2,000,000 for high 
     priority projects within the scope of the approved budget 
     which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps, 
     defined in section 250(c)(4)(E)(xii) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, for 
     the purposes of such Act.
       Of the funds available to the Forest Service, $2,500 is 
     available to the Chief of the Forest Service for official 
     reception and representation expenses.
       Pursuant to sections 405(b) and 410(b) of Public Law 101-
     593, of the funds available to the Forest Service, up to 
     $2,250,000 may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial 
     assistance to the National Forest Foundation, without regard 
     to when the Foundation incurs expenses, for administrative 
     expenses or projects on or benefitting National Forest System 
     lands or related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That 
     of the Federal funds made available to the Foundation, no 
     more than $300,000 shall be available for administrative 
     expenses: Provided further, That the Foundation shall obtain, 
     by the end of the period of Federal financial assistance, 
     private contributions to match on at least one-for-one basis 
     funds made available by the Forest Service: Provided further, 
     That the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a non-
     Federal recipient for a project at the same rate that the 
     recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching funds: 
     Provided further, That hereafter, the National Forest 
     Foundation may hold Federal funds made available but not 
     immediately disbursed and may use any interest or other 
     investment income earned (before, on, or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act) on Federal funds to carry out the 
     purposes of Public Law 101-593: Provided further, That such 
     investments may be made only in interest-bearing obligations 
     of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both 
     principal and interest by the United States.
       Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244, 
     $2,650,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service shall 
     be available for matching funds to the National Fish and 
     Wildlife Foundation, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3701-3709, 
     and may be advanced in a lump sum as Federal financial 
     assistance, without regard to when expenses are incurred, for 
     projects on or benefitting National Forest System lands or 
     related to Forest Service programs: Provided, That the 
     Foundation shall obtain, by the end of the period of Federal 
     financial assistance, private contributions to match on at 
     least one-for-one basis funds advanced by the Forest Service: 
     Provided further, That the Foundation may transfer Federal 
     funds to a non-Federal recipient for a project at the same 
     rate that the recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching 
     funds.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for interactions with and providing technical assistance to 
     rural communities for sustainable rural development purposes.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 80 percent of 
     the funds appropriated to the Forest Service in the 
     ``National Forest System'' and ``Capital Improvement and 
     Maintenance'' accounts and planned to be allocated to 
     activities under the ``Jobs in the Woods'' program for 
     projects on National Forest land in the State of Washington 
     may be granted directly to the Washington State Department of 
     Fish and Wildlife for accomplishment of planned projects. 
     Twenty percent of said funds shall be retained by the Forest 
     Service for planning and administering projects. Project 
     selection and prioritization shall be accomplished by the 
     Forest Service with such consultation with the State of 
     Washington as the Forest Service deems appropriate.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available 
     for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge 
     National Scenic Area, pursuant to sections 14(c)(1) and (2), 
     and section 16(a)(2) of Public Law 99-663.
       The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to enter into 
     grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements as appropriate 
     with the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, as well as with 
     public and other private agencies, organizations, 
     institutions, and individuals, to provide for the 
     development, administration, maintenance, or restoration of 
     land, facilities, or Forest Service programs, at the Grey 
     Towers National Historic Landmark: Provided, That, subject to 
     such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture may 
     prescribe, any such public or private agency, organization, 
     institution, or individual may solicit, accept, and 
     administer private gifts of money and real or personal 
     property for the benefit of, or in connection with, the 
     activities and services at the Grey Towers National Historic 
     Landmark: Provided further, That such gifts may be accepted 
     notwithstanding the fact that a donor conducts business with 
     the Department of Agriculture in any capacity.
       Funds appropriated to the Forest Service shall be 
     available, as determined by the Secretary, for payments to 
     Del Norte County, California, pursuant to sections 13(e) and 
     14 of the Smith River National Recreation Area Act (Public 
     Law 101-612).
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service not 
     to exceed $500,000 may

[[Page 11421]]

     be used to reimburse the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), 
     Department of Agriculture, for travel and related expenses 
     incurred as a result of OGC assistance or participation 
     requested by the Forest Service at meetings, training 
     sessions, management reviews, land purchase negotiations and 
     similar non-litigation related matters. Future budget 
     justifications for both the Forest Service and the Department 
     of Agriculture should clearly display the sums previously 
     transferred and the requested funding transfers.
       No employee of the Department of Agriculture may be 
     detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by this 
     Act to any other agency or office of the department for more 
     than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or 
     office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office 
     for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of 
     assignment.
       The Forest Service shall fund indirect expenses, that is 
     expenses not directly related to specific programs or to the 
     accomplishment of specific work on-the-ground, from any funds 
     available to the Forest Service: Provided, That the Forest 
     Service shall implement and adhere to the definitions of 
     indirect expenditures established pursuant to Public Law 105-
     277 on a nationwide basis without flexibility for 
     modification by any organizational level except the 
     Washington Office, and when changed by the Washington Office, 
     such changes in definition shall be reported in budget 
     requests submitted by the Forest Service: Provided further, 
     That the Forest Service shall provide in all future budget 
     justifications, planned indirect expenditures in accordance 
     with the definitions, summarized and displayed to the 
     Regional, Station, Area, and detached unit office level. The 
     justification shall display the estimated source and amount 
     of indirect expenditures, by expanded budget line item, of 
     funds in the agency's annual budget justification. The 
     display shall include appropriated funds and the Knutson-
     Vandenberg, Brush Disposal, Cooperative Work-Other, and 
     Salvage Sale funds. Changes between estimated and actual 
     indirect expenditures shall be reported in subsequent budget 
     justifications: Provided, That during fiscal year 2002 the 
     Secretary shall limit total annual indirect obligations from 
     the Brush Disposal, Knutson-Vandenberg, Reforestation, 
     Salvage Sale, and Roads and Trails funds to 20 percent of the 
     total obligations from each fund. Obligations in excess of 20 
     percent which would otherwise be charged to the above funds 
     may be charged to appropriated funds available to the Forest 
     Service subject to notification of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House and Senate.
       Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service 
     may be used for necessary expenses in the event of law 
     enforcement emergencies as necessary to protect natural 
     resources and public or employee safety: Provided, That such 
     amounts shall not exceed $750,000.
       The Secretary of Agriculture may authorize the sale of 
     excess buildings, facilities, and other properties owned by 
     the Forest Service and located on the Green Mountain National 
     Forest, the revenues of which shall be retained by the Forest 
     Service and available to the Secretary without further 
     appropriation and until expended for maintenance and 
     rehabilitation activities on the Green Mountain National 
     Forest.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


                 fossil energy research and development

       For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy 
     research and development activities, under the authority of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), 
     including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 
     and equitable interests in any real property or any facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for 
     conducting inquiries, technological investigations and 
     research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and 
     disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social 
     and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603), 
     $579,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $150,000,000 is to be available, after coordination with the 
     private sector, for a request for proposals for a Clean Coal 
     Power Initiative providing for competitively-awarded 
     research, development and demonstration of commercial scale 
     technologies to reduce the barriers to continued and expanded 
     coal use: Provided, That all awards shall be cost-shared with 
     industry participants: Provided further, That in order to 
     enhance the return to the taxpayer, provisions for royalties 
     from commercialization of funded technologies shall be 
     included in the program solicitation, including provisions 
     for reasonable royalties from sale or licensing of 
     technologies from both domestic and foreign transactions: 
     Provided further, That no part of the sum herein made 
     available shall be used for the field testing of nuclear 
     explosives in the recovery of oil and gas: Provided further, 
     That up to 4 percent of program direction funds available to 
     the National Energy Technology Laboratory may be used to 
     support Department of Energy activities not included in this 
     account.


                 naval petroleum and oil shale reserves

       For expenses necessary to carry out engineering studies to 
     determine thecost of development, the predicted rate and 
     quantity of petroleum recovery, the methodology, and the 
     equipment specifications for development of Shannon Formation 
     at Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 3, utilizing a below-the-
     reservoir production method, $17,371,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, unobligated funds remaining from prior 
     years shall be available for all naval petroleum and oil 
     shale reserve activities.


                      elk hills school lands fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses in fulfilling installment payments 
     under the Settlement Agreement entered into by the United 
     States and the State of California on October 11, 1996, as 
     authorized by section 3415 of Public Law 104-106, 
     $36,000,000, to be derived by transfer from funds 
     appropriated in prior years under the heading ``Clean Coal 
     Technology''.


                          energy conservation

       For necessary expenses in carrying out energy conservation 
     activities, $940,805,000 to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That $311,000,000 shall be for use in energy 
     conservation grant programs as defined in section 3008(3) of 
     Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507): Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public Law 99-509, such 
     sums shall be allocated to the eligible programs as follows: 
     $249,000,000 for weatherization assistance grants and 
     $62,000,000 for State energy conservation grants: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     fiscal year 2002 and thereafter sums appropriated for 
     weatherization assistance grants shall be contingent on a 
     non-Federal cost share of 25 percent by each participating 
     State or other qualified participant: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary of Energy may waive up to fifty percent of the 
     cost-sharing requirement for weatherization assistance for a 
     State which he finds to be experiencing fiscal hardship or 
     major changes in energy markets or suppliers or other 
     temporary limitations on its ability to provide matching 
     funds, provided that the State is demonstrably engaged in 
     continuing activities to secure non-Federal resources and 
     that such waiver is limited to one fiscal year and that no 
     State may be granted such waiver more than twice: Provided 
     further, That, hereafter, Indian tribal direct grantees of 
     weatherization assistance shall not be required to provide 
     matching funds.


                          economic regulation

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Office of Hearings and Appeals, $1,996,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                      strategic petroleum reserve

       For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facility development and operations and program management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $179,009,000, 
     to remain available until expended, of which $8,000,000 shall 
     be available for maintenance of a Northeast Home Heating Oil 
     Reserve.


                   energy information administration

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Energy Information Administration, $78,499,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

            administrative provisions, department of energy

       Appropriations under this Act for the current fiscal year 
     shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase, 
     repair, and cleaning of uniforms; and reimbursement to the 
     General Services Administration for security guard services.
       From appropriations under this Act, transfers of sums may 
     be made to other agencies of the Government for the 
     performance of work for which the appropriation is made.
       None of the funds made available to the Department of 
     Energy under this Act shall be used to implement or finance 
     authorized price support or loan guarantee programs unless 
     specific provision is made for such programs in an 
     appropriations Act.
       The Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings, 
     equipment, and other contributions from public and private 
     sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other 
     agencies, Federal, State, private or foreign: Provided, That 
     revenues and other moneys received by or for the account of 
     the Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of 
     products in connection with projects of the Department 
     appropriated under this Act may be retained by the Secretary 
     of Energy, to be available until expended, and used only for 
     plant construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-
     sharing entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing 
     contracts or agreements: Provided further, That the remainder 
     of revenues after the making of such payments shall be 
     covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided 
     further, That any contract, agreement, or provision thereof 
     entered into by the Secretary pursuant to this authority 
     shall not be executed prior to the expiration of 30 calendar 
     days (not including any day in which either House of Congress 
     is not in session because of adjournment of more than three 
     calendar days to a day certain) from the receipt by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of 
     the Senate of a full comprehensive report on

[[Page 11422]]

     such project, including the facts and circumstances relied 
     upon in support of the proposed project.
       No funds provided in this Act may be expended by the 
     Department of Energy to prepare, issue, or process 
     procurement documents for programs or projects for which 
     appropriations have not been made.
       In addition to other authorities set forth in this Act, the 
     Secretary may accept fees and contributions from public and 
     private sources, to be deposited in a contributed funds 
     account, and prosecute projects using such fees and 
     contributions in cooperation with other Federal, State or 
     private agencies or concerns.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                         Indian Health Service


                         indian health services

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Act of August 5, 
     1954 (68 Stat. 674), the Indian Self-Determination Act, the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and titles II and III of 
     the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Indian 
     Health Service, $2,390,014,000, together with payments 
     received during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 238(b) 
     for services furnished by the Indian Health Service: 
     Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal 
     organizations through contracts, grant agreements, or any 
     other agreements or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450), shall be deemed to be obligated at the time of the 
     grant or contract award and thereafter shall remain available 
     to the tribe or tribal organization without fiscal year 
     limitation: Provided further, That $15,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended, for the Indian Catastrophic Health 
     Emergency Fund: Provided further, That $445,776,000 for 
     contract medical care shall remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2003: Provided further, That of the funds 
     provided, up to $22,000,000 shall be used to carry out the 
     loan repayment program under section 108 of the Indian Health 
     Care Improvement Act: Provided further, That funds provided 
     in this Act may be used for one-year contracts and grants 
     which are to be performed in two fiscal years, so long as the 
     total obligation is recorded in the year for which the funds 
     are appropriated: Provided further, That the amounts 
     collected by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 
     the authority of title IV of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act shall remain available until expended for the 
     purpose of achieving compliance with the applicable 
     conditions and requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the 
     Social Security Act (exclusive of planning, design, or 
     construction of new facilities): Provided further, That 
     funding contained herein, and in any earlier appropriations 
     Acts for scholarship programs under the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2003: Provided further, That 
     amounts received by tribes and tribal organizations under 
     title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act shall be 
     reported and accounted for and available to the receiving 
     tribes and tribal organizations until expended: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, of 
     the amounts provided herein, not to exceed $268,234,000 shall 
     be for payments to tribes and tribal organizations for 
     contract or grant support costs associated with contracts, 
     grants, self-governance compacts or annual funding agreements 
     between the Indian Health Service and a tribe or tribal 
     organization pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 
     1975, as amended, prior to or during fiscal year 2002, of 
     which not to exceed $20,000,000 may be used for contract 
     support costs associated with new or expanded self-
     determination contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or 
     annual funding agreements: Provided further, That such costs 
     should be paid at a rate commensurate with existing contracts 
     and no new or expanded self-determination contracts, grants, 
     self-governance compacts or annual funding agreements shall 
     be entered into once the $20,000,000 has been committed: 
     Provided further, That no existing self-determination 
     contract, grant, self-governance compact or annual funding 
     agreement shall receive direct contract support costs in 
     excess of the amount received in fiscal year 2001 for such 
     costs: Provided further, That funds available for the Indian 
     Health Care Improvement Fund may be used, as needed, to carry 
     out activities typically funded under the Indian Health 
     Facilities account.


                        indian health facilities

       For construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, and 
     equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities, 
     including quarters for personnel; preparation of plans, 
     specifications, and drawings; acquisition of sites, purchase 
     and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers; 
     and for provision of domestic and community sanitation 
     facilities for Indians, as authorized by section 7 of the Act 
     of August 5, 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2004a), the Indian Self-
     Determination Act, and the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act, and for expenses necessary to carry out such Acts and 
     titles II and III of the Public Health Service Act with 
     respect to environmental health and facilities support 
     activities of the Indian Health Service, $369,795,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated for the planning, design, construction or 
     renovation of health facilities for the benefit of an Indian 
     tribe or tribes may be used to purchase land for sites to 
     construct, improve, or enlarge health or related facilities: 
     Provided further, That from the funds appropriated herein, 
     $5,000,000 shall be designated by the Indian Health Service 
     as a contribution to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation 
     (YKHC) to start a priority project for the acquisition of 
     land, planning, design and construction of 79 staff quarters 
     at Bethel, Alaska, subject to a negotiated project agreement 
     between the YKHC and the Indian Health Service: Provided 
     further, That this project shall not be subject to the 
     construction provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act and shall be removed from the Indian 
     Health Service priority list upon completion: Provided 
     further, That the Federal Government shall not be liable for 
     any property damages or other construction claims that may 
     arise from YKHC undertaking this project: Provided further, 
     That the land shall be owned or leased by the YKHC and title 
     to quarters shall remain vested with the YKHC: Provided 
     further, That $5,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for the purpose of funding up to two joint venture 
     health care facility projects authorized under the Indian 
     Health Care Improvement Act, as amended: Provided further, 
     That priority, by rank order, shall be given to tribes with 
     outpatient projects on the existing Indian Health Services 
     priority list that have Service-approved planning documents, 
     and can demonstrate by March 1, 2002, the financial 
     capability necessary to provide an appropriate facility: 
     Provided further, That joint venture funds unallocated after 
     March 1, 2002, shall be made available for joint venture 
     projects on a competitive basis giving priority to tribes 
     that currently have no existing Federally-owned health care 
     facility, have planning documents meeting Indian Health 
     Service requirements prepared for approval by the Service and 
     can demonstrate the financial capability needed to provide an 
     appropriate facility: Provided further, That the Indian 
     Health Service shall request additional staffing, operation 
     and maintenance funds for these facilities in future budget 
     requests: Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall 
     be used by the Indian Health Service to purchase TRANSAM 
     equipment from the Department of Defense for distribution to 
     the Indian Health Service and tribal facilities: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be used by the 
     Indian Health Service to obtain ambulances for the Indian 
     Health Service and tribal facilities in conjunction with an 
     existing interagency agreement between the Indian Health 
     Service and the General Services Administration: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be placed in a 
     Demolition Fund, available until expended, to be used by the 
     Indian Health Service for demolition of Federal buildings: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding the provisions of 
     title III, section 306, of the Indian Health Care Improvement 
     Act (Public Law 94-437, as amended), construction contracts 
     authorized under title I of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act of 1975, as amended, may be used 
     rather than grants to fund small ambulatory facility 
     construction projects: Provided further, That if a contract 
     is used, the IHS is authorized to improve municipal, private, 
     or tribal lands, and that at no time, during construction or 
     after completion of the project will the Federal Government 
     have any rights or title to any real or personal property 
     acquired as a part of the contract.


            administrative provisions, indian health service

       Appropriations in this Act to the Indian Health Service 
     shall be available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109 but at rates not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent 
     to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under 
     5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; 
     purchase of medical equipment; purchase of reprints; 
     purchase, renovation and erection of modular buildings and 
     renovation of existing facilities; payments for telephone 
     service in private residences in the field, when authorized 
     under regulations approved by the Secretary; and for uniforms 
     or allowances therefore as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     and for expenses of attendance at meetings which are 
     concerned with the functions or activities for which the 
     appropriation is made or which will contribute to improved 
     conduct, supervision, or management of those functions or 
     activities.
       In accordance with the provisions of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act, non-Indian patients may be extended health 
     care at all tribally administered or Indian Health Service 
     facilities, subject to charges, and the proceeds along with 
     funds recovered under the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 2651-2653) shall be credited to the account of the 
     facility providing the service and shall be available without 
     fiscal year limitation. Notwithstanding any other law or 
     regulation, funds transferred from the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service shall be 
     administered under Public Law 86-121 (the Indian

[[Page 11423]]

     Sanitation Facilities Act) and Public Law 93-638, as amended.
       Funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service in this 
     Act, except those used for administrative and program 
     direction purposes, shall not be subject to limitations 
     directed at curtailing Federal travel and transportation.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     previously or herein made available to a tribe or tribal 
     organization through a contract, grant, or agreement 
     authorized by title I or title III of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 
     450), may be deobligated and reobligated to a self-
     determination contract under title I, or a self-governance 
     agreement under title III of such Act and thereafter shall 
     remain available to the tribe or tribal organization without 
     fiscal year limitation.
       None of the funds made available to the Indian Health 
     Service in this Act shall be used to implement the final rule 
     published in the Federal Register on September 16, 1987, by 
     the Department of Health and Human Services, relating to the 
     eligibility for the health care services of the Indian Health 
     Service until the Indian Health Service has submitted a 
     budget request reflecting the increased costs associated with 
     the proposed final rule, and such request has been included 
     in an appropriations Act and enacted into law.
       Funds made available in this Act are to be apportioned to 
     the Indian Health Service as appropriated in this Act, and 
     accounted for in the appropriation structure set forth in 
     this Act.
       With respect to functions transferred by the Indian Health 
     Service to tribes or tribal organizations, the Indian Health 
     Service is authorized to provide goods and services to those 
     entities, on a reimbursable basis, including payment in 
     advance with subsequent adjustment. The reimbursements 
     received therefrom, along with the funds received from those 
     entities pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act, may 
     be credited to the same or subsequent appropriation account 
     which provided the funding. Such amounts shall remain 
     available until expended.
       Reimbursements for training, technical assistance, or 
     services provided by the Indian Health Service will contain 
     total costs, including direct, administrative, and overhead 
     associated with the provision of goods, services, or 
     technical assistance.
       The appropriation structure for the Indian Health Service 
     may not be altered without advance approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations.

                         OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

              Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Indian Relocation as authorized by Public Law 93-531, 
     $15,148,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act 
     are to be used to relocate eligible individuals and groups 
     including evictees from District 6, Hopi-partitioned lands 
     residents, those in significantly substandard housing, and 
     all others certified as eligible and not included in the 
     preceding categories: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds contained in this or any other Act may be used by the 
     Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to evict any 
     single Navajo or Navajo family who, as of November 30, 1985, 
     was physically domiciled on the lands partitioned to the Hopi 
     Tribe unless a new or replacement home is provided for such 
     household: Provided further, That no relocatee will be 
     provided with more than one new or replacement home: Provided 
     further, That the Office shall relocate any certified 
     eligible relocatees who have selected and received an 
     approved homesite on the Navajo reservation or selected a 
     replacement residence off the Navajo reservation or on the 
     land acquired pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 640d-10.

    Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts 
                              Development


                        payment to the institute

       For payment to the Institute of American Indian and Alaska 
     Native Culture and Arts Development, as authorized by title 
     XV of Public Law 99-498, as amended (20 U.S.C. 56 part A), 
     $4,490,000.

                        Smithsonian Institution


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Smithsonian Institution, as 
     authorized by law, including research in the fields of art, 
     science, and history; development, preservation, and 
     documentation of the National Collections; presentation of 
     public exhibits and performances; collection, preparation, 
     dissemination, and exchange of information and publications; 
     conduct of education, training, and museum assistance 
     programs; maintenance, alteration, operation, lease (for 
     terms not to exceed 30 years), and protection of buildings, 
     facilities, and approaches; not to exceed $100,000 for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; up to five 
     replacement passenger vehicles; purchase, rental, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for employees, $396,200,000, of which 
     not to exceed $53,030,000 is for the instrumentation program, 
     collections acquisition, Museum Support Center equipment and 
     move, exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum of the 
     American Indian, the repatriation of skeletal remains 
     program, research equipment, information management, Latino 
     programming, and outreach, and including such funds as may be 
     necessary to support American overseas research centers and a 
     total of $125,000 for the Council of American Overseas 
     Research Centers: Provided, That funds appropriated herein 
     are available for advance payments to independent contractors 
     performing research services or participating in official 
     Smithsonian presentations: Provided further, That the 
     Smithsonian Institution may expend Federal appropriations 
     designated in this Act for lease or rent payments for long 
     term and swing space, as rent payable to the Smithsonian 
     Institution, and such rent payments may be deposited into the 
     general trust funds of the Institution to the extent that 
     federally supported activities are housed in the 900 H 
     Street, N.W., building in the District of Columbia: Provided 
     further, That this use of Federal appropriations shall not be 
     construed as debt service, a Federal guarantee of, a transfer 
     of risk to, or an obligation of the Federal Government: 
     Provided further, That no appropriated funds may be used to 
     service debt which is incurred to finance the costs of 
     acquiring the 900 H Street building or of planning, 
     designing, and constructing improvements to such building.


            repair, restoration and alteration of facilities

       For necessary expenses of maintenance, repair, restoration, 
     and alteration of facilities owned or occupied by the 
     Smithsonian Institution, by contract or otherwise, as 
     authorized by section 2 of the Act of August 22, 1949 (63 
     Stat. 623), including not to exceed $10,000 for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $67,900,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $10,000,000 is provided for 
     maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and alteration of 
     facilities at the National Zoological Park: Provided, That 
     contracts awarded for environmental systems, protection 
     systems, and repair or restoration of facilities of the 
     Smithsonian Institution may be negotiated with selected 
     contractors and awarded on the basis of contractor 
     qualifications as well as price.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses for construction, $30,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


           administrative provisions, smithsonian institution

       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     make any changes to the existing Smithsonian science programs 
     including closure of facilities, relocation of staff or 
     redirection of functions and programs without approval by the 
     Board of Regents of recommendations received from the Science 
     Commission.
       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to 
     initiate the design for any proposed expansion of current 
     space or new facility without consultation with the House and 
     Senate Appropriations Committees.
       None of the funds in this or any other Act may be used for 
     the Holt House located at the National Zoological Park in 
     Washington, D.C., unless identified as repairs to minimize 
     water damage, monitor structure movement, or provide interim 
     structural support.
       None of the funds available to the Smithsonian may be 
     reprogrammed without the advance written approval of the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance 
     with the procedures contained in House Report No. 105-163.

                        National Gallery of Art


                         salaries and expenses

       For the upkeep and operations of the National Gallery of 
     Art, the protection and care of the works of art therein, and 
     administrative expenses incident thereto, as authorized by 
     the Act of March 24, 1937 (50 Stat. 51), as amended by the 
     public resolution of April 13, 1939 (Public Resolution 9, 
     Seventy-sixth Congress), including services as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; payment in advance when authorized by the 
     treasurer of the Gallery for membership in library, museum, 
     and art associations or societies whose publications or 
     services are available to members only, or to members at a 
     price lower than to the general public; purchase, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms for guards, and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, for other employees as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 
     5901-5902); purchase or rental of devices and services for 
     protecting buildings and contents thereof, and maintenance, 
     alteration, improvement, and repair of buildings, approaches, 
     and grounds; and purchase of services for restoration and 
     repair of works of art for the National Gallery of Art by 
     contracts made, without advertising, with individuals, firms, 
     or organizations at such rates or prices and under such terms 
     and conditions as the Gallery may deem proper, $68,967,000, 
     of which not to exceed $3,026,000 for the special exhibition 
     program shall remain available until expended.


            repair, restoration and renovation of buildings

       For necessary expenses of repair, restoration and 
     renovation of buildings, grounds and facilities owned or 
     occupied by the National Gallery of Art, by contract or 
     otherwise, as authorized, $14,220,000, to remain

[[Page 11424]]

     available until expended: Provided, That contracts awarded 
     for environmental systems, protection systems, and exterior 
     repair or renovation of buildings of the National Gallery of 
     Art may be negotiated with selected contractors and awarded 
     on the basis of contractor qualifications as well as price.

             John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts


                       operations and maintenance

       For necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and 
     security of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
     Arts, $15,000,000.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses for capital repair and restoration 
     of the existing features of the building and site of the John 
     F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $19,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

            Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary in carrying out the provisions of 
     the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1356) 
     including hire of passenger vehicles and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $7,796,000.

           National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

                    National Endowment for the Arts


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $98,234,000, shall be available to the National Endowment for 
     the Arts for the support of projects and productions in the 
     arts through assistance to organizations and individuals 
     pursuant to sections 5(c) and 5(g) of the Act, for program 
     support, and for administering the functions of the Act, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That funds 
     previously appropriated to the National Endowment for the 
     Arts ``Matching Grants'' account may be transferred to and 
     merged with this account.

                 National Endowment for the Humanities


                       grants and administration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National Foundation 
     on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 
     $104,882,000, shall be available to the National Endowment 
     for the Humanities for support of activities in the 
     humanities, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, and for 
     administering the functions of the Act, to remain available 
     until expended.


                            matching grants

       To carry out the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the 
     National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
     1965, as amended, $15,622,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $11,622,000 shall be available to the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities for the purposes of 
     section 7(h): Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for obligation only in such amounts as may be equal 
     to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of 
     money, and other property accepted by the chairman or by 
     grantees of the Endowment under the provisions of subsections 
     11(a)(2)(B) and 11(a)(3)(B) during the current and preceding 
     fiscal years for which equal amounts have not previously been 
     appropriated.

                Institute of Museum and Library Services


                       Office of Museum Services

                       grants and administration

       For carrying out subtitle C of the Museum and Library 
     Services Act of 1996, as amended, $24,899,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                      Challenge America Arts Fund


                        challenge america grants

       For necessary expenses as authorized by Public Law 89-209, 
     as amended, $7,000,000, for support for arts education and 
     public outreach activities to be administered by the National 
     Endowment for the Arts, to remain available until expended.


                       administrative provisions

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

                        Commission of Fine Arts


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses made necessary by the Act establishing a 
     Commission of Fine Arts (40 U.S.C. 104), $1,274,000: 
     Provided, That the Commission is authorized to charge fees to 
     cover the full costs of its publications, and such fees shall 
     be credited to this account as an offsetting collection, to 
     remain available until expended without further 
     appropriation.


               national capital arts and cultural affairs

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

               Advisory Council on Historic Preservation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation (Public Law 89-665, as amended), $3,400,000: 
     Provided, That none of these funds shall be available for 
     compensation of level V of the Executive Schedule or higher 
     positions.

                  National Capital Planning Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by the National 
     Capital Planning Act of 1952 (40 U.S.C. 71-71i), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $7,253,000: 
     Provided, That all appointed members of the Commission will 
     be compensated at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent 
     of the annual rate of pay for positions at level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule for each day such member is engaged in the 
     actual performance of duties.

                United States Holocaust Memorial Council


                       holocaust memorial museum

       For expenses of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, as 
     authorized by Public Law 96-388 (36 U.S.C. 1401), as amended 
     (36 U.S.C. 2301-2310), $36,028,000, of which $1,900,000 for 
     the museum's repair and rehabilitation program and $1,264,000 
     for the museum's exhibitions program shall remain available 
     until expended.

                             Presidio Trust


                          presidio trust fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out title I of the Omnibus 
     Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, $22,427,000, 
     shall be available to the Presidio Trust, to remain available 
     until expended.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any points of order against the 
provisions of title II?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order 
that the language beginning with the words ``provided further'' 
appearing on page 89, line 13, and following through the words 
``qualified participants'' on line 18 violates clause 2 of rule XXI of 
the rules of the House of Representatives prohibiting legislation on an 
appropriations bill.
  The language in question directly contradicts current law by making 
weatherization assistance grants contingent on a 25 percent matching 
share from recipients. The Energy, Conservation and Production Act 
imposes no such requirement. Accordingly, the language changes current 
laws and constitutes a violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I must 
regrettably insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to speak on the 
point of order?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman concedes the point of order.
  The Chair finds that this provision explicitly supersedes existing 
law. The provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order of the gentleman from North Carolina is sustained, 
and the provision is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word 
for the purpose of engaging the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) 
in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, last March the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published 
a rule designating critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner. The 
designated areas include 300 feet on either side of more than 1,100 
miles of river in four States, including Oklahoma. This critical 
habitat for the Arkansas River shiner was designated as a result of a 
lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity.
  Recently, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the way the 
Fish and Wildlife Service conducts economic analysis for critical 
habitat designations does not comply with the Endangered Species Act 
and the court set aside the designation for critical habitat for the 
Southwestern willow flycatcher. The same type of analysis invalidated 
in that case was used in the Arkansas River shiner habitat designation.
  This recent court decision casts a shadow of doubt on all recent 
critical habitat designations. The original intent of the Endangered 
Species Act has been lost as designations of critical habitat have 
gotten completely out of

[[Page 11425]]

hand, while true endangered species recovery efforts are ignored.
  Mr. Chairman, if I had my way, we would prohibit any finding in this 
bill to be used for the implementation of the critical habitat for the 
Arkansas River shiner. However, I know this debate is greater than just 
one species.
  I would challenge my colleagues to join me in calling for much needed 
reform of the Endangered Species Act. If we do not do something soon, 
then it will be our farmers and landowners impacted by these 
designations that will become extinct.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I empathize fully with the gentleman's 
frustration with the Endangered Species Act and critical habitat 
designation requirements. The gentleman is exactly right in calling for 
reform of the act, and I look forward to working with him and the 
legislative committee of jurisdiction to see if we can address this 
problem in the 107th Congress.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring attention to an issue that is of 
concern to the people of Guam and within this Interior appropriations 
bill.
  I believe an increase in funding for Compact Impact to Guam can be 
accomplished through an overall increase in funding for the Office of 
Insular Affairs. This issue is basically one of fairness for the people 
of Guam. In the past couple of years we have received funding, in 
fiscal year 2000 for $7.58 million, and in fiscal year 2001, the 
current year, we are receiving $9.58 million. The President's request 
is $4.58 million. I appreciate the subcommittee adding $800,000 to 
that.
  However, the government of Guam has indicated that this kind of 
assistance, which is assistance that is given to the people of Guam as 
recompense, as reimbursement for the unrestricted migration from the 
Compacts of Free Association, is actually costing the government of 
Guam anywhere between $15 million and $25 million annually to provide 
educational and social services for these migrants.
  I must point out to the House and to the American people that these 
are the only citizens of foreign countries that are allowed to freely 
migrate into the United States unmonitored and without restriction, 
and, by and large, the vast majority of them end up in Guam.
  Even the Department of Interior acknowledges that best estimates are 
that annually the people of Guam spend at least $12.8 million for 
Compact Impact costs to Guam directly, and we have, for the record, a 
letter from Secretary of Interior Gale Norton detailing how the 
Department of Interior arrived at this calculation.
  Regardless of the differences between the government of Guam and the 
Department of Interior, it is clear that the current funding level of 
$5.38 million, as recommended by the committee, is inadequate. We will 
continue to work on this in conference, and hopefully Members of both 
the majority and the minority, as well as Members in the other body, 
will see fit to increase the amounts for Compact Impact Aid assistance 
to Guam.
  This is an issue of fairness, it is doable, and the people of Guam 
deserve it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 302. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available for any activity or the publication or 
     distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote 
     public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on 
     which congressional action is not complete.
       Sec. 303. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 304. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency shall be obligated or expended to 
     provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or other personal 
     servants to any officer or employee of such department or 
     agency except as otherwise provided by law.
       Sec. 305. No assessments may be levied against any program, 
     budget activity, subactivity, or project funded by this Act 
     unless advance notice of such assessments and the basis 
     therefor are presented to the Committees on Appropriations 
     and are approved by such committees.
       Sec. 306. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     plan, prepare, or offer for sale timber from trees classified 
     as giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) which are located 
     on National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management lands 
     in a manner different than such sales were conducted in 
     fiscal year 2001.
       Sec. 307. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended by the National Park Service to 
     enter into or implement a concession contract which permits 
     or requires the removal of the underground lunchroom at the 
     Carlsbad Caverns National Park.
       Sec. 308. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used: (1) to demolish the bridge between Jersey City, New 
     Jersey, and Ellis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian use of 
     such bridge, when it is made known to the Federal official 
     having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such 
     pedestrian use is consistent with generally accepted safety 
     standards.
       Sec. 309. (a) Limitation of Funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to accept or process 
     applications for a patent for any mining or mill site claim 
     located under the general mining laws.
       (b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not 
     apply if the Secretary of the Interior determines that, for 
     the claim concerned: (1) a patent application was filed with 
     the Secretary on or before September 30, 1994; and (2) all 
     requirements established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the 
     Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode 
     claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised 
     Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, and 37) for placer claims, and 
     section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for mill 
     site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied with by 
     the applicant by that date.
       (c) Report.--On September 30, 2002, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall file with the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a report on actions taken by the 
     Department under the plan submitted pursuant to section 
     314(c) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208).
       (d) Mineral Examinations.--In order to process patent 
     applications in a timely and responsible manner, upon the 
     request of a patent applicant, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall allow the applicant to fund a qualified third-party 
     contractor to be selected by the Bureau of Land Management to 
     conduct a mineral examination of the mining claims or mill 
     sites contained in a patent application as set forth in 
     subsection (b). The Bureau of Land Management shall have the 
     sole responsibility to choose and pay the third-party 
     contractor in accordance with the standard procedures 
     employed by the Bureau of Land Management in the retention of 
     third-party contractors.
       Sec. 310. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     amounts appropriated to or earmarked in Committee reports for 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service by 
     Public Laws 103-138, 103-332, 104-134, 104-208, 105-83, 105-
     277, 106-113, and 106-291 for payments to tribes and tribal 
     organizations for contract support costs associated with 
     self-determination or self-governance contracts, grants, 
     compacts, or annual funding agreements with the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs or the Indian Health Service as funded by such 
     Acts, are the total amounts available for fiscal years 1994 
     through 2001 for such purposes, except that, for the Bureau 
     of Indian Affairs, tribes and tribal organizations may use 
     their tribal priority allocations for unmet indirect costs of 
     ongoing contracts, grants, self-governance compacts or annual 
     funding agreements.
       Sec. 311. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     fiscal year 2002 the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 
     Interior are authorized to limit competition for watershed 
     restoration project contracts as part of the ``Jobs in the 
     Woods'' Program established in Region 10 of the Forest 
     Service to individuals and entities in historically timber-
     dependent areas in the States of Washington, Oregon, northern 
     California and Alaska that have been affected by reduced 
     timber harvesting on Federal lands. The Secretaries shall 
     consider the benefits to the local economy in evaluating bids 
     and designing procurements which create economic 
     opportunities for local contractors.
       Sec. 312. (a) Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.--
     Subsection (f) of section 315 of the Department of the 
     Interior

[[Page 11426]]

     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained 
     in section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-200; 
     16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``commence on October 1, 1995, and end on 
     September 30, 2002'' and inserting ``end on September 30, 
     2006''; and
       (2) by striking ``September 30, 2005'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2009''.
       (b) Expansion of Program.--Subsection (b) of such section 
     is amended by striking ``no fewer than 10, but as many as 
     100,''.
       (c) Revenue Sharing.--Subsection (d)(1) of such section is 
     amended by inserting ``the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
     Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 
     500 note),'' before ``and any other provision''.
       (d) Discounted Fees.--Subsection (b)(2) of such section is 
     amended by inserting after ``testing'' the following: ``, 
     including the provision of discounted or free admission or 
     use as the Secretary considers appropriate''.
       (e) Special Use Permits.--Subsection (b) of such section is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end of the 
     paragraph;
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end of 
     the paragraph and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) in fiscal year 2003 and thereafter may retain, for 
     distribution and use as provided in subsection (c), fees 
     imposed by the Forest Service for the issuance of recreation 
     special use authorizations not exceeding one year under any 
     provision of law.''.
       (f) Capital Projects.--Subsection (c)(2) of such section is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) None of the funds collected under this section may be 
     used to plan, design, or construct a visitor center or any 
     other permanent structure without prior approval of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate if the 
     estimated total cost of the structure exceeds $500,000.''.

                              {time}  1330


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Page 118, line 3, strike ``2006'' and insert ``2003''.
       Page 118, line 5, strike ``2009'' and insert ``2006''.
       Page 118, strike lines 6 though 8 (and redesignate the 
     subsequent subsections accordingly).
       Page 118, strike line 18 and all that follows through page 
     119, line 5 (and redesignate the subsequent subsection 
     accordingly).

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I am attempting here to craft what I would 
see as a reasonable compromise on the contentious issue of the 
continued authorization of the so-called Recreation Fee Demonstration 
Program without any consideration, without one moment's consideration, 
by the authorizing committee on which I sit.
  Now, this is a tax on the American people, plain and simple. We all 
agree that for years we have been charging to access parks, to access 
developed camp grounds, special fee use areas; those things have 
ongoing maintenance costs that are directly attributable to the users. 
There is no issue over that and my amendment does not touch that 
authority.
  However, the special new authority in the Recreation Fee 
Demonstration Program allows the United States Forest Service and the 
Bureau of Land Management to charge people to drive on Forest Service 
logging roads paid for by tax dollars to roadside areas, pull-offs, or 
the end of the road and have to pay a fee to do that.
  Now, I represent many communities that are surrounded by national 
forests and for the people in those communities to recreate, they have 
to buy a pass to go out and hunt or picnic with their kids, drive the 
roads and park the car if they want to get out. Now, that is by any 
measure a tax on Americans, on average Americans who use our public 
lands. We essentially have created a new king's domain here: you can 
use the lands if you pay your fee.
  Now, the rationale is we do not have enough money in the budget to 
pay for recreation use on these lands, even though these people may not 
be incurring any costs since they are using already developed Forest 
Service roads, turnouts, parking areas, whatever. These are already 
there; they do not require any maintenance that is paid for out of this 
program. So the question becomes, should we continue to assess this fee 
without having a deliberation and a consideration.
  Now, on October 1 of this year, the GAO will render a new, updated 
report on the Recreation Fee Demo Program. I believe that that will 
point to a direction for some changes that are sorely needed. It will 
also point out how the money is being spent or has been spent.
  In their first report, we find out that it generated $31.9 million on 
Forest Service lands. It cost almost $5 billion to collect that $31.9 
million, so 18 percent of the revenue went to collection on the Forest 
Service, 18 percent went to administration over and above that. For the 
whole program, 21 percent went to collection costs. In addition to 
that, there is a general fund appropriation to subsidize the collection 
costs of $1.5 million, not a very efficient way to raise funds and, 
obviously, a very small amount of money, a tiny fraction of many of the 
giveaways in the recent tax bill.
  So the question would be, why are we assessing this tax on tens of 
thousands of individual Americans, many of modest means, many of whom 
will be eligible for nothing in the tax bill because their incomes are 
so low, they are retired, they are not paying Federal income taxes; 
they may only be paying FICA taxes if they are still working, they are 
going to have to pay more than they are going to get back because we 
are saying we cannot afford to pay for these services.
  So the compromise I offer is, since the then-subcommittee chairman, 
the now full committee chairman assured me 2 years ago when I did not 
ask for a recorded vote on this amendment that it would go through the 
proper authorizing process. It would actually have, God forbid, 
hearings; we would actually, God forbid, invite in the public; we might 
even go to some of the areas affected and hold a hearing, although that 
might be going a little far, and then we would actually act to 
authorize any future extension in the shape of this program and the 
levying of this tax on the American people.
  This bill, without a single hearing, without a moment's hearing, will 
extend it for 4 years. My compromise would be to extend it for 1 year, 
receive the GAO report, and give the authorizing committee the 
opportunity to hold hearings and mark up a proper authorization. If we 
want a long-term authorization, I believe it should go through the 
authorizing committee and the proper process. If the committee cannot 
accept that amendment, we will then move on to my amendment to strike 
this provision all together. But in the interests of comity and time of 
the body, I would be willing, after we hear from at least one other 
speaker in support, to offer this as a compromise. If the committee is 
unwilling to accept it, we will then proceed to the debate and a 
recorded vote on a total repeal of this program.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Recreation Fee Demonstration Program has come a long way and it 
is improving. Through fiscal year 2002, it will have raised over $900 
million to help fix the huge backlog in deferred maintenance in our 
national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands. Yes, there have 
been a few problems along the way, but we have provided congressional 
oversight and have improved the program every year.
  The President has requested a 4-year extension and that is what I 
support as well. Similar amendments have been soundly defeated by the 
House in the past, and I ask the Members to defeat this amendment as 
well.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise today in support of the DeFazio amendment. For centuries, our 
forests have remained free and open to the public. So when Congress 
decided to start charging families for the right to park their car on 
the side of the road in order just to walk their dog or catch a sunset, 
it did not seem right. When I am told that the fee is not much, I 
cannot help but think of the families struggling to make it by month to 
month. Our public lands are a way they can share valued time off 
without the worries of being able to afford it.

[[Page 11427]]

  Mr. Chairman, I am a great supporter of the national forest system 
and its personnel. The U.S. Forest Service staff are dedicated 
individuals for whom I have the utmost amount of respect, and I realize 
they do not operate with enough resources. However, I believe that the 
forests are for the entire Nation and should be supported through the 
traditional funding processes like most all other Federal Government 
programs.
  This amendment seeks to extend the Adventure Pass program for only a 
year, because that would give Congress an opportunity to review the GAO 
report on this issue due out this fall. The more facts we have about 
this program, the better we are able to address it. Let us give 
ourselves a chance to learn more and maybe even improve on this program 
without making our constituents pay for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the DeFazio amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Page 117, beginning on line 18, strike section 312 
     (relating to recreational fee demonstration program).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, here we are again. We are about to extend 
a tax which nicks the American people least able to afford it, people 
living in rural areas; certainly, some people who recreate on Federal 
lands can afford the $35, but many whom I represent in depressed 
logging communities and former mill communities cannot. To say that 
somehow we should extract $35 from each family so they can take the 
kids out, park the car by the side of a logging road and swim in their 
favorite stream that they have been swimming in for generations, or to 
go hunting for rocks or go hunting in the fall.
  This is extraordinary to me. These are public lands. These are not 
developed areas. These do not require recurring costs to the Federal 
Government. We are creating a new king's domain. I mean let us be 
straight about it here. Let us admit we are charging the American 
people for something they have already paid for in their tax dollars. 
We are charging them to use logging roads and turnouts that were 
subsidized by their tax dollars. We are charging them to drive on 
public lands and park their car, public lands that are paid for and 
maintained out of the general fund of the United States in terms of 
forest firefighting and other issues.
  Should those people be charged and be caused to bear those costs? I 
think not. This is not a fair fee or a fair tax.
  The amendment I am offering, since the committee has turned down a 
reasonable proposal; I suppose perhaps there is something to hide here. 
Perhaps we do not want to go through the regular authorizing process as 
the subcommittee chairman promised me we would do 2 years ago; perhaps 
we do not want to hold hearings in areas that are affected by this tax. 
Perhaps we are worried about the outcome. Perhaps the people on the 
Committee on Resources on which I sit, who represent people in the 
areas which are most affected, might not be totally receptive to this. 
Perhaps it would be a risk. Perhaps the program would be modified, 
changed, or maybe it would not even get through. That would be a true 
legislative process. Instead, buried deep in an appropriations bill 
without a single hearing is a 4-year extension of a new tax created in 
1996. That is not right. It is not fair.
  If my colleagues have confidence in this, because I heard in the 
debate last year, oh, people love this program. Of course, the Forest 
Service says something different. The people who are trying to enforce 
it are being abused and threatened. They have had more vandalism of the 
signs for this program than anything else. A lot of people do not even 
know where to pay the fee. The sign does not tell you. You get to the 
end of the logging road, this has happened to me, and there is a sign 
there saying, you must pay a fee to use the site. It is too far from 
anywhere for them to put one of those dead-man kind of collection 
things because someone will pull it out and take the money out of it. 
So it just says, you have to pay this fee somewhere, somehow, some 
time, or you are going to get a ticket if you park here. People do not 
even know where to go.
  Yes, the program has been slightly simplified. No longer do you have 
to have 50 or 60 different passes to drive throughout forests in the 
Western U.S. In the Northwest, you can get away with just a couple. 
That is $70. Seventy bucks is a lot of money for an average working 
family. I know it does not nick people in this place too much, but it 
certainly does the people who I represent.
  It is not fair to do this and it is not right to do this without 
going through the authorizing process, without holding hearings, 
without taking public testimony, without assessing the next GAO report 
on how much of this is going to administrative costs and collection 
costs because in the first cut, almost 40 percent of this program was 
going to administration costs and collection costs. Forty percent of a 
new tax. So every American family paying $35 is contributing 40 percent 
of that for bureaucracy and maybe the other 60 percent goes to 
something they care about. Since this money is not centrally controlled 
or not spent according to any plan, it is up to the discretion of the 
local forests. Some forests have done better than others in spending 
these excess funds out of this new tax. Others have not. They spend it 
in ways that the people who paid it do not want to see it happen.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to strike this 
section from the bill. It would still run for 1 year from next October, 
even if this is struck from the bill, and that would give the Committee 
on Resources a year to read and digest the GAO report, report an 
authorization, and take it up before the entire House. That is the way 
we normally do things around here, except when we have something to 
hide, and I guess in this case we have something to hide: an unfair tax 
on the American people that has never been properly authorized or 
commented upon.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeFazio amendment on 
recreation fees. At the height of summer recreation season when tens of 
millions of Americans most enjoy their national parks and other public 
lands, the bill before us expands the recreation fees that are 
financially unfair to seniors, families, and children.
  After just passing a tax cut, there are those who want to give money 
with the one hand and take it back with the other.
  I am concerned with the scope and nature of the recreation fees being 
charged, and the fees' impact on senior citizens, families, and other 
recreational users. I am especially disturbed by the fact that while 
recreational trail users of our Federal lands are being asked to bear 
an increased financial burden for the management of these lands, the 
same is not being asked of many subsidized individuals, businesses, and 
industries whose consumptive use of Federal lands have far more impact.
  It is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that proponents propose substantial 
increases in recreation fees at the height of the summer recreation 
season, yet have been unwilling to reduce the generous subsidy 
corporations receive from the use of public resources.
  It is regrettable that proponents apparently believe that only 
private citizens, not the corporations that profit from the resources 
of this Nation, should be called upon to pay more. How much additional 
revenue can the majority expect to squeeze out of families and senior 
citizens?
  Our national shrines and the national heritage embodied in our public 
lands

[[Page 11428]]

provide an exceptional and unique place in which to instill a solid 
value system in our children. We should be encouraging this family 
value, not hindering it. It will be a sad day when families and other 
visitors have to look in their wallets to see if they can afford to use 
our great system of national parks, forests, and public lands in which 
they, the public, share ownership.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the DeFazio amendment. I do not believe it is 
right that our constituents should have to pay to simply walk in our 
national forests or watch a sunset on our public lands.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the elimination of this 
amendment. The fee program has worked extremely well. It has raised 
about $400 million that has been used to improve campsites, repair 
sanitation facilities, roads, bridges, and safety.
  I heard this characterized as a tax. It is a user fee, and the people 
that pay the fee get the benefit. If one does not use the facilities, 
they are not paying for them.
  We know that the backlog of maintenance in the national parks is 
about $5 billion, maybe $10 billion, no one knows for sure. But when we 
do not have maintenance, this means that the visitors do not have an 
opportunity to enjoy these facilities, as has been described.
  By having a very modest fee, and usually the fee for a whole carload 
of people is about the price of one ticket to Disneyland, or maybe even 
less than that, they have the benefit of the trails, the campsites, the 
sanitation facilities, the enhancement of visitor locations.
  Thus far, we have raised over $600 million. Under the language, this 
money has to be on top of the base support of the park program in the 
bill. This is not a substitute for what we would be normally spending. 
Therefore, the money is used to enhance the visitors' experience.
  When I talk to the superintendents, they say that the vast majority, 
the vast majority of the people are happy to pay a fee. In fact, 
oftentimes they will contribute extra if they have a box for 
contributions. People appreciate the parks and forests and the 
recreational opportunities afforded to them, and they are perfectly 
willing in most cases to pay a very modest fee.
  This program over the next year or year and a half will produce a 
total of over $900 million. Members can imagine what that means in 
fixing up rundown campgrounds and picnic sites, and fixing cultural 
parks that are part of our great parks and forest system.
  Sometimes campgrounds are closed because they do not have the money 
to maintain them. By having the fee program, they have an opportunity 
to open these campgrounds and give more visitors a chance to use the 
facilities.
  One other thing I am told by park and forest superintendents is that 
vandalism is substantially reduced, because when people pay a certain 
small fee they have a greater appreciation of the facility, plus the 
fact that they do not go in there in a careless way.
  I still remember visiting the Angelos National Forest, where they 
built a beautiful picnic area with slides and charcoal burners and 
picnic tables. Obviously, what had happened the night before we were 
there, someone with one of these vehicles with huge tires had come into 
this facility and just drove over it, drove over the gate, smashed 
everything in sight. Had they paid a fee they would not have done that, 
because they would have known that somebody at the gate knew they were 
in there. But at that time, there was no fee program.
  This is just one example of how vandalism would be reduced under this 
program.
  I think if we talk to park and forest superintendents, if we talk to 
the vast majority of people who use the parks and forests for 
recreation, they will be very supportive of this program. It has worked 
well. A lot of the facilities are in far better condition than they 
would be otherwise, had there not been the program of modest fees.
  I think this is a bad thing, this amendment, it is a bad thing for 
the parks and forests. It would take away from them an opportunity to 
work with the visitors in improving their experience when they do use 
our parks and recreation facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a strong no vote on this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has always been gracious in 
dealing with our disagreements over this, and I appreciate it.
  I would just like to clarify, the gentleman kept saying parks and 
park superintendents. This amendment applies only to the Forest Service 
and the BLM, so the parks and park superintendents are not at issue 
here. They would still be allowed to go there.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Regula was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, in the mind of the public, the forests and 
parks are oftentimes indistinguishable.
  I might say, the forests are a very rapidly growing source of 
recreation. In fact, what used to a source of wood fiber is now a 
source of recreation, and I think the gentleman will find in this bill 
a lot of commitment of money to enhancing the recreation dimension of 
the national forests. So obviously the fee program works there as 
effectively, and will, as it does in the parks.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr.
efAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman admits this will not affect the 
    Park Service, it is only the Forest Service and the BLM.
  Mr. REGULA. The committee in their wisdom chose to structure it that 
way.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment of my 
friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). I frankly believe, 
based on my own visits to the parks, that the American people are 
delighted. Not everyone is delighted, obviously, but the vast majority 
are willing to make a small contribution for the maintenance of the 
parks, which, as we all know, is something that has been underfunded.
  Last year, when I offered the conservation amendment with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), one of the things we had in it was 
a lot of additional money for maintenance. We recognized that our 
parks, our national forests, our recreation areas, need additional 
maintenance.
  Under this program, 80 percent of the money that is collected stays 
at that local park, and when people see the signs about the 
improvements that are being made on the trails, in the housing for the 
workers, in the facilities, we have all kind of these facilities that 
are very, very old that need to have their sewers repaired, that need 
to have their septic tanks repaired, need to have work done on the 
water systems, many of which are old. People I think are willing to 
make this contribution.
  The authorizing committees have had a lot of time here. This has been 
in place now for several years. They have time to have acted, and they 
have not acted. I think one of the reasons they have not acted is 
because they basically believe, as I do, that this program is working.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). He put this 
together. I supported him. I think it is working. We are doing better 
on maintenance, we are keeping these facilities in better condition, 
and the other 20 percent goes to the lesser parks, the lesser 
facilities. I think that also makes sense.
  We are not substituting the money. Where in the past the money was 
sent back to Washington and then they would get the 80 percent locally 
but

[[Page 11429]]

they would cut the amount of money that goes to that park, they are not 
doing that.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to consider this.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to help the gentleman with 
meetings with the Forest Service to try to clear up the problems in the 
gentleman's area.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I appreciate that the program is better than when it 
started, and we do not need 15 different forest passes in Oregon again.
  But the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from Ohio keep 
referring to parks. There is a huge infrastructure backlog in the 
parks. This amendment does not go to the parks, it goes to undeveloped 
recreation sites, off-logging roads, in the national forests and on BLM 
land.
  If I could, one further point, the gentleman who preceded the 
gentleman, I would disagree with what he said, that people do not 
differentiate between parks and Forest Service land.
  I am certain that the people in Oregon, as they do in Washington, 
discriminate between the parks and the forest lands. No one is 
contesting charging park fees. We are talking about a new fee on using 
Forest Service lands and BLM lands.
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
  I would point out to the gentleman, however, that in terms of 
recreational opportunity, that our National Forest lands have more 
recreational opportunity than do our national parks. We have to keep 
and maintain those National Forest campgrounds and hiking sites.
  I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from Oregon, 
but I think we should defeat his amendment here today and keep this 
bill moving forward to final passage before we have to leave today.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. A statement was made a 
few moments ago of the poverty in sawmill towns. That is one part of 
the statement from a previous speaker that I will agree with. He has 
been successful at helping create a lot of poverty in sawmill towns.
  But when we go beyond that, we own one-third of America. The backlog 
on the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the BLM is 
$12 billion to $15 billion, forgetting the Park Service, $12 billion to 
$15 billion.
  Hearings were held. There were many chances to be heard. Let us look 
at the program and how it has worked. Visitors to the Forest Service 
and BLM are up. Why are they up? When we have the funds to maintain the 
trails, get the old logs out of there where trees have fallen, to 
maintain the facilities, to maintain and open new parking areas so 
people can come in, that is good.
  I hear complaints where sometimes there are not enough parking areas, 
places to park and access our public land. It costs money for water and 
sewer and buildings and trails and roads. It costs a lot of money. Have 
we adequately put the money behind all of the land we purchased? No, we 
have not. In fact, we have taken money that should go to maintenance 
and we keep buying more land in all of these jurisdictions.
  Trails have been reopened and improved with the demonstration fee 
money. Facilities have been updated. Boating areas have been expanded. 
Roads have been improved. Parking areas have been improved, and water 
and sewer made available. These are the things that the people need 
when they are out there.
  Yes, the poor people of America use our parks, the working people of 
America use our parks. A little bit ago we had an amendment that took 
that money away and gave it to some of the richest in America, the arts 
folks. Those are the richest people in America. The working people of 
America use our parks, and the vast majority support this program. 
There will be some that will not, but the vast majority of the people 
support this program because it works. They see what is happening. They 
see better roads. They see better facilities. They see better boating 
areas. The proof is in the pudding.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. So I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, he wants to 
charge for users of public lands?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Only in limited areas.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I 
would ask him, how about oil, gas, mining, and mineral extraction? 
Would the gentleman be agreeable to a fee for mineral extraction from 
Federal lands?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mineral extraction is big, it is paid 
for.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mineral extraction is not paid for, there is no royalty. 
It is $3.50 cents an acre under the 1872 mining law.
  I am glad the gentleman will support a fee on mining. I will have a 
bill to him in the near future.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this 
program has benefited the people of America. Our facilities, we own a 
third of it, it ought to be accessible. Our facilities ought to be 
good. Our roads ought to be decent and safe. Our water and sewer 
facilities ought to be there.
  We ought to make it accessible and a fun experience for all of those 
who want to use it. Mr. Chairman, I urge the continuation. If it needs 
altering, we will alter it. It has been a demonstration project. It is 
only on selected sites.
  I have the Allegheny National Forest in my district, and they have 
some fees. I have not had complaints on those fees. People want to see 
those areas more accessible, brought up to date and where the 
experience is a good experience.
  We, as a Congress, have historically not been willing to invest the 
money in the investment we have made in owning a third of America. This 
helps us do that. I urge a continuation. Should we alter it down the 
road? Probably.
  But let us let this project move forward. It is the only hope of the 
public land having good facilities, well maintained, is having a fee 
schedule that helps us do that, because this Congress has been 
unwilling to put the dollars where their land is.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title III be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title III is as follows:
       Sec. 313. All interests created under leases, concessions, 
     permits and other agreements associated with the properties 
     administered by the Presidio Trust, hereafter shall be exempt 
     from all taxes and special assessments of every kind by the 
     State of California and its political subdivisions.
       Sec. 314. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act for any fiscal year may be used to designate, or to 
     post any sign designating, any portion of Canaveral National 
     Seashore in Brevard County, Florida, as a clothing-optional 
     area or as an area in which public nudity is permitted, if 
     such designation would be contrary to county ordinance.
       Sec. 315. Of the funds provided to the National Endowment 
     for the Arts--
       (1) The Chairperson shall only award a grant to an 
     individual if such grant is awarded to such individual for a 
     literature fellowship, National Heritage Fellowship, or 
     American Jazz Masters Fellowship.
       (2) The Chairperson shall establish procedures to ensure 
     that no funding provided

[[Page 11430]]

     through a grant, except a grant made to a State or local arts 
     agency, or regional group, may be used to make a grant to any 
     other organization or individual to conduct activity 
     independent of the direct grant recipient. Nothing in this 
     subsection shall prohibit payments made in exchange for goods 
     and services.
       (3) No grant shall be used for seasonal support to a group, 
     unless the application is specific to the contents of the 
     season, including identified programs and/or projects.
       Sec. 316. The National Endowment for the Arts and the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities are authorized to 
     solicit, accept, receive, and invest in the name of the 
     United States, gifts, bequests, or devises of money and other 
     property or services and to use such in furtherance of the 
     functions of the National Endowment for the Arts and the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities. Any proceeds from such 
     gifts, bequests, or devises, after acceptance by the National 
     Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities, shall be paid by the donor or the representative 
     of the donor to the Chairman. The Chairman shall enter the 
     proceeds in a special interest-bearing account to the credit 
     of the appropriate endowment for the purposes specified in 
     each case.
       Sec. 317. (a) In providing services or awarding financial 
     assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
     Humanities Act of 1965 from funds appropriated under this 
     Act, the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts 
     shall ensure that priority is given to providing services or 
     awarding financial assistance for projects, productions, 
     workshops, or programs that serve underserved populations.
       (b) In this section:
       (1) The term ``underserved population'' means a population 
     of individuals, including urban minorities, who have 
     historically been outside the purview of arts and humanities 
     programs due to factors such as a high incidence of income 
     below the poverty line or to geographic isolation.
       (2) The term ``poverty line'' means the poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) applicable to a 
     family of the size involved.
       (c) In providing services and awarding financial assistance 
     under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act 
     of 1965 with funds appropriated by this Act, the Chairperson 
     of the National Endowment for the Arts shall ensure that 
     priority is given to providing services or awarding financial 
     assistance for projects, productions, workshops, or programs 
     that will encourage public knowledge, education, 
     understanding, and appreciation of the arts.
       (d) With funds appropriated by this Act to carry out 
     section 5 of the National Foundation on the Arts and 
     Humanities Act of 1965--
       (1) the Chairperson shall establish a grant category for 
     projects, productions, workshops, or programs that are of 
     national impact or availability or are able to tour several 
     States;
       (2) the Chairperson shall not make grants exceeding 15 
     percent, in the aggregate, of such funds to any single State, 
     excluding grants made under the authority of paragraph (1);
       (3) the Chairperson shall report to the Congress annually 
     and by State, on grants awarded by the Chairperson in each 
     grant category under section 5 of such Act; and
       (4) the Chairperson shall encourage the use of grants to 
     improve and support community-based music performance and 
     education.
       Sec. 318. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     support Government-wide administrative functions unless such 
     functions are justified in the budget process and funding is 
     approved by the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 319. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds in this Act may be used for GSA 
     Telecommunication Centers.
       Sec. 320. None of the funds in this Act may be used for 
     planning, design or construction of improvements to 
     Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House without the 
     advance approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 321. Amounts deposited during fiscal year 2001 in the 
     roads and trails fund provided for in the fourteenth 
     paragraph under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' of the Act of 
     March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 843; 16 U.S.C. 501), shall be used by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, without regard to the State in 
     which the amounts were derived, to repair or reconstruct 
     roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands or 
     to carry out and administer projects to improve forest health 
     conditions, which may include the repair or reconstruction of 
     roads, bridges, and trails on National Forest System lands in 
     the wildland-community interface where there is an abnormally 
     high risk of fire. The projects shall emphasize reducing 
     risks to human safety and public health and property and 
     enhancing ecological functions, long-term forest 
     productivity, and biological integrity. The projects may be 
     completed in a subsequent fiscal year. Funds shall not be 
     expended under this section to replace funds which would 
     otherwise appropriately be expended from the timber salvage 
     sale fund. Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     exempt any project from any environmental law.
       Sec. 322. Other than in emergency situations, none of the 
     funds in this Act may be used to operate telephone answering 
     machines during core business hours unless such answering 
     machines include an option that enables callers to reach 
     promptly an individual on-duty with the agency being 
     contacted.
       Sec. 323. No timber sale in Region 10 shall be advertised 
     if the indicated rate is deficit when appraised under the 
     transaction evidence appraisal system using domestic Alaska 
     values for western red cedar: Provided, That sales which are 
     deficit when appraised under the transaction evidence 
     appraisal system using domestic Alaska values for western red 
     cedar may be advertised upon receipt of a written request by 
     a prospective, informed bidder, who has the opportunity to 
     review the Forest Service's cruise and harvest cost estimate 
     for that timber. Program accomplishments shall be based on 
     volume sold. Should Region 10 sell, in fiscal year 2001, the 
     annual average portion of the decadal allowable sale quantity 
     called for in the current Tongass Land Management Plan in 
     sales which are not deficit when appraised under the 
     transaction evidence appraisal system using domestic Alaska 
     values for western red cedar, all of the western red cedar 
     timber from those sales which is surplus to the needs of 
     domestic processors in Alaska, shall be made available to 
     domestic processors in the contiguous 48 United States at 
     prevailing domestic prices. Should Region 10 sell, in fiscal 
     year 2001, less than the annual average portion of the 
     decadal allowable sale quantity called for in the current 
     Tongass Land Management Plan in sales which are not deficit 
     when appraised under the transaction evidence appraisal 
     system using domestic Alaska values for western red cedar, 
     the volume of western red cedar timber available to domestic 
     processors at prevailing domestic prices in the contiguous 48 
     United States shall be that volume: (i) which is surplus to 
     the needs of domestic processors in Alaska; and (ii) is that 
     percent of the surplus western red cedar volume determined by 
     calculating the ratio of the total timber volume which has 
     been sold on the Tongass to the annual average portion of the 
     decadal allowable sale quantity called for in the current 
     Tongass Land Management Plan. The percentage shall be 
     calculated by Region 10 on a rolling basis as each sale is 
     sold (for purposes of this amendment, a ``rolling basis'' 
     shall mean that the determination of how much western red 
     cedar is eligible for sale to various markets shall be made 
     at the time each sale is awarded). Western red cedar shall be 
     deemed ``surplus to the needs of domestic processors in 
     Alaska'' when the timber sale holder has presented to the 
     Forest Service documentation of the inability to sell western 
     red cedar logs from a given sale to domestic Alaska 
     processors at price equal to or greater than the log selling 
     value stated in the contract. All additional western red 
     cedar volume not sold to Alaska or contiguous 48 United 
     States domestic processors may be exported to foreign markets 
     at the election of the timber sale holder. All Alaska yellow 
     cedar may be sold at prevailing export prices at the election 
     of the timber sale holder.
       Sec. 324. The Forest Service, in consultation with the 
     Department of Labor, shall review Forest Service campground 
     concessions policy to determine if modifications can be made 
     to Forest Service contracts for campgrounds so that such 
     concessions fall within the regulatory exemption of 29 CFR 
     4.122(b). The Forest Service shall offer in fiscal year 2002 
     such concession prospectuses under the regulatory exemption, 
     except that, any prospectus that does not meet the 
     requirements of the regulatory exemption shall be offered as 
     a service contract in accordance with the requirements of 41 
     U.S.C. 351-358.
       Sec. 325. A project undertaken by the Forest Service under 
     the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program as authorized by 
     section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, as amended, 
     shall not result in--
       (1) displacement of the holder of an authorization to 
     provide commercial recreation services on Federal lands. 
     Prior to initiating any project, the Secretary shall consult 
     with potentially affected holders to determine what impacts 
     the project may have on the holders. Any modifications to the 
     authorization shall be made within the terms and conditions 
     of the authorization and authorities of the impacted agency.
       (2) the return of a commercial recreation service to the 
     Secretary for operation when such services have been provided 
     in the past by a private sector provider, except when--
       (A) the private sector provider fails to bid on such 
     opportunities;
       (B) the private sector provider terminates its relationship 
     with the agency; or
       (C) the agency revokes the permit for non-compliance with 
     the terms and conditions of the authorization.
       In such cases, the agency may use the Recreation Fee 
     Demonstration Program to provide for operations until a 
     subsequent operator can be found through the offering of a 
     new prospectus.

[[Page 11431]]

       Sec. 326. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture is authorized to limit competition for fire and 
     fuel treatment and watershed restoration contracts in the 
     Giant Sequoia National Monument and the Sequoia National 
     Forest. Preference for employment shall be given to 
     dislocated and displaced workers in Tulare, Kern and Fresno 
     Counties, California, for work associated with the 
     establishment of the Giant Sequoia National Monument.
       Sec. 327. Expeditious Treatment of Forest Plan Revisions.--
     The Secretary of Agriculture shall complete revisions to all 
     land and resource management plans to manage a unit of the 
     National Forest System pursuant to Section 6 of the Forest 
     and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 
     U.S.C. 1604) as expeditiously as practicable using the funds 
     provided for that purpose by this Act.
       Sec. 328. Until September 30, 2003, the authority of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a cooperative 
     agreement under the first section of Public Law 94-148 (16 
     U.S.C. 565a-1) for a purpose described in such section 
     includes the authority to use that legal instrument when the 
     principal purpose of the resulting relationship is to the 
     mutually significant benefit of the Forest Service and the 
     other party or parties to the agreement, including nonprofit 
     entities.
       Sec. 329. (a) Pilot Program Authorizing Conveyance of 
     Excess Forest Service Structures.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture may convey, by sale or exchange, any or all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     excess buildings and other structures located on National 
     Forest System lands and under the jurisdiction of the Forest 
     Service. The conveyance may include the land on which the 
     building or other structure is located and such other land 
     immediately adjacent to the building or structure as the 
     Secretary considers necessary.
       (b) Limitation.--Not more than 10 conveyances may be made 
     under the authority of this section, and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall obtain the concurrence of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate in advance of each 
     conveyance.
       (c) Use of Proceeds.--The proceeds derived from the sale of 
     a building or other structure under this section shall be 
     retained by the Secretary of Agriculture and shall be 
     available to the Secretary, without further appropriation 
     until expended, for maintenance and rehabilitation activities 
     within the Forest Service Region in which the building or 
     structure is located.
       (d) Duration of Authority.--The authority provided by this 
     section expires on September 30, 2005.
       Sec. 330. Section 551(c) of the Land Between the Lakes 
     Protection Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 460lll-61(c)) is amended by 
     striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2004''.
       Sec. 331. Section 323(a) of the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, as included in 
     Public Law 105-277, Div. A, section 101(e) is amended by 
     inserting ``and fiscal years 2002 through 2005,'' before ``to 
     the extent funds are otherwise available''.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Sec.  . No funds made available under this Act shall be 
     made available to any person or entity who has been convicted 
     of violating the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, 
     popularly known as the ``Buy American Act'').

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is standard ``buy American'' 
language that has been placed on appropriation bills.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), 
the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I accept the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I accept the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would just hope that we continue to 
focus on buying American goods and products wherever we can. I 
appreciate the fine work of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman 
Skeen), his consideration, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks), ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Interior. Mr. 
Chairman, I ask for an aye vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Interior.
  Mr. Chairman, the administration included a land acquisition request 
for several tracts of land along the Chattahoochee River within the 
Chattahoochee National Forest in my Ninth Congressional District of 
Georgia.
  This particular acquisition ranked third on the Forest Service's 
fiscal year 2002 national land acquisition priority list. Recently, I 
was informed that the owners of these tracts have delayed their 
decision to sell their properties.
  Fortunately, there are other landowners in the area with similarly 
important tracts of land who wish to convey them to the Forest Service. 
The land now available will provide habitat and watershed protection, 
as well as recreation opportunities.
  The committee report provides $1 million for the Forest Service to 
acquire lands along the Chattahoochee River within the Chattahoochee 
National Forest.
  Given the recent changes with land availability, I ask that the 
gentleman work with me in conference to remove the report language in 
the Forest Service land acquisition table referring to the 
Chattahoochee River and simply appropriate the $1 million to the 
Chattahoochee National Forest so they may purchase the key tracts now 
available.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. We have consulted with the Forest Service and the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) is correct that the original tracts 
of land requested by the administration are no longer available. 
However, new tracts of land have become available that will help the 
forest to meet its management objectives.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to work with the gentleman as this bill 
moves forward to conference.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman 
Skeen) earlier was referring to the Maloney amendment and it was 
accepted, but I have some concerns with it; and I hope that in 
conference committee, the gentleman will consider these concerns.
  The amendment wrongfully substitutes the use of ``spot'' prices as an 
index for the oil and gas value for royalty purposes in all cases.
  The Clinton administration, when publishing the final oil valuation 
rule in March 2000, agreed with the Rocky Mountain producers that the 
use of spot prices was not an appropriate measure of the value. In 
fact, the current rule allows the use of comparable arm's-length sales 
of crude oil in the field to establish that value.
  What the Maloney amendment really does is have Congress endorse the 
``duty-to-market'' concept in the oil and gas valuation rules. It 
wrongfully requires lessees to pay royalties based on downstream value-
added system, rather than the ``wellhead'' value which is required by 
existing leases and current mineral leases statutes.
  This amendment seeks to prevent further royalty-in-kind crude oil 
pilot projects like in Wyoming, despite the analysis by the Minerals 
Management Service and the State of Wyoming, that the government 
received 45 cents per barrel more in revenue than it had received under 
the original or the current royalty-in-value system.
  Saved administrative costs should not be ignored as a policy matter, 
and the royalty-in-kind involves far less administration by the 
Department of the Interior than the royalty in value.
  The materials management service pilot project increasingly shows 
that the royalty-in-kind works. And in my home State of Texas, we have 
had a successful royalty-in-kind program for a number of years, and it 
can and does work very well.
  The minerals management service recently completed its evaluation of 
the Wyoming royalty-in-kind pilot project

[[Page 11432]]

and published that report in the Federal Register for public comment, 
and yet there were no objections submitted by the public.
  The minerals management service based its Wyoming pilot on the 
criteria that to be successful the pilot must provide simplicity, 
accuracy, and certainty for leases and the government.
  The revenue should be revenue neutral or better for the government 
and must reduce the administrative burden for leases and the 
government.
  The Wyoming pilot met these criteria. Royalty-in-kind receipts 
exceeded comparable in-value royalties by approximately $810,000. In 
addition, the royalty-in-kind streamlined processes have established a 
foundation for administrative savings for the minerals management 
service and also the industry.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope the minerals management has made it clear that 
they would not force any Federal lands into the royalty-in-kind and 
States where the State is not a partner, and there is no mandatory 
royalty-in-kind program or mandatory expansion.
  The minerals management service should be allowed to manage the 
minerals and have the choice to use royalty-in-value or royalty-in-kind 
as allowed by the lease conditions, the market and the Federal 
statutes.
  At this critical point, we need to address our Nation's energy needs. 
We should not restrict or limit the government's ability to conduct 
programs that benefit us all, particularly the taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to look at this amendment in 
conference committee, so it will benefit the taxpayers and also the 
producers.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concerns, and 
we will definitely take a look at this during the conference with the 
House and the Senate.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Chairman Skeen). The land acquisition that I would like to 
bring to the gentleman's attention today is 5,988 acres which is in-
holding called Thunder Mountain. Thunder Mountain is located in the 
Payette National Forest in West Central Idaho and is located in the 
heart of the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness area.
  This area is home to five listed species and large populations of 
game, large game including elk, deer, moose, and bighorn sheep. The 
purchase of this land would allow the Forest Service to protect the 
critical areas that are necessary for generations to come.
  I offer my appreciation to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) 
in advance for the gentleman's sincere consideration of this effort.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OTTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this land 
acquisition request to our attention and for making his interests 
known. There were many worthy land acquisition projects requested for 
fiscal year 2002.
  We tried to fund as many as we could; nevertheless, we will closely 
examine this request should the opportunity arise in conference.
  Mr. OTTER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OTTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have been in that area that the gentleman 
is talking about, and I think it is something we ought to look at very 
closely.
  We appreciate the concern of the gentleman from Idaho for endangered 
species. That is kind of a new thing from Idaho, and we appreciate it.
  Mr. OTTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) I appreciate his concern for 
those of us in Idaho who are becoming more endangered every year.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rahall

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Rahall:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:

       Sec. __. No funds provided in this Act may be expended to 
     conduct preleasing, leasing and related activities under 
     either the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) 
     within the boundaries of a National Monument established 
     pursuant to the Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) 
     as such boundary existed on January 20, 2001, except where 
     such activities are allowed under the Presidential 
     proclamation establishing such monument.

  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and a Member opposed each 
will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, America's national monuments are under siege. Under the 
guise of an energy crisis, both the President and his Interior 
Secretary have publicly suggested that some of our national monuments 
might be pretty nice places for oil and gas drilling or perhaps even a 
coal mine.
  In my view, this is not what America is about. Americans are 
rightfully concerned about energy security, but I do not think that the 
majority of Americans believe that we are in such a sorry state of 
affairs that we must unleash big oil onto some of our most cherished 
and sacred public lands.
  Make no mistake about it, some of the oil and gas companies have been 
hankering to get into these areas for years. They are salivating over 
the thought that these monuments might be opened.
  Mr. Chairman, I maintain that our national monuments, our national 
heritage must not be sacrificed on the altar of greed and profit.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply prohibit the issuance of new 
energy leases in designated national monuments.
  It would not, it would not vanquish any valid existing right, nor 
would it prevent leasing in any situation where that activity was 
authorized when the monument was established. Establishment of a 
national monument is an authority vested with the President under what 
is known as the Antiquities Act.
  Beginning with that great Republican conservative Teddy Roosevelt, 14 
of the 17 Presidents who served since 1906 have used this power. In 
all, they have established 122 national monuments, with Congress 
subsequently redesignating 30 of them as national parks.
  We are talking about places like the California Coastal National 
Monument and the Giant Sequoia National Monument in California. The 
Craters of the Moon National Monument in Idaho and Vermillion Cliffs 
National Monument in Arizona.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) a question. I did not want to interrupt the 
gentleman, and I will be glad to give him some additional time.
  I say to the gentleman, is it not true that before these became 
monuments, these were all Federal lands? Mr. Chairman, sometimes people 
think that Presidents go out and create just out of whole cloth 
wilderness or whatever area, but the monument has to have been Federal 
land before it became a monument; is that not correct?
  Mr. RAHALL. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks), the distinguished ranking member, is exactly right.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield further to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point that out to my 
colleagues.

[[Page 11433]]

  Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman from West Virginia be granted 
an additional minute due to my interruption.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is unable to grant that request unless there 
is a unanimous consent request that each side get an additional minute, 
because this is a controlled-time debate.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, these places I just 
mentioned, they are incredible treasures. They are incredible 
treasures; from the Atlantic to the Pacific, historic sites, glacial 
fjords, towering mountains and fragile deserts. Indeed, they are a 
lasting legacy that we as Americans can hand down for generations to 
come.
  Are we really that desperate that we will allow coal mining or oil 
and gas drilling in these national monuments? I do not believe so. Yet 
there are some, there are some who see things differently.
  Under the Bush administration, the Interior Department has conducted 
a new analysis of the energy potential of national monument lands, not 
all monuments, mind you, not an analysis of all monuments, just those 
it so happened were designated by President Clinton.
  What a surprise. This new analysis found that a number of our 
national monuments may contain some oil and gas and coal resources. 
These areas apparently now represent the administration's monument hit 
list. So the question comes down to this: 95 percent of BLM lands in 
the western energy-producing States are already open to oil, gas and 
coal leasing; 95 percent BLM lands are already open to oil, gas and 
coal leasing.

                              {time}  1415

  Must we now sacrifice the remaining 5 percent of protected areas, our 
wilderness, our historic sites, our wildlife preserves? Must they now 
be subjected to exploitation and speculation? I say no, and I sincerely 
hope that this body says no as well.
  Vote for our heritage. Vote for our legacy. Vote for our future 
generations. Vote for American values. And vote for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  This amendment would put in place a moratorium, stopping any new 
energy development within the current boundaries of the newly created 
national monuments without regard to the energy needs of the Nation. 
Passage of this amendment would limit the Department's capability to 
consider actions through the land planning process that could be in our 
Nation's interest. If after extensive consultation with all parties the 
President determines that it is in the best interest of the American 
people to modify a monument boundary, while still maintaining the 
integrity of our precious national monuments, he should not be 
prohibited from doing so.
  Members have been rightfully concerned about the electricity 
situation in California and the rest of the West right now, and about 
supply and price problems of various energy fuels. This amendment sends 
the wrong message. It says regardless of the energy situation, we are 
going to place certain lands off limits, even if the President 
determines that leasing of those lands will not interfere with their 
national monument significance.
  Therefore, I must ask for my colleagues' support in defeating this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the House 
Committee on Education and the Workforce and a former ranking member of 
the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time, and we must support this amendment. We must 
support this amendment so the energy crisis in California and the West 
Coast is not allowed to be used as a battering ram by this 
administration to batter down the designation of national monuments and 
some of the most valuable and most prized and most beautiful and sacred 
lands in this entire country.
  This administration now wants to come in, after all the effort was 
made to delineate and to make determinations about the values of these 
lands in terms of their cultural and historic significance, and after 
the designation of the monument has been given in the name of the 
people of the United States of America, this administration would try 
to batter down those designations at the very time when millions of 
Americans are taking their children and other members of their family 
and traveling across this country visiting monuments of this country, 
recognizing the historical importance of these, the cultural importance 
of these lands, the Craters of the Moon, the Effigy Mounds, the Little 
Bighorn Battlefield, Scotts Bluff, the Statute of Liberty, Bandelier 
National Monument, Gila Cliff Dwellings, White Sands, Governor's 
Island, Oregon Caves. These are all different. In the West we have some 
monuments, in the East we have different monuments, but this is about 
the culture of this Nation.
  You tried to use the energy crisis in California to batter the 
California consumers, Mr. President, and that did not work. And now we 
see finally you are taking some actions to help those consumers. You 
should not use this energy crisis to batter down the designation of 
these lands. These lands belong to the people of the United States. And 
when your Secretary of the Interior sends a letter suggesting to 
consult with just local officials, these are not local parks, these are 
not local districts, these are national monuments. Why are we not 
consulting with all the people of this Nation? That is what President 
Clinton did before he made the designation. There were public hearings, 
there was a process, because we knew the significance and the 
importance of a monument designation.
  We should not cower behind our energy problems in California to try 
to change the status of these great public lands.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind all Members that remarks during 
debate should be directed to the Chair.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the amendment is nothing more 
than an attempt by the Democrats to congressionally legitimize those 
actions taken by President Clinton during the last hours, without 
adequate public input, in the dead of night.
  These proclamations, of course, clearly abused the letter and the 
spirit of the Antiquities Act of 1906, when they knew what they were 
doing. The Antiquities Act, among other things, mandates that when a 
President declares a monument it ``shall be confined to the smallest 
area available, compatible with the proper care and management of the 
objects to be protected.'' Now, I know that that means we must question 
ourselves as to what we mean by objects or what we might mean by 
protected. However, as we all know, President Clinton blatantly used 
this act solely for political purposes like no other before him.
  Mr. Chairman, passing this amendment would in effect put a 
congressional rubber stamp on those actions and those boundaries taken 
by these ill-considered proclamations. Secondly, if the boundaries of 
the national monuments do change, this amendment to the bill today is 
totally unnecessary. Most, if not all, the proclamations withdraw the 
lands from all forms of mineral entry, including oil and gas leasing, 
except when subject to valid and existing rights. This amendment keeps 
the exemption for valid and existing rights, thus actually does nothing 
at all, Mr. Chairman, for the monument boundaries if they are never 
adjusted.
  Lastly, and however very important, by agreeing to this amendment we 
also prevent future oil and gas leasing in these areas that would not 
be withdrawn as a national monument if the boundaries ever did change. 
If the

[[Page 11434]]

boundaries are to be adjusted to meet the real intent of the 1906 
Antiquities Act and the real intent of protecting the object of 
significance contained in those monuments, then the areas withdrawn, 
which would not contain any significant objects, could be open to gas 
and oil and other exploration.
  Eliminating future options for our country's resources is simply not 
acceptable, and I submit that the other side cannot have it both ways. 
You cannot suck and blow in the same breath, and, Mr. Chairman, that is 
precisely what they are doing.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a valued member of our committee and the ranking 
member on the Subcommittee Committee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Committee 
on Resources for yielding me this time. As ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, I rise in strong support 
of the Rahall amendment that prohibits funding for new leasing for oil 
and gas exploration in our national monuments.
  Mr. Chairman, Teddy Roosevelt must be rolling in his grave right now. 
A great Republican conservationist, he was the first President to use 
his powers of the Antiquities Act to designate national monuments 
throughout the country. Now, 100 years later, a Republican President is 
suggesting opening up these same very precious lands to oil and gas 
exploration. Our national monuments should be the last place open for 
energy development, not the first. We should instead be focusing on 
effectively managing the millions of acres of Federal land that are 
already available for energy development.
  In fact, the work we have been doing in the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Mineral Resources, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) and I 
have demonstrated that 95 percent of the available Federal lands are 
already accessible to oil and gas exploration. We should be keeping our 
focus on that rather than the remaining 5 percent that is not. Granted, 
there may be some permitting problems that have come out during the 
course of these hearings that we need to work through, but there is 
sufficient Federal lands already for the oil and gas energy needs that 
this country faces.
  Rather than opening our national monuments to oil drilling, we should 
instead bring balance to our national energy policy by developing 
renewable and alternative energy sources, such as solar, wind, and 
biomass. We should be increasing our funding for those programs instead 
of cutting them, as the administration now proposes.
  We should also be encouraging the development of hybrid cars in this 
country. The big three in this country have fallen behind the 
competitive scale when it comes to developing these hybrids, which are 
more energy efficient and more environmentally friendly. We have 
waiting lines across the country of consumers wanting to buy the 
foreign-made hybrid cars. So there is a market demand for this, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Clearly, the American people would like to see more fuel efficient, 
environmentally friendly vehicles, not more drilling in the national 
monuments, and so I would encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the 
following specified amendments to the bill, and any amendments thereto, 
be limited to the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent.
  An amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) 
related to oil and gas leasing in Florida for 30 minutes; an amendment 
to be offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) regarding 
hardrock mining for 30 minutes; an amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) regarding Biscayne National Park for 10 
minutes; and an amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns) regarding the National Endowment for the Arts for 10 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I want to 
make certain on the Stearns amendment that I would have the 5 minutes 
in opposition; if we could just have that understanding.
  Mr. SKEEN. I will yield that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent agreement is agreed to.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting debate we are 
in. My good friend from West Virginia, I am afraid I am going to have 
to go to the other side on this one, and I want to explain why, because 
I have great respect for him and the ability he has.
  I noticed when I read his statement this morning, he talked about the 
crown jewels that we were going to protect under this amendment. I 
would agree with that, if they were the crown jewels. If we go back to 
the 1906 Antiquities Law and carry it out and find out where we are 
going, those original ones truly did fit that category, the Grand 
Canyon, the Zion, the Bryce, and the others, they are the crown jewels, 
and we compliment Teddy Roosevelt for taking the time, the initiative, 
and having the enlightenment to come up with the idea of taking care of 
those crown jewels.
  But now we find ourselves in an entirely different situation today. 
What do we have on these crown jewels? Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, 
that we have a whole group of energy problems. I do not think there is 
any intelligent person in America that does not realize we are going to 
have a tremendous energy problem. It is going to be coal, it is going 
to be natural gas. We are talking about alternative sources, and we get 
2 percent, that huge amount of 2 percent of alternative sources that 
everybody is talking about, and then we have got coal at 52 percent.
  Now let me talk about one of these crown jewels my good friend from 
West Virginia talked about. On September 16, 1996, standing safely on 
the south rim of the Grand Canyon, President Clinton got up and he 
declared that he was going to put 1.7 million acres into one of these 
crown jewels. The interesting thing about it is that President Clinton 
had never been there. When he was asked where it was, he put it in 
Nevada, though that is immaterial. That is a little different than 
someone like Teddy Roosevelt, who had lived on the ground, who had been 
to the Grand Canyon, who had hunted in the Grand Canyon, had floated in 
the river, had hiked those canyons. He knew it from one inch to the 
other.
  Now, do my colleagues know what the law says? I thought we were bound 
by the law. I thought it was necessary we follow the law. We are a 
Nation of laws. Yet this President comes along and he talks about the 
three things we are supposed to name in the 1906 Antiquities Law.

                              {time}  1430

  What are they? One is a scientific site. Another is an archeological 
site like Rainbow Bridge, obviously one. Another one is an historic 
site where the two trains came together. That is obviously an historic 
site.


  This is the first President, and I have sat on this committee and 
chaired the Subcommittee on Parks and Lands, and now I am the chairman 
of the Committee on Resources, I cannot find a President who has 
violated that up to this point. This President did not state any one of 
the three. Not one.
  What is the next thing that the law says, the law that we put our 
hand to the square and said, we will uphold this law. And the next part 
says this. It says, and he shall use the smallest acreage available to 
protect that site. In the first place, my colleagues, President Clinton 
did not name the site. In the second place, he gives us 1.7 million 
acres.
  Mr. Chairman, let me go back to the idea of energy. What is in this 
area? I asked John Leshy, the solicitor for the Department of Interior, 
explain this beautiful area that President Clinton is

[[Page 11435]]

taking care of. He did not know what he was talking about, and I say 
that respectfully, because he said where there is 1 trillion tons, get 
that word ``trillion,'' 1 trillion tons of low sulfur coal, the best in 
the world, right in the Kaiparowits Plateau.
  Mr. Chairman, have any of my colleagues been there? It amazes me, we 
are so good about talking about places, but often my colleagues have 
never been there. Well, I have been there. My dad had mines on it. As a 
private pilot, I put airplanes down in the craziest places, I repent 
for doing that, but all through that area, and I can tell my colleagues 
without any equivocation, if my colleagues like rolling hills of 
sagebrush and nothing else but hot, dry land with bugs flying around, 
that is two-thirds of the Grand Staircase Escalante. Two-thirds of it 
is nothing but sagebrush. But there is a trillion tons of low sulfur 
coal.
  Now we are talking about President Carter who says our ace in the 
hole is coal; and yet we say we cannot do that under the gentleman's 
amendment. We cannot take care of that.
  What I have heard on some of these other 18 crown jewels that came 
about: fossil fuels, natural gas. All of these things, and these are 
not, my friends, the crown jewels that my good friend of West Virginia 
talked about. These are areas put in there, obviously abusing the 1906 
antiquity law, obviously there for political reasons. In fact, we 
subpoenaed the papers and we wrote a pamphlet called ``Behind Closed 
Doors.'' I do not have the quotes here, I was at another meeting and 
just ran over, and so I quote from memory, ``These grounds do not 
deserve protection.'' Kathleen McGinty, working for President Clinton 
and Al Gore, ``These grounds do not deserve protection,'' yet we say 
they are crown jewels. Give me a break.
  Why are we doing this anyway? Another thing between the Department of 
Interior and the White House, another statement, ``These grounds do not 
deserve that kind of protection.'' Yet today, we are here saying we 
have an energy crisis on our hands and we cannot handle it, so let us 
close up areas of rolling sagebrush.
  The Grand Staircase Escalante does not deserve that protection.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in allowing me to speak in support of his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I disagree with my colleague from Idaho who talked 
about sneaking this in the last hours in the dead of night. I am 
speaking just to one monument in the State of Oregon, the Cascade-
Siskiyous, where approximately a year ago 52,000 acres were protected. 
I would suggest that there is significant support in our State, and the 
notion that this would be an area where we should open up to mineral 
exploration, energy exploration, is something that would be opposed by 
the people in our community.
  Mr. Chairman, we may disagree over issues that deal with energy. I am 
sure we will have spirited debate, but I would hope that this is one 
area where we could step back and recognize that these are areas that 
deserve protection.
  If the Congress wants to overturn the Presidential designation, if 
there is one that is inappropriate, by all means come forward and we 
will have the debate, have Members vote them up or down. But unless and 
until my colleagues are willing to step forward and show where they 
think it is not worthy of protection, I think we ought to support the 
gentleman's amendment, and I know that the people in Oregon appreciate 
it.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have been in my office listening 
to the debate on the gentleman's amendment, and I have never heard so 
much energy wasted on an amendment that very frankly does damage to 
this Nation and not to the monuments. When I hear people talk about the 
Statute of Liberty and the Grand Canyon, they are full of it. That is 
really, in fact, not what this is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues want to know what it is about, read 
this report called ``A Monumental Abuse: The Clinton Administration's 
Campaign of Misinformation in the Establishment of the Grand Staircase 
Escalante National Monument.'' I have it right here. This was passed by 
the Committee on Resources. Read it. It is the greatest blatant 
political piece of trash that administration did. There was no danger 
to that area of the Escalante, but because the environmentalists wanted 
it and Kathleen McGinty wanted it, they set this vast area of land, 
without consulting with the governor and without consulting with the 
local representative, and by the way he lost, because there was a huge 
coal deposit there and they did not want that coal deposit developed. 
Read your Record. Do not vote for this amendment. It is nothing but a 
bunch of hot air.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, as far as the debate earlier on the 
recreation fee demo amendments, they are something that should be 
subject to the Committee on Resources, on which I serve, which is a tax 
on the average American people. It is hidden in this bill to avoid 
accountability and responsibility.
  Now here hidden in this bill is the authority to go into and drill on 
national monuments. If my colleagues want to undo the national 
monuments, have the courage of their convictions. Introduce 
legislation. Hold hearings. Have a debate. Bring it to the floor. Have 
a vote. See if it can be gotten out of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is going to happen. I do not 
believe this body is going to undo formally any monuments. So do not 
have this subterranean subterfuge of drilling. Be honest. If my 
colleagues want to undo the monuments, introduce the legislation and 
let us have a vote on it up or down.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with the last 
speaker when he says introduce legislation if Members want to change 
it, do not do it through a rider.
  Mr. Chairman, I had a hearing in Lewistown, Montana a couple of weeks 
ago. I had just short of 300 people there. It took 8 hours. There is 
not consensus on this.
  When I came to Congress, I made the determination I would try and 
change the rhetoric when it came to natural resources policy so we do 
not dig ourselves into corners and then have to litigate our way back 
out.
  The President dropped a bad piece in our laps. We are trying to pick 
up the pieces. We will do the best we can. We want full disclosure and 
full debate, but let us not close the door to a reasonable conclusion 
to something that is very emotional in my State of Montana.
  Over 80,000 acres of private property were included in this monument. 
What reasonable President, if he had gone through the appropriate 
process of debate and consideration, would have allowed that to happen?
  Secretary Norton recently sent out a letter to over 200 local 
officials asking their opinion. She has stated the position that she 
will not make changes without adequate consideration and due process. 
There is only one reason this amendment has been introduced, and that 
is to shut the door further on what we believe the President did in the 
first place.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prohibit oil and gas leasing and 
preleasing in our national monuments. Without this amendment, we may 
have to rename some of our national monuments to reflect their new 
status. The Statue of Liberty National Monument,

[[Page 11436]]

for example, could become the ``Statue of Fossil Fuels Production 
National Monument,'' with an actual flame burning at the top of the 
torch. Of course, we will have to change the inscription to read:

       Give me your drill bits, your rigs,
       Your huddled oil companies yearning to drill free,
       To dump their wretched refuse on our pristine shores,
       Send these, your well-heeled executives to me:
       I lift my lamp besides their golden doors.

  Of course, there are other types of national monuments in our 
country. Here is a photograph from the Upper Missouri River Breaks 
National Monument. It is beautiful. But perhaps the oil industry could 
improve upon the view? Bam. Oil rigs in the national monument. How much 
oil would we retrieve from the Upper Missouri River Breaks? One hour's 
worth of our national consumption. One hour. What this amendment says 
is that one hour of our oil use in the United States is worth 
despoiling this pristine view forever.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot condone this wanton disregard of our 
responsibilities to succeeding generations. Our national monuments 
represent the most unique, most irreplaceable, the most breathtaking of 
all of the natural wonders in this great land. All we are asking is 
that we meet our energy needs outside the boundaries of these special 
treasures, not on top of them.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the Rahall amendment. 
First, let us make SUVs and air conditioners and refrigerators more 
efficient before we tell every succeeding generation of Americans that 
we had no other option but to take the national monuments and to 
despoil them for one hour's worth of energy, and to damage them 
permanently.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, after listening to the last few speakers, 
I have to tell my colleagues, if rhetoric were fast food, Members would 
have to walk through golden arches to enter this floor, because I have 
never heard so much rhetoric as I have just heard from the gentleman 
from Massachusetts who just spoke. He talks about the beauty of these 
things, and many are beautiful.
  But some of them, my colleagues ought to come to Idaho and look at 
the expansion of the Craters of the Moon. It is a bunch of lava rock. 
And we are still trying to figure out what the imminent threat was to 
the Craters of the Moon when they designated it as a national monument, 
yet they decided they had to do it. It was under no imminent threat. 
That is the reality.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are passionate about national monuments. So am I; and so is anybody on 
this side of the aisle. We all love our public lands and want to 
protect them, but look at what this amendment does. What this amendment 
does is say that we cannot have any preleasing, any leasing, or any 
related activities on a national monument as it existed prior to 
January 20, 2001.
  Now, the gentleman from Oregon that spoke said we are not going to 
change any of those things. If Members want to change any of those 
things, bring them to the floor. We have done that in this Congress. 
Many of my colleagues voted for it because it went by suspension. We 
changed a national monument in Idaho to a national preserve, so we do 
change them occasionally and we need to look at that.
  Mr. Chairman, the reality is the real purpose of the Rahall amendment 
is to freeze the dozens of monuments that President Clinton declared 
during the waning days of his administration and prohibit mineral 
leasing activities in these areas. That is the intent of this 
amendment. This would occur even if Congress enacted a law which 
adjusted a boundary to a national monument or if President Bush reduced 
the size of a monument by administrative order.

                              {time}  1445

  The effect of the Rahall amendment will be to lock up acres of coal, 
gas, oil and other much needed energy resources at a time the United 
States needs these domestic resources to avert a further energy crisis. 
The House of Representatives, as I have said, has already changed one 
to a national preserve, so the reality is we do look at them, we do 
change them, we do change the boundaries. But under current law, 30 
United States Code section 181, mineral leasing cannot take place on 
national monuments. If you look at most of the national monument 
designations that have been made, they prevent mineral leasing in the 
designation.
  I would bet the gentleman from Oregon that spoke earlier about the 
beauty of the national monument in his State if he would look at the 
designation would see that it is prevented in the designation of that 
national monument. So we are not going to go out and drill in these 
areas, Mr. Chairman. We should not tie Congress' hands and the 
President's hands with this ill-advised, unnecessary, silly amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the people on this side of the aisle care as much about 
our public lands and our national monuments as they do. That is why we 
live there, because we love the beauty of our rivers and mountains and 
streams. That is what we want to preserve. But yes, there are 
legitimate reasons to look at our national monuments for other 
purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not adopt this amendment. It is 
silly and unnecessary.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time. As a Rocky Mountain westerner, I rise in support of this 
amendment and I share the sentiments of the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Simpson) that we do love these lands in the West. I have been dismayed, 
though, to some extent to hear my colleagues describe these lands as 
sagebrush and rolling hills and nothing but black lava rock. But as we 
know, those lands provide us with solitude and great viewscapes, clean 
air, and clean water. They are God's creation. We should set them aside 
in perpetuity as President Clinton had the wisdom to do.
  In our State, rapid population growth is putting increased pressure 
on all our Federal lands. We have become aware of the need to preserve 
and protect those lands. That is simply what President Clinton has 
done. But President Bush seems to be going the other way. In fact, I am 
tempted to borrow an old phrase and suggest that maybe we are on the 
verge of a ``war on the West.''
  Unless we restore some balance, this energy policy will be a war on 
wilderness, a war on wildlife, a war on our open spaces, and ultimately 
a war on our economy which is dependent now on these open spaces and 
the clean air and the clean water.
  This amendment will limit the potential of that potential attack. I 
hope it will be unnecessary. I hope that the President will pull back 
and not open our national monuments to drilling, but let us be safe 
rather than sorry. I urge support of this important amendment by the 
gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Secretary Norton has written a series of letters to various State and 
local officials encouraging reassessments of existing national 
monuments. I would like to quote directly from the Secretary's March 28 
letter to the Governor of Arizona:

       I would like to hear from you about what role these 
     monuments should play in Arizona. Are there boundary 
     adjustments that the Department of Interior should consider 
     recommending? Are there existing uses inside these monuments 
     that we should accommodate?

  Mr. Chairman, I think this clearly shows that our monuments are under 
threat. The President, on March 13, additionally said, and I quote, 
``there are parts of monuments where we can explore.''
  Vote for this amendment. Protect our heritage. Protect our national 
monuments.
  Mr HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by my 
colleague from the state of West Virginia, Congressman Rahall, to 
protect National Monuments from energy

[[Page 11437]]

and mineral development. National monument status designation has been 
used to protect some of our most unique and significant natural and 
historic areas. In the last 95 years, 122 national monuments have been 
designated through the use of the Antiquities Act. Clearly, presidents 
from the time of Theodore Roosevelt have realized the wisdom of 
protecting sensitive public lands, already owned by the public, from 
natural resource exploitation.
  The designation of national monuments follows a serious and 
deliberate process, including extensive study and involvement by the 
public. The process relies heavily on the input of local officials and 
citizens, those who will be most directly affected by the designations. 
Impacts are weighed in light of the benefits that will be enjoyed by 
the American public and the fact that a natural resources legacy has 
been created for future generations.
  Some coal, natural gas, and oil does underlie a number of our 
national monument lands. However, the significance of these resources 
when compared to our overall energy supply was part of the 
consideration before the monument status was bestowed. Ninety-five 
percent of the public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management 
already is open to energy leasing. This amounts to millions of acres of 
federal land. We should be focused on doing a better job managing and 
developing fuels from the lands already available for leasing rather 
than looking at the remaining five percent for further exploitation.
  The high cost of electricity and the rising costs of gasoline and 
home heating oil will not be reduced by drilling on national monument 
lands. The amount of energy resources on these lands is only a small 
fraction of what is available elsewhere. Our monuments must be 
protected against the forces of commercialization that would use them 
to enrich a few at the expense of the many by sacrificing our most 
spectacular and prized natural landscapes and historical sites. I urge 
you to join me and support the Rahall amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) will be postponed.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a very brief colloquy with the chairman on a 
matter of importance to my State.
  As chairman of the House Interior appropriations subcommittee, I know 
the gentleman from New Mexico is faced with many funding requests and 
faces a difficult task in balancing competing demands.
  As the gentleman may know, Delaware has a rich heritage in the 
underground railroad. There are 18 underground railroad sites in 
Delaware, including the Governor's house at Woodburn where I lived, the 
courthouse where abolitionist Thomas Garrett was tried, and numerous 
other sites utilized by the principal underground railroad conductor 
Harriet Tubman.
  Sadly, there is more information about Delaware's role in the 
underground railroad in the museum shop at Ford's Theater in 
Washington, D.C. than in Delaware's museums. Delaware is rallying to 
correct this oversight by filming a documentary about the underground 
railroad and sponsoring a lecture series at Delaware State University.
  Pursuant to the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act 
of 1998, the Delaware Underground Railroad Coalition is seeking 
$250,000 to develop a heritage plan to highlight Delaware's role in the 
underground railroad.
  I seek the gentleman's support in working to provide funding for this 
heritage plan as the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill 
moves forward.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. It is true the committee views funding the National 
Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998 as a priority. I 
pledge to work with the gentleman from Delaware as this legislation 
moves forward to accommodate this request if the opportunity for 
additional funding arises.
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman and I appreciate his support.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 6 offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders); amendment No. 1 offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio); and amendment No. 5 offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153, 
noes 262, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 178]

                               AYES--153

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nussle
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Platts
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Solis
     Stark
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--262

     Akin
     Allen
     Armey
     Baca
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Evans
     Fattah
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)

[[Page 11438]]


     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Callahan
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Everett
     Herger
     Houghton
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Lewis (GA)
     McInnis
     Neal
     Riley
     Rush
     Serrano

                              {time}  1514

  Mr. CALVERT, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Ms. 
GRANGER and Mrs. TAUSCHER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. QUINN, SHAYS, HONDA, BERRY, KING, ROTHMAN, WELDON of 
Pennsylvania, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon and Ms. 
MILLENDER-McDONALD changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 129, 
noes 287, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 179]

                               AYES--129

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Graves
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--287

     Abercrombie
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Callahan
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Everett
     Houghton
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Lewis (GA)
     McInnis
     Neal
     Riley
     Rush
     Serrano

                              {time}  1523

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


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rahall

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on Amendment No. 5 offered by the

[[Page 11439]]

gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) on which further proceedings 
were postponed, and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 173, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 180]

                               AYES--242

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--173

     Akin
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kerns
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Becerra
     Callahan
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Everett
     Houghton
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Lewis (GA)
     McInnis
     Neal
     Riley
     Rush
     Serrano

                              {time}  1532

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

                              {time}  1530

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman 
of the subcommittee and with the ranking member with respect to what I 
believe to be an oversight in this legislation.
  Years ago, in 1986, the Compact of Free Association was entered into 
between various entities in Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and with 
Palau. It provided citizens of the Freely Associated States certain 
rights and privileges. One of the rights and privileges was free access 
to the United States. The 1986 Compact allowed citizens of the Free 
Associated States from the Marshalls, Micronesia, Palau and other 
places, unrestricted entry into the United States and access to 
residence, education, employment and all of the various services. 
Hawaii was always a major destination for these migrants.
  Congress provided, in the legislation at that time, that beginning 
from September 30, 1985, such sums as may be necessary to cover the 
costs incurred by the State of Hawaii, the Territories of Guam and 
American Samoa resulting from the increased demand; the problem was the 
increased entry from these entities into Hawaii and Guam that has 
caused very serious additional expenses upon my State and Guam 
specifically. The costs to Hawaii since 1986 exceeds $64 million, $10 
million just in the year 2000. Many of the Compact migrants who come to 
Hawaii have significant health problems, including Hansen's Disease, 
hepatitis, tuberculosis and so forth, and they increase the costs of my 
State.
  The intent of Congress and the legislation was to compensate the 
State of Hawaii and Guam and others for these additional expenses. So 
we had hoped that the committee would take this into consideration. All 
of us from the State of Hawaii and from Guam wrote the committee.
  My purpose in raising this issue today, because this was not covered 
in the legislation, is to ask the chairman and the ranking member if 
they would comment on the reasons for noninclusion. Is there a legal 
restriction from being able to qualify for the monies that were 
intended to come to our State? But since the very beginning, in 1986, 
we have not been considered at all for compensation under this 
legislation. I would hope that I might get a very encouraging response 
from either the ranking member or the chairman of this committee. I 
yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and 
let me just say this. We appreciate the gentlewoman's concern on it, 
and we will see if there is anything, but it is a question of funding 
and just a limited bill and lots of choices. But we are early in the 
process and the gentlewoman is showing a lot of concern, and we will 
just have to see. I am sorry I cannot be more specific.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).

[[Page 11440]]


  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's hard work on 
this issue. I know this is a major concern. I want to work with the 
gentlewoman on this, and hopefully we can have a meeting before the 
conference and go through the details of this and try to work with our 
friends in the other body who now are chairmen of major committees that 
might be able to help us find some solutions to this.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
words of encouragement. There is every indication that the Senate will 
comply with this request, and I am hopeful that the conferees from this 
body will agree to those additions to the legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Florida

  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Florida:
       On page 131 after line 4 insert the following new section:
       Sec.   .None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     execute a final lease agreement for oil or gas development in 
     the area of the Gulf of Mexico known as Lease Sale 181 prior 
     to April 1, 2002.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am offering this amendment today with the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Scarborough). The effect of the amendment, which has been read in 
its entirety, is to prohibit the Secretary of Interior from signing any 
new leases off the coast of Florida that would allow oil and gas 
drilling to proceed for the first 6 months of the next fiscal year.
  The reason the amendment is necessary is because the Interior 
Secretary has expressed her intention to continue with a process which 
could well result in the issuance of oil and gas leases within 30 miles 
of Pensacola, with some of the most pristine beaches, not just in the 
State of Florida, but I would submit in the United States and the 
world, and 200 miles off the coast of the Tampa Bay area, my home.
  I remember as a small child what happened when the last oil spill 
occurred in Tampa Bay. It took us years to recover from that. We in 
Florida do not want to see that happen again. This amendment will 
assure that what occurred in Tampa Bay some years ago and, 
unfortunately, has happened in other parts of the United States, does 
not happen to our precious coastline.
  Our coastline is not just something that is precious to Floridians, 
because we cherish our environment and it is integral to our economy. 
This is truly a national treasure. I would urge all of my colleagues, 
Democrats and Republicans, to think about where their constituents are 
headed this summer. They are headed south. They are headed to our 
beaches, because they are beautiful beaches. We want to protect those 
beaches.
  We are against quick fixes to solve our energy problems. We do not 
want to see oil drilling right off the coast of Florida at the expense 
of Floridians.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this sale was included in the Mineral Management 
Service's 5-year plan, and the Congress has voted specifically to 
exclude sale 181 from the current leasing moratorium for the past 6 
years. More importantly, it is necessary that the sale of 181 may hold 
as much as 7.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This is enough 
natural gas to supply 4.6 million households for 20 years. This sale 
represents one of the Nation's best short-term hopes for increasing 
much-needed natural gas supplies.
  Energy issues have dominated the debate lately, especially as they 
relate to both prices and supply of energy fuels. This amendment sends 
the wrong message. It says, regardless of the energy situation, we are 
going to place certain lands off limits. We cannot continue to lock up 
the Nation's energy resources and then expect to let our energy 
problems simply solve themselves. That is why we ask for our 
colleagues' support in opposing this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the cosponsor of this 
amendment,
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida, 
and I would like to stand beside him and other Members from Florida and 
across the country who support the Davis-Scarborough amendment.
  As the gentleman from Florida said, we do have some of the most 
pristine beaches, not only in Florida or the United States, but, in 
fact, they are recognized as some of the most pristine beaches across 
the world, and are consistently rated at the top of every list that 
comes out. Yet, lease sale 181 would allow drilling and exploration 
less than 20 miles off of our shores.
  We certainly do welcome tourists from across the country, across the 
world, and I disagree that this amendment sends the wrong message. I 
think it sends the right message. It recognizes that the people of the 
State of Florida, the Republicans and Democrats alike, the Republican 
Governor Jeb Bush, and all of us oppose oil and gas exploration less 
than 20 miles off the shore.
  I applaud the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Goss) and other people that have led on this issue 
year in and year out. It is important to remember that this amendment 
will simply prohibit the Minerals Management Service from finalizing 
the lease sale on area 181, which is less than 17 miles off the coast 
of my district.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) once again spearheaded the 
amendment that has kept Florida's waters rig-free for the past decade. 
This amendment builds on the chairman's language to include the 181 
lease sale, and I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and several others for supporting 
it. It is important. It is important not only to northwest Florida, it 
is important to the State and it is important that the country 
recognize, recognize the desires of the people of the State of Florida. 
In my home district, we do not want exploration less than 20 miles off 
of our shores.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) a member of the committee.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I have a map which I think will be helpful to our colleagues. Mr. 
Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my 
friend, the gentleman from Florida, and supported by many of my friends 
from Florida.
  I would think that we would realize we are now in an energy crisis in 
the United States of America. We are increasingly dependent on foreign 
sources of oil, but the one product in abundance we have here in the 
United States in North America is natural gas. That is what we are 
talking about primarily here, natural gas in lease sale 181.
  This amendment would cripple one of the largest sources of natural 
gas we have in North America. As the chairman said, it is $7.8 trillion 
cubic feet of natural gas. My friend, the gentleman from Florida, when 
he introduced this amendment, said we do not need a quick fix in this 
area. My goodness gracious, this has been under review for 5 years, Mr. 
Chairman, an exhaustive review process. It began in 1996. For 5 years, 
sale 181 has been subjected to careful review and study to ensure all 
concerns are addressed.
  In fact, then Governor Lawton Chiles expressed his appreciation to 
the Department of the Interior for recognizing his request to exclude 
any tracts within 100 miles of the Florida coast.

[[Page 11441]]

  What are we talking about here? If my friends can look at the map, 
and those on the other side, I would appreciate it if they would come 
over here, we are talking about an area here that is 213 miles from 
Tampa, 108 miles from the coastline near Panama City. This little part 
that goes up near Pensacola, that is Alabama territory. Alabama gets to 
make the choice there. That is why it comes so close to Pensacola, 
because it is Alabama offshore territory.
  It is true that the previous administration called for a moratorium 
on the exploration and drilling in the eastern Gulf of Members, but not 
for lease sale 181, not even the previous administration. Even this 
Congress took action to impose a moratorium on drilling in the eastern 
Gulf, except for lease area 181.
  The last administration and this Congress have both recognized the 
critical importance of lease sale 181 in meeting our natural gas 
demand. I repeat, we are talking about 7.8 trillion cubic feet of sale 
of natural gas, one of the cleanest types of energy we could produce, 
during the time of an energy crisis.
  With production declining over here in the western area and in the 
central area of the Gulf of Mexico, this part of the eastern section, 
just sale 181, hundreds of miles out in the Gulf of Mexico, is crucial 
to meeting our national energy needs. The sale of 181 is critical to 
that effort.
  Mr. Chairman, with the current energy crisis, you would think our 
politicians might have learned their lesson about restricting the 
production of needed and environmentally-friendly energy sources.
  I urge the defeat of this amendment. This may be one of the most 
important votes we take this summer.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  The gentleman from Mississippi is correct, it may be a couple 
hundreds miles away from Tampa, but it is only about 15 miles away from 
the beaches of northwest Florida, where the gentleman from Mississippi 
and his family come to vacation every summer.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to the forefront, and 
for his continued efforts on behalf of Florida.
  I would say to the gentleman from Mississippi, 181, it does not 
matter, it could be down in the Keys next, it could be someplace near 
Tampa. It is just the fact and idea that we do not want this open at 
all in Florida. I would say to the gentleman that this amendment is 
about Floridians and their wants; or, in this case, what they do not 
want. They do not want drilling off the coast of Florida.
  Governor Jeb Bush has said that he, and I would say that 94 percent 
of the people who have contacted me from the nature coast, oppose 
further oil and gas drilling off the coast of Florida. Florida's 
economy and general welfare depend on a healthy marine environment, 
including clean beaches. An offshore accident of any size seriously 
threatens not only our shoreline, but it also will hurt our seafood and 
fishing beds. Clearly we must do all we can to protect Florida's 
sensitive seacoast.
  What Floridians do want, though, what I have advocated, and so have 
many others on this floor, is a prudent, responsible energy policy that 
includes safe, clean supplies and reduced demand through conservation 
and energy efficiency.
  Up to now, we have done too little in these areas. Renewable 
resources, such as solar and wind, I have to tell the Members, these 
energies could be providing energy today if we would just use the 
technology. We could be well down the road to a sensible energy policy 
if the majority had only considered in 1999 or 2000 the energy tax 
credit bill that my Democratic colleagues and I supported.
  Instead of funding and using sources we now have, we again are 
debating issues that should have been settled by now. Years ago 
Congress first imposed the moratorium on expanded drilling in the Gulf. 
The past administration accepted the ban on drilling. The current 
administration does not.
  If the administration forgets about oil drilling near Florida and if 
Congress would restore Bush budget cuts for energy efficiency and 
renewable energy programs, we can move forward to an energy policy that 
serves all Americans and does not include drilling off the coast of 
Florida. I support the Davis amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, in these times this amendment makes no sense, and it is 
the height of irresponsibility. This lease is not off the coast of 
Florida, it is in the Gulf of Mexico. It is off the coast of Louisiana 
and Mississippi. This amendment makes about as much sense as shutting 
down all exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It weakens our energy 
security.
  Our long-term energy security, particularly at this time, requires us 
to seek out new sources of oil and natural gas. America is growing 
increasingly dependent on foreign sources of oil. That trend endangers 
our national security. When the proportion of oil we import from a 
volatile region rises, average Americans grow more vulnerable to supply 
interruptions and international conflicts.
  When we have an opportunity to reverse this trend, we need to seize 
upon it. We need to take responsible steps to decrease our dependence 
on foreign sources, and when we discover a promising domestic reserve 
of natural gas and oil, we need to move forward by opening that area to 
safe exploration.
  Lease sale 181 has the potential to play a very important role in 
strengthening our energy security. It could hold trillions of cubic 
feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil. Natural gas and oil 
produced at home lowers the sway that potentially hostile foreign 
leaders would hold over average Americans.
  Recently we have seen fluctuations in the price of natural gas 
because supplies have run short. This clean-burning fuel is becoming an 
increasingly important source of energy. Each additional source adds to 
the supply and can offset new demand for natural gas. Lease sale 181 
can make natural gas prices lower and more stable.
  Now, some Members oppose exploration in this area because they are 
concerned about environmental risks. That is a radical notion, because 
what we think is a reasonable and understandable concern is not a 
concern at all. We do not face an either/or proposition. Lease sale 181 
can be explored safely. Today advances in technology let drilling 
platforms probe much larger areas. Sophisticated new drilling devices 
provide multiple protections against oil spills.
  We can add these resources to our energy supply without compromising 
environmental standards. I say to the gentlewoman from Florida, the 
best fishing in the world is around these platforms, if the gentlewoman 
has ever taken the time to visit one. Over the past 20 years, oil 
exploration firms operating in the Gulf have built a solid track record 
of environmental stewardship.
  Defeat this amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say respectfully to my dear friend, the 
gentleman from Texas, that perhaps the people of Florida would much 
rather have artificial reefs around which their fishing can be improved 
instead of oil platforms.
  In addition to that, while we might say that it is radical to protect 
our environment, perhaps more and more Americans are becoming radical 
because, to look at the polls in this country, the American people 
strongly defend their environment. I do not think the American people 
want drilling off

[[Page 11442]]

the coast of one of the most pristine areas in this country, because it 
belongs not only to Florida, it belongs to the people of my State in 
Ohio, it belongs to the people all over this country.
  There are people who want to drill in the Great Lakes, which 
represent 20 percent of the fresh water supply of America. When do we 
stop trying to trade the treasure of this Nation to industries which 
are gouging the public, which are raising prices to unconscionable 
levels, which are withholding supplies?
  We are going to put our trust in the gas and oil industry and forfeit 
our natural treasures? I think not. Support Scarborough-Davis.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, section 181 is located 64 miles from my district. It is 
much closer to my district in Louisiana, and much closer, by the way, 
to Alabama and Mississippi than it is to Florida. That is point number 
one.
  Point number two, right adjacent to section 181 BP just discovered 
1.5 billion barrels of oil. There are huge reserves there, 7.8 trillion 
feet of natural gas probably in section 181. Section 181 is under a 5-
year plan approved by President Clinton in his executive order 98, 
signed off by Florida and the other States of the area, that in fact 
respects the rights of Florida not to have drilling within 100 miles of 
its coast.
  Section 181 can help us through a terrible crisis we are about to 
face. It is not moratorium, it is in the 5-year leasing plan, and it 
needs to be developed.
  Ninety-two percent of the new electric power plants that are planned 
to be built in this country are being planned to be built with natural 
gas. Yet, we produce 14 percent less natural gas in this country than 
we did in 1973.
  Section 181 is critical. It has, on best estimates, 7.8 trillion 
cubic feet of natural gas available for this country. We are not going 
to drill it? We are not talking about moratoriumed areas, we are not 
talking about monuments, we are talking about an area in the Gulf of 
Mexico right next to an area in Louisiana that is currently being 
drilled, currently being processed, for oil and gas for our country. It 
is an area rich in oil and gas for a nation that desperately need 
natural gas.
  Seven out of twelve fertilizer plants in Louisiana were shut down 
this year because we could not afford the natural gas to process 
fertilizer for the rest of this country. Do Members want to see more 
problems? Shut down section 181 and we will begin to shut down 
America's farm belt. We will begin to shut down clean power for 
America. We literally predict a crisis that will come true.
  Defeat this amendment for the good of the country.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Orlando, Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise today in strong support of the Davis amendment. We need oil 
rigs off the Florida beaches about as much as we need crackhouses next 
to our churches.
  Florida is home to this Nation's finest beaches. We have a tourism-
based economy. The last thing we need is oil drilling 17 miles off the 
shores of our Pensacola beaches in north Florida.
  I represented the world's number one vacation destination. I get to 
meet thousands of tourists every year. I have never yet heard a child 
to me say, ``I want to see Mickey Mouse, Shamu, and wouldn't it be 
great to see a couple oil rigs off the beaches?"
  Reasonable people surely can differ on this issue. It genuinely is a 
risk-versus-benefits analysis, but in the case of Florida, in light of 
our economy, the risks outweigh the benefits.

                              {time}  1600

  To the extent we need more energy supply, and we do, let us start 
with places that actually want the oil drillings and not the Florida 
beaches.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the Subcommittee of the Interior, 
for yielding me the time.
  I am proud to follow some of my colleagues. As a country, we cannot 
enjoy a growing and cleaner economy without more domestic production of 
natural gas. It is clear that our Nation's demand for natural gas is 
growing significantly.
  If our Nation is to meet its growing demand, then we have to have 
access to gas-prone areas like Sale 181, which is really closer to 
other States than it is to Florida.
  We cannot set aside Florida. I wonder about my colleagues who want to 
have a vacation destination. People will not be able to drive there to 
enjoy Mickey Mouse unless we have production domestically.
  We cannot have it both ways. We cannot demand lower energy prices and 
continued reliability and at the same time discourage domestic 
production. Exploration and production of domestic energy sources are 
keys to staying in front of our energy needs.
  Sure, we need to conserve. Sure, we need to have alternatives, but 
conservation and alternatives will not satisfy the demands of the 
American people. We have to have production, particularly from natural 
gas, to fuel all of these cleaner-burning power plants that are on the 
drawing boards and actually being built.
  Mr. Chairman, Sale 181 actually during the last administration was 
left out of President Clinton's executive order in 1998 because it was 
agreed to by all the States, including Florida. In fact, the sale was 
specifically excluded from the current leasing moratorium language.
  Key stakeholders including Alabama, Florida and the Department of 
Defense were consulted on the 5-year plan. The sale of the area was 
drawn to ensure it was consistent with Florida's request for no oil and 
gas activities within 100 miles, but what we are talking about is 
within the Alabama border, and that is why we need this production.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Miami, Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, when are people going to get it 
in their minds that the people of Florida do not want oil and gas 
drilling in the sea bed of the Gulf of Mexico? It does not take a Ph.D. 
to figure that out. It is simple. Why is it my colleagues cannot figure 
that out?
  Our Governor, Jeb Bush, has made it explicitly clear even to his 
brother that he does not want this to happen. Why can we not listen to 
those people who know what the deleterious effects will be of this in 
Florida? Within 30 miles of Perdido Key you want to drill. Sixteen 
million Americans residing in the State of Florida do not want it.
  Mr. Chairman, I will repeat it again, I do not have much time, the 
people of Florida do not want it. The Governor does not wanted it. So 
do not push the President into wanting it. Please remember we do not 
want it. Do my colleagues want to ruin our beaches? My colleagues want 
to turn us into another Planet of the Apes.
  We do not want it, the toxic pollution, offshore oil drillings, air 
pollution, spills. These things will happen. Why would we want to put 
our natural system at risk? We have Everglades here. We have the beauty 
that God has given us. Let us keep it. It is not that important.
  We are not going to stand for it. We are not going to allow it to 
happen. We will not allow Bush I or II and their best friends to 
destroy this beautiful natural system. Let us protect Florida's 
coastline and beaches. Support the Davis amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, we face a real energy crisis in this 
country which is only going to grow; and to meet that crisis, we need a 
balanced long-term approach.
  We are not going to drill our way out of the crisis, nor are we going 
to conserve our way out of the crisis, nor are

[[Page 11443]]

we going to work our way out of the crisis through pure energy 
efficiency.
  The bottom line is that clearly we have to do all of these things. 
The problem with this amendment is it takes safe, clear opportunity for 
domestic oil and gas production off the table, and we have been doing 
that for 30 years, taking more and more off the table.
  That is exactly the sort of not-in-my-backyard mentality which has us 
where we are today. That is exactly what we have to get beyond if we 
are going to have a balanced comprehensive approach to meeting our 
Nation's energy needs.
  The most ironic thing about this not-in-my-backyard argument, it is 
not even in their backyard. In fact, it is in Federal territory, and it 
is more in the backyards of Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana than 
it is in their backyard.
  Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues want to be so parochial in their 
approach, then maybe we could make a deal with them: I will not go to 
Florida beaches for a while. I will just go to Gulf Shores in Alabama, 
but my colleagues should not demand that and should not use energy from 
the rest of the country including everything that we explore and drill 
for and produce in Louisiana.
  Obviously, we need to get beyond that narrow-mindedness and that 
parochialism and have a balanced approach, including producing this 
clean, safe energy.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Palm Beach, Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want people to focus a little bit on the 
debate for a moment. It is very, very simple. We have heard people from 
other States, Texas, Louisiana, all say they are for oil drilling. You 
can have all you want. You can do it in your home State. You can do it 
off your shores.
  Florida is making a very simple and specific request, leave us out of 
your dialogue and leave us out of your drawings. We believe strongly in 
having a cohesive environmental policy. In fact, in the 1970s I worked 
in a Shell gas station, and I remember having people antagonized over 
the fact they could not fill their tanks; but since the 1970s we have 
done very little to have a comprehensive energy policy. But just 
suggesting that we start putting pipes in the ground is not a solution.
  A lot of people are paying attention and wanting to know when can we 
set the rigs. Florida is simply saying not in our backyard. We are 
delighted to say it and proud to say it.
  Democrats and Republicans in the delegation joined together trying to 
urge Congress to leave us out of this. Have it in Alabama. Have it in 
Louisiana. Go to Texas. Go to California, and even in Alaska if you 
want. Yes, it may be controversial, but the sovereign right of that 
State should be heard. Our sovereign right is expressing opposition, 
and I urge my colleagues to join us in this initiative.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, actually, this would be a lot more fun if 
it was real. It is the phoniest debate I have heard in a long, long 
time.
  If we look at the amendment, this significant move on the part of 
Florida is going to last until April 1, 2002; maybe April 2001 is more 
appropriate than 2002. The fact of the matter is if they were serious, 
they would have made it permanent. They did not make it permanent 
because it costs money.
  We have heard about this particular area. It is in the Gulf of 
Mexico. The area looks like this. Why does it have this long neck? 
Because Florida said they did not want any drilling over there within 
100 miles of their coastline. Frankly, most of the natural gas is 
probably in this area. So there was an agreement between Florida and 
the other States.
  Mr. Chairman, this literally is 200 miles from Florida there and 100 
miles from Florida there. But here is the dirty little secret that no 
one in Florida will tell you. Guess what this line is right across the 
gulf? That is an already-agreed-upon pipeline 740 miles to supply oil 
and gas to Florida. No, they do not want to drill near you, but they 
want the oil and gas to use.
  How hypocritical can you be? How far is 100 miles? It is from New 
York City to Scranton, Pennsylvania. It is from Madison, Wisconsin, to 
Waterloo, Iowa. And if we cannot drill in an already-approved area in 
which the State of Florida was a negotiator and the lines were drawn to 
fit them, it really will be our Waterloo when we are trying to be self-
sufficient for energy.
  Here is the question, Members, when my colleagues vote: If it was 
worth fighting for oil and gas in the Persian Gulf, why is it not worth 
looking for in the gulf near America?
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Miami, Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the 
Scarborough-Davis amendment that would prohibit the Secretary of the 
Interior from executing a final lease agreement for oil or gas 
development in the area of the Gulf of Mexico known as Lease Sale 181.
  The beaches on the gulf coast of Florida are comprised of some of the 
most pristine and beautiful areas that would be devastated by an oil 
spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Our tourism and fishing industries would 
also be devastated by such a spill.
  Many of my congressional colleagues have told me recently that they 
will be visiting this area of Florida during the July 4th holiday.
  People come to Florida for the beaches. So please join the citizens 
of the State of Florida who overwhelmingly and in a bipartisan way 
oppose drilling off of our waters.
  We are talking about 17 miles off of Pensacola Florida. Florida's 
white sand, clear waters, and gorgeous sunsets have truly not only 
become a treasure for our State, but they are a treasure for our Nation 
and the millions of tourists who visit Florida's beaches every year.
  Please join the State of Florida in protecting our beaches and 
crystal blue waters by opposing offshore drilling. All of our 
constituents will thank you for it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), the bipartisan 
amendment. Certainly, Members from Louisiana and Texas and Florida and 
even Indiana and Ohio have every right to speak on this amendment.
  Sixteen million Floridians do not want drilling off their shore. Tens 
of thousands of people from Indiana and Ohio and Illinois that go down 
to Fort Lauderdale, Long Key, Sanibel Island, also enjoy the tourism, 
the fishing, the environmental areas down there; and we want to see 
that protected.
  There is an old saying that you cannot have it both ways. The problem 
with the Bush administration's energy policy is in energy you need to 
have it both ways. You need to have production and conservation. They 
only emphasize production and drilling and more drilling and drilling 
in Alaska.
  We need to make sure we have a balanced approach to protect our 
environment. We need to make sure we enhance the new technologies out 
there to drill in prior areas and get more out of those areas rather 
than going into pristine environmental areas.
  Support the Davis amendment. Support bipartisan environmental 
concerns and support going toward a balanced energy policy.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to give another point of 
reference to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), who was 
talking about 100 miles or 200 miles from Waterloo to whatever. We are 
talking about 17 miles which will not get you from the United States 
capitol to the airport. Seventeen miles is what we are talking about, 
that will not even get you to Washington's airport at Dulles so you can 
fly home to California.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 11444]]

  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to some of the statements that 
were made. Let us go back to the facts. Nobody has questioned the 
statement of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) that this is 
17 miles from the coast of Florida.
  Let us be perfectly clear. This is drilling for oil, crude oil, as 
well as gas; and there are 21 days of crude oil in Sale 181. If we 
raise fuel efficiency standards by 16 miles per hour, that achieves 10 
times more result than proceeding with Sale 181.
  Mr. Chairman, with the exception of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas), every Member of Congress that told Florida that we should 
put our coastline at risk is from an oil-producing State, and they do 
not have to apologize for protecting jobs in their States. But our 
tourists do not wash up on their beaches, and we do not want their oil 
washing up on ours.
  Let me just further say, with respect to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay), if being against the risk of oil spills in Florida makes 
us radical by Texas' environmental standards, then we proudly wear that 
label.
  The point is, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) said, we 
need a balance here; and we support solutions to our energy problem. 
But let us have a thoughtful debate. Let us not engage in quick fixes 
at the expense of Floridians. We have suffered oil spills before. I saw 
one when I was a small child in Tampa Bay. I do not want my children or 
grandchildren to see that again.

                              {time}  1615

  This is in Florida's waters. This is something we are entitled to 
protect. We can do better. Let us adopt this amendment. Let us slow 
this down for 6 months and find a balanced solution to the energy 
challenges that face our country and not do so at the expense of 
Florida and its coastline.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
  The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, the entire Alabama delegation is on record 
supporting Sale 181. Unfortunately, the delegation is in Alabama with 
the President of the United States and will be unable to vote. I submit 
for the Record herewith the delegation letters in support of Sale 181.


                                         United States Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, April 9, 2001.
     Hon. George W. Bush,
     President of the United States, The White House, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear President Bush: We are writing to endorse the State of 
     Alabama's strong support for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 
     Lease Sale 181 scheduled for December 2001. H.J. Res. 13, as 
     passed by the Alabama Legislature and signed by Governor 
     Siegelman unequivocally recognizes the positive benefits of 
     Sale 181. We agree with the Governor's stated position 
     supporting the proposed sale so long as no blocks are leased 
     within 15 miles of the Alabama coast and safety measures are 
     ensured.
       We agree this sale is a crucial component of a strategy to 
     develop new, diverse supplies of oil and natural gas to meet 
     the ever-increasing energy demands of our nation's new 
     economy. As production declines in the western and central 
     portions of the Gulf of Mexico, there is a growing 
     recognition of the need for the vast resources contained in 
     this eastern segment of the Gulf. Importantly, all of Sale 
     181's tracts are outside the areas that are off-limits to 
     exploration and production under the mandated federal 
     moratorium area. The Gulf Of Mexico now provides about 24% of 
     U.S. oil production and about 26% of U.S. natural gas 
     production. The resources contained in this sale area are 
     estimated to hold approximately 7.8 trillion cubic feet of 
     gas and 1.9 billion barrels of oil.
       The oil and natural gas industry has been good for Alabama, 
     providing fuel and employment, to thousands of our state's 
     residents, contributing to our economy and depositing 
     millions of dollars into our state's treasury. It is 
     estimated the oil and gas industry spends over $50 million 
     annually on Alabama and Mississippi products and services. 
     State funds derived from lease agreements in the Gulf of 
     Mexico are utilized to improve our environment and protect 
     unique coastal and estuarine habitats. The successful and 
     timely continuation of Sale 181 would only further enhance 
     these benefits to our state.
       Alabama and the offshore industry have coexisted to the 
     mutual benefit of both for decades. As you know, the oil and 
     natural gas industry has an outstanding record for operating 
     safety on the more than 3,800 offshore platform, which are 
     subject to extremely rigorous environment standards. It is 
     anticipated this excellent record will continue to improve as 
     new technology allows the extraction of more oil and gas from 
     wider areas using fewer wells and platform protecting seabeds 
     and marine life.
       Like other Gulf of Mexico states, Alabama has a thriving 
     and expanding tourism business. The oil and natural gas 
     activities offshore have not discouraged visitors to our 
     beaches and other recreational areas along our coast.
       We urge you to continue your support of responsible 
     development of our domestic resources, including the Sale 181 
     area. Alabama is proud of our contribution to national energy 
     security and economic growth through the prudent and 
     environmentally sound development of our offshore energy 
     resources.
       With kind regards, we are
           Sincerely,
         Richard Shelby, U.S.S., Sonny Callahan, M.C., Spencer 
           Bachus, M.C., Terry Everett, M.C., Bob Riley, M.C., 
           Jeff Sessions, U.S.S., Robert Aderholt, M.C. Robert E. 
           ``Bud'' Cramer, M.C., Earl Hilliard, M.C.
                                  ____

                                          Proposed Lease Sale 181,


                                      Don Siegelman, Governor,

                                                   April 24, 2001.
       President Bush asked me to help with this proposed lease 
     sale and I am pleased to lend my support as long as there are 
     no blocks sold within 15 miles of the Alabama coast and 
     safety measures are ensured. I believe this is in the 
     country's and Alabama's best long-term interest. Because 
     Alabama is an energy producing state, this proposed lease 
     sale will help Alabama propel its economic development 
     effort. It is my hope that this would help increase supply 
     and reduce prices for consumers. At my request, we will meet 
     with the Mineral Management Service on May 7th, to ensure 
     that all safety measures are in place before moving forward 
     with the lease sale. If I am satisfied that the necessary 
     precautions are in place, I look forward to proceeding with 
     proposed lease sale 181.
                                  ____



                                      Don Siegelman, Governor,

                               State of Alabama, January 24, 2001.
       Dear Mr. Oynes: With respect to your letter of December 1, 
     2000, concerning the draft environmental Impact Statement for 
     proposed Eastern Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 181, we offer the 
     following comments.
       I am pleased the Minerals Management Service is not 
     offering any blocks in proposed Lease Sale 181 within 15 
     miles of the Alabama coast. The Interior secretary's decision 
     to delete blocks within 15 miles offshore Baldwin County in 
     the eastern Gulf of Mexico serves to mitigate the concerns of 
     Alabama's residents regarding visual impacts from new natural 
     gas structures in the areas of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach. 
     In the future, I will continue to oppose the leasing of any 
     unleased blocks southward and within 15 miles of the Baldwin 
     County coast. We recognize that new natural gas structures 
     may be installed on currently leased federal blocks, and we 
     support and appreciate MMS's efforts to work cooperatively 
     with the industry and the state of Alabama to minimize the 
     visual impacts of new natural gas structures offshore Baldwin 
     County. I request that you continue to work with the 
     Geological Survey/State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama to find 
     realistic methods for addressing this viewshed issue.
       As you are aware, the state of Alabama consistently has 
     supported protection for live bottoms, pinnacle reefs, 
     chemosynthetic communities and other sensitive environments 
     of offshore Alabama in the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning 
     Area. We certainly support these same types of protection for 
     Lease Sale 181 in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area.
       We continue to support MMS's nonenergy minerals program. It 
     is important that MMS continue to gather geological and 
     environmental information regarding Outer Continental Shelf 
     sand resources that may be required for coastal erosion 
     management. We appreciate MMS's interaction with the state of 
     Alabama to identify these resources which may have both 
     short- and long-term utility.
       We have concerns regarding statements on page IV-128 of the 
     DEIS which indicate that coastal Alabama has the highest 
     probability of contact if a large offshore spill occurred in 
     the area for proposed Lease Sale 181. In addition, we have 
     concerns regarding the number of new pipeline landfalls (page 
     IV-221), new gas processing plants (page IV-238), new oil 
     pipeline shore facilities (page IV-238), and adverse impacts 
     to air quality (page IV-287). These matters are of particular 
     concern, given that the vast majority of blocks available for 
     lease in proposed Lease Sale 181 are located offshore 
     Florida. It would appear that the coastal Alabama area could 
     be significantly impacted by OCS activities occurring 
     offshore Florida as a result of the proposed sale. I request 
     that MMS meet with representatives of the Geological Survey/
     State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama and discuss all of these 
     matters in detail in the near future.

[[Page 11445]]

       The state of Alabama supports a balanced and reasonable 
     Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing program that leads to 
     exploration, development and production, with the stipulation 
     that all OCS activities be carried out in full compliance 
     with relevant Alabama laws, rules, and regulations, and be 
     consistent with our Coastal Zone Management Program.
       We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft 
     Environmental Impact Statement for proposed Eastern Gulf of 
     Mexico Lease Sale 181 and look forward to working 
     cooperatively with MMS in the successful and safe development 
     of the hydrocarbon resources located offshore Alabama and in 
     sharing in the benefits of OCS leasing and production 
     activities.
           Sincerely,
                                          Don Siegelman, Governor.

                         House Joint Resolution

       Whereas, Alabama annual natural gas production from onshore 
     and offshore wells, combined, is 433 billion cubic feet, of 
     which 217 billion cubic feet come from offshore wells; and
       Whereas, Alabama Gulf Coast and Dauphin Island tourism 
     economy co-exist in harmony through mutual use of Alabama's 
     natural resources with Alabama offshore natural gas 
     production operations; and
       Whereas, Alabama's recreational fishing and commercial 
     fishing industry co-exist in harmony through mutual use of 
     Alabama's natural resources with Alabama offshore natural gas 
     production operations; and
       Whereas, Alabama benefits from offshore natural gas 
     operations in many ways, including, but not limited to, local 
     and state revenues from severance taxes, and state revenues 
     from Trust Fund interest, including royalty state payments, 
     federal 8(g) royalties, and lease sale proceeds; and
       Whereas, Alabama jobs, income taxes, and other positive 
     economic benefits have been created by Alabama's offshore 
     natural gas developments, including exploration and drilling, 
     platform fabrication and installation, pipeline contracting 
     and construction, onshore gas treatment plant construction, 
     operation, and maintenance, and goods, services, and supplies 
     purchased; and
       Whereas, Additional positive economic benefits related to 
     Alabama offshore natural gas developments include direct 
     effects such as direct purchases, indirect effects such as 
     purchases by contractors and suppliers, and induced effects 
     such as the re-circulation of wages, salaries, and profits; 
     and
       Whereas, Alabama offshore natural gas developments and 
     operations have performed in a safe and environmentally-
     sensitive manner, with benefits to Alabama citizens far 
     outweighing any/all perceived risks; and
       Whereas, Alabama citizens and industries, and individual 
     natural gas consumers and industries outside Alabama continue 
     to use and need more clean-burning natural gas supplies; and
       Whereas, areas in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Outer 
     Continental Shelf (OCS) 25 miles and further south of 
     Alabama's and Florida's coastlines represent a major prospect 
     for drilling and producing future supplies of clean-burning 
     natural gas; and
       Whereas, two eastern Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 
     (OCS) areas, specifically an area known as the Destin Dome 
     and Federal Lease Sale 181 Area, if drilled in a safe and 
     environmentally-sensitive manner, are predicted to hold large 
     natural gas reserves; and
       Whereas, Coastal Alabama is the likely natural gas 
     infrastructure area to take new reserves to market, 
     increasing Alabama's economic benefits directly related to 
     new natural gas production from the Eastern Gulf of Mexico; 
     now therefore, be it
       Resolved by the legislature of Alabama, both houses thereof 
     Concurring, That we express our support for natural gas 
     drilling and development in the federal Outer Continental 
     shelf (OCS) Eastern Gulf of Mexico areas of the Destin Dome 
     and Federal Lease Sale 181 Area. Be it further
       Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to each 
     member of Alabama's U.S. Congressional Delegation and to 
     President Clinton, Secretary of Commerce William Daley, The 
     Minerals Management Service, the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy, and the 
     environmental Protection Agency.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a valued member of the 
Subcommittee on Interior.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I tell my friends briefly, in terms of a 
response, it is only 6 months, and the lines that are on the map are 
the lines that the Floridians agreed to. It is 100 miles from the 
Florida border, as agreed to by Florida's governor. So I understand my 
colleagues' concern, but as a matter of fact, what is going to be put 
in that pipeline? It is going to be some other State's gas. Come on.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, in 
conclusion, gas prices last year doubled. We have put a huge amount of 
electric generation on this year, all natural gas. Next year home 
heating natural gas costs could double again and our energy sensitive 
businesses are going to be priced right out of business.
  When my colleagues' seniors cannot afford to heat their homes next 
year, when they get the second year in a row with high natural gas 
prices, and look at any of the curves, the natural gas uses for 
electric generation exceeds any new gas coming out of the ground, My 
colleagues' seniors are going to be very angry with this decision.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for an 
amendment offered by my colleagues from Florida, Representatives Davis 
and Scarborough, to prohibit oil and gas exploration and development 
off the coast of Florida. The issue at hand is the sale of Lease Sale 
181 in the Gulf of Mexico, although offshore drilling threatens all 
coastal communities, including those of New Jersey. We in New Jersey 
thought we had put to rest the idea of drilling off the New Jersey 
coast, but recently we have begun to wonder.
  Sale 181 contains 5.9 million acres of an offshore area in the Gulf, 
in water ranging from 108 to over 10,000 feet deep. The sale is 
scheduled for December, 2001. Although both the past administration and 
the present governor of Florida support a ban on oil and gas 
development within 100 miles of the coast of Florida, part of Sale 181 
come to within 15 miles of the Alabama coast.
  I see this sale as a potential threat to the economy and environment 
of the gulf states. Although cleaner than in the past, oil and gas 
exploration cannot be done without threatening our natural resources, 
commercial fishing industries, tourism, and marine ecology. Nearly 90 
percent of the reef fish resources of the Gulf of Mexico are caught on 
the West Florida Shelf. Oil and gas development would threaten the 
shallow, clean water marine communities found on the Florida outer 
continental shelf. Ecology and environment are central to the economy 
of Florida. Damage to the environment would threaten the tourism 
industry upon which much of their economy is based.
  Furthermore, there is no evidence that drilling in Lease 181 would 
have a significant impact on our energy supply. Increased conservation 
and efficiency would do more to meet our country's energy needs than 
drilling off of the coast of Florida, and the impact of conservation 
would be immediate with little environmental cost.
  I endorse this amendment as a strong message to Secretary Norton to 
maintain the moratorium on offshore drilling and not to sacrifice our 
marine ecosystem in an attempt to satisfy our energy demands. I 
strongly support this amendment to prohibit the sale of the Sale 181 
area and I urge my colleagues, particularly those who represent coastal 
states, to join me.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to suspend or revise the final regulations published 
     in the Federal Register on November 21, 2000, that amended 
     part 3809 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that, 
notwithstanding the unanimous consent agreement that was previously 
reached, we limit this amendment to 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each 
side.
  The CHAIRMAN. And all amendments thereto?
  Mr. DICKS. And all amendments thereto.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKEEN. We approve.

[[Page 11446]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn) and myself. It is a bipartisan amendment intended 
to maintain, maintain, existing environmental protections. It is about 
arsenic, it is about cyanide, it is about sulfuric acid, it is about 
making sure that we do not roll back existing rules in place today that 
have been implemented to prevent the discharge of arsenic and cyanide 
and other toxics into our streams and rivers.
  Mr. Chairman, here is why this amendment is necessary. Before the 
adoption of these rules, we had a scandalous situation in mining and 
release of toxics. Twelve thousand miles of streams in the West are 
polluted from mining tailings, 40 percent of streams in the West. 
Ninety-six percent of all of the arsenic compounds artificially 
released in the environment have been from the mining industry, without 
these rules that have now been implemented; 600 million pounds of 
arsenic and arsenic compounds a year from the mining industry.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure in this appropriation bill that no 
hand is taken to reduce the effectiveness or repeal these rules that 
have been adopted after 4 years and 35,000 pieces of input from the 
American public.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues, there are three things at risk here: 
Number one, the existing rules adopted by rule. Number one has 
environmental performance standards, standards that every mining 
operation has to meet to prevent the discharge of cyanide. And because 
of the implementation of cyanide heap leach mining, this is extremely 
important.
  Number two, we have got to have a way for local communities to have 
input in these decisions of siting, and we do not want to allow any 
hand to remove the ability to have local communities where there is 
substantial irreparable harm to a local community. This is a local 
control issue.
  Number three, we want to make sure the mines put up adequate bonding 
capability. Under this rule, the administration, to its credit, has 
said they will keep this part, this one-third of the bill, and this is 
the part we want to make sure we keep the administration policy in 
hand.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill, and so we seek 
bipartisan support. It is a strong problem that deserves that we keep 
the status quo for the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico seek time in 
opposition?
  Mr. SKEEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the gentleman's amendment. I see 
nothing wrong with the Department of Interior reevaluating regulations 
that were finalized in the last days of the past administration. In 
fact, it is my understanding that this type of review is commonplace 
during the changes of administration.
  We should allow the rulemaking process to continue and not preempt 
the process by establishing yet another moratorium on this bill. The 
Interior bill is not the appropriate place to address the changes in 
the Mining Law of 1872. This is best left to the authorizing committee 
which has jurisdiction over this issue.
  After reviewing the National Research Council report on hardrock 
mining on Federal lands, it is obvious to me that the previous 
administration went too far in amending the mining regulations. It is 
my opinion that these rules will have a significant economic impact on 
the mining sector. However, while I personally would like to limit any 
changes to these regulations to the regulatory gaps identified by the 
National Research Council, I have refrained from doing so because we 
have an appropriate rulemaking process in place to address this issue.
  I therefore ask for my colleagues' support in opposing this 
amendment. Amen.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn), the cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which 
seeks to continue our commitment to responsible public land management. 
Environmental mining rules, also known as 3809 regulations, provide 
critical Federal oversight specifically for hardrock mining on lands 
managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
  The current regulations were enacted because the old regulations 
failed to keep pace with modern mining techniques. The current rule is 
critical because it requires mining companies to pay for the full cost 
of environmental cleanup rather than being able to shift those costs to 
taxpayers. Right now, because of the old mining rules, taxpayers are on 
the hook for $1 billion in cleanup costs just at currently operating 
mines.
  The current rule puts strong environmental standards in place to 
protect water supplies from excessive contamination of arsenic and 
other heavy metals by directing mining operators to protect surface and 
groundwater resources. As of the year 2000, the Environmental 
Protection Agency estimated that 40 percent of the headwaters of all 
the western watersheds are polluted by mining. This is due in part to 
the fact that the old mining rules had no environmental performance 
standards.
  This amendment simply states that no funds shall be used to suspend 
or revise the final regulations published in the Federal Register on 
November 21, 2000. This will ensure the protection of our waters from 
arsenic, cyanide and other toxic pollutants and give certainty that the 
taxpayers are protected as well.
  I again urge my colleagues to support this amendment and keep the 
current rule in place.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico, 
the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this rider on an 
appropriation bill. I listened with interest, Mr. Chairman, to my good 
friend from Washington State, because in a previous Congress, both on 
October 4 of 1999 and October 21 of 1999, he told us how horrible it 
was to have riders added to appropriation bills. In fact, he likened 
them to fleas.
  Well, I will tell my colleague what is going to flee. With the 
passage of some of these anti-mining and anti-jobs riders, say good-bye 
to the jobs. If my colleagues care about endangered species, I wish we 
cared one whit about the people of America who earn a solid, decent, 
honest living from mining. But we can laugh and watch the other 
countries put up help wanted signs and kiss off another industry, when 
the fact is that already on the books there is effective regulation 
that has ended the scourge of environmental harm. The industry has 
changed.
  Look, all we are saying is let the current administration have the 
same courtesy the previous administration did. Let a reexamination of 
section 3809 take place, rules that took effect in the last nanosecond 
of the previous administration on January 20. Why not have a situation 
where we can review them?
  This body has twice directed the Department of the Interior to not 
promulgate rules inconsistent with the recommendations of a 
congressionally mandated study of hardrock mining on Federal lands by 
the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. We 
hear so much about the NAS and its studies, we hear so much lip service 
paid to science, yet when we have a provision here that says let us 
stand up for sound science, we want to abandon it, and with it the jobs 
of this

[[Page 11447]]

industry, to make headlines in terms of what some deem to be 
politically correct.
  What this amendment will do is set the precedent my friend from 
Washington State was so concerned about in 1999. This will unfurl a 
cascade of riders for the remainder of this appropriations process. And 
what again this will do, and this is the tragedy of the situation, Mr. 
Chairman, we will add more regulation and cost more jobs. For my friend 
from California, who is interested in high-tech, I wonder how his 
computers are going to work when we do not have the copper wiring any 
more.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond that we seek to maintain the existing regulation, which is 
fully consistent with the NAS study that concluded we needed better 
regulations against arsenic and cyanide in our waters.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my 
esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Washington, (Mr. Inslee), to 
keep standards in place that protect our water resources from mining 
pollution.
  Clean water is the most fundamental quality of life issue we have in 
this country. That is why I support funding the U.S. Geological 
Survey's water science programs and its 54 State Water Institutes in 
the amount recommended by the Subcommittee on Interior.

                              {time}  1630

  We cannot live without clean water. This amendment will strengthen 
the committee's wise decision to fund the USGS water programs by adding 
environmental safeguards to protect our water resources from pollution 
caused by mining. The USGS mission from its inception has focused on 
water resources. They must remain focused on our water resources in 
order to preserve the health of every American.
  In New Jersey alone, our percentage of impaired waters have worsened 
from 50 percent of our streams and rivers in 1993 to 65 percent today. 
Changing the USGS focus away from these crucial water programs in order 
to protect any industry is the very last thing we should be allowing.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for total support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my esteemed 
colleague from Washington, Mr. Inslee, to keep standards in place that 
protect our water resources from mining pollution.
  Clear water is the most fundamental quality-of-life issue we have in 
this country. That is why I support funding the US Geological Survey's 
water science programs and its 54 State Water Institutes in the amount 
recommended by the Interior Subcommittee of Appropriations--We cannot 
live without clean water!
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strengthen the Committee's wise 
decision to fund the USGS water programs, by adding environmental 
safeguards to protect our water resources from pollution caused by 
mining.
  The Department of the Interior proposes to change the mission of the 
US Geological Services away from water in order to focus more on 
mining. But focusing on mining at the expense of our water science and 
clean water protection is the wrong approach!
  The USGS mission, from its inception, has correctly focused on water 
resources--and it must remain focused on our water resources, in order 
to preserve the health of very American!
  Without the US Geological Survey's water programs and USGS State 
University Institutes--including our own Rugers Institute--we cannot 
assess the quality of our water, or train our future water 
professionals. These programs are the core of the USGS! The Geological 
Survey must remain much more than simple mining protection!
  The USGS ability to track and map problems with our water is a vital 
component in helping our state environmental agencies, so we can 
visualize problems while solutions are still doable and still cost 
effective.
  In New Jersey alone, our percentage of ``impaired'' waters has 
worsened from 50% of our streams and rivers in 1993, to 65% today, 
according to the most recent study.
  In our state, data from USGS has helped us see that worsening 
pollution follows our ``sprawl line''--and I know that in every state 
the causes of pollution may differ, whether it is sprawl, or acid rain, 
or mining, or some combination of pollutants.
  But Mr. Chairman, it is only with these important USGS tolls that we 
can learn about these pollutants, and learn what does not work in the 
way we manage our water resources and land use! Changing the USGS focus 
away from these crucial water programs, in order to protect the mining 
industry, is the very last thing we should allow, if we want to 
continue preserving our water and our health!
  Mr. Inslee's amendment is exactly what is needed to help protect 
these threatened resources, by allowing our communities and land 
management agencies to protect our water from pollution.
  Our communities already struggle to keep our fragile watersheds 
pure--as we well know in New Jersey. So I want to commend the Chair and 
Ranking Member of the Interior Subcommittee, and all of my 
Appropriations colleagues, for supporting our water science programs, 
and voting unanimously to restore more than $90 million in funding to 
the USGS.
  And I want to thank my many colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
helping me to champion the USGS water science programs--the Honorable 
Asa Hutchinson, and Michael Bilirakis; and my colleagues Mr. Gibbons, 
and Mr. Green and Mr. Boehlert,  as well as many of my Republican 
colleagues.
  I also want to thank my esteemed colleagues form this side of the 
aisle--Mr. Kind, Mrs. Napolitano and Mrs. Maloney; Mr. Blumenauer and 
Mr. Payne, Mrs. Mink and Mr. Pallone--and many, many others of you who 
have recognized--as I do--the importance of the USGS water programs to 
our nation's health.
  Mr. Chairman, I know, and my esteemed colleagues know that the USGS 
is our ``early warning system'' in the battle against deadly toxins and 
pollution in our water. We must not tolerate the dismantling of these 
vital programs or a change in the USGS mission away from water, to 
focus on mining.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the full funding that was 
appropriated for all U.S. Geological Survey water programs, and to 
support Mr. Inslee's amendment protecting our water resources from 
deadly mining pollution.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond, and I want to oppose 
the amendment of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. Chairman, the National Academy of Sciences indicated prior to the 
issuance of the regulations that we are questioning today, the 3809 
changes by the Clinton administration, the National Academy of Sciences 
issued a report prior to the existence of those regulations that the 
current 3809 regulations on hardrock mining on public lands, stated 
that the ``existing array of Federal and State laws regulating mining 
is effective in protecting the environment.'' They did not say we 
needed additional regulations for that. They said the existing array of 
regulations are effective in protecting the environment.
  What we have here, Mr. Chairman, is an attack on the mining industry. 
I am proud to say that America's mining industry is the world's most 
modern, technically advanced and environmentally responsible mining 
industry, and I am proud as an American to have the mining industry 
especially in our State, the State of Nevada.
  Mr. Chairman, this regulatory change that is being attempted here 
obviously goes to addressing the issue of whether or not this 
administration has the right to address regulations. We are going about 
it by saying if legislative fiat is what we are after to change and 
stop an administrative ability to change regulations, then that is what 
we should be doing. But then let us do it in all cases as well, and let 
us take away the administrative power for making changes to regulatory 
action, which is in the realm and the authority of the administration.
  Let me say that the mining industry today is already responsible for 
and applicable to the Clean Water Act. It cannot pollute the water and 
not be responsible for it. That is a myth that is being propagated out 
there. It is already responsible for the Clean Air Act. It cannot 
pollute the air and not be responsible for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this gentleman's amendment.

[[Page 11448]]


  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire as to the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) has 4\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I note that the argument just propounded essentially 
was rejected in a lawsuit which refused to stay implementation of these 
rules several weeks ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the cosponsor of this amendment, 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, normally I would have offered this type of amendment, 
being the usual suspect, because I have a long history on the issue 
that it touches upon. I have invested a great deal of time, indeed 
years, in an effort to reform the Mining Law of 1872.
  To be clear, I fully support this amendment. It represents a type of 
policy that should be in place. At the same time, it is far past time 
to be doing piecemeal reform of the Mining Law of 1872. The solution 
is, without a doubt, comprehensive reform, not this piecemeal fashion 
that we have been doing. I have stood on this floor with amendments and 
bills on this issue, yet the hard heads in the hardrock mining industry 
just do not get it. They have not gotten it yet. Their allies in this 
body, although in a minority, are in a position to block comprehensive 
reform measures from being considered in committee; so we are forced to 
come to the floor with amendments of this nature or amendments that I 
have offered in the past on efforts to stop the patenting of mining 
claims and to uphold the millsite decision. This will continue until 
the mining industry comes to the table.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the industry, come to the table. Negotiate. 
Compromise. My door is open. We will find common ground. Not ground 
sold for $2.50 an acre under a 19th century law. No, not that common 
ground. Not ground from the public's gold and silver that is mined with 
no royalty paid to the true owners of the land, the American people.
  I believe we can reach a sensible agreement on how to address issues 
which swirl around this industry and plague this industry in its 
investment decisions, and I understand the need for stability and 
certainty before making those types of investment in large equipment 
that is needed to mine our Nation's resources.
  Mr. Chairman, there is new leadership at the National Mining 
Association. I have told them my door is open. Let us work together to 
restore the public faith and interest in this matter.
  In the meantime, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Inslee amendment. I say 
to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, who described these 
regulations as promulgated by the last administration in the last 
nanosecond, that is because a Republican Congress for five times has 
delayed through appropriations riders these regulations.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just to expand on the comments of the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for 4-5 years, the administration could not 
act even though 35,000 people had impact on this decision. Now it is 
time for us.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Inslee amendment. The 
gentleman from Arizona said let the law stand. That is what we are 
trying to do here. We are trying to let section 3809, which was the 
law, the regulations properly adopted, we would like to see those 
sustained. The Bush administration has suspended the 3809 rule and 
intends to revise the rule. Remember, this is just on BLM lands. The 
Clinton administration also granted BLM the authority to deny permits 
to irresponsible mines in places where they would cause substantial, 
irreparable harm to environmental and cultural resources. The mining 
industry opposed both of those provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the Inslee amendment is called for; and I 
intend to support it.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is not a rollback of environmental 
laws. Critics of the mining industry charge that reviewing the Clinton-
Babbitt 3809 regulations constitutes a rollback of environmental laws. 
This is not true. The industry is not fighting to lessen any necessary 
environmental regulations governing hardrock mining on Federal lands. 
In fact, it supports and complies with all existing environmental 
statutes and supports the addition of any new rules consistent with the 
recommendations of the study on hardrock mining on Federal lands 
completed for Congress by the National Academy of Sciences.
  The new 3809 regulations are extremely burdensome, complex and 
counterproductive, and contradict the NAS report. They go far beyond 
filling the narrow regulatory gaps identified by the report and add 
onerous regulatory burdens that will deter mineral exploration in 
mining activity in the western United States.
  Unnecessarily strict new performance standards and expanded 
liabilities are created under the new regulations that the amendment 
before the House would keep in place. This would greatly disrupt the 
preexisting coordination between the Bureau of Land Management and the 
western States regarding the environmental regulations of mining. A 
number of new performance standards are prescriptive, one-size-fits-all 
requirements which are inconsistent with the Academy's recommendations 
that mining regulations should be based on site-specific performance 
standards.
  There are strong environmental laws in effect that will not be rolled 
back or lessened in any way by suspending the new 3809 regulations. For 
instance, the disposal of mining wastes is strictly regulated on 
Federal, State and private lands through the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act, as well as numerous State laws 
and regulations protecting groundwater resources. All facets of mining 
are covered by equally comprehensive legal frameworks.
  The mining industry pays millions of dollars each year to comply with 
laws to ensure the protection of the environment. That is hardly the 
mark of an industry trying to flout its responsibility by fighting to 
roll back environmental laws.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) has 1 minute 
remaining. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 2 minutes 
remaining, and the right to close.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, when there was a discussion about rolling back arsenic 
standards some time ago, the American people went into basic revulsion. 
If we reject this amendment today, we will be heading in the same 
direction, rolling back standards designed to keep arsenic out of our 
streams and rivers, cyanide out of our streams and rivers, sulfuric 
acid out of our streams and rivers.
  I believe the American public made their position very clear on this 
during the last several months while people in this town were 
discussing going backwards on the environment. I stand here today to 
say that in this appropriation process, we should not go backwards on 
arsenic. We should not go backwards on cyanide. That history has given 
us 12,000 miles of polluted rivers and a problem with arsenic in our 
water. That is why the League of Conservation Voters is so keenly 
interested in this vote. That is why I hope we stand together on a 
bipartisan basis and make sure that we adhere to the existing standards 
on arsenic.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, we have heard much about how old this law is 
and how unnecessary it is in this day

[[Page 11449]]

and age. I suspect that is consistent with what we have heard today for 
quite awhile. Mr. Chairman, it seems we forget that there was also a 
law written in the late 1700s. We call it the Constitution today; yet 
that law has sustained us pretty well because, for the most part, we 
have tried to adhere to it.
  Mr. Chairman, that law written in 1872 was written in the best of 
times for mining because it was one of the most important economies to 
the United States. But I would also remind my colleagues, consistent, I 
suspect with the inconsistency that we hear here that one day it is a 
good idea to put a rider on the bill and the next day it is not.
  I am confused by all of this admittedly, Mr. Chairman, and I have 
only been here 165 days, but I am beginning to learn; and I am 
beginning to learn that what the people feel about Congress being out 
of touch, Americans out in the country that feel that Congress is no 
longer representative of them, now I understand.
  There is no need to be consistent up here, Mr. Chairman. I have seen 
it happen. I have seen it happen to my colleagues that have been here 
far beyond my days and far beyond my years. Because not only do they 
not remember what they said yesterday, they do not remember that it is 
the very government that they now want to completely entrust in this 
day and age with the safeguards of our environment, was the very 
government that went to the Coeur d'Alene mining district during World 
War I and World War II and said forget about what you might do to the 
rivers and lakes, we need those minerals for the defense of that very 
Constitution, and we need these minerals for the very defense of this 
country.
  So if I cannot ask for anything else, I would ask my more learned 
colleagues who maybe are more learned because they have been here 
longer to be consistent, if nothing else, and be representative of the 
law that was written in the 1700s as well as 1872.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman. I would like to express my support for an 
amendment offered by my two colleagues, Representatives Inslee and 
Horn, regarding the Bureau of Land Management hard rock mining rules. 
New mining regulations were put into place at the end of the Clinton 
Administration, after a four-year period of intense public comment, 
hearings, and Congressional input. These new regulations are a vast 
improvement over the old BLM rules under the 1872 Mining Law. The old 
rules did not protect the public from the financial burden of failed 
mining ventures--leaving a legacy of thousands of abandoned mines, and 
the risk of a further billion dollars for potential cleanup of ongoing 
operations. Furthermore, the old regulations did not protect the public 
from the massive pollution potential at modern large-scale mines.
  The new mining regulations provide these protections, and I believe 
that they ought to be preserved. They require mining companies to pay 
the full cost of environmental cleanup, rather than shifting the cost 
to the taxpayer. The new rules put into place standards to protect 
surface and ground water from harmful mine drainage. EPA estimates that 
40 percent of the western watersheds are polluted from mine drainage 
and leaching. Finally, the new rules prevent mining companies from 
staking a claim on public lands without regard to environmental and 
archeological resources or consideration of local communities.
  The Inslee/Horn amendment will protect public lands and local 
communities by ensuring that the new mining regulations are kept in 
place. We cannot afford to retreat on environmental and public health 
safeguards by weakening protective standards. The values of the 1800s 
no longer apply to the mining industry of today and the old rules do 
not offer the protection that is needed. Too much is at stake for us to 
allow mining companies to contaminate our water supply or lands. This 
amendment is the best way we have to protect our communities from 
outdated and harmful practices. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1645


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Deutsch

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Deutsch:
       Insert before the short title at the end the following new 
     section:
       Sec. __. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available in this Act may be used to pay the 
     salaries or expenses of personnel of the Department of the 
     Interior to extend the leases, any standstill agreement, or 
     the terms of the settlement agreement that took effect March 
     30, 2001, concerning the holders of interests in seven 
     campsite leases in Biscayne National Park, Florida, 
     identified as campsite leases 2173A, 2146A, 2167A, 2159A, 
     2213A, 2157A, and 2303A and collectively known as 
     ``Stiltsville''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the Committee of 
today, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) and the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a limiting amendment to prevent the 
implementation of rules that the Secretary of Interior has overturned 
of the previous administration dealing with seven leasehold parcels in 
Biscayne National Park, parcels whose leases ran out 3 years ago, six 
of whom were subsequent leaseholders who purchased those leases from 
the original leaseholders at fair market value. So we have seven 
leaseholders who have not paid rent for 3 years.
  Under the prior administration, regulations were in place to develop 
a management plan. The Secretary of the Interior overturned that 
regulation upon her assumption of that office. This is really not just 
an issue about these seven leaseholders. This is really an issue about 
private use of a national park or public lands. That is what this issue 
is about. This happened in my district, in my area. I represent 90 
percent of Biscayne National Park. But this could happen tomorrow in 
any of the national parks, the 400 national parks in the United States 
of America.
  I urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly and sincerely support this 
amendment to prevent this from happening.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Deutsch amendment introduced at the 11th hour affecting a very 
important area in my congressional district. Stiltsville is in my 
congressional district, miles away from the district of the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutsch). Stiltsville is a group of seven homes 
located south of Key Biscayne in my district that has been part of the 
landscape and seascape of our young community since the 1930s.
  This amendment prevents the Secretary of the Interior from extending 
any further standstill agreements. After much negotiation between 
Stiltsville homeowners and the Park Service, a standstill agreement was 
reached earlier this year that expires on March 31, 2002. This 
agreement is crucial because it prevents both parties from acting 
against each other and allows time for constructive negotiations and 
prevents the houses from being unfairly torn down. The Deutsch 
amendment ties the Secretary's hands and allows the clock to run out on 
further talks, putting Stiltsville owners at a negotiating 
disadvantage.
  The Deutsch amendment is an underhanded attempt at tearing down these 
historic homes without coming out and saying so. The houses that make 
up Stiltsville are internationally known as the place that has that 
little village in the middle of the bay.
  And who supports Stiltsville? Governor Jeb Bush. Who else supports 
Stiltsville? The Florida House of Representatives that passed a 
unanimous resolution in support of preserving

[[Page 11450]]

Stiltsville. The Miami-Dade County Commission supports Stiltsville. The 
city of Miami. Let me tell my colleagues the cities that have said we 
want to support these homes: the City of Miami; the City of Miami 
Beach; the City of Coral Gables; the City of Hialeah Gardens; 
Homestead; Miami Springs; South Miami; West Miami; Key Biscayne, Key 
Biscayne that is just miles from these beautiful homes; Sweetwater; 
Virginia Gardens. I could go on and on.
  It is incredible that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) would 
come here and present this amendment when literally thousands of 
homeowners support the preservation of Stiltsville.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond 
to some specific points.
  First of all, I represent 90 percent of Biscayne National Park. My 
district is literally feet, not miles, from Stiltsville. My colleague 
represents 10 percent of the park. It so happens these structures are 
there. But I think the critical distinction that we need to make, 
number one, I support Stiltsville. This is not about Stiltsville. What 
this is about is freeloaders in a national park. My colleague said 
owners. These people are not owners. These are leaseholders. The people 
that own that property are us, the people of the United States of 
America, not the seven leaseholders. There is a difference between 
leaseholders and owners. We, as the owners, deserve to do what we want, 
which is to keep Stiltsville, but use it for public purpose, not 
private gain.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I talked to my son Danny today. He is 
16 years old. He is no owner of one of these houses. He and his 
friends, however, through the generosity and the courtesy of the folks 
that lease here, they go out there and they fish and they swim. I 
talked to Danny today. I said, ``Danny, there is going to be an 
amendment to, in effect, knock these houses down. What should I tell my 
colleagues?''
  He said, ``Dad, that's a Florida tradition. Nature is taking care of 
that.''
  So why should now Congress intervene and knock down these homes? This 
is a really unfortunate amendment that our colleague from the other 
side of the aisle has brought forward. Let the kids go out there and 
swim and fish.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in 1980 this Congress created Biscayne 
National Park, a park for all the people of the entire country. At that 
time there were seven leaseholders in the park who held campsites by 
lease. They were given a period of time to remove themselves from the 
national park. In 1990, they asked for an extension. That extension was 
given to them, and they had until 1999. They have had 20 years now for 
these leaseholders to get out of a national park. They are denying 
access to the public by holding these leases. This is a park that has 
been designated by the Congress for the enjoyment of all the people of 
the country. Anyone should be able to go there. They should not be able 
to be stopped by people who have illegal leaseholds. That is precisely 
what this is.
  The issue here is a very simple one. In a national park, are we going 
to allow private people who are intruders, who are violating the law, 
who have overstayed their welcome, to continue to be there and prevent 
the rest of the public from using that public land appropriately as the 
Congress has designated? That is the issue.
  I think that most people here would say no to that. We want the 
national parks to be used for the right purpose, to be used by all 
people, not by a few who have special interests, who have the ear of 
the Governor, or who have the ear of one of us Members of the Congress. 
I do not think any of us want to uphold that kind of a policy for 
public lands. A national park is there for all the people of the 
country. Let us make sure that this national park, Biscayne National 
Park, finally achieves that status and these people who have overstayed 
their welcome can finally leave quietly so that the rest of the public 
can enjoy that national park appropriately.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Resources.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very interesting debate. 
I find this interesting because I took the time to go down there. I 
held a hearing on it as chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks 
and Public Lands a few years back. We could not find any problems at 
all with any of the scientists we brought up of hurting any of the 
environment.
  A lot of people have said they have overstayed their welcome. I find 
that very interesting because these homes were there 50 years before 
the park. Who overstayed their welcome? Who was there first?
  Another thing my colleagues may find interesting on this, I come from 
Utah. We do not have big pieces of Biscayne Bay. But what we do have, 
we have these beautiful cabins that are scattered all over the Forest 
Service and BLM and they are leased to those areas. What do those folks 
do with them? They go up there, they hold Boy Scout things, they teach 
young kids how to be good Americans, they use them and they take 
awfully good care of them. I wondered, what can they do in Florida with 
that old flat land down there? I cannot believe it.
  Then I went down with the gentlewoman. What did I find down there? I 
found that exactly the same thing was going on. They take Boy Scouts 
out there. I got in this power boat with some guys and we went out and 
looked at that thing. They have Boy Scouts, people go out, they enjoy 
it. It turns out to be one of the things that they are very proud of.
  Now, my colleagues worry about that. I think a few hurricanes may 
take care of it but right now it is one of the beautiful things they 
have got in that area. This is part of their heritage. This is part of 
something they love and believe in. I did not talk to a soul and when 
we held the hearings everybody that came up there said we love this 
area, we like Stiltsville.
  What this amendment would do, Mr. Chairman, is in effect say, the 
heck with Stiltsville, it is gone. And one of the best parts that 
America can have in Florida will go with it. Why do you want to go away 
with that heritage? Why do we want to take away the things that people 
have built? Why, this would be like taking Temple Square out of Salt 
Lake City.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SHAW. I would like to congratulate the gentleman on his statement 
and also express the appreciation of those who have lived in south 
Florida, I for my entire life, in going down and seeing that unique 
little village that we have, and it is not even a village anymore. It 
is not doing any harm. It is part of our heritage. Let us leave it 
alone. Some day a hurricane will take it out, but until then let us 
leave it alone and let us let it continue as it is.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle have made the case for this amendment. 
This is a great area, everybody loves it, everybody uses it, everybody 
likes it the way it is, except that it is not open to the public. That 
is the agreement that we made with the people that had these leases. 
They got a 25-year lease, the lease is now at the end, and now we have 
had some political intervention so they do not have to vacate the 
leasehold so that in fact all of the public can use it.
  I will grant that one of the people leasing these properties let a 
Congressman's son come go fishing there, but what about other people 
that want to go fishing there? It is nice that they let

[[Page 11451]]

some Boy Scouts in. The whole purpose of this is open up these 
leaseholds for public uses and public purposes so that whether it is 
the Boy Scouts or other organizations can come and use these 
facilities. There is a planning process that is going on so that this 
in fact can be a public facility of which it is. Because the original 
leaseholders made a decision, they have sold their interest, they 
entered into those leases, those leases have expired, and now it is 
just a question of whether you are going to use the power and the might 
of the United States Congress or the Secretary of Interior's office so 
she can close out the public so that seven entities get to continue to 
control what everybody says here is a wonderful asset that the public 
would love to use.
  We ought to support the Deutsch-Hinchey amendment on this and open it 
up in fact to the public like all national parks.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I support Stiltsville. I think Stiltsville is a wonderful part of our 
community of south Florida. I live in south Florida. My family was 
raised there. I want to stay there for the rest of my life and 
hopefully for generations after. But again this is literally private 
use of public lands. These are leaseholds that ran out 3 years ago. Six 
of the seven people bought those leases at fair market value from the 
original leaseholders. They ran out 3 years, they have not paid 
anything, on us the owners. They have not paid anything to us as the 
owners, the people of the United States of America, for the last 3 
years. They have been freeloading. If it can happen in Biscayne 
National Park, it can happen anywhere. Let us stop this policy of the 
Secretary of the Interior.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
       At the end of the bill, preceding the short title, insert 
     the following:
       Sec.   . The amounts otherwise provided by this Act--
       (1) for ``CHALLENGE AMERICAN ARTS FUND--CHALLENGE AMERICA 
     GRANTS'' are hereby reduced by, and
       (2) for ``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY--ENERGY CONSERVATION'' are 
     hereby supplemented by an additional appropriation for energy 
     conservation grant programs as defined in section 3008(3) of 
     Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507) in the amount of,

     $10,000,000 each.

  Mr. STEARNS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the previous order of the Committee of 
today, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. I ask my colleague, is there any way we can get more 
time than that?
  Mr. DICKS. No. This is the end of this bill. The gentleman is having 
the second shot at this.
  Mr. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, I request 10 minutes 
apiece.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which would 
basically do something very simple. As many of my colleagues know, this 
morning we passed an increase for the National Endowment for the Arts 
by another, I believe it was $10 million. All my amendment does is 
quite simple, is reduce that $10 million back to level funding.

                              {time}  1700

  So it is not a cut. So a lot of people who come on the floor who will 
be voting for my amendment should realize this is not about cutting the 
National Endowment for the Arts. This is basically keeping level 
funding for this program and, in fact, taking the $10 million which was 
added on to this program and using it for the Department of Energy; 
more specifically, for energy conservation for grant programs to help 
across this Nation for people who need increased amount of energy and 
in a larger sense to help low-income people in weatherization of their 
homes.
  So I ask my colleagues to consider the priority of the two, 
increasing $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts or 
increasing the Department of Energy's energy conservation program.
  Now, this debate used to be about reducing or, as that side would 
say, cutting the NEA; but this is not a debate about that. So I want to 
take that off the table, and I hope that side will realize that the 
debate and focus has changed.
  Mr. Ivey, who is head of the department of National Endowment for the 
Arts, has made a great effort to change the image of the National 
Endowment for the Arts, and I applaud him for his efforts. I think at 
this point he has been successful so that our debate today is more 
about should we increase that program at the expense of energy 
conservation.
  Now let me just take my colleagues on a little, small journey on what 
we could do with this money. Items funded under this program include 
research and development projects that develop new and improved 
existing technologies; Federal energy management; low-income 
weatherization assistance; and State energy program grants.
  Through these projects and research, we can continue to sustain 
future economic growth while at the same time, Mr. Chairman, increasing 
America's awareness of new energy efficiency.
  In my home State of Florida we expect to need about 10,000 to 15,000 
megawatts of new generation to keep pace with demand. Florida is one of 
the foremost populous States, increasing by over 20 percent last year 
since 1990 in population. In addition, we are the sixth highest in 
energy consumption.
  The need for energy conservation is clear. We need to focus funds 
where the need is. We are not in a position where we can say we are not 
in a crisis, because we are. We could have rolling blackouts across 
this country. Arts is important, I know it is, but energy is also 
important. So surely, Mr. Chairman, the money provided for energy 
conservation under this amendment will serve the taxpayers, I believe, 
in a much more satisfactory manner.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is being offered for one purpose and one 
purpose only: to squash a fair and hard-fought victory that we had 4 
hours ago to increase funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and 
other cultural agencies.
  Similar to our debate last year, some Members have resorted to last 
minute shenanigans to reverse support for arts funding and to 
wrongfully deny the NEA, a most worthy agency, from receiving the funds 
it justly deserves.
  At the last minute, without warning, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns) has designed an amendment to eliminate the entire amount that 
we had granted the NEA, a modest boost of $10 million. The amendment is 
an obvious attempt to sabotage this, the first clean, overwhelming 
positive vote that we have had on NEA in years.
  Witnessing our amendment win fair and square, some Members have 
gotten nervous and put forth yet another cheap tactic to deny this 
agency the

[[Page 11452]]

small pot of money that it deserves. With today's vote of 221 to 193 in 
favor of increasing funds for the cultural agencies, the House has 
taken its stand in support of them.
  It is ludicrous and unconscionable to consider this amendment on the 
heels of this victory and a great disservice to those Members and the 
constituents they represent to go back on their word. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this. This amendment 
simply puts the NEA back to the funding level that it should be at, and 
the funding level that was passed on a bipartisan level by the 
committee. More importantly than that, it invests the money in energy 
conservation.
  Here are some of the things that the NEA does: promotes poetry, 
promotes puppetry, promotes jazz. All these things are very important. 
These are things they do in my area; and frankly, my folks can do this 
without the NEA's help. Given the choice between a puppet show and gas 
selling at $1.50 a gallon versus $1.20 a gallon, we would rather have 
gas at $1.20 a gallon, and then we would write our own checks to 
promote art locally.
  I believe we need heat for hospitals, light for learning and gas for 
going places; and that is what the Stearns amendment does. It puts 
money into energy conservation so there will be more energy, more 
source of energy for all of us; and I believe that this is a far more 
needed expenditure than spending additional money on the NEA at this 
time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has as much to do with energy 
as it has to do with my dead dog. All it is is an effort to try to get 
a second kick at the cat and thereby eliminate a fairly won decision to 
increase funding for the arts.
  For those of you who are interested in seeing this bill completed 
today, I simply want to remind you, if this double-backed maneuver were 
to succeed, and I do not believe it will, but if it were to succeed, 
and if this amendment would be adopted, that would require yet another 
revolt in the full House, again further delaying the adjournment of 
this House tonight.
  I do not think you want to do that. I also do not think that you want 
to have to explain another vote reversal. So I think for the good of 
all concerned, I would advise you to stick with your final vote. It is 
consistent; it is fair; and it is a whole lot easier to explain to the 
folks back home.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, what we have learned this afternoon is 
that some Members in the majority party here hate the National 
Endowment for the Arts more than they hate energy conservation. If they 
really liked energy conservation, they had an opportunity to pass some 
responsible amendments to this bill, both in the Committee on 
Appropriations where it was defeated by a party line vote and out here 
on the full floor where they denied us the opportunity to have a vote 
on a bill that would have brought about $200 million in energy 
conservation.
  We are talking real energy conservation, not this little bit that the 
gentleman is talking about here. The gentleman does not want any energy 
conservation. He just cannot stand the National Endowment for the Arts 
more than he cannot stand energy conservation. He says it is not a cut. 
His bill gives us $57 million less for the National Endowment for the 
Arts than we had for it in 1995, and now we have a $10 million increase 
making us still $47 million lower than we had in 1995; and the 
gentleman wants to take that $10 million away. He ought to be ashamed 
of himself.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn), a cosponsor of our amendment.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say I am disappointed with this further attack 
on the NEA and the NEH and the Institute of Museums and Libraries. I 
cannot believe that. When little kids in rural America and urban 
America need to get this type of culture and music and this great 
history of this Nation, I cannot believe it when individuals start and 
say let us get rid of people that study history or everything else. It 
is just plain wrong.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 25 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, when George Bush became President, he 
promised the American people fiscal discipline; that he would limit the 
size of government; that they would get some of their money back in tax 
cuts and we would pay down the public debt. So far Congress has kept 
faith with the President, and we want to limit the size of government. 
Why are we getting such a huge increase to NEA? This controversial 
agency has not had a funding increase that big in almost 20 years. This 
is $10 million more than the President asked for. I urge my colleagues 
to do the right thing for fiscal restraint and support this amendment.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I conclude by just saying this is not about cutting the 
NEA. This is continuing the level of funding and moving the money that 
we increased to energy conservation, a priority between energy 
conservation and increasing the NEA.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to close.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my colleagues would not do what we 
did last year when we reversed this vote. I would ask everyone to use 
good common sense. This amendment was offered. We had a good hour 
debate. Everybody had a chance to present their point of view and 
clearly the people of this House, by a good majority, 221 to 193, voted 
to give modest increases to the National Endowment for the Arts, for 
the Humanities and Museum Services. Now the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns) comes in and tries to reverse that decision. We increased the 
budget for energy programs by over $300 million. So the budget is not 
lacking in funding for energy conservation, where the gentleman tries 
to add the money. So this is done strictly for a political purpose. I 
would say let us stay with this. This is a good decision. It is a 
modest increase. This House has sent a strong message to the NEA and 
they have responded. They are now making grants that are quality 
grants, and so I think this is a vote that we do not want to have to 
repeat in the House. Let us just vote no and sustain the position in 
the committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired. The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002''.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: an amendment by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr.

[[Page 11453]]

Davis); an amendment by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee); an 
amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch); and an amendment 
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Florida

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247, 
noes 164, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 181]

                               AYES--247

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--164

     Akin
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carson (OK)
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lucas (OK)
     McCrery
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Berman
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Everett
     Houghton
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Neal
     Riley
     Rush
     Serrano

                              {time}  1736

  Messrs. ENGLISH, SWEENEY, HUTCHINSON, NEY and STRICKLAND changed 
their votes from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXVIII, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device may be taken on each 
additional amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216 
noes 194, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 182]

                               AYES--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty

[[Page 11454]]


     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--194

     Akin
     Armey
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Baker
     Berman
     Boehner
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Everett
     Houghton
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Lewis (GA)
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Neal
     Riley
     Roukema
     Rush
     Serrano

                              {time}  1744

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. ENGLISH and Mr. SHOWS changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Deutsch

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 222, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 183]

                               AYES--187

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--222

     Abercrombie
     Akin
     Armey
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Baker
     Berman
     Callahan
     Calvert

[[Page 11455]]


     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Everett
     Graham
     Houghton
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Lewis (GA)
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Neal
     Pitts
     Riley
     Roukema
     Rush
     Serrano

                              {time}  1751

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145, 
noes 264, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 184]

                               AYES--145

     Akin
     Armey
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McIntyre
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--264

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Baker
     Berman
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Everett
     Houghton
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Lewis (GA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Neal
     Peterson (PA)
     Riley
     Roukema
     Rush
     Serrano

                              {time}  1759

  Messrs. TAUZIN, BONILLA, and MORAN of Kansas changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2217) 
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 174, he reported the bill back 
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 376, 
nays 32, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 185]

                               YEAS--376

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch

[[Page 11456]]


     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--32

     Barr
     Berry
     Cannon
     Crane
     Culberson
     Emerson
     Flake
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (WI)
     Hefley
     Hostettler
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Moran (KS)
     Otter
     Paul
     Petri
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Stearns
     Thornberry
     Toomey
     Whitfield

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Baker
     Berman
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Everett
     Ford
     Houghton
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Lewis (GA)
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Neal
     Riley
     Roukema
     Rush
     Scarborough
     Serrano
     Watson (CA)

                              {time}  1819

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________